I'll just say I see great results using a combination of organic & inorganic fertilizer products. They all have their place.

@daniel_j

You purport to have all the facts as to why organics are a waste of time and money, yet you really don't have any other than a casual surfing of internet articles that support your preconceived notion

I don't purport to have all the facts and I really don't have any articles, I posted my observations and thoughts on the topic. Nor do I have any preconceived notion, I'd spread organics if someone could come up with a good case as to why I should pay 12 times more to feed my lawn. I do the cost/benefit analysis in my head and the numbers don't add up, so I'm asking you guys.

I like the idea of working with the plant instead of force-feeding it. With organics, the plant is taking up nutrients as needed instead of being "force fed" by osmosis. I liken it to a diet of whole fruits and vegetables versus taking pill supplements.

And I think that is the main driving force behind organics use, not just in lawn care but in many other areas. People tend to project their human standards and emotions onto pets, and I guess grass too. It's about how it makes YOU feel. Nothing wrong with that, if you pay more because it makes you feel good to use organics that's perfectly acceptable.

So more worms equals more worm castings and higher organic % and more birds eating worms and pooing on the soil and adding to the biology of the soil.

Let's be serious now, that's not going to make even a small dent in organic matter content. Worm castings don't magically create carbon out of thin air beyond what was applied. It's not like if you apply 1 pound of carbon the corresponding worm castings are going to contain 2 pounds.

Why do you care how much carbon is generated in preparation of the fertilizer, and do you have actual data in the comparison to urea?

Why wouldn't we care? It's a good example of the inefficiency of organics use. I'm not going to spend my time looking for data, because it's simple common sense: organics - let's say soy since you're not fond of corn - require the urea fertilizer, plus all the machinery managing the crop for a year , plus all the pesticides, plus harvesting, plus bagging, plus distribution, while a synthetic regimen requires only the urea fertilizer that was initially applied on soy crop. See how that short-circuits the process?

...more tomorrow, I'm sure.

Glad I didn't disappoint :-)

@dchall

Dr Elaine Ingham charges people 5 grand to teach classes on that stuff. She has a vested financial interest in saying what she's saying. Just throwing that out there.

I understand how organics vs synthetics works and I agree with your explanation, but it's all academic, of what benefit is all that to the average homeowner? Do we care how the plant gets its nutrients as long as it's green and thick? In general we don't, most of the food on supermarket shelves is produced hydroponically.

I use urea. In all fairness, if we're going to ask the homeowner to go hunt down corn meal, then we can ask them to hunt down urea and do a comparison on that. It's not like SBM can be found at home improvement stores or Walmart either.

I believe the Soil Biology Primer was written in the late 1990s before Dr Ingham was speaking anywhere but in the classroom. Hillary Clinton used to charge $250,000 for speaking engagements. Does that make her opinion less important? I'm not sure where you were going with that, but Dr Ingham a compost person, while I'm not. But she can teach us a lot about microbes.

There are many ways to come at the skepticism about organics. I don't talk about it much but I have been asked by three national lawn care forums to be the moderator for their organic lawn care forums. Later I was asked to help start another forum which is where I came across morpheuspa. He virtually took over the forum freeing up a lot of my time. As a forum matures there is much less call for a moderator, so I have come back to GardenWeb and now Houzz. This is to say I've been in the middle of every argument on this topic since 2003. After all that I believe both organics and chemicals play a role in agriculture. Prior to the discovery of chemical fertilizers many hundred years ago, everything was organic. By all reports there was a huge improvement in productivity by the addition of chemical fertilizers. Seeing is certainly believing and the industry grew quickly as far as chemical production and distribution was practical. With World War II came huge increases in production in the ammonium nitrate type chemicals. After the war the world had to stay in production of these explosives, so distribution all the way down to homeowners was pushed. Every university supported chemicals with both the government and industry funding the research. Now after generations and generations of continued use of chemical fertilizers, the concept of soil exhaustion has been seen. This means that even repeated doses of chemical fertilizers might have zero effect in plant growth, health, and vigor. In those cases a return to organic fertilizers seems to give the exact same boost that the original use of chemical fertilizers gave hundreds of years ago. I got that boost as did aluvaboy above. I've seen it on all the forums where people have given up on their lawns, because no matter how much they overdose their lawns with chemicals, it doesn't respond. But with their first application of any amount of a grain type fertilizer, the lawn explodes in new growth. All that is the background for my belief that both can work. That is why I make the occasional suggestion to bermuda owners to supplement their monthly applications of chemical fertilizer with at least one annual application of organics. I believe having a healthy soil (well fed microbes) makes the chemical fertilizers work better.

j4, if you have a long history of using only chemical fertilizers, I would suggest to you to get a 2-pound bag of alfalfa pellets at your local pet store and dropping that on a 10x10 foot area somewhere in your lawn. Take a picture before, take a picture a month later, and report back here. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm more interested in using your lawn as a data point for this theory.

Now after generations and generations of continued use of chemical fertilizers, the concept of soil exhaustion has been seen. This means that even repeated doses of chemical fertilizers might have zero effect in plant growth, health, and vigor.

I just don't buy that. Plants are grown hydroponically with no soil, no bacteria, no soil food web, just sterile water and nutrients. They are "happy", a lot of the time they grow bigger and produce more than their counterparts grown in soil. Point is, if nutrients are added to the soil, the plant should thrive even in sterilized soil.

