Use Weeds Killer to Keep Weeds Out of My Flower Garden?
Jay Chan
supposed to be used in a flower garden. Are they good? Can I safely
use those chemicals around plants that I have planted in the garden? I
don't hear much about this type of product. Seem like I hear mostly
about similar products that we use in lawn, but not in a garden.
I would like to find a way to keep weeds out of my flower garden in
order to reduce the never ending task of pulling weeds out from the
garden.
Thanks.
Jay Chan
----------------------------------------------------------
The following is the reason why I want to use weeds killer instead of
mulch. This is not directly related to this post. But I mention the
reason here just in case someone wonders why I don't use mulch.
----------------------------------------------------------
I know I could have put mulch to suppress weeds and to ease the task
of pulling out weeds. In the first year after I put mulch in the
flower garden, I found that the mulch really helped me to reduce weeds
in my flower garden. But a couple years later, the mulch is pretty
much rotted and decomposed to be similar to soil. This means it no
longer functions as mulch.
If I keep adding mulch, I will do more harm than good. The reason is
that the flower garden is a rised bed around the house foundation.
There is only 8" clearance between the mulch and the wooden structure
of my house. I am afraid that putting more mulch will reduce the
clearance to a point that I will invite termites into my house.
Actually, I may decide to remove the existing mulch from around the
foundation garden just to increase the clearance between the wooden
structure from the soil.
And I really don't like to use inorganic mulch (such as stones) in
areas where I will be actively doing planting every year.
I guess the other alternative is to replace the existing mulch with
new mulch, and do this every two years or so. This sounds like a lot
of work though; I probably prefer hand pulling weeds than replacing
the mulch.
Sunflower
Every 5-7 years, you can remove the top layer, but you are not going to get
a huge buildup by adding mulch annually.
Warren
>
> I know I could have put mulch to suppress weeds and to ease the task
> of pulling out weeds. In the first year after I put mulch in the
> flower garden, I found that the mulch really helped me to reduce weeds
> in my flower garden. But a couple years later, the mulch is pretty
> much rotted and decomposed to be similar to soil. This means it no
> longer functions as mulch.
>
> If I keep adding mulch, I will do more harm than good. The reason is
> that the flower garden is a rised bed around the house foundation.
> There is only 8" clearance between the mulch and the wooden structure
> of my house. I am afraid that putting more mulch will reduce the
> clearance to a point that I will invite termites into my house.
Unless your raised bed around the house is sitting on a slab of
concrete, the soil and mulch will settle over time, and by the time the
mulch "no longer functions as mulch", you'll probably have enough
settling that you'll be able to put new mulch right on top.
You could also use a stone or gravel mulch right next to the house --
like the first 6-12" from the foundation, and start the organic mulch
away from the house. You shouldn't be planting that close to the house,
and you can probably find a stone that goes well with your organic
mulch. For example, red lava rock would work well in the back of a bed
mulched with a red or brown bark mulch.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Spend your Amazon gift certificates here:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/associateshop.html
Bob S.
> Mulch. You are not going to get a huge buildup as it breaks down over time.
> Every 5-7 years, you can remove the top layer, but you are not going to get
> a huge buildup by adding mulch annually.
Why do you suppose archeological finds are usually under 10-15 feet of
soil? They don't sink, they get covered up with mulched plant
material.
Jay Chan
> concrete, the soil and mulch will settle over time, and by the time the
> mulch "no longer functions as mulch", you'll probably have enough
> settling that you'll be able to put new mulch right on top.
You are right to say that the mulch will settle. The mulch in my
garden probably has settled by half of the original thickness after
three years. I probably can put in one more inch of mulch over the
existing mulch without reducing the clearance around the house
foundation by too much.
Thanks for pointing this out.
> You could also use a stone or gravel mulch right next to the house --
> like the first 6-12" from the foundation, and start the organic mulch
> away from the house.
I have thought of that. But I have a feeling that the organic mulch
will spill over to the inorganic mulch and I will have a hard time
cleaning the mix of organic mulch and inorganic mulch. This is one of
the reason why I don't like to use inorganic mulch.
Seem like no one suggests using weed killer. Oh well...
Jay Chan
Salty Thumb
news:c7e5acb2.04062...@posting.google.com:
Try landscape fabric. It blocks a lot of weeds and makes pulling the
others easier. However, manufacturers recommend you cover the fabric
with X inches (cm) of mulch.
As for using herbicides, I never had to do it, so I don't know. (Have
had landscape fabric installed 2-3 years now).
Salty Thumb
news:848894c0.04062...@posting.google.com:
Because anything from 10 ft up is easily discovered and likely has been
either been discovered already or disturbed and conmingled, ruining the
archaeological value?
Jay Chan
> others easier. However, manufacturers recommend you cover the fabric
> with X inches (cm) of mulch.
>
> As for using herbicides, I never had to do it, so I don't know. (Have
> had landscape fabric installed 2-3 years now).
Actually, I had already had landscape fabric installed before I put
mulch. As I said, it helps in the first one or two years. Now, four
years later, I find that the following things makes it increasing less
effective in blocking weeds:
- I like to plant new stuffs (such as annuals). Therefore, I keep
digging through the landscape fabrics; this not only making holes on
the landscape fabrics, but also causing soil to be spreaded on top of
the mulch and got all mixed together.
- As mentioned previously, the mulch has decomposed significantly and
become more like soil than mulch.
