Is this a good deal?

15 years ago

Ok, so we are relatively new to organic lawn care - this might be a newbie type question.

I have been spreading CGM rather heavily on our front and back lawn. Three 50# bags cover about 3000 sq ft of lawn, and cost about $30 each.

In my search for soybean meal, I was offered a product that has "soy meal and feathers." No phosphorus, and has a 10-0-6 rating. The local company is producing this instead of soybean meal for the home & garden store. Price is 20/bag, and they claim it covers up to 2500 sq ft.

Does this sound like something I should use instead of CGM, price-wise, or is it likely something that isn't as healthy for the lawn?

Thanks in advance!

Comments (4)

bpgreen
15 years ago
Are you using the CGM as a fertilizer or pre emergent?

that sounds like a pretty heavy dosage either way. I think the recommendation for pre emergent is around 20 lbs per 1000 sq ft. As a fertilizer, you could probably go a little lower. If I remember correctly, CGM is about 9% N, so using a single bag on your lawn would be providing 1.5 lbs of actual N per 1000 sq ft.

The soy meal and feathers recommended rate seems a little low, since that would be giving you about .8 lb of N per 1000 sq ft. And the part of that that is from feathers will be VERY slow release. I'd probably use 2 of those bags, for 1 1/3 lbs of N per 1000 sq ft.

If I remembered the N% of CGM correctly, the CGM is a better deal.