I would suggest to you to get a 2-pound bag of alfalfa pellets at your local pet store and dropping that on a 10x10 foot area somewhere in your lawn. Take a picture before, take a picture a month later, and report back here.

That is a great idea. I will designate an adjacent 10x10 section that gets the equivalent amount of synthetic and nothing else (I spray PGR, iron etc.) to get a good comparison. I will post the pictures and ask the community to determine which section was fertilized with organics and which one with synthetic fertilizer and that should make it a fair test.

j4 sed: I will post the pictures and ask the community to determine which
section was fertilized with organics and which one with synthetic
fertilizer and that should make it a fair test.

Fair test of what? dchall is not saying your lawn is suffering from soil exhaustion. On the one hand if the organic side outperforms the inorganic, that might say something. If it does not, then all it says is that your lawn is not "exhausted." It proves nothing about the effectiveness of organics because a one time application isn't what it is about.

If it does not, then all it says is that your lawn is not "exhausted."

It says that in a non-"exhausted" soil - a soil that is properly maintained and balanced with macro and micro-nutrients based on soil tests - the use of organics provides no additional benefit to justify the increased cost and labor.

Which means that their use in depleted/exhausted soils can also be eliminated with a $25 soil test and a few dollars worth of macro and micro-nutrients.

I have to take issue with the claim of unsustainability. I don't have all of the facts on organic production, but as DC said, a lot of organic fertilizers are byproducts of other activity.

Here's this: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/industrial_LBNL-44314.pdf

On page 23 it discusses nitrogenous fertilizer production (as well as other places in the article), which uses 1% of the total energy consumed in the world. Against all of the cars, trucks, planes, boats in the world, all electricity generation, mining, petroleum refining, manufacturing, etc., etc., and nitrogenous fertilizer still accounts for 1% of all energy consumed. For one product. That's crazy.

I really am not making any inference about your soil. I'm simply wondering if using organics on your particular soil will show any improvement over adjacent soil. It might also be interesting to see if there is any difference next spring from one application this season. I guess I don't expect one, but if you're doing it, may as well keep an eye on it.

Hydroponic growing is completely different. All the effort goes into doing the things that soil microbes do. Instead of microbes feeding the plants, people do. Instead of microbes protecting the roots and plants from disease, people do. Every time the plants get a drink, they get an osmotic dose of NPK, whether they need it or not. I'm not that familiar with the current state of that art. How long do those plants last? Can they go from year to year, or are they discarded after one production season like soil based plants? In any case we're not comparing organics with hydroponics. Grass is soil based. But are you suggesting that grass could be grown in a sterile medium with sterile water plus hydroponic nutrients and still be successful? That would have to be a lab experiment proof of concept, because you cannot maintain sterility in the wild. Surely that has been done somewhere.

Soil microbes provide a habitat for roots. When normalcy is maintained, disease is held in check by the beneficial microbes tasked with doing that job. The various methods used are described in the Soil Biology Primer as I recall. If those beneficial microbes are stressed or killed off by some means, that situation allows the pathogenic microbes to thrive and cause disease in the soil and plants. Picture a lawn where the target turfgrass has thinned out and the opportunistic crabgrass moves in to fill the void. This is similar to the balance of nature in microbe land.

@TB: there are many issues I could take with what j4 has written, but I have leaned that I could spend the next two hours debating each topic but it is like talking to a brick wall. It's good to be skeptical, but j4's skepticism is based on a bias against anything organic. I'm not sure where this comes from but I'm thinking he's learning things on other forums that jive with his preconceptions, and that makes him more comfortable. By starting this thread, I think at least he is considering other options to help his stressed lawn. However, he is coming at the topic as if inorganic practices are the gold standard and he needs to be convinced why this newfangled organic gardening concept should be given any consideration. His lawn organic % borders on depletion, so hopefully he will work to increase that value rather than explain away the need to do it at all.

Example: dchall recalls that crop fields become infertile over time even with the use of inorganic fertilizers. j4's reply is that he doesn't believe that is true because we can grow crops in completely inorganic soils like is done with hydroponics. What? The evidence is abundant that organic usage is not only a good thing for the soil, it is required over the long term. Everybody has heard the term, "Put a 50 cent plant in a $5.00 hole" or something to that effect. That means that it is more important to have quality soil than a quality seedling. That includes lots of organics.

@j4: I don't mean to come down on you overly hard, but when people like dchall take the time to 'splain things to you, it is a little rude to say, "I disagree" and not have any evidence other than your opinion to back that up.

Also, if you want to talk about sustainability, you can't get any better than a milorganite type product. I'm glad you didn't go the phony "carbon footprint" route when I asked why you care about carbon emissions.

last comment:

j4: Let's be serious now, that's not going to make even a small dent in
organic matter content. Worm castings don't magically create carbon out
of thin air beyond what was applied. It's not like if you apply 1 pound
of carbon the corresponding worm castings are going to contain 2 pounds.