Moreover, I become less and less like to use landscape fabrics (and
mulch) because it prevents me from easily adding fertilizer or other
goodies directly to the soil. Seem like the only way to add fertilizer
is using liquid fertilizer.
Thanks.
Jay Chan
Doug Kanter
"Jay Chan" <jayk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e5acb2.04062...@posting.google.com...
Your last paragraph is exactly right. Gimmicks get in the way eventually.
So:
Get yourself a good weeding tool that allows you to do the job WITHOUT
KNEELING. With the right tool, it's effortless. And, weeding slows you down
long enough to notice things happening (good or bad) in the garden. The
trick is to make the whole thing easy.
www.smithandhawken.com
Go to tools, digging and cultivation. Check out the Precision Weeder hand
tool (for on-the-knees weeding - an AMAZING tool), and the Long-Handled
Weeder. I've been using these two tools for years. Not only do they take
care of weeding, but they also fluff the upper layer of soil slightly, which
helps it retain moisture. Keep a sharpening stone in the garage to touch up
the blades when necessary.
No experience with this one, but a friend swears by it:
Cape cod weeder:
www.seedsofchange.com
Go to the tools section, and then to the Digging and Cultivating section.
nswong
news:c7e5acb2.04062...@posting.google.com...
> Moreover, I become less and less like to use landscape fabrics (and
> mulch) because it prevents me from easily adding fertilizer or other
> goodies directly to the soil. Seem like the only way to add
fertilizer
> is using liquid fertilizer.
If you using mulch and without landscape fabrics, adding fertilizer in
the mulch are better than add it to soil. I read some articles about
this before, but sorry had forgot the details.
I prefer to add fertilizer to my compost than soil or mulch, it will
buffer up the nutrient and mix up better in the compost.
Regards,
Wong
--
Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m
Salty Thumb
>> Try landscape fabric. It blocks a lot of weeds and makes pulling the
>> others easier. However, manufacturers recommend you cover the
>> fabric with X inches (cm) of mulch.
>>
>> As for using herbicides, I never had to do it, so I don't know.
>> (Have had landscape fabric installed 2-3 years now).
>
> Actually, I had already had landscape fabric installed before I put
> mulch. As I said, it helps in the first one or two years. Now, four
> years later, I find that the following things makes it increasing less
> effective in blocking weeds:
> - I like to plant new stuffs (such as annuals). Therefore, I keep
> digging through the landscape fabrics; this not only making holes on
> the landscape fabrics, but also causing soil to be spreaded on top of
> the mulch and got all mixed together.
When I add something (which is rare) I usually just make a slit with a
razor or if it's big, I cut a V shape or similar, leaving part of the
fabric attached. (I think instructions recommend an X shape.) Bulbs
don't seem to have a problem pushing the flap and mulch aside to grow
through the opening. I do get a some soil on the fabric, but I usually
leave it unless it's big pile, then I just scoop it up, push it back into
an opening or throw it in the lawn.
If you've got too many open holes to patch, you should probably just
throw the fabric out, even though it should last 15 years. Especially
if you perpetually find yourself with more plants than openings.
> - As mentioned previously, the mulch has decomposed significantly and
> become more like soil than mulch.
I'm using large pine bark nuggets and haven't noticed a problem with
that. What kind of mulch are you using?
> Moreover, I become less and less like to use landscape fabrics (and
> mulch) because it prevents me from easily adding fertilizer or other
> goodies directly to the soil. Seem like the only way to add fertilizer
> is using liquid fertilizer.
I don't add stuff to my flower bed, but I guess you could make more flaps
next to your plants and stick stuff in a pile under them. If you're
feeling the need to mix things in, well that's another story.
Salty Thumb
news:lzZCc.28$9C3...@news01.roc.ny:
>> Moreover, I become less and less like to use landscape fabrics (and
>> mulch) because it prevents me from easily adding fertilizer or other
>> goodies directly to the soil. Seem like the only way to add
>> fertilizer is using liquid fertilizer.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jay Chan
>
> Your last paragraph is exactly right. Gimmicks get in the way
> eventually. So:
>
> Get yourself a good weeding tool that allows you to do the job WITHOUT
> KNEELING. With the right tool, it's effortless. And, weeding slows you
> down long enough to notice things happening (good or bad) in the
> garden. The trick is to make the whole thing easy.
The other day, I weeded my flower beds, which consisted of bending over
to pull a total of 4 weeds with my bare hand (no glove even). The weeds
were reasonably sized, 3-5" across but had the root systems of a 2 day
old pansy.
Jay Chan
> that. What kind of mulch are you using?
I use shredded cedar chips mulch. Seem like large nuggets that you use
work better than shredder chips because they last longer. I even found
two groups of termintes in the shredder cedar chips after I had put
them in the flower garden for just two years. This is one of the
reason why I want to remove the mulch (but I keep delaying doing this
for one thing or the others). I probably need to remove them and put
them in a compost pile (that I should have done one year ago).
Do you think termintes will bother large pine bark nuggets? How long
do you think the large nuggets will remain effective in keeping
termintes out?
> I don't add stuff to my flower bed, but I guess you could make more flaps
> next to your plants and stick stuff in a pile under them. If you're
> feeling the need to mix things in, well that's another story.
Sooner or later, you will need to put amendment to the soil, right?
How do you get away from doing this?
