It adds chemicals to the soil, which in turn allows for the destruction of microbes and fungi which feeds the turf. The plus side is that it feeds the grass; which many will tell you that it only needs nitrogen in the form of nitrates and ammonium. I agree, but the "factory" that is used to supply these nutrients are important.

With continued use, the soil microbes are depleted to the extent that the turf requires the bimonthly feedings of ammonium and nitrate to survive. What a great business model!

Congratulations. This is one of the best trolls I've seen in a long time. Part of what makes it so good is that I don't think it was intended to be a troll.

But the three billy goats gruff recognize a troll, even if nobody else does.

Sure, here's one: it is kinder to the environment if done correctly.

If you are not trolling I'm sure you'll have additional questions, but even if not I stand by that. :-)

Cheers,
Paul

I do not see how it is better than organic in any ways. The only advantage is the quick fix but it always lead to new sorts of problems....

Um...well....um....er...(thinking)

Well, I guess the homeowner doesn't have to haul nearly as much mass to do the job. What requires 100 lbs of feeding on my lawn would be closer to 20 if I did it synthetically.

For really ginormous lawns, that would be a significant factor. For mine, no. Hauling the 100 is better exercise.

(still thinking) Nope, that's all I can come up with.

I hope your post is not just a troll. But I suspect that it might be.

I use mostly organic fertilizer (except for late fall applications). But I have to say it seems that with some of the organic proponents, it seems almost like they have a religious fervor that they just have to convince the world that there is only one true way to care for a lawn.

In my opinion, these folks do more harm than good. I can't tell you how many people have told me that they considered going organic, but after listening to the organic jihadists who insist that only 100-percent organic lawncare counts, they just give up and go buy a bag of Scotts.

I use the organic stuff because during most of the year, it works best for my lawn. I'm not trying to save the world. I don't even think synthetic fertilizers are bad, if directions are followed. But everytime I read one of the posts by the organic lawncare jihadists, it makes me want to go invest in Scotts.

I follow an organic program. Every scenario has advantages and disadvantages. I could list some advantages of a chemical program.

Faster results.

Less Volume of materials,as morph stated.

If a person or company wants/needs to hire a landscape service to maintain their lawn, it many areas its difficult to even find a service that will do an organic program.

Benefits of synthetic

Concentration - organics are heavy. That means big shipping costs and more efforts to apply.

Preemergents - the only organic alternative is CGM which is expensive and messy. It also doesn't work as well.

Selective preemergents - there are no organic ones. The sell synthetics to use when seeding so you don't get as many weeds.

Selective post emergents - there are no organic ones. Weed hounds work great for weeds that have tap roots or grow in bunches - but it is hard to beat weed-b-gon for spreading broadleaf weeds.

storage - most organic products don't keep long. It's not like you can save ladybugs or nematodes for next season if you buy too many.

ease of purchase - everyone has a lowes, HD, or wallyworld nearby. It can be hard to find bulk grains in an urban area .

Environmental concerns - most crops require more fertilizer to grow than the end product would provide to a lawn. It's the same basic argument against using corn as a biofuel. You see the end benefit, but their are environmental costs that are largely hidden from the end consumer.

Its true that there are not selective herbicides in organics but it misses the point a bit. If you build your soil fertility instead of depleting it and practice proper culture then your need for weed products of any kind diminish to almost nil. I've mantained lawns organically for almost a decade now and as I often say I spend less time pulling weeds than it would take me to drive to Lowes and buy a chemical product.

Storage issues?? That's a new on me. There aren't any.

Lowes, HD, True Value, Ace, and most mom and pops stock and sell some form of protein based nitrogen. The big boxes have several varieties in fact so the availability issue isn't really part of the equation anymore. Fifteen years ago maybe but not in the last 5 or 6 years.

Grain ferts will never amount to any sort of significant market because it takes too much of them to appeal to either big box retailers or your average homeowner. In any event they are hardly your only option. Lots of organic products are composted poultry litter while most others are feathermeal based. Even those blended with some amount of grains have only small %'s which could easily be replaced with fishmeal, bonemeal, bloodmeal etc.
Even better you can and should just mulch your clippings and leaves into your own soil for free. Imagine.
The grain argument falls flat.

I think there are three groups:
1) synthetic
2) hybrid ---- a mix of the two
3) organic

I am hybrid in my front lawn and organic in the back. The reason why I am hybrid in the front is because I have yet to see a mixed rye/fescue/kbg lawn that chokes out weeds. So, for the front, I use chemicals as needed while trying to add as much organic material as possible. Someday, I would like to go organic for the entire lawn, but not now.