You're talking to a guy who has raised his organic % huge amounts in just two years. I used milorganite and oceangro, corn meal, soybean, alfalfa, sawdust pellets, grass clippings and tons of fall leaves. You are missing the synergistic effect of adding organics as needed. Let's say I put down a pound of soybean meal on the driveway. Rain and microbes are going to degrade it into it's basic nutrients and it will be gone into the atmosphere and in water runoff. If I put that same pound in a healthy soil, some of it will be eaten by worms, which will add a little body mass (and eventually dead worm mass), and a little worm castings, some will be turned into more microbes, and some will be turned into nitrogen and other elements and dissipated. The point is that original pound of soybean meal is converted into microbes and worms and poo from attracted birds other things that hang around in the soil. So I never said 1 lb is going to turn into 2 lb. I'm saying that 1 lb is going to be made use of by the soil, much in the same way a native American Indian would kill a bison and use every conceivable part.

Anyway, I'm sure I've said too much already. I don't mean to come off too aggressively. I'd just like to suggest that you try some new things that might help your lawn issues instead of requiring a hearing with the National Academy of Sciences before agreeing to increase your organic %. Just try it.

@danielj

I don't find anything worth responding to in your post, and I have better things to do with my Saturday than to address your spewage of falsehoods and ad-hominem attacks.

I don't have any lawn issues, I'm simply starting a discussion on a topic. My lawn looks fine to me. Maybe you could post a picture of your NJ organic fed high organic matter soil lawn so we can see how much better that looks.

@dchall

I intend to begin feeding a section organically after seeding this fall and continue feeding organically through next summer. This way we can get pictures along the way and also see if there's any difference in spring green-up , drought stress resistance etc. I'll post pictures along the way. Do I winterize the organic patch with urea in late fall?

@j4: ad hominem? falsehoods? I though you wanted to have a discussion. Knowing a little about your background in this forum, I don't believe you really want a discussion, even if you think you do. dchall, an expert in the field, told you that crop performance fails even with continued inorganic fert use. Instead of inquiring further into this concept, or maybe doing a little research, you respond within one hour with "I just don't buy that." My impression, maybe I'm wrong, is that the title of your thread is really "Organic Fertilizer - It's Good for Nothing." My guess is you are following the mantra of someone online somewhere who purports to debunk organic/hybrid methods, and since you don't use them you don't want them to be more effective than what you do.

I do applaud your willingness to test out a patch of organic fertilizer, as long as you are realistic about what you can infer from observations. For example, you aren't going to cure drought resistance from 3 applications of organics. You also broke down and got a soil analysis to help your lawn issues. Yes, you have had lawn issues as you've been chronicling all year. I'm glad you seem to have it solved.

If you want a photo of my lawn, for whatever that is worth, I'll get one over the weekend.

@j4: ad hominem? falsehoods? I though you wanted to have a discussion.

I'm not going to get in the gutter with you, you have the home turf advantage. I've been in enough conversations with you to know that using reason with you is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a pig - it's wasted effort. Have a nice day.

@j4: for the record, you are the first one in this thread to compare someone to a pig (ad hominem, anyone?). So you are going to explain quantum mechanics to me... you didn't mean beer bong mechanics, did you, because they are two different things.

It's your thread so I'll let you carry on in peace.

Thank you. I'm interested in rational discussion, not organic zealotry. Hopefully dchall finds my post above among the noise so we can carry out the experiment.

Well I guess I can donate a patch of grass to the cause. I suppose I can use my hell strip area since it's only 1 round of my fertilization regimen and has some fairly crappy "soil."

I will split the strip in half, 40 feet each side. So 40x4 = 160 sq ft for each area.

I will get "before" pictures tomorrow and updates as needed.

One side will get my normal treatments every 2 wks adjusted for plot size:

1. Milorganite x 1 bag / 1k
2. Corn/alfalfa 20 lbs / 1k
3. SBM 10 - 15 lbs / 1k
4. Vigoro Super Green 35-0-5 @ 2.8 lbs / 1k - will omit if suggested**

The other side will get, again adjusted for plot size:

1. Vigoro Super Green 35-0-5 @ 2.8 lbs / 1k

The rest of my lawn areas will continue receiving all of the above.

Questions:

1. Are there concerns about the areas being too close and organic material "affecting" the plot beside it?
2. Is my Vigoro SG ok? I can't get urea for a reasonable price here, it is far more expensive than organics or slow release N product. But I can make exception for this small area if needed.
3. Am I to bag clippings in the non organic plot?
4. Am I to withhold leaf mulching this Fall in the non-organic plot?
5. Is everything else the same for these plots (ie pgr, watering, herbicides, mowing, hoc, etc)?
6. Is the non-organic side fertilized every 2 or 4 weeks?
7. Any other suggestions/advice/input?

My costs for the record (grains based on 20 lbs/1k):

1. Milorganite (HD) $12.98/36 lbs = $5.2 / 1k sq ft (reg price); $2.6 = / 1k sq ft (sale price)
2. Super 21-0-0 (HD) $10.98/15 lbs…$3.44/1k sq ft
3. Vigoro Super Green 35-0-5 (HD) $17.48/16 lbs…$3.059/1k sq ft
4. Cracked Corn (TSC) $9.99 = $4 / 1k sq ft
5. Alfalfa (TSC) $11.00 = $4.4 / 1k sq ft
6. Soybean Meal (Old McGowan's Feed) $18.50/50 lbs = $7.4 / 1k sq ft

Great. We'll have 2 test cases. Thank you for volunteering.

1. Are there concerns about the areas being too close and organic material "affecting" the plot beside it?

I don't think so.

2. Is my Vigoro SG ok? I can't get urea for a reasonable price here, it is far more expensive than organics or slow release N product. But I can make exception for this small area if needed.