Jay Chan
Jay Chan
> the mulch are better than add it to soil. I read some articles about
> this before, but sorry had forgot the details.
Why will this work? Does this have something to do with the mulch may
absorb the liquid fertilizer and slowly release it, or something like
that?
> I prefer to add fertilizer to my compost than soil or mulch, it will
> buffer up the nutrient and mix up better in the compost.
I heard that we need to add fertilizer or blood meal into compost pile
because the composting process uses a lot of nitrogen or something
like that. Is this one of the reason why you add fertilizer into your
compost pile? In fact, I have already been doing this.
The problem is that there is no easy way to get the compost into the
soil without removing the mulch and the landscape fabric. So far, I
can only use my compost into the vegetable garden. But I cannot use it
in my flower garden near the house foundation because it is covered
with mulch and landscape fabric. So I end up dumping all the remaining
finished compost into the vegetable garden, and I have to use liquid
fertilizer onto the flower garden. Well, at least, the green peppers
are doing well (and they taste great too).
Jay Chan
nswong
As a guy work by project basic in software development, I got a habit
to scan through all the available information, pinpoint and go into
the detail what are applicable to the project, but ignore all the rest
that is not relevant.
Since I will not supplement nutrients by top dressing, so I donot try
to memorize or keep notes on this. What I recalled may not be
reliable.
My English vocabulary are computer line oriented, I know very little
about English in other field. So I may use wrong words.
Sorry about this. :-(
> > If you using mulch and without landscape fabrics, adding
fertilizer in
> > the mulch are better than add it to soil. I read some articles
about
> > this before, but sorry had forgot the details.
>
> Why will this work? Does this have something to do with the mulch
may
> absorb the liquid fertilizer and slowly release it, or something
like
> that?
For what I know, nutrient availability are mainly affect by two
factor:
1. Lost by leaching, erosion(with soil), volatilization(nitrogen)...
2. Fixation/bind with other nitrient.
Mulch and the life form(fungus, insect...) in it will hold the
nutrient from fertilizer(reduce the nutrient lost), and slowly release
it(reduce nutrient binding).
> > I prefer to add fertilizer to my compost than soil or mulch, it
will
> > buffer up the nutrient and mix up better in the compost.
>
> I heard that we need to add fertilizer or blood meal into compost
pile
> because the composting process uses a lot of nitrogen or something
> like that. Is this one of the reason why you add fertilizer into
your
> compost pile? In fact, I have already been doing this.
What I try to say are, if the nutrient from material that make up the
compost are not enough to supply what plant needed, we can either add
the fertilizer(synthetic/organic) to soil/mulch or compost heap.
Add fertilizer to soil may cause lost and bindup. Add to mulch, it
will not distribute evenly, and will cause mulch decompose faster if
it contain nitrogen(mulch suppose to be long lasting). Add to compost
heap, it will mixed up nicely by man(turning the compost) or other
life form(moving/carry around).
> The problem is that there is no easy way to get the compost into the
> soil without removing the mulch and the landscape fabric.
You can top dress the compost/fertilizer on the mulch, the nutrient
release will bring down to plant root by rain water in liquid
form. But somehow this will also encourage weed grow on top of your
landscape fabric.
I donot and will not use landscape fabric. I do adding new mulch on
top of old mulch to maintain the thickness of mulch.
HTH,
Jay Chan
> that is not relevant.
Same here, same here.
> My English vocabulary are computer line oriented, I know very little
> about English in other field. So I may use wrong words.
>
> For what I know, nutrient availability are mainly affect by two
> factor:
> 1. Lost by leaching, erosion(with soil), volatilization(nitrogen)...
> 2. Fixation/bind with other nitrient.
"Leaching" and "erosion" are not the words that I normally use (I
always need to look up my electronic dictionary for these type of
words). Seem like you are ahead of me in this area.
> You can top dress the compost/fertilizer on the mulch, the nutrient
> release will bring down to plant root by rain water in liquid
> form. But somehow this will also encourage weed grow on top of your
> landscape fabric.
>
> I donot and will not use landscape fabric. I do adding new mulch on
> top of old mulch to maintain the thickness of mulch.
This is something that I still cannot figure out how to solve -- I
mean I cannot solve it without a lot of effort.
Jay Chan
Doug Kanter
Jay, you're making this into too big a problem. As I mentioned before, get
the right tools and weeding can be a pleasure. You can do it with a beer in
one hand.
nswong
habit
> > to scan through all the available information, ... but ignore all
the rest
> > that is not relevant.
>
> Same here, same here.
Are you also a software developer? In what type of environment? End
user or vendor? Application development or system programming?
> "Leaching" and "erosion" are not the words that I normally use (I
> always need to look up my electronic dictionary for these type of
> words). Seem like you are ahead of me in this area.
Agriculture are the second best of my English vocabulary, but far from
computer. :-)
> > You can top dress the compost/fertilizer on the mulch, the
nutrient
> > release will bring down to plant root by rain water in liquid
> > form. But somehow this will also encourage weed grow on top of
your
> > landscape fabric.
> >
> > I donot and will not use landscape fabric. I do adding new mulch
on
> > top of old mulch to maintain the thickness of mulch.
>
> This is something that I still cannot figure out how to solve -- I
> mean I cannot solve it without a lot of effort.
No single solution will fit all the problem. The way you choose will
depend on your plan in mind and your current situation.
