Simply marvelous. I also did a late 46-0-0 application at Thanksgiving and had great results. This year will be a 4x app of organics plus mulch mowing, and a late urea app. I'm hoping for similar results to yours. If not a secret, what are your cultivars?

My fescue yard in the pics has been overseeded several times to keep it full. Probably has more Plantation in it than anything.

My KBG front lawn that isn't in the pics looks to be running about a week or 10 days behind in greening up.

Of course, if you really want the most winter green and early season green up, Perennial rye is the winner hands down. In my climate that gets hot, though, it turns brown for too long a period in the hottest weather periods to use as a main grass.

Hi, I hate you. :-)

Here in PA, mine's the greenest in the area, which means it's mostly brown with the occasional green thread here and there on a rare day. Of course, it's still 35 degrees.

I'll be running a month behind you or slightly more, and I did winterize in November. Such goes northeastern living.

Ha, sorry Morph.

If it makes you feel any better, our hi today is supposed to be about 73... before the 3 inches of snow arrives tonight and in the morning.

Around here we are SO up and down.

Rc just curious where in TX are you? Panhandle?

Yeah, T-W, Amarillo.

RC, you convinced me some time ago. This year was my second late fall urea application. My results last year were similar to your results. I bet I'll have the same results this year (still have snow now).

As you know, when using urea it's critical to keep OM high. If traditional organic fertilizers are used for all other applications, I don't think that a late fall urea application is harmful, however, it hasn't been proven (at least, I haven't found any studies). I suggest that we continue our experiments for a few more years to validate your approach...I know I will.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer

Actually, urea does cause damage soil biology to a degree... You just haven't bothered to look for it in the right place. You're just pulling old, poorly designed, outdated, etc studies out to justify your reasoning for doing things your way. Most people on the forum don't know any better when it comes to what soil biology is really all about so they just blindly follow your suggestions.

I was told that urea does nasty stuff in the soil during the cold weather. I'll see if I can get more info on that...

notes on urea from Dr. Ingham:

Very true, it is typically a waste of your money to apply urea or any
other form of inorganic N late in the fall. Urea doesn't drive off
bacteria, it can cause a bloom of some not-so-wonderful bacteria, and
harms your fungi.

Can urea supply N for microbes? Sure it can, but it typically arrives
as nitrate, which is more beneficial for bacteria than fungi.

Typically, in chemical soils, any N put down in the fall is lost
before the next spring growth.

If you have some soil life, then the added N might be held by the
biology.

Yep, adding organic N will result in nutrient cycling improving, and
that added N will not be lost.

And

What you need to point out to people is that their conventional
perception of salt as being only sodium chloride (NaCl) is incorrect.

Table salt, i.e., sodium chloride, is only one kind of salt.

By definition salt is any material that dis-associates in water.

That means that all salts have a positive and negative charge to the
components that will easily be pulled apart by the hydrogen (positive
charge which interacts with the negative charged portion of the salt
compound) and the hydroxide (OH-, or negatively charged part of the
water molecule which interacts with the positively charged part of the
salt).

The fact that the positive and negative charges interact means that
the wwater molecule is removed from the pool of available water. That
complexed water can't do what it is supposed to do inside a plant.

Calcium chloride is a salt (Ca+ Cl2-). Calcium carbonate (lime, Ca+
CO3-) is a salt. Ammonium nitrate (NH4+ NO3-) is a salt. Calcium
sulfate (gypsum, Ca+ SO4-) is a salt.

All these materials basically remove water from the "pool" of water
available to plants for their growth. This availablity of water is
measured as osmosity, or osmotic concentration. The higher the salt,
the less water is actually available, the higher the osmotic
concentration. If water with high amounts of salt dissolved in it is
taken up by the plant, the high salt content will kill the plant.

Now, the question of urea being a salt.

Urea disassociates in water. So, end of story there with respect to
the ability of urea to remove water from the pool of available water
and increase osmotic concentration.

Any urea containing material delivered in a solid form can be very
detrimental to soil biology, depending on how much is applied, in
large part because of the osmotic problems inherent in what salts do.

If the urea is delivered already in solution, then things are a bit
different, because water is part of the material being applied, and
some of the salt problem is already neutralized. But again, it
becomes a question of "how much" osmotic concentraion is increased by
the addition of this salt.

What a difference a day makes:

{{gwi:81861}}

Well Lou, I wouldn't dispute the underlying technical arguments that Dr. Ingram makes. But, I used nothing but organics at my old house for probably 12 years and nothing but organics at my new house when I bought it in 2000.

I think I read about a couple of university studies that found a late season of application of soluable nitrogen as the last application for cool season grasses after they had gone dormant about four years ago.

My experience has been nothing but positive since I starting using one. The last two years have been urea. Before that I think I used ammonia sulfate. As emphasized above, I think a limited amount, one to one and a quarter pound N per 1000 is essential to not doing more harm than good. And, with a 42-0 product, that really isn't much product being applied.

So, while technicality concerns may be legit, my real world experience says it is a positive. My grass has looked better with this approach through the winter and into the spring than it ever did in all those years of organics only. And, while the experiment period of use hasn't been too long, I haven't noticed any change of a negative nature the rest of the year that one might expect to see if it was causing problems to good organisms.