I don't post on GW a ton, but it would have been nice if someone would have searched some of my past posts to see if I've ever written anything that would suggest I'm a troller.

Has no one who has switched to organics ever thought about the other side of the coin? No one has ever envied their neighbors lawn after an adrenalin shot of chemicals and thought, "Wow. I wish I could do that. Someone convince me I wouldn't be doing a bad thing if I switched back?"

Jeez, guys.

Brizzyintx, I don't know what's up with the troll remarks. Seems like a reasonable question and it's one I've thought of posting many times. I often wondered if anyone would side with synthetics. I'm often surprised that this board isn't full of Scott's four step guys. The only argument for synthetics that I can think of is cost, organic fertilizer (SBM) is $2 more per lb of nitrogen than synthetics.

I was the first say troll. If you read what I said, I also said that I thought it was not intended to be a troll, which made it an even better troll.

What I meant is that the topic is one that can generate heated emotional debate. I didn't think your intention was to start an emotional debate, but that's what I thought would happen. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.

Even with using only synthetic fertilizer, it often lead to increased nitrate level in the soil... know what that means? More weeds... they thrive on them. The higher the better. It isn't seen in purely organically cared for lawn. Also the nutrient cycling is improved so less fertilization is needed but it often takes a few years to see best result... Most people do not want to wait for that long. So in the end, it's cheaper overall for organic program....

I like billl's list up above. I would add the following to that list

1. Easy to find a lawn service that will do chemicals.

2. Easy to understand the directions on a bag of chemicals as opposed to a generic bag of corn meal.

3. Fast green-up (but to a slightly yellower color of green).

4. Easy to apply in any drop type or broadcast spreader. This can mean that someone changing to an organic program who has not learned how to broadcast by hand might have a less uniform appearance at first.

5. Sales of chemical fertilizers help keep our chemical industry and universities funded.

turf_toes said
I use mostly organic fertilizer (except for late fall applications). But I have to say it seems that with some of the organic proponents, it seems almost like they have a religious fervor that they just have to convince the world that there is only one true way to care for a lawn.

You have a good memory. I haven't seen any religious fervor in a few years. Now we just have the sectarian fervor ;-)

Bill - nice points.

paulinct - do you have hard numbers to explain your, "...it is kinder to the environment if done correctly." comment?

Gbig2 - thanks for understanding the nature and intent of the question.

pbgreen - I understood your post. But there were a couple other trolling comments that made me feel the need to wonder why my intentions were being questioned.

My personal bottom line - In my heart, I feel organics is the way to go. I have used SBM and seen the results. I enjoy having my kids "help" fertilize by spreading grains by hand, and not worrying about them licking their fingers afterward. I like not worrying about runoff. I love not bagging my clippings anymore (not organic-specific, I know, but I learned it researching organic lawn care.) I like watching my soil turn black and knowing that, in a way, I am creating somewhat of a self-perpetuating microcosm...

Just my thoughts. I just genuinely wanted to know if there were arguments to sway me back toward the chemical team. Sorry for all the ruckus.

I'm glad you understood my post.

I haven't applied synthetic fertilizers on my lawn in years. I use a weed hound for my weeds.

Even when I used synthetics, I used a low maintenance approach, so I'd use some 21-0-0 once in the fall and once in the spring. I spot sprayed for weeds until I found the weed hound.

A synthetic approach can be less expensive than an organic approach. I've seen the arguments that list the cost of the Scotts 12 step program compared with using cultural practices to control weeds and using organic fertilizers, but you can use the cultural practices with synthetics, as well, so I think the cost advantage is with organics in two cases: if you are replacing the Scotts 12 step program or if you are using waste material for fertilizer.

Since I switched from the 21-0-0 applied 2x a year to using coffee grounds applied as often as I get them, my costs for fertilizer and weed killer went from $6 a year to $0 a year.

I think there are other benefits to using organics.

I've seen people say that ammonium sulfate lowers the pH of the soil. The pH lowering is cited as a reason to use organics. If ammonium sulfate lowered the pH to any significant degree, I'd go back to it in a heartbeat. It may have a slight adverse effect on soils that are already low pH, but I've had seen the pH of my soil improve much more with organics. Organics move the soil closer to neutral no matter which way the soil was off before.