If your garden are small, hand weeding may be the best route for you
as what Doug Kanter suggested.
I'm going to large scale but without heavy machinary after the initial
grading and soil buildup, so I choose mulch.
Regards,
Salty Thumb
>> I'm using large pine bark nuggets and haven't noticed a problem with
>> that. What kind of mulch are you using?
>
> I use shredded cedar chips mulch. Seem like large nuggets that you use
> work better than shredder chips because they last longer. I even found
> two groups of termintes in the shredder cedar chips after I had put
> them in the flower garden for just two years. This is one of the
> reason why I want to remove the mulch (but I keep delaying doing this
> for one thing or the others). I probably need to remove them and put
> them in a compost pile (that I should have done one year ago).
>
> Do you think termintes will bother large pine bark nuggets? How long
> do you think the large nuggets will remain effective in keeping
> termintes out?
I haven't the slightest idea. I didn't know termites would eat or live
in cedar (or I could be thinking of something else). I did find some
termites in a buried tree stump far behind the house, but haven't seen
any in the mulch. [Dumb question: are you sure they are termites?]
I used large pine bark nuggets because they are relatively heavy (so wind
doesn't blow them away as much), large (so they don't slip through cracks
in the fabric), have less surface area (compared to equivalent volume of
other mulch) and most importantly, they were on sale. As far as pests,
I've seen slugs underneath wet nuggets, so you may reconsider if you grow
stuff that slugs like to eat. They don't seem to bother my plants.
>> I don't add stuff to my flower bed, but I guess you could make more
>> flaps next to your plants and stick stuff in a pile under them. If
>> you're feeling the need to mix things in, well that's another story.
>
> Sooner or later, you will need to put amendment to the soil, right?
> How do you get away from doing this?
Come to think of it, I did dig a hole next to a rose bush and buried a
couple of banana peels (potassium, etc) down there. I'm not really into
growing flowers, so if I needed a specific amendment, I probably wouldn't
know it. When I put in the bed, it was overgrown with all sorts of
stuff, but I just covered it with landscape fabric, so quite possibly
that old stuff has been serving as compost (or slug food) for the last
few years. I'm pretty happy as long as the flower bed doesn't look like
the ditch next to the road and I don't have to weed it constantly.
If you are insane, you can bury a gradually perforated pipe under the
bed. When you want to fertilize, drop your fertilizer down an access
tube and flush it in with water. Check out tips on using prefabricated
perforated drainage pipes to abate soil clogging. However, some of those
methods (drain sock) may or may not prevent your fertilizer from getting
out.
Jay Chan
> user or vendor? Application development or system programming?
I develop applications for our company -- mainly support the
production line operation.
> If your garden are small, hand weeding may be the best route for you
> as what Doug Kanter suggested.
My garden is small; but my time allocated to gardening is even
smaller... I will try the hand weeder tools that Doug Kanter has
suggested. They sound promising.
> I'm going to large scale but without heavy machinary after the initial
> grading and soil buildup, so I choose mulch.
Good luck with whatever way that you choose for your garden.
Jay Chan
Jay Chan
> www.seedsofchange.com
It looks promising. But it is only 18" that seems like too short for
me.
> www.smithandhawken.com ... Precision Weeder hand tool ... Long-Handled
> Weeder.
The long handle version looks very good. Then, I can stand outside or
just inside the flower bed and remove weeds deep inside the flower
bed. My flower bed is almost 6-ft wide; therefore, a long handle
should come in handy. I probably will give it a try instead of using
chemical weed killer.
I am not so sure whether I will try the short version. I cannot see
myself walking around carrying two weeding tools.
I assume I am supposed to use this tool likes this:
- Place the blade over the weed and dig under it.
- Pull the blade toward myself; this action will cut the root of the
weed.
- Leave the weed where it falls and let it decompose.
I have two questions:
- Do you think I can use this tool in area where there are a lot of
weeds? Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
with many weeds very quickly? Here, the area is still have around
1-inch of mulch left.
- Will it work if the area is already covered with landscape fabric
under the mulch? Will I be cutting through the landscape fabric? No
big loss; I don't like the landscape fabric anyway.
Thanks.
Jay Chan
nswong
> Good luck with whatever way that you choose for your garden.
Thanks! :-)
I intend to setup a community, the food raise are use for support the
community. I don't know should call it as garden or farm. <g>
Cheers,
Salty Thumb
@posting.google.com:
> - Will it work if the area is already covered with landscape fabric
> under the mulch? Will I be cutting through the landscape fabric? No
> big loss; I don't like the landscape fabric anyway.
If you don't want the landscape fabric, you should take it out while it is
still relatively whole.
If you find a weed* growing through your fabric that can't be easily picked
off by hand, there's something wrong with your fabric. (Perhaps you
installed the wrong side up?)
*except pointy bladed onion things or similar that come up from below
Doug Kanter
> > Cape cod weeder:
> > www.seedsofchange.com
>
> It looks promising. But it is only 18" that seems like too short for
> me.
>
> > www.smithandhawken.com ... Precision Weeder hand tool ... Long-Handled
> > Weeder.
>
> The long handle version looks very good. Then, I can stand outside or
> just inside the flower bed and remove weeds deep inside the flower
> bed. My flower bed is almost 6-ft wide; therefore, a long handle
> should come in handy. I probably will give it a try instead of using
> chemical weed killer.
