[Ozzello]

1. Would you pay more for a non-toxic control of pests and diseases in your lawn / landscape?

2.Would you pay more for manual push mowing (old-fashion reel mower) of your grass ? ( No gas, no fumes, no noise. )

Answers: A) No way.
B) Yes, maybe a little 20%-40%
C) Yes, 50% or more, I WANT IT!


Is there any maintenance company that offer green* or non-toxic pest control options? I don't know of any. But then, some seem to have trouble keeping a lawn pest free even with the poisons.

Feedback and comments appreciated

[Ozzello]

Originally Posted by Ozzello

1. Would you pay more for a non-toxic control of pests and diseases in your lawn / landscape?

2.Would you pay more for manual push mowing (old-fashion reel mower) of your grass ? ( No gas, no fumes, no noise. )

Answers: A) No way.
B) Yes, maybe a little 20%-40%
C) Yes, 50% or more, I WANT IT!


Is there any maintenance company that offer green* or non-toxic pest control options? I don't know of any. But then, some seem to have trouble keeping a lawn pest free even with the poisons.

Feedback and comments appreciated

A is my answer, to both questions, I spend too much now. I'd go green if it was cheaper .

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

1) A
2) A

I worked at golf courses for most of my life. Although turf maintenance wasn't my area, I did work closely with many superintendents and attended many USGA seminars.

The USGA works very closely with environmental groups and the EPA. In fact it has earned awards from both for it's contributions to environmental protection.

The fact is that 99.9% of all chemicals used on grass stay in the grass. There is very little "run off" into our water systems. Golf courses improve the environment. They do not damage it in any way.

The sam can be said for chemicals that you put on your lawn.

IMHO, many companies are jumping on the green bandwagon for profit and nothing else. That's not to say that there have not been some good changes that have been made to products and services but there have also been a lot of corporate executives that have seen the green movement as a source of additional revenues. It's getting to the point where the word green is being stamped on everything and much of it is simple to make money.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

1) A
2) A

I worked at golf courses for most of my life. Although turf maintenance wasn't my area, I did work closely with many superintendents and attended many USGA seminars.

The USGA works very closely with environmental groups and the EPA. In fact it has earned awards from both for it's contributions to environmental protection.

The fact is that 99.9% of all chemicals used on grass stay in the grass. There is very little "run off" into our water systems. Golf courses improve the environment. They do not damage it in any way.

The sam can be said for chemicals that you put on your lawn.

IMHO, many companies are jumping on the green bandwagon for profit and nothing else. That's not to say that there have not been some good changes that have been made to products and services but there have also been a lot of corporate executives that have seen the green movement as a source of additional revenues. It's getting to the point where the word green is being stamped on everything and much of it is simple to make money.

Having manufactured iron-based mineral additives for turf maintenance for years, I completely agree. Green Marketers excel at taking advantage of the consumer's lack of knowledge and/or Green Brainwashing.

[cattywampus]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

>>>shortened<<<

The fact is that 99.9% of all chemicals used on grass stay in the grass. There is very little "run off" into our water systems.

The same can be said for chemicals that you put on your lawn.

............1=B.......... 2=A

I am NOT an environmentalist or Tree Hugger.
However, I have seen the current problems caused by Fertilizers.

Most of family live East Coastal Florida near/on the Inter-Coastal Waterway
(ICW) or attached Riverfront Communities. I am the only Villager.

Please, take a trip to The Indian River Lagoon "and environs".
Melbourne to Port St Lucie FL. Head up the Rivers tied to ICW.
Then head over to Lake Okeechobee

See the devastation to wildlife and the GIGANTIC Algae Blooms.
The water is overwhelmed with excess Nitrogen and Phosphorus.

DIRECTLY traced to RUNOFF from Golf Courses, Lawns and
Agriculture Fertilizers.

See where OVER $ BILLION Dollars of work is needed to restore these areas.

Talk to the families of those who died from the TOXIC Algae Blooms
in the Rivers and Tributaries IN Eastern and Coastal Florida.

Florida is in a Crisis when it comes to Excessive Fertilizer runoff.
The Inter-Coastal Waterway System is a Prime example.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by cattywampus

............1=B.......... 2=A

I am NOT an environmentalist or Tree Hugger.
However, I have seen the current problems caused by Fertilizers.

Most of family live East Coastal Florida near/on the Inter-Coastal Waterway
(ICW) or attached Riverfront Communities. I am the only Villager.

Please, take a trip to The Indian River Lagoon "and environs".
Melbourne to Port St Lucie FL. Head up the Rivers tied to ICW.
Then head over to Lake Okeechobee

See the devastation to wildlife and the GIGANTIC Algae Blooms.
The water is overwhelmed with excess Nitrogen and Phosphorus.

DIRECTLY traced to RUNOFF from Golf Courses, Lawns and
Agriculture Fertilizers.

See where OVER $ BILLION Dollars of work is needed to restore these areas.

Talk to the families of those who died from the TOXIC Algae Blooms
in the Rivers and Tributaries IN Eastern and Coastal Florida.

Florida is in a Crisis when it comes to Excessive Fertilizer runoff.
The Inter-Coastal Waterway System is a Prime example.

