I just checked on a bed I used newspaper on, so I thought I'd share what I found. Last spring I used the newspaper method on a 6' square raised bed that had weeds literally growing shoulder high after years of neglect. I hacked and pulled until I could squash down the remaining weeds under layers of wet newspaper, and weighed it down with about a foot-high pile of dead leaves. Other than checking now and then and pulling weeds that would pop up where the newspaper had peeled back along the edges, I ignored it all year. Yesterday I went out and discovered that all that is left is about an inch or two of leaves, and no sign whatsoever of the newspapers I used. There are a few tiny baby weeds where the soil is uncovered, but when I moved things around I discovered the soil is loose and crumbly and very dark and rich-looking. I can't *wait* to plant things in there! Dawn

annpat - I have used newspaper several years ago around my tomatoes with straw over it. It worked pretty well. I probably could have overlapped more and put down thicker layers for a better result. I also have a large collection of newspaper, so I may do that in some areas as well. I have well over an acre of veggie garden and like a fifth acre of flower garden. There's plenty of area to experiment.

west_texas_peg "We use a tub, put a large stack of newspapers in and fill with water (have used our wheelbarrow in the past). Once they are soaked through we start laying them out" A large stack at one time? You must have nimble fingers to be able to seperate out the sheets once they are soaked Maupin "I fill a wheelbarrow with water and dredge the sheets through the water before laying them down and covering with grass clippings. Red neck method -- low cost." Wheelbarrow works fine also. Can someone who has never been south of Cape May be a redneck? If so sign me up. Dredge is exactly the right word to describe the process. Grab up however many sheets you feel are needed and just sort of slip-slide 'em thru the water bath. corar "I like the idea of a container of wet paper. BUT - no one has addressed how one PLANTS through newspaper. I have a lot of bulbs to put down tomorrow. I planned to poke or cut holes in the paper - or depending on how well I can kneel and bend tomorrow - leave a narrow (uncovered) row to poke bulbs into. How do YOU plant through 3 - 5 sheets of wet paper? cora" I suspect bulbs would have no problems coming up thru the paper so you could just set them out, lay in the paper then mulch and you would be fine. As far as planting out I primarily use this in my veggie beds. I lay the paper out over the bed and simply poke/slice in a hole with the Hori Hori (See Link Below) where I need a planting hole but you could easily poke thru it with a dibble or even your finger if you were putting in seed. While it is wet the newspaper is very easy to work with. After I lay in the transplants I mulch with straw or grass clippings. FYI Fiskars has recently introduced their own version of the Hori Hori, a tool that has been in use in Asia for hundreds of years. Ahh... progress. Here is a link that might be useful: Hori Hori Tool

From a Buddhist perspective, the act of purchasing--voting with the dollar--a product that is toxically produced and shipped to its desired location is ethically and morally wrong. It is against the interconnectedness of beings, as the destruction of one habitat is also a destruction of the extended self. From a Jesuit-Catholic perspective, Genesis dictates that all Earthly creations are impoverished of their own, independent nature (they are /of/ God) and are sacramental (they provide a vessel for us to experience God). By mistreating or misguiding our efforts in the natural world, we are misguiding our efforts to respect God as it exists in all things. Religious theory aside; As a geologist, I have an academic bias towards the use of any chemical fertilizer, especially in coastal habitats like southeastern MA. Because Rehoboth/Seekonk are part of the Ten Mile sub-watershed, my groundwater's "drainage path" to the ocean is through the Narragansett basin. Any and all pollution that enters the groundwater table in the Rehoboth/Seekonk area WILL OVER TIME flow to its final destination. Parameters that impede the flow of pollutants are typically Darcy's Law parameters: the density of the chemical, the nature/likelihood of the chemical to adsorb (chemically 'stick') to rock particles, the porosity of the aquifer through which the water is flows, the amount of water flowing through the aquifer, and the relief/topography of the watertable as a whole. Flatter, more coastal areas will see pollutants slowly bloom and spread over time. There is less gravitational potential 'flowing' water downstream to the ocean, and therefore less energy to disperse pollutants. In some areas with typically sandier soil, high porosity can lead to extremely fast chemical/pollutant leaching from the area. Especially at risk to water pollution are those on Cape, where the groundwater is focused into fresh water 'lenses' due to salt water intrusion of the watertable. The freshwater rain that falls onto the Cape is the only way for the watertable to recharge itself. Research conducted at the MMR at the bicep of the Cape has shown that pollutants deposited here from the military as earlier as 40 years ago are still leaching through the groundwater, and are toxifying the deep-earth environment of the region. Even scarier, underground glacial flow channels carved from the region approx. 14-12,000 years ago have become "high ways", regions of increased flow potential, for these pollutants to be directed to Buzzards Bay and the Sounds. After studying the estuarine and coastal hydrophysics which actively shape our coastline, I've come to realize that pollutant in the water table all drain, eventually, to one place. And that's the estuary at the mouth of your watershed. Through processes like eutrophication (in my opinion one of the milder consequences of pollution), estuarine grass and sea-weed organisms cannot survive. Because their main function in an estuary is to collect and trap sediments, essentially building out the estuary and protecting the coastline from sever coastal storms, the destruction of these organisms by human pollution WILL cause the landward migration of sand bars, "outer banks", and the ocean front. We saw the effects of this in New Jersey on the Shore. We are beginning to see the effects of this on the South shore of Cape Cod, an area that is NOT environmentally protected by the national government. When chemicals are applied to the lawn properly, and at the right time, the plants that are supposed to be fertilized will act on the chemicals to grow. But what sorts of pollution issues does this cause across the globe? Minerals are being extracted from locations across the globe in order to synthesize the chemical fertilizer that you're desiring to put into your lawn. Minerals, that, without the pollution of fossil fuels, you wouldn't have in your area or at your immediate disposal. What about the others' environment that you might be polluting? Mineral mining for fertilizers may not cause immediate damage. But fossil fuel mining across the globe is making places literally uninhabitable for any species, not just humans. According to my friend Seun, also a geologist, places like his home in Southern Nigeria host oil companies that have lobbies so extensively in the local and federal government that the government has stolen millions of dollars from the people in exchange for selling their land to oil companies for drilling. Seun discussed with me the implications that fossil fuel mining has had on his home town. People's farms are covered in spilled petrochemicals and other inorganic wastes so badly that these people can no longer grow food and are being forced to flee the region as refugees. My friend is unsure if he will be able to return home after he completes his Masters degree because he doesn't know if there will be food for him to eat. His family's farm has fallen victim to the humanitarian crimes that are being undertaken in Southern Nigeria. So for me it's not about proving one person right, one person wrong, another person a crazy liberal, and another person a mad scientist. By default, I think we're all scientists (because we're all experimenting with plants through the act of gardening) and what each of us has to say has equal importance. TL-DR: The issue of purposely adding pollutants to the earth and also the issue of indirectly supporting industries that do so are issues that require all of us to join in discussion. Is it worth having the greenest, healthiest lawn? From a chemists' perspective, as long as the chemistry is handled right, yes. From a geologists' perspective (and not a petro-chemical geologist, mind you), I'll tell you that any pollutants added to any groundwater system can be considered pollution when the scope of the pollution is taken into consideration, so no. From a religious perspective, we have a higher calling to educate ourselves on the dangers that we are presenting to the natural creation that we have the privilege of experiencing, although we are aiding in the growth of life on our own soil, is it truly balancing the harm that we are causing in other parts of the globe? Please consider Steve's suggestion of topping off the soil in your yard with an organic amendment. Please consider that grass is one (1) of many, many, many plants and biodiversity never hurt a single being.