I would expect most of the nitrogen in Vigoro to be urea based, not that it matters. Vigoro should be fine.

3. Am I to bag clippings in the non organic plot?

No, regular mulch mowing.

4. Am I to withhold leaf mulching this Fall in the non-organic plot?

No, mulch mow as usual.

5. Is everything else the same for these plots (ie pgr, watering, herbicides, mowing, hoc, etc)?

I plan to not apply PGR to either test areas since it's not really standard practice for the average homeowner. Everything else should be the same.

6. Is the non-organic side fertilized every 2 or 4 weeks?

Standard care is 1 lb N every 4 weeks for synthetic so I would go with that.

7. Any other suggestions/advice/input?

I think all synthetic fertilizer should be withheld from the organic side to make a meaningful comparison. Thus, Milorganite which is 40% fast release nitrogen (synthetic) and Vigoro should not be applied, only SBM, corn or alfalfa.

Guys, all arguing aside, I have to jump in with one comment about this test you are doing. I hope you find it constructive, as is meant to be. A little perspective:

dchall
has been showing an old photo from a member named MrMumbles (if I recall
correctly). The photo shows how a handful of alfalfa (or was it
soybean) thrown down on poorly growing grass quickly created a burst of
nice growth in that spot. This proved that the alfalfa did act as a
fertilizer, and proved nothing more. In this thread above, dchall said:

I really am not making any inference about your soil. I'm simply
wondering if using organics on your particular soil will show any
improvement over adjacent soil. It might also be interesting to see if
there is any difference next spring from one application this season. I
guess I don't expect one, but if you're doing it, may as well keep an
eye on it.

As I read it, he is simply proposing to throw down something organic on your mostly inorganically treated lawn to see if it shows an improvement over what you normally see a month down the road, or possibly even next spring. If you get an improvement in some obvious respect (color, density of grass, growth rate) then maybe adding a little organics would be a good idea.
Here's my point: dchall's suggestion was a simple quick and dirty look at what happens to a spot with something organic thrown down on it. As I read it above, j4 is taking it a step further and comparing organic only to inorganic only. His idea is that if they perform the same, then why spend more money on organics (btw, costs vary widely in different regions). This is fine and interesting to look at. However...

I'll keep it short by repeating that once you get into designing an experiment to test a hypothesis, you have to take certain steps to be sure your time isn't wasted. An experiment can be a waste of time if the hypothesis is muddled and not well defined. You have to understand which variables to control (mulching, etc.) and which not to worry about and why. A bad experiment is one that takes a year of your time at which point you realize what you have been doing is worthless because you forgot to keep track of something. For instance, you finish your test after two years and then realize it is meaningless because that tree grew 3 feet and has been providing 2 hours a day more shade on one test plot than the other. Doh!

Not trying to stir the pot, just food for thought.

I have conducted many research studies, mostly involving people. I am aware of many of the pitfalls, that's why I volunteered. The more data we have the more we can debate and potentially provide solid information to someone in the future who may have a question.

I am in no way taking a stance on one side or the other. Every 4 weeks I apply ~ 70 lbs of organic materials and 2 lbs N from Synthetics per 1k lawn area. I, like j4c11, have NO complaints about my lawn even though we take completely opposite approaches, he is more minimalist (not an insult) and I am more Morpheus (circa 2009). I think if we withhold the drama and insults we can add meaningful input for folks in future discussions.

@j4c11, ok I will withhold Mil and Vigoro from the organic area and only do 1 lb N every 4 weeks. I will also withhold PGR from the area. It will be interesting to see the growth of these areas with no regulation. I may adjust HOC a bit so I don't have to mow 4x week. Wll see what happens and maybe shoot for a hoc where I can mow x2/wk. Maybe reeljake can provide some direction in this area.

Without growth regulators, planning a 2x weekly mowing in the heart of Bermuda's comfort zone, I think 3/4" is a good goal. The height adjustment should be done prior to starting the experiment though, to remove plant stress from the equation. I'd scalp the experiment area to 5/8", then start the experiment a week or so later when the green top grows back in & you can mow at 3/4" with very little clip produced.

@hawksster: Glad to hear of your background. I'm just observing people proposing new test methodology with each new post, yet I don't really even know what this test is proposing to compare. I may be persona non gratis for speaking my mind here, but so far it looks like "ready-fire-aim." One guy has a KBG blend with growth inhibitor and another has Bermuda. Nobody is going to use milorganite even though that is integral to "morpheus and dchall" semi organic methods.

I think we are all interested in new data. I wouldn't be in this forum if I weren't interested in this stuff. IMO, somebody needs to take down all the information and present a clear methodology. What do you really want to learn and how is your proposed study going to answer that question? What variables can influence (and potentially make useless) your results? How long will the study take and why do you think that? etc.

On the other hand, I guess just doing "something" might also work. Here's what I'd find interesting: Take a lawn that has been cared for inorganically for 3 years and switch the whole lawn over to organic/inorganic hybrid for 3 years and see what qualitative differences there are. Actually, there are probably many examples of people doing this, it's just a matter of finding them and learning of their experience.

Here's what I'd find interesting: Take a lawn that has been cared for inorganically for 3 years and switch the whole lawn over to organic/inorganic hybrid for 3 years and see what qualitative differences there are.