Standing outside the bed is good because you won't constantly compress the
soil with your weight. The long tool contributes to this good practice. But,
if there's a spot you can't reach, buy just one piece of flagstone or some
such thing and locate it so you can step into the middle.
> I am not so sure whether I will try the short version. I cannot see
> myself walking around carrying two weeding tools.
Jay....be serious. Put down one tool and pick up the other. Or, go to Home
Depot & buy a large paint bucket for three bucks, and on of those canvas
things that hangs in the bucket and has slots for tools. I think it's called
a Bucketmouth, although there are other brands, too.
> I assume I am supposed to use this tool likes this:
> - Place the blade over the weed and dig under it.
> - Pull the blade toward myself; this action will cut the root of the
> weed.
> - Leave the weed where it falls and let it decompose.
Correct. You glide the tool about 1" beneath the surface. But, you have to
get to know the root systems of your flowers, or you could slice them, too.
Very rare occurrence. Just stay a few inches away from the stems. As far as
leaving the weeds to decompose, do that with some, but not those which have
already developed flowers or seeds.
BUT: Keep in mind that this is NOT the tool to use for a garden which is an
utter disaster, especially if it's full of weeds with very tough or woody
stems. This tools is designed for working in a garden which has been
properly put in shape - after the big Spring cleanup.
Another tool: Go to the Smith & Hawken site I provided for you earlier. Go
to Tools, Digging & Cultivation, and look at the Gardenia hand rake. See the
orange handle? It's got a knob so you can remove the short handle and
replace it with a long one, so you can work standing up. Gardenia makes an
entire system of such tools. Memorize the colors and visit some local garden
stores, or call around first. Get the little rake and the long handle. Now,
you have the best tool in the world for removing lose stuff from between
tightly spaced plants.
My neighbors sometimes joke about how my raised vegetable beds look like
freshly dug graves. If anyone tried to make off with my Gardenia tools (and
a few others), the graves would not seem like a joke afterward. :-) These
are really great tools.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> - Do you think I can use this tool in area where there are a lot of
> weeds? Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
> with many weeds very quickly? Here, the area is still have around
> 1-inch of mulch left.
I used this tool to manage a 25x8 vegetable garden. No problem. Keep in mind
that as the season progresses and your flowers get bigger, they should shade
out many of the weeds, so the job should get easier. And, some weeds really
don't matter anyway.
> - Will it work if the area is already covered with landscape fabric
> under the mulch? Will I be cutting through the landscape fabric? No
> big loss; I don't like the landscape fabric anyway.
I've only handled landscape fabric in the store, but never used it. So, my
instinct would be to get down on hands & knees with a razor knife and remove
the fabric first. Otherwise, any tool might snag the fabric, pull it
sideways, and break the stems of tender plants.
In one of his newspaper columns, garden writer Henry Mitchell mentioned how
funny it is when people go to Europe, visit famous gardens like those at
Versailles, and comment about what amazing work the French kings had done
for them 300 years ago. They forget the fact that the beautiful garden
they're seeing is the result of just one thing: The work done yesterday. It
sounds to me like you're trying to create a situation that cannot exist: a
garden which needs no maintenance. If you want it to be beautiful, it'll
require a little time each week. And if you make it beautiful, it'll be a
pleasure to do the work.
The best you can hope for is this: Once or twice each season, you'll have to
do major work, probably on your knees, getting the garden as clean as you
can. Get to know which weeds appear at what time of year, and manage them
accordingly. Those with seeds & flowers, you hack away and remove completely
from the garden. The leafy ones can be left on the surface. In the summer
heat, they'll be shriveled up within an hour. Some weeds look innocent on
Monday and develop roots of steel by Friday. Get to know those, so when you
see them on Monday, you don't say "I'll deal with it on Friday". If you do
the hard work correctly, the rest of the season should be easy. And, if you
do things right, each year should become easier. After 20 years in the same
vegetable garden, mine was virtually effortless.
Jay Chan
> couple of banana peels (potassium, etc) down there. I'm not really into
> growing flowers, so if I needed a specific amendment, I probably wouldn't
> know it.
Seem like you don't need to add any amendment to your garden yet.
Seem like if we need to add amendment to the soil where it is covered
in landscape fabric, we will have to open/remove the landscape fabric
partially or completely. This sounds like something that we need to
schedule it in advance (such as a plan like "I may need to remove the
landscape fabric after x years if a soil test indicates that the soil
is lack of something, and then I can put the landscape fabric back").
I am sure that this can be done. I just didn't think of this when I
put the landscape fabrics to my flower garden a couple years ago.
Without knowing this in advance and making a committment to do this, I
am now kind of surprised by the idea of removing and putting back the
landscape fabrics.
Honestly, I don't really have any better idea either. If I don't put
mulch on it, I will have to deal with a lot more weeds, and I may have
a hard time to remove weeds if they have formed solid root into the
soil. If I put mulch without landscape fabrics, the mulch will be
mixed with soil, and I will still need to deal with more weeds. If I
put mulch and landscape fabrics, I will have to remove/open landscape
fabrics to add amendment. Seem like I am better off sticking with
making as little change as possible; this means I should remove the
mulch that is infected with termintes (this is the minimum that I
should do), leave the landscape fabric there, and put fresh new mulch
(probably the kind that you use). Also order a long handle weeder to
remove weeds that manage to grow among the mulch. And worry about
adding amendment later.
This sounds like a plan.