My guess is that the theoretical concerns are not really a problem when applied in appropriate (limited) amounts. Of course, if Dr Ingram has some side by side studies that show damage to fungi or bacteria that outweighs the benefits, that would be interesting to review.

But, its good that everyone sees from Dr Ingram's statements there are just about always two sides to every lawn care decision.

Lou you need to get your info from more than one person, you might learn a new trick.

one thing a late season application will do for you, particularly when timed right is it gets the plant into dormancy with good vigor and health and when the plant goes into dormancy, it needs a good supply of carbohydrates so that it can overwinter properly and really kick in when it comes time. i.e. when your weather conditions allowed it to.

the only time this could hurt you is if you're in the midwest this year and prone to 40+ days of snow cover and thus snow mold. but that's not even the end of the world. and the benefits of making your neighbors look bad is priceless! looks nice, i say keep up what works for you.

Even with the snow, yours looks better than mine by miles. Just for idle fun, I took a photo yesterday (mostly as a reference for later when, towards March 15, I'm jumping up and down on it and demanding that it green up faster).

The big drifts of brown stuff are alfalfa. I applied it moderately to the lawn and very heavily to the gardens, which can use all the help they can get!

{{gwi:81862}}

Yours looks like its ready to jump as soon as the temps stay up a little in your area Morph.

And, fwiw, this year I'm probably going to change my fertilizing schedule a little. I usually wait to May to fertiize in the spring, but, I ran across a great deal on CGM and will put out about 20 lbs per thou of that this next weekend mostly in the hopes it will help some as a pre-m. The yard really won't need a shot of fertilizer then, but, since its organic, I don't think it will hurt it. It'll likely just mean more frequent mowing will be needed this spring.

rc, Thanks. That Plantation is highly rated and your picture justifies the rating.

Thanks Soccer dad. It was a lot more even (kind of like Morpheasus'), until I decided to cut it really low to overseed it last fall, but, was a little too early and too low and really knocked it back. Oh well, live and learn.

It'll recover, particularly if you feed early. That section of mine is the most well-developed and even (I had the easiest time keeping that part damp) with others being...almost as good down to pretty bad.

I expect that they'll even out during spring. Or not, and I'll seed a bit this fall. It's all good.

Lou, here are a couple inaccuracies in Dr. Ingham's quote.

"Very true, it is typically a waste of your money to apply urea or any other form of inorganic N late in the fall."

Urea is an organic compound. In fact, it was the first organic compound that was synthesized. Urea was first synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wöhler. I've posted this information many times here. Look it up in another source if you don't believe me. If Dr. Ingham doesn't know that urea is an organic compound, I highly question her credibility.

"Calcium carbonate (lime, Ca+CO3-) is a salt."

Calcium Carbonate (lime) is a base. People apply it to their soil if their soil is too acidic. Base is the opposite of acid. Look it up if you don't believe me. If Dr. Ingham doesn't know the difference between a salt and a base, I highly question her credibility.

I strongly agree with Texas-Weed. IMO, you should get your information from more than one source.

-Deerslayer

I'd like to retract my statement that Calcium Carbonate is not a salt. CaCO3 falls within the broad definition of salt i.e. disassociates in water (although its solubility in water is very low). Calcium Carbonate is the main component of shells of marine organisms and snails.

However, I stand by my first statement that urea is an organic compound.

-Deerslayer

I'd like to retract my statement that Calcium Carbonate is not a salt. CaCO3 falls within the broad definition of salt i.e. disassociates in water (although its solubility in water is very low). Calcium Carbonate is the main component of shells of marine organisms and snails.

Close enough. Really, a salt is a compound formed by the neutralization of an acid and a base, such that the final compound has no net electrical charge. The resulting compound could be neutral, acidic, or basic.

The carbonate portion is also technically a salt all by itself (and also an ester, but that's besides the point). It has a net charge (2-) but that's kind of a long story.

Or, more than you EVER wanted to know about salts.

What texas weed? Give me the sources that deals with soil biology? As far as I'm concerned, nothing comes close to what Dr Ingham has done. You still believe nitrogen equals nitrogen when it comes to organic fertilizer and it's not even correct. You still think in terms of chemical ways, not biological. That proves that you have long way to learn just how it nutrient cycling truly works!

Lou, I actually agree with your general approach. I think an organic approach solves many problems in the lawn and garden and can (though does not necessarily always) make for a better impact on the environment.

But, like with most things in life, a little balance is often the better approach.

I would liken it to a human diet. Eating a good balanced diet is probably the best, but a vitamin pill or two of reasonable strenght probably helps more than it hurts.

Too much, not good. Too little, then there is room for improvement. My experience is a little soluable N as the last feeding in the fall seems to help without, so far as I can tell in 4 seasons, hurting.

But, if someone did a controlled study and showed that it was in fact significantly detrimental to bacteria or fungi, then I would change my practices. In fact, before I started this approach, I asked that question in the internet and did a little snooping around on the issue. That was one reason I changed over to urea.

So far, my experience suggests that theoretical harm doesn't seem to really be developing in actual use. But, I'm still open to new data.

Lou you need to lighten up on folks. I did not attack you. Your monolithic source of information and POV polarizes most people. There are many sources of information available for organics, synthetic, and hybrid approaches. They all work and proven to be beneficial. Myself and my family make a living off the dirt, so I am very sensitive to the environment, my well being depends on it.