I think that would be about the worst way to do it. We see in NTEP tests that the same cultivar in the same location with the same care one year is in first place, next year it's #20, the following year it's #3, so there's obviously variance in quality from year to year not related to how it's managed but to weather, cultivar age, and who knows what other factors. The only way to draw any meaningful conclusions is to have the same grass, at the same time, in the same spot, with the same care routine, and vary just the one item you're trying to test - in this case the fertilizer. Is it going to be perfect? Probably not, but I think it will be pretty darn good.

Actually, there are probably many examples of people doing this, it's just a matter of finding them and learning of their experience.

For the reasons stated above, plus confirmation bias and placebo effect, I think there's nothing we can learn from their experience.

@hawkster

I've thought about this some more over the weekend and I think you should PGR the test areas. Reason being that if you do so, then the rest of your lawn can be the third test case: hybrid organic. If you don't PGR the test areas, then no meaningful comparison can be made between them and the rest of your lawn. Your thoughts?

One thing that is important about a turf study is that there be a control, where things are held constant, and a test area where things change. My experience converting to organic does not apply because I did not have a control. Defining what constant means can be sticky, but something needs to be constant. Problems come about in comparing organic soils with chemical or even sterile (sand) soils, because watering demands can become different. For an extreme example it doesn't make sense to water a sand soil the same as a compost soil, but it happens all the time, because everything is supposed to be the same in the test. These home owner tests can be good because everything is established. Grass is already growing.

By the way another interesting test would be to apply chemical fertilizer to an organic lawn.

j4 there is another lawn forum elsewhere on the Interwebs that you may be aware of. It has a feature called lawn showcase. The lawn pictures in the showcase were selected for beauty, and, as it turns out, they are all organic based lawns. Being organic was not a requirement. It just turned out that way. So my conclusion is that organic lawn owners are better photographers.

I think we can all agree that the conditions for this study will not be strict enough for publishing

Now I know what to look for when shopping for a photographer for family photos...

@dchall

The lawn pictures in the showcase were selected for beauty, and, as it turns out, they are all organic based lawns.

If organics make a quantifiable difference in my lawn, you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be out there with a bag of corn. I have no philosophical attachments, it's about domination. My position towards organics is that of skepticism at this point, but it's not immovable.

Despite Daniel's annoying use of tortured simile and metaphor as supporting documentation, I agree with him. Where is this going? How does a difference of opinion get resolved using subjective observation?

Disputed organic benefits are:

• Hard to overdose vs synthetic. Is this really relevant to anyone who can simultaneously chew gum and walk? Does this really need to be tested and how? Besides this is really just a subset of Slow release.
• Slow release. IMO, this can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Have we concluded that fast release of N is always superior to its slow release? This issue is not even specific to organics and is an issue between slow vs fast release fertilizers, no matter the source of the nutrient. I can't think of any test that wouldn't be other than subjective.
• Feeds the soil microbes. This should be folded into Increases organic matter/improves soil structure.
• Increases organic matter/improves soil structure . Does anyone dispute the value of soil structure and its relation to turf quality? Does anyone dispute the strong relationship between OM and soil structure and CEC? If not, this one has a quantitative aspect. Have samples of the 1" to 4" depth of each test plot tested for OM % and CEC and compare them. Soil tilth/structure (and disease resistance) would still be subjective. Not sure what procedure might be used for acceptable comparison. I don't know of a laboratory that offers glomalin testing.
• Safer for kids and dogs. How is this to be objectively determined and verified? Child and animal abuse are crimes.

The disputed disadvantages:

• Cost. Easy peasy. Contact local product sources. I don't see much to argue about.
• Cumbersome. I don't believe this is in dispute.
• Slow to act. See Slow release. It's undisputed that organics are not fast N release and cannot be employed for that pupose. This is just re-hash/ re-phrasing of the Slow release issue.
• Unpredictable. ditto, plus, testing what the nutrient release curve and volumes/quantities are would be cost prohibitive.
• Unsustainable. A red hearing. Not relevant to the turf issue.

So, unless I missed something, the only advantage/disadvantage characteristic listed above that could be objectively tested is: Increases organic matter. Subjective evaluation isn't going to settle this age old argument unless it's dramatic, That's not likely. In fact. it's not going to happen.

Where is this going?

To see if there is any visual difference between an organically fed turf and a synthetically fed turf to justify the cost (up to 11 times more per pound of nitrogen) and labor increase(2 lbs vs 20 lbs). I'm not planning to test each advantage/disadvantage listed, just the end result.

How does a difference of opinion get resolved using subjective observation?

We will post pictures and everyone is free to draw their conclusions.

Slow to act. See Slow release. It's undisputed that organics are not fast N release and cannot be employed for that pupose. This is just re-hash/ re-phrasing of the Slow release issue.

Slow to act means it can take up to a month before any N is released and response is seen from the grass. Slow release means that once we're at that point, the release of N is slow. Two different issues.

Unpredictable. ditto, plus, testing what the nutrient release curve and volumes are would cost prohibitive.

Unpredictable refers to the fact that the rate at which the nitrogen is released depends heavily upon environmental factors. If you put down a bag of alfalfa in March, you're going to get nitrogen out of that...sometime in the future, depending on the weather. Just an example to illustrate the point.

OK I will use the pgr on all of my lawn spaces and mow at 3/4." This area is all new growth (seeded 8/2/2016) so it has not had it's 1st mow.