That seems like a really low price on the CGM. Is it Corn Gluten Meal or Corn Meal?
soccer_dad
15 years ago
Too much of a good thing can be as unhealthy as the wrong product. What was the time period over which you applied the CGM? If all in one application then your nose should have told you something was wrong. The meal and feathers rate seems ok since it works out to 20#/k. Three or four times per year should work just fine. I'm skeptical of a NPK rating on a grain based product. It is about the protein and organic material added to the soil.
Related Discussions
Is this a good deal for old Snapper riding mower???
Q
Comments (17)
I had an early 1980's 8 HP, 28" Hi-Vac with grass catcher. I loved the performance, simplicity and readily available parts for this machine. Its biggest drawback was an overly sensitive (and dangerous clutch). However, the clutch design rendered the mower able to climb a hill like like a bulldozer. When it finally died about 20 years ago, I replaced it with a Snapper 14.5 HP, 33" Hi-Vac. What a mistake!! This mower is obviously a product of some CEO's family member's freshly minted, clueless MBA. (check this out) The addition of poorly engineered safety devices and other basic modifications have reduced Snapper rear-engine rider mowers to the classification of "junk". The corporate CEO's should be castrated for reducing the once-iconic, highly reliable Snapper rider into a cheap pile of useless junk. All of the foregoing is based solely on my experienced-based opinion, FWIW.
...See More
Which would you pick: a good deal or a good warranty?
Q
Comments (33)
yep.. I had it on a stove and they ended up having to replace the stove. Now, it was their fault.. heh.. but... I had a stove that the main board went out on it a month after I got the warranty. The only thing that did not work was the self-clean aspect. They came out to replace the board and put the wrong one in. They were gone like 30 minutes and I called back telling them it was the wrong board and the stove was not working. They had already "lost the board" they had taken out. I tried to tell them to put the old board back in until the new board could be ordered. They kept ordering new boards, that would arrive at my house then a tech would come out and install it, and I kept calling and telling them they had ordered the wrong board. After about 4 weeks of this, I started to get annoyed and told them to get me a whole new stove, which they refused to do. So, I drove up to the closest store with my 3 month old daughter and told them I had no way to sterilize the bottles since I had no stove any longer and that they could explain to the news media when I drive down and show them my newborn baby...blah blah blah. I had a new stove 2 days later and they never came to pick up the old stove. WELL worth getting, even through all that. Russ
...See More
Young potted Japanese Maple---Was this a good deal for $6?
Q
Comments (19)
Thanks gardengal48 for the info! I had a look at the 2018 prices for JM at a large nursery half an hour away from me. Yikes! I hadn't looked at JM prices in ages. Now I wish I had picked up another $6 one. And actually my husband and I (at the same sale) were deciding on whether to purchase a $40 red dissectum JM (named, but don't remember now). It looked really nice. Didn't purchase it because I figured I had a lot of learning to do regarding container trees and didn't want to kill it. Should have snatched it up then and there! It was the only one left. Darn!!! Oh well. But now I am more knowledgeable thanks to you all!
...See More
Tankless water heaters and recirculating lines: Good deal or not?
Q
Comments (13)
North Texan, I'm sorry, but your point #1 is simply not correct. A gas tankless is about 92 % efficient (condensing model) any time it is running. It is that efficient because it extracts enough heat from the flue gasses that it takes the gases below the point of condensing the water vapor - and thus even gets the latent heat in the water vapor. That's true any time it's running. It's not an average between "low efficiency and off" as you suggested. Condensing gas tankless water heaters extract so much heat that they vent with plastic vent. There are 82% non-condensing units that vent with stainless steel, but the vent is so expensive it makes more sense to use a condensing unit and vent with PVC. BTW: Condensing gas furnaces work on exactly the same principle. Standard gas tank heaters are about 60% efficient and can't get much better than that. The reason is that they must leave the flue gases hot enough to rise up through the atmospheric vent (hot gases rise). Atmospherically vented (standard) gas water heaters also have higher standby losses and air infiltration / exfiltration issues. There is a 3" flue up the middle of the tank that is open to the sky 24/7. They also take their combustion air from the conditioned air in the house and dump it outside requiring makeup air. Most gas tankless units get their combustion air from an outside intake. I think that you are confusing the issue of input requirements for a tankless heater. A tankless heater (gas or electric) has to heat water very quickly - and thus the input requirements are massive (a typical gas tankless is 200k btu/h vs 40k btu/h for standard gas tank). An electric water heater is almost 100% efficient already - and an electric tankless doesn't improve on that any. Electric tankless saves about 3% on standby losses. I have no idea where you got point #2 - but since point #1 isn't right, Point #2 is also not right. There is a significant cost to retrofit to gas tankless. In new construction the cost difference should be about $500 or less. I can't really comment on the payback because the install costs are so out of whack. In my view, atmospherically vented gas water heaters should be off the table - just as atmospherically vented gas furnaces are no longer available. I would never recommend whole house electric tankless. The operating cost savings (3%) aren't enough to justify any of the additional service requirements. There is no discernible payback. They don't generally produce enough GPM either. There are much better solutions for homes without gas - such as hybrid heaters. Electric Point of Use units can make sense in some situations, but not whole house electric tankless.
...See More
decklap
15 years ago
Is this CGM you've been getting from a feed store? The price seems to suggest it is. If so it isn't exactly the same thing as CGM hydroslate which is specifically sold and labeled as a pre-m.

The feed store stuff is almost always much much lower in nitrogen. I think the protein content is around 15%. And while the jury is out I haven't read any definitive studies suggesting that regular CGM feed is an effective as CGM hydroslate.
Kimmsr
15 years ago
Your turf grass needs 2 pounds of Nitrogen per 1,000 square feet annually to grow quite well, applying more than that simply results in the excess flowing out of the soil into the ground water as a pollutant, even an organic product will do that. To determine how much N is being spread and the cost per 1,000 square feet multiply the percentage of N the manufacturer says is there by the weight of the bag and divide by the number of 1,000 square feet it covers to get a cost comparison. For example a 40 pound bag has 6 percent N so 40 x .06 equals 2.4 pounds of N and this bag is to be spread over 2,500 square feet so divide 2.4 by 2.5 and that equals 0.96 so you would be applying (if done properly) just under 1/2 the amount needed and if you mulch mow and leave the grass clippings to feed the lawn (1/2 the annual nutrient requirement) you have applied all the fertilizer needed for a good, healthy lawn.
Applying more than 1 pound per 1,000 square feet at any one time is a waste of your money since what is not used by the lawn will be washed out of your soil.

Is this a good deal?

Comments (4)

bpgreen

soccer_dad

Related Discussions

decklap

Kimmsr

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US