Jay Chan
cat daddy
If I were you, I would pull out the landscape fabric, use wet newspaper
for weed suppression, and follow the lazy gardeners guide to........ lazy
gardening.
Lasagna Gardening
http://www.motherearthnews.com/menarch/archive/issues/173/173-050-01.htm
Tyler Hopper
"Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
news:Dc9Dc.997$x9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:lzZCc.28$9C3...@news01.roc.ny:
>
> >> Moreover, I become less and less like to use landscape fabrics (and
> >> mulch) because it prevents me from easily adding fertilizer or other
> >> goodies directly to the soil. Seem like the only way to add
> >> fertilizer is using liquid fertilizer.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Jay Chan
> >
> > Your last paragraph is exactly right. Gimmicks get in the way
> > eventually. So:
> >
> > Get yourself a good weeding tool that allows you to do the job WITHOUT
> > KNEELING. With the right tool, it's effortless. And, weeding slows you
> > down long enough to notice things happening (good or bad) in the
> > garden. The trick is to make the whole thing easy.
I have used one of these for several yrs. It very effective and pretty
effortless.
http://www.hound-dog.com/weed_hound.htm
Tyler
Jay Chan
> for weed suppression, and follow the lazy gardeners guide to........ lazy
> gardening.
The landscape fabric is already there. I installed it a couple years
ago. I would have to remove the landscape fabric and replace it with
newspaper if I followed your advice. That would be more work for me
not less.
Actually, I don't quite understand why we would use newspaper instead
of landscape fabric. The only benefit that I can see of using
newspapers is that they are free. But if we go through the trouble of
putting newspapers to block weeds, we "may" be better off going all
the way and install landscape fabric instead. The landscape fabric
should block weeds better than newspaper, right? What's the reason of
using newspaper instead of landscape fabrics anyway?
I am not trying to be negative. I just don't understand.
Jay Chan
Doug Kanter
Newspaper will decompose gradually, and if you want to add solid
"amendments", like compost, before the newspaper breaks down completely, all
you have to do is poke holes in it with your garden fork.
Jay, I'm curious about two things:
1) In any given week, how many hours of work do you think is appropriate to
keep your garden in shape?
2) During the "special weeks", at the beginning & end of season, how many
hours of work do you expect?
nswong
news:c7e5acb2.04070...@posting.google.com...
> I am not trying to be negative. I just don't understand.
I'm outstanding with my job, so sometime when I asked a question,
people tend to think I'm "testing" them. The fact is, I really don't
know or just don't understand. :-(
Your words touching me. <g> So, I will try my best to reply you. ;-)
> Actually, I don't quite understand why we would use newspaper
instead
> of landscape fabric. The only benefit that I can see of using
> newspapers is that they are free. But if we go through the trouble
of
> putting newspapers to block weeds, we "may" be better off going all
> the way and install landscape fabric instead. The landscape fabric
> should block weeds better than newspaper, right? What's the reason
of
> using newspaper instead of landscape fabrics anyway?
After some thinking, I think comparing two may make it easier to
understand.
Newspapers will decompose and become soil amendment.
Landscape fabric will not.
Newspapers will not block nightcrawler(earthworm) from pulling plant
debris to their tunnel as their food.
Landscape fabric will, I don't think you will find much earthworm
under the landscape fabric.
Newspapers will not block air and water to the soil, since they
decompose quickly.
Landscape fabric may, after sometime the holes may blocked by roots.
Newspapers: For adding soil amendment(carbon/organic matter), just
spread it on top of organic mulch(newspaper/manure/leaf...),
eventurely it will find it way to soil by critters.
Landscape fabric: Had to put it under the landscape fabric, or else
only nutrient will pass through the landscape fabric in liquid form,
but not much of organic matter.
Newspapers: When weeds find the way through the old newspaper/mulch,
just put new newspaper/mulch on top of weeds. Done!
Landscape fabric: Do you ever think of putting new landscape fabric on
top of old landscape fabric? ;-)
Newspapers: Never need to replace, just adding new one.
Landscape fabric: It's a nightmare to replace a landscape fabric that
have plant root grow into it.
> Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
Using a sickle to cut what(weeds) above the mulch, leave it there, add
some new mulch. I can cover 50-ft x 5-ft within one hour, and it can
last for two months. Don't afraid of walking on the mulch, this will
not really compact the soil, walk on bare soil are another story.
HTH,
cat daddy
Well, Wong stated very good reasons and I agree with them, so I won't
repeat them here. I went to totally organic, lasagna gardening two years
ago, and my flower beds have never been better and have few weeds. It's all
in feeding the soil and feeding the earthworms. Plastic landscape fabric
defeats all those good things from happening.
And, I do much less work, since I just throw a new layer of mulch on top
and don't even work it in, just like Nature does. This retains the basic
soil structure and doesn't disturb all the biological organisms.
cat daddy
"nswong" <n_s_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2klgasF...@uni-berlin.de...
Thanks for the excellent analysis. I couldn't have said it better myself.
jay
Unless you get a newspaper printed with organic ink... : )
-j
"nswong" <n_s_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2klgasF...@uni-berlin.de...
Doug Kanter
Personally, I'm not crazy about the newspaper idea, but you could do much
worse things to yourself than use it as mulch.
"jay" <nonef...@yaya.com> wrote in message
news:10eb986...@corp.supernews.com...
nswong
news:w_Cdne0vvNh...@giganews.com...