I am splitting the area in the middle, at the shovel. I am also added more area.

Lawn Renovation · More Info

Upper terrace - yep bermuda growing in the shade

Lawn Renovation · More Info

Lower terrace

Lawn Renovation · More Info

Hell strip

Lawn Renovation · More Info

Everything will get the same treatment as did the back and front yard (herbicides, watering routine, drought training, sanding, general abuse, etc.). The only difference will be the fertilizer regimen.

To everyone debating the merits of what we are doing, I think y'all are severely overthinking this. I think people are trying to protect belief systems and projecting that on j4c11 and myself. All we care about is does one regimen outperform the other or do they both work about the same. We will judge this by how our lawns look. We want awesome looking grass and will do whatever works best to achieve that goal.

It's honestly no different than trying neem oil when seeding or doing a test plot for various herbicides to see is they kill your grass or discolor it. I did multiple test build for my wall and ultimately chose the one I liked. My personal preference was the data that mattered the most. Same with the walls inside my home. I painted multiple colors & sheens on different walls, like many people. Ultimately I chose what I liked. Was is a scientific study, yes. It was a case study/qualitative/single subject research - whatever you want to call it. There was peer review, my wife and kids. Others have seen that work, some like it, some don't. This is the same. We are looking to see if we can get a lawn that looks good (to our liking) using different regimens. It's really that simple.

I think we can all agree that the conditions for this study will not be strict enough for publishing

Except in the Journal of GardenWeb Anecdotes

My position towards organics is that of skepticism at this point, but it's not immovable.

That is good to see. I was way beyond you when I first started on this forum. I was anti organics. Back then organics was defined by compost. I had tried compost and got nuthin, twice (fool me twice). It was the corn meal killing the powdery mildew and preventing the renewal of black spot on my roses, and clearing up the disease in the grass that kicked me off. It wasn't until then that I have it a shot in a big way. I have not bought any compost for that yard. Having moved to unknown soil, I have been using compost as a mulch in the new plantings. I also mix it 10% with generic bagged topsoil to fill holes in the lawn.

Here's another anecdote I had forgotten about. There's a guy in the compost business in San Antonio named Malcolm Beck. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do respect his beliefs. One day I was at his place of business and got to talk to him. He wanted to show me some plants he was experimenting with. In his greenhouse he had lots of plants in various experiments. They were double blind, so he was not sure what we were looking at but he knew the gist of each one. The one he showed me was three plants growing in 4-inch pots. There was a control and two with amended soil. Well, he's in the compost business, so it is safe to assume that they were amended with compost and maybe something else. the three plants had canopies of 6 inches, so they all intermingled when the pots were pushed together. One of the plants was covered in aphids while the other two were not. The canopies were TOUCHING, but the aphids remained distinctly on one plant. What does that say? I would have to guess the aphid plant was the control in the generic soil and the other two were at least amended with compost. I asked him what the soils were. He said he used generic Walmart bagged soil, because it is available to everyone everywhere. He said he added 10% compost to the rest and one of these sands (granite (somewhat paramagnetic), basalt (off the scale paramagnetic), or greensand (zero paramagnetism) at 10%. So if I was right about the soils, as a minimum the plants unaffected by aphids had 10% compost. That's the reason I mix 10% compost with my topsoil fill. I do believe that microbially rich soil makes better plants and I believe compost can improve very poor soil. Could I get the same effect mixing corn? Maybe. I have not tried that.

Getting back to the roses, powdery mildew is a surface fungus that died quickly leaving no ugly residue. Black spot kills parts of the plant, so if/when it dies, the plant is still dead. Black spot comes from the soil. It arrives on the plant when water splashes from the soil onto the plant. If it can be controlled in the soil, then water splashing onto the plant should be free of the disease. That was my experience. I dusted the roses with corn meal and the soil for about a foot in all direction. Those roses never got black spot again - for years - after the one dose. And speaking of aphids, these roses were covered with aphids, but they disappeared at the same time - for years. Had I not seen this in my own garden I would be very skeptical. You can imagine if you saw it in yours, you might have the same "a-HA!" revelation that I had. I might be affected by crackpotism a little, but I know what I saw.

j4 said: I think that would be about the worst way to do it.

The idea is that if you have someone who pays attention to their lawn and has been going inorganically for years, and "knows" his lawn, then I believe such a person would be capable of detecting whether a significant difference occurred some years (or even sooner) after the organic switch. Many people have done so and probably have given their testimony one way or the other.

j4 said: For the reasons stated above, plus confirmation bias and placebo effect,
I think there's nothing we can learn from their experience.

Well, I'm the guy pushing for some standardization of your study, yet to make the statement you made in bold is going too far the other way. If my lawn is slightly malnourished and I start applying inorganic fertilizer, I guess we can't learn anything when I report that my lawn turned green and exploded in growth? OK, if you say so.

dchall said: j4 there is another lawn forum elsewhere on the Interwebs that you may
be aware of. It has a feature called lawn showcase. The lawn pictures
in the showcase were selected for beauty, and, as it turns out, they are
all organic based lawns. Being organic was not a requirement. It just
turned out that way. So my conclusion is that organic lawn owners are
better photographers.

@dchall: LOL... didn't see that one coming. The problem is you are talking to someone, j4, respectfully, who doesn't believe these people have anything valid to add due to a placebo effect and confirmation bias. Nice try, though.