Excess nitrates and phosphates are almost exclusively traced to run-off from farms which often apply manure in larger quantities than required in order to manage the waste itself. Septic systems that have past their prime is another huge source of pollution. Yet, county and state water quality officials routinely refuse to allow home owners to install package sewage treatment systems. Wildlife can add dramatically to the nitrate pollution.

Professionally applied turf chemicals are formulated for rapid uptake, but slow release to the plants. Algae blooms do occur miles from any source of run-off and can be caused by low oxygen content caused by water level, plant life and wildlife.

[gpirate]

Originally Posted by Ozzello

1. Would you pay more for a non-toxic control of pests and diseases in your lawn / landscape?

2.Would you pay more for manual push mowing (old-fashion reel mower) of your grass ? ( No gas, no fumes, no noise. )

Answers: A) No way.
B) Yes, maybe a little 20%-40%
C) Yes, 50% or more, I WANT IT!


Is there any maintenance company that offer green* or non-toxic pest control options? I don't know of any. But then, some seem to have trouble keeping a lawn pest free even with the poisons.

Feedback and comments appreciated

A on both. Why does it have to be a higher cost?

[dplars]

I love chemicals, especially the ones that kill cockroaches, mosquitoes and other undesirables and I like chemicals that grow great food that has enabled farmers to feed this Nation and others in abundance. Without these chemicals most of us would have been dead either from disease or starvation.

[Ozzello]

The cost would be higher I think:

Manual mowers are 16 to 20 inches. Less than half that of the riding mowers. Haven't pushed one of those old fashioned things in years, but I think it would take around 15-20 minutes to mow a lawn the gas mowers are doing in 3 to 5 minutes.

With the pest control, the poisons are applied 3-4 times a year. The non-toxic soaps and oils would need to be applied on a monthly basis to be effective. As with the chemicals, most of the cost is in mobilization to the home (gas & vehicle costs) and labor.

[Ozzello]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Excess nitrates and phosphates are almost exclusively traced to run-off from farms which often apply manure in larger quantities than required in order to manage the waste itself. Septic systems that have past their prime is another huge source of pollution. Yet, county and state water quality officials routinely refuse to allow home owners to install package sewage treatment systems. Wildlife can add dramatically to the nitrate pollution.

Professionally applied turf chemicals are formulated for rapid uptake, but slow release to the plants. Algae blooms do occur miles from any source of run-off and can be caused by low oxygen content caused by water level, plant life and wildlife.

There are a few hay fields and pine groves watering with effluent (waste water). Effluent is not approved for use on crops for human consumption.
Commercial farms could not turn a profit if they were using manure as the primary fertilizer. Manure being 1.5-4.6 % nitrogen (most around 2.5) Phosphorus content for manure is less than 1%. Way less than chemical fertilizers.
I am sorry, but your post sounds like a Monsanto lawyer. It only takes a little research and some simple math to realize wildlife feces are in no way causing a "dramatic impact" on nitrate and phosphate levels in our waterways.

[MoeVonB61]

YES I WOULD!!....I have a great pest control company that is very cost effective and environmental friendly. They are much less expensive than Massey and do a great job!!! I personally will not/do not even use weed poison. I use a naturual mix of white vinegar and Epsom salts........

[TNLAKEPANDA]

I believe in being Green where it makes sense. Energy efficient is a win win. I do not buy into the global warming crap but do believe we need to limit pollution where possible. Since we need oil we should be drilling and piping as much as possible and be responsible in what we do. We need not buy from our enemies that's for sure. I have a big lawn and will not be pushing a reel mower. I would go with rock and plants if I could. Having grass is a waist of money and water. This grass does not even look nice yet I have to pay over $100 a month to water it and even more to mow and fertilize it. So my answer is get rid of all the mowers!

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by TNLAKEPANDA

I believe in being Green where it makes sense. Energy efficient is a win win. I do not buy into the global warming crap but do believe we need to limit pollution where possible. Since we need oil we should be drilling and piping as much as possible and be responsible in what we do. We need not buy from our enemies that's for sure. I have a big lawn and will not be pushing a reel mower. I would go with rock and plants if I could. Having grass is a waist of money and water. This grass does not even look nice yet I have to pay over $100 a month to water it and even more to mow and fertilize it. So my answer is get rid of all the mowers!

I like your approach, as opposed to the king of global warming crap - a former VP. We lived in BNA when he started his push in this direction. I got a kick out of his complaints about our individual carbon footprints while he traveled in private jets, etc. The thing that tickled me the most was an article in The Tennesseean about his electric bill in Nashville. The bill for the outdoor lighting for his home was $1200 per month alone.

[rubicon]

The recent drop in gasoline prices is attributed to one factor alone the private sectors advances in fracking technology which despite claims that with over a million fracking jobs not one documented case of damage to the drinking water table.

Consider that so alternative (green) have produced little but have been highly subsidized by taxpayers. wind tax subsidizes have been ongoing for 30 years

There is a moral case for both fossil fuels and for advances in food technologies to meet the increasing demands and population growth. Underdeveloped countries would die out without both use of fossil fuels and gmo's. The green revolution should be consider and continue to explore but not at the cost of reliable sources of fuel and food as the Gore's of thw world so claim