> Thanks for the excellent analysis. I couldn't have said it better
myself.
Thanks for your compliment. :-)
Cheers,
nswong
news:10eb986...@corp.supernews.com...
> wouldn't newspaper negate "organic".... ?
> Unless you get a newspaper printed with organic ink... : )
Nowaday, most ink use for newspaper are soy based. :-)
Look at the Google search result below.
At my impression, for weeds management, mulch are mostly relate to
no-till, organic are heavy tillage with machinary. But there is
something call organic no-till, that is relied on heavy/deep mulch.
But I may be wrong. <g>
Regards,
Wong
--
Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m
Google Search: mulch newspaper soy Web Images Groups
News more »
Advanced Search
Preferences
Search: the webpages from Singapore
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 592 for mulch newspaper soy. (0.13
seconds)
Newspapers as mulch material
... June 14, 1998. Editors note: I've asked every newspaper I ever
used
as mulch what they used as ink and they all said soy based. ...
supak.com/mort/newspapers.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
Gardening - Five Must-Have Ingredients for the Organic Gardener's ...
... most newspapers are now printed with soy-based inks ... use this
method is
to place the
newspaper or cardboard ... springtime, the weeds are dead, the mulch
has
degraded ...
www.pioneerthinking.com/tv-organictoolkit2.html - 30k - Cached -
Similar pages
Good Enough to Eat: Using paper as mulch is colored by several ...
... The PI uses soy-based colored inks; you can call ... Typically,
they're not
printed by
the newspaper, and their ... shredded office paper or newsprint work
as a mulch?
...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/ nwgardens/163035_goodtoeat04.html - 21k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Marvelous Mulches | NRCS
... organisms. Straw, shredded newspaper (soy-based ink only), and
grass
clippings are popular mulches that decompose easily. Popular ...
www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/mrvmulch.html - 12k - Cached -
Similar pages
Newspaper Mulch/add nitrogen? <MOD$97082...@rec.gardens. ...
... I'd like to mention soy-ink newspaper in an article I'm writing
about mulch
and
weed control, but won't be able to if I can't address the issue of
whether ...
www.ibiblio.org/rge/archive/970828_2970.html - 4k - Cached - Similar
pages
Re: newspaper mulch <MOD$98052...@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
... > The use of newspaper as a mulch may or may not be "organic" >
because
... Most black
ink used in most newspaper is soy based which > would probably be OK
...
www.ibiblio.org/rge/archive/980523_9875.html - 4k - Cached - Similar
pages
[ More results from www.ibiblio.org ]
The New Homemaker: Merits of Mulching
... kind of ink they use. Soy based newspaper inks are nontoxic, and
fine to use for mulching. Because newspaper by itself is light ...
www.newhomemaker.com/hands/garden/mulch.html - 23k - Cached - Similar
pages
Links to General Emergency Preparedness Information presented by ...
... herb + More cake-in-a-jar recipes + Newspaper Logs + Oil ... y2k
phone tip +
Potatoes
in the mulch + Smells in ... soya grits + Solar water distilling + Soy
cakes +
Soy ...
www.instantknowledgenews.com/P134.HTM - 78k - Cached - Similar pages
How do you recycle newspaper
... With the advent of soy and other natural inks, papers can be
utilized for
... Another
way to recycle newspapers is in the garden, using the newspaper as
mulch. ...
utut.essortment.com/newspaperrecycl_piz.htm - 5k - Cached - Similar
pages
The Value of Mulching Plants
... I would like this to be used. Are you interested in this? "Dear
student,
I do not use newspaper mulch unless the ink is soy ink and safe. ...
www.organic-growers.com/forum/Part2/Question34.htm - 5k - Cached -
Similar pages
Result Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
Search within results | Language Tools | Search Tips |
Dissatisfied? Help
us improve
Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About
Google
©2004 Google
nswong
news:oChFc.89$_T6...@news02.roc.ny...
> Personally, I'm not crazy about the newspaper idea, but you could do
much
> worse things to yourself than use it as mulch.
I never try newspaper, but from what I read, I believe it's good for
organic no-till home gardenning. Old newspaper are available to
nearly
each home, using as a mulch are another choice from recycle, and far
better than go to landfill.
I don't using it because I'm going to large scale and sustainable, and
will try to avoid any external input. Instead of buying some old
newspaper, I prefer use plant debris from my land as mulch.
Regards,
Salty Thumb
news:2klgasF...@uni-berlin.de:
> Newspapers will decompose and become soil amendment.
> Landscape fabric will not.
Newspapers are primarly carbon. According to one source[1] 'paper' (not
necessarily newspaper) contains 150-200:1 C/N, compared to sawdust at
100-500:1. Adding carbon will quite possibly detract from the amount of
N available to a plant. Adding N to compensate will degrade the weed
blocking utility of the newspaper as decomposition accelerates.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume carbon is of limited value
as a nutrient amendment, as plants (primarily?) obtain carbon from
atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. At any rate, plants
do *excrete* carbon from their roots after periods of elevated carbon
dioxide[2].
However, I'll concede that the newspaper and newspaper debris may have
indirect and significant benefits (functioning similarly to deciduous
leaf litter) in providing habitat and food for beneficial insects and
microbes and enhancing soil structure.