Yard said: Despite Daniel's annoying use of tortured simile and metaphor as supporting documentation, I agree with him.

Thanks, I guess.

Yard said: Does anyone dispute the value of soil structure and its relation to turf
quality? Does anyone dispute the strong relationship between OM and
soil structure and CEC?

(chuckle) Yard I'm only laughing because you are so far out of your league you have no idea. j4c11 is not a big believer in the organic constituents contained in soil.

hawkster said: There was peer review, my wife and kids. Others have seen that work,
some like it, some don't. This is the same. We are looking to see if we
can get a lawn that looks good (to our liking) using different regimens.
It's really that simple.

LOL re bold. It is no secret that j4 thinks organic methods are a waste of time. If he goes to heaven and sees Jesus himself out there with an Edge Guard spreader laying down milorganite and soybean meal, he MIGHT think it is worthwhile to try. From what I see so far, nothing in this study will answer the real question that j4 is asking, which is, "Will an organic program make your lawn better"? Nobody has even listed what "better" even means. It will be used as a tool to say, "See, I told ya' organics didn't do anything." j4 is saying all we will have to judge by is a photograph. Not sure you can conclude much by that other than the color and weediness of the lawn.

Don't get me wrong. I say go ahead and do something. However, a little extra thought at the outset might make for more interesting results.

No matter what jc4ll's belief system is currently, he is taking this opportunity to explore a potential change. I don't thinks fair to dump on him when he willing to engage in this event. AFTER results are in and there is discrepancies in what others see versus what he sees, then feel free to go down that road, respectfully. But as of now talking down to him does not serve any positive purpose.

What we are doing is what we were asked to do. We are literally just throwing down some grain and seeing what happens. Well I'm actually withholding grains from certain areas, but the result is the same.

I would suggest to you to get a 2-pound bag of alfalfa pellets at your local pet store and dropping that on a 10x10 foot area somewhere in your lawn. Take a picture before, take a picture a month later, and report back here. - dchall

I don't' see how doing what was asked is somehow j4c11 being stubborn, it's the opposite. Furthermore, being OK with me adding my $0.02 further leads me to believe that he really wants a side by side comparison. Had he only wanted enough info to support his current belief, he would not have welcomed more participants imho. Especially from someone like me who. like him, tracks and trends so much data from my lawn.

When we get into a war of words on the forums it just turns off so many people who may have had great insight or curiosity on the subject. But in the long run it will be fine because we will eventually scuttle this thread, compile the date, and present it again in a way where so much stuff is not lost in all these damn words.

@hawk: I'm all for j4c11 doing some tests. I've said that over and over. My experience with him since he appeared in this forum is to knock organics and the people who recommend it. I think he has been rude and even dismissive of dchall, for one (even called me a pig). j4 starts this thread and, in his last sentence, says "So with very little benefit backed by mostly anecdotal evidence and a
lot of disadvantages, what place does organic fertilizer have in the
average lawn?" That sounds more like someone who has already made up his mind, not to mention insulting to many helpful people in this forum.

Another example:

aluvaboy says:

J4c11,

I too was skeptical when I switched over from synthetics to organics.
I was applying all that Scotts stuff and since the lawn did not show
much of an improvement, I switched to organics. Keeping the watering and
mowing regimen the same (I mulch mow), I started with milo, alfalfa and
an annual spreading of a thin layer of compost. There is a huuuuge
difference (like Donald Trump might say LOL) in how my lawn looks now.
Very few weeds and the lawn looks lush and green. I am so happy. I had
previously posted pictures of my lawn. The lawn looks great even in the
middle of the summer heat!

So was j4 interested in what aluvaboy had managed to do? Nope. Not even an acknowledgment. I'd still like to see aluvaboy's photos.

j4 also dismissed dchalls very well written discussion with a simple, "I don't buy that. [because plants can be grown hydroponically]." Seemingly no interest to learn.

hawksster, I voiced my opinion that j4 seems more interested in knocking organics than learning more about it. That is based on a very lengthy discussion we had a long time ago about aeration, and in fact it is also based on the derision he cast toward organic users when he first entered this forum. It's like arguing with your wife :o). No matter what rational argument you present, there's always some convoluted out or redirection.

I guess I didn't take my own advice and got too involved in this discussion. For the record, I was actually surprised to see this post from j4 because he finally broke down and got a soil test (didn't even think that was necessary) because he was having fungal and heat stress problems. So, I thought maybe he'd softened his attitude on methods he isn't familiar with. Maybe it is just a matter of style, but the tone of this thread started out on the wrong foot, to me.

Finally, I am not an organic "zealot." I'm doing my own little experiment in comparing my lawn to my one neighbor who does everything opposite of me (waters every day, pesticides, mows short, etc.) and my other neighbor whose yard I sodded for him when I did mine, to be neighborly. He does nothing to his lawn, which makes an interesting comparison as it is the same initial soil and sod.

It would be good just to ignore me in this thread so I don't feel compelled to keep typing. I don't want to clog up this thread any further.

Thanks, and good luck on your test.

It would be great if more people would donate 100 sq ft of lawn to the cause so we can have more test cases and average out any abnormalities. Even someone who's currently on 100% organic who would switch to synthetic for a year.

j4: I'm always willing to bury the hatchet. This is a hobby we both enjoy, I just have some problems with how you sometimes interact with others here. You come across like you have a superiority complex over others like dchall, who, in reality, have forgotten more than you know. But, facts trump speculation and if you want to perform a study, hat's off to you. If you reread my comments they are mostly supportive of doing a proper study. If you are going to devote 1 or 2 years to something, why not take a couple of days and really think about it? It does seem you are doing some of that.