In a heavy clay soil like mine, organics improve the ability of the soil to absorb water. In sandy soil, organics improve water retention.

I would have some problems with spreading grains on my lawn for a couple of reasons, but I don't have a problem with others using the grains.

My family didn't have a lot when I was growing up, so spreading grains feels too much like throwing food on the lawn to me (even though it wouldn't be food for me, it would still be food). I don't have a problem with others doing it, but that's one reason I don't.

Another reason I don't use grains is that it takes a lot more urea or ammonium sulfate to produce the corn that I'd apply than the amount of urea or ammonium sulfate that I'd use instead of corn. I think that is not true for soybean meal, since it's a legume. If I use corn on my lawn, I'm being environmentally friendly to my lawn, but not to the planet. If you're focused on your lawn, the corn is a much more environmentally friendly option.

In some ways, I'm more of a fanatic than almost anybody here. I'm working on replacing my traditional lawn with native grasses. Most of my neighbors have been watering daily for a couple of weeks. I haven't even tested my sprinklers yet. Once I start watering, I'll water once a week until after the fireworks season. Then, I'll stop completely and let my non natives die. I'll overseed in late fall for spring germination. My goal is little or no water other than what nature provides (almost nothing in the summer months). If I have to water once a month to keep the natives green, I'm much more comfortable with that than twice a week.

brizzyintx, I am not sure that I would want to persuade you to 'revert'. The reason is simple. The organic approach was the original farming method. The farmer's work was gruelling, the hours were long and the living standard of the farmer and his family was comparatively low. The chemical regimen developed (evolved?) from the need (I wish I could write 'desire') to make farming profitable thereby improving the living standards of the farmer. In time farming became big business and the bottom line became the important motivation. Science provided useful tools along the way. Gardening in the meantime grew into something more and the technology and techniques were gradually transferred from agronomy to horticulture. This transfer moved into high gear as golf courses and theme parks developed. So now the operations on golf courses and theme parks have been firmly embedded in gardening, flower or kitchen. Talk about circles and cycles!
Fully half of my working life has been in commercial agriculture and I have seen the social and economic benefits that accrue to the community.
I come from a family of farmers in a community of farmers.
What can I offer to this discussion? If I have to make a living, pay my mortgage and give my children a good education by growing a crop, it will be science and the chemical regimen all the way. But if I want to grow something for non-economic considerations, I would go (grow) organic because I know that it can be done.
Finally, it may sound trite but there are disadvantages to each approach if applied improperly or indisciminately.

Ron,

Things have changed back to natural way again. There's organic cotton farm in west Texas where it gets 15 inches a year or so. No supplemental watering at all. Molasses is all they get every 3 months. They still beat out conventional farming when it comes to profit, good or bad times... Conventional farming have ruined the soil for the most part...

The only thing I like about synthetic chemicals or fertilizers is that they do give you results a lot faster than organic. Organic is better for the innviroment and for us to eat. One more thing is that organic herbicides are non-selective so you have to use extra caution when using these products.

lou midlothian tx, I just responded to you on another forum and I am very hesitant to post a response here. I will just say that I have perused my sources and will refer you to an article on the internet, Texas Cotton: 'Farmers Profits at Every Step': NPR. For me it provides a more plausible role of molasses in cotton farming.
I have a flow chart "From Field to finished Product". Unfortunately it does not acknowledge a source; but it does show the organic growing practices and the associated extra costs associated with each.
I am wary of the term 'profit' when it comes to small or family farming. 'False profits' due to unaccountability for subsidies, family labor and land rent can distort the bottom line.
Please understand that I am not trying to 'match wits' or 'get the last word in'. This is one of a very few Monday mornings when I have the opportunity to visit this site and I am quite determined that it must always be a pleasant activity. I relish opportunities that prompt me to 'seek further' and I wish to thank you for the stimulus to so do.

brizzyintx, I trust that you are enjoying a pleasant holiday weekend. Please excuse my foray off the subject in the foregoing post. But it dimly illustrates that the debate between "Organic" and "Synthetic" can become slightly very obfuscated sometimes.

I never gave it much thought that the grains that we put on our lawn were grown with chemicals. I have to admit that it is a good point. However, for the 1/2 of my property that is organic, I like the fact that there is no preemergent or weed killers down on it, more so than the absence of chemical fertilizer. I can live with chemical fertilizer, it is the other stuff that I don't want my kids playing in.