While not directly contributing materiel, it is possible that landscape
fabric made of polyester (and perhaps also polypropylene) can fixate
minor amounts of atmospheric nitrogen via wind action and electrostatic
effect[3].
Yes, newspapers need to be replaced often compared to landscape fabric.
To me, this is not an advantage in permanent or semi-permanent
installations.
[1] http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/horticulture/g810.htm "Table I.
Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios of Some Common Organic Materials"
[2] http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/roots.htm
[3] http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/chubb.html "Findings"
> Newspapers will not block nightcrawler(earthworm) from pulling plant
> debris to their tunnel as their food.
> Landscape fabric will, I don't think you will find much earthworm
> under the landscape fabric.
Unless nightcrawlers will chew a hole through newspaper to open their
covered burrow (quite possibly true), unbroken newspaper is as much a
barrier as landscape fabric. But assuming a population rate of 1-7 worms
per square meter[4] there should be sufficient openings in a typical
fabric installation such that the population is not impacted
significantly (assuming there is no reason why they would not choose to
use an available opening). Shallow burrowing earthworms do not share
nightcrawler feeding habit, but may exit their wandering burrows during
extensive rain[5].
[4] http://www.swcs.org/t_pubs_journal_2ndQ02abstracts_water.htm
[5] http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/AY/AY-279.html
> Newspapers will not block air and water to the soil, since they
> decompose quickly.
> Landscape fabric may, after sometime the holes may blocked by roots.
Newspapers will block water to the soil or at the minimum cause pooling
until drainage hole(s) are formed, which will not necessarily be
uniformly distributed. Landscape fabric is semi-porous or porous to
both air and water, as are roots. The mulch is more likely to block
water than the fabric.
> Newspapers: For adding soil amendment(carbon/organic matter), just
> spread it on top of organic mulch(newspaper/manure/leaf...),
> eventurely it will find it way to soil by critters.
> Landscape fabric: Had to put it under the landscape fabric, or else
> only nutrient will pass through the landscape fabric in liquid form,
> but not much of organic matter.
Correct, although the fabric will not necessarily pass the suspended
nutrients, depending on the size of the pores in the fabric.
> Newspapers: When weeds find the way through the old newspaper/mulch,
> just put new newspaper/mulch on top of weeds. Done!
> Landscape fabric: Do you ever think of putting new landscape fabric on
> top of old landscape fabric? ;-)
Weeds other than certain monocotyledons will not find their way through
landscape fabric from below. If a plants attempts to colonize the top
of the fabric, it is easily picked off. Done! No need to dig or look
for a newspaper stand.
Landscape fabric is not overlayed because it is not necessary. However,
if you have made a hole in the fabric that you do not want, it can be
repaired by simply putting a new piece on top (or tucked below the
existing fabric).
> Newspapers: Never need to replace, just adding new one.
> Landscape fabric: It's a nightmare to replace a landscape fabric that
> have plant root grow into it.
Landscape fabric: Never need to replace. Period. Okay, not in 5-15
years at least. Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots
attempting to penetrate from below, but the removal of such fabric is of
minor difficulty. Removing stripable wallpaper takes more effort.
>> Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
>
> Using a sickle to cut what(weeds) above the mulch, leave it there, add
> some new mulch. I can cover 50-ft x 5-ft within one hour, and it can
> last for two months. Don't afraid of walking on the mulch, this will
> not really compact the soil, walk on bare soil are another story.
Landscape fabric is a long term installation and will take more time for
planning and preparation. The actual installation is simple.
nswong
I start learnning agriculture by year 2001, that is after I went back
to my hometown and deal with my land.
In my learnning progress, I do read a lot. Most of the articles I read
are contrary with other articles. And it's hard to test it up who are
correct.
I do read before from some articles that talk about the views bring up
by you. But for going to sustainable and without bring in external
input(landscape fabric), I tend to remember those comment that say bad
words to landscape fabric. <g>
I'm not reach the level to able to tell which one are correct by now,
but will grad to find it out if it does not cost too much of effort.
Since I will not going to use landscape fabric, if you can share your
personal experience with me(not those you read from), I'm grateful to
this. :-)
I'm going off to my land now, will reply you when I'm back.
Cheers,
Wong
--
Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m
"Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
news:yEnFc.2849$qw1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
nswong
After the second pass read though your message, I'm afraid that I can
only reply you in very short form. Due to my bad English, I had
problem in spelling and phasing my words, it do take great effort for
me to write in English. Sorry about that. :-(
"Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
news:yEnFc.2849$qw1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> N available to a plant. .
It depend on the carbon are in what form. If it's sugar or starch, it
do. If it's lignin or cellulose, the effect should be unnoticeable.
Newspaper are compose mostly by cellulose.
> Adding N to compensate will degrade the weed
> blocking utility of the newspaper as decomposition accelerates
Adding N will not always speed up the decompostion. It really depend
on situation.
Mulch supress weeds not just because the physical blocking ability, it
can also leach out some chemical harm weeds. Critters in mulch will
also help to supress weeds.
But to me, I will never add N to the mulch
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume carbon is of limited
value
> as a nutrient amendment, as plants (primarily?) obtain carbon from
> atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. At any rate,
plants
> do *excrete* carbon from their roots after periods of elevated
carbon
> dioxide[2].
>
> However, I'll concede that the newspaper and newspaper debris may
have
> indirect and significant benefits (functioning similarly to
deciduous
> leaf litter) in providing habitat and food for beneficial insects
