I have to agree that the bark in the pictures does not look right. First thing I notice is that there is literally NO fines in it. The mix depends on using pine bark fines, not just pine bark. I'm not going to defend any mix, because this is my first year using the 5-1-1, and although it is working good for me, it hasn't been without hard work and some complaints. I have had some watering issues with the hydrophobic pine bark. I can say though, that my pine bark is fines, and I CAN pour water in the pot, and it sits there for a bit. But, I can agree that the water seems to flow right through, and leave dry sections in the center of the pot. It takes a bit of screwing around, but all in all, the mix works. I won't be using it for veggies anymore, because next year I'll be firing up a regular veggie garden. So, final word from me: Due to what looks to be the wrong pine bark, and the wrong lime being used, this experiment is scrapped, and shouldn't be associated with the 5-1-1 mix. Joe

oregon, I couldn't care less about organics, as far as the food I eat. This is someone who use to kill potatoes beetles with DDT (though we saved a row for early use!). But, IMO, the reason most people choose organically grown food is not because of the impact on the environment, but rather they perceive the food to be safer for consumption, at least when it comes to veggies and probably fruit. Yeah, there are those who perceive lots of value to free-range creatures and are willing to pay premium prices for products. And while free range beef may be far better (or maybe not) than that fed in huge parking lots, reality is lots of Americans would suddenly find that eating hamburger would be a very special occasion they would have to save up for. Plus, I'm not sure where the line is drawn between organic and non-organic. Is a steer raised on one of those so-called parking lots that is fed only food raised organically, and not injected with any hormones, organic? Is a similar steer that is allowed to graze on grass but whose supplements contain non-organic supplements non-organic? By definition, the answer to both questions is YES. Then we have a combo of both. A Farmers Market here sells eggs from free range, organically fed chickens. In winter, the price can range from $13-17 per dozen! And if the weather is cold and the chicks don't put out, one may only get ten eggs instead of 12. Rich families can make the decision, those who have to stretch their budget will have a hard time going the organic route. YMMV, Mike

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.

I think the message as it applies here is that we shouldn't be afraid of using synthetics in lawn care just because they contain chemicals. Just because something has an "ingredient" with a funny looking name that may be hard to pronounce doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad or wouldn't be produced naturally. For example, organic fertilizers can cause chemical run off just like synthetic fertilizers. Somewhat off topic, someone asked me what I was feeding my dog because her fur was so shiny and smooth. This person couldn't believe when I told her that I feed her bagged, dry dog food from the pet store. "All those chemicals and artificial ingredients! It's just not natural!" This person fed her dog a raw diet, and I guess she was assuming that plopping a round of filet mignon into the food bowl was somehow more natural than dog food. To me, that's just as unnatural. (Her dog was also suffering from conditions that may or may not have been related to diet, including terrible fur quality and weak bone issues...) Giving a dog a T-bone is as unnatural as dropping countless pounds of soy meal in a lawn to feed it., just as broadcasting Scotts Lawnfood is equally unnatural to feeding your dog dry kibble. There is nothing natural about a lawn (or farming or gardening, for that matter). There was an entire hoopla about this years ago, which is why the word "organic" is used where "natural" used to be. Lawns do not exist in nature without human intervention. Stop mowing, feeding and weeding the lawn for a single season and you will see my point. In nature, success would be a single seed out of thousands germinating and surviving log enough to produce more seed. In the man made lawn, success is typically 85-90% germination at a minimum, with the constant upkeep to ensure proper care for many years, and the prevention of any grass plants from producing seed. At any rate, I was going for a lighthearted post with that image and not something of serious analysis.