If you are nice I might consider posting some new pics of my "lawn by morpheus."

Edit: why did you edit out the good stuff, j4?

Don't feed the troll folks.

j4: Don't feed the troll folks.

OK, soooo, let me get this straight. You post some more derogatory comments toward me, followed by a request for people to free up 100 sf. I ignore your comments and take the high road by suggesting to bury the hatchet and move on. You then erase your comments so it looks like you are the bigger man and then call me a troll. Hmm. OK.

Moving on, then...

If I may be so bold as to inquire, why are you excluding milorganite from your test? "Organic users" so to speak covers a pretty broad spectrum. I'm not only organic nor are most people here. So what are you really comparing inorganic to? You might need milo for your iron supply. Are you going to get a soil test from Logan on each section before and after?

Yard said: Despite Daniel's annoying use of tortured simile and metaphor as supporting documentation, I agree with him.

Daniel retorted: Thanks, I guess.

Yard replies: Just a gentle ribbing. Besides, you couldn't expect me to agree with you without some disclaimer and distancing :P

Doh! I spoke too soon.

Yard said: Does anyone dispute the value of soil structure and its relation to turf
quality? Does anyone dispute the strong relationship between OM and
soil structure and CEC?

Daniel speaks and similes: (chuckle) Yard I'm only laughing because you are so far out of your league you have no idea.j4c11 is not a big believer in the organic constituents contained in soil.

That's usually used when someone attempts to date a person too attractive for them. (Admit: I ain't pretty). It can also mean to imply that someone is up against someone possessing superior experience, skills and/or knowledge. That may be true here, I don't know j4c well, but I don't think that is what you were trying to imply. I'm going to say it: another tortured simile. (Giggle) ;)

Edit: metaphor? :)

That may be true here, I don't know j4c well, but I don't think that is what you were trying to imply.

It was my tortured way of saying that j4 is so skeptical of everything organic that I almost think he doesn't believe there are ANY benefits at all. Soil doesn't need that newfangled organic stuff. Just throw some NPK on it and be done with it. I meant you were out of your league in understanding the depth of his skepticism. (do I keep having to 'splain 'em?). Having said that, I know j4 mulch mows clippings and leaves, so I know he understands some of the benefits of organics (although he probably mulches because it is easier than bagging and it doesn't seem to hurt the lawn). :o)

@hawksster

I am thinking at this point I am going to bring my side of the experiment up to par with yours and set up a second plot that will get both synthetic and organic, so there's 3 test cases: pure organic, pure synthetic, and mixed organic/synthetic.

I think we should follow NTEP rating methodology and rate density and color once a month, spring green-up in the spring, disease resistance (though that may not apply to you with bermuda) and drought resistance in the summer. Ratings from 1-9.

Day 29 pictures:

Both plots look about the same. The synthetic fertilizer plot has had less weeds however. Both test areas seem to be a tad bit fragile imho. I sprayed both areas with the same herbicide mix as I did the other seeded areas of my lawn, at the same time interval after seeding and I had massive seedling death. Yea, I know that everything sprayed with my mix should probably die, but that has not been the case until now.

Both plots mowed Friday 8/26/2016 for the 1st time at 7/8"

Sample A: Looks darker green

Sample B

Yellowing and death from herbicide mix

Lots of dead patches. I didn't bother taking a picture behind the bushes - it all died. But there is grass from the back yard (combo treatment) poking under the fence. May get a pic later this week.

I have the NTEP data forms, evaluation guidelines, and code lists. I will not be completing the information at this time. Looking at that stuff just reminds how anal retentive I'm not. I understand some people's concerns, but don't really care lol. I know I won't do formal monthly evals of this area for the next 2-3 years. Maybe I'll have a change of heart or do it quarterly - time will tell.

In regards to time management, these plots take up so little of my time compare to the mixed synthetic/organic lawn areas that are fertilized every 2 weeks. The synthetic plot gets 1 product that weighs next to nothing while the organic plot gets 2 products that weigh fairly little comparative to the plot size.

The rest of the lawn areas get at least 5 products twice as often.

Dang, it's that 2,4D I'm telling ya--Bermuda does not like that stuff.

What's Sample A/Sample B? Which one is which?

@reeljake, yea I guess. I'm going to have to take it easy in this area. I'll bite the bullet and get some Celsius.

Sample A is Vigoro, Sample B is organic. Both areas had the full combo treatment at seeding 8/1. I raked off the organic stuff from sample A 2 wks ago. So at this point I would think they would look exactly the same, but they don't.

Applied Vigoro SG to sample A and SBM and cracked corn to sample B.

Agree that sample A looks darker green. Did you see any difference in grass density or growth between the two?

No, I did not see any differences in density or growth at the time the picture was taken. However, 2 wks ago when the organic material was removed from sample A, it had and immediate growth response. It was absolutely noticeable a few days later. It seemed as though the organic side was "smothered" in comparison. But now 2 wks later, there is no difference. I did spray my entire lawn with molasses about a week ago.

It will be interesting to see how the two sample areas fare against your main areas with only half the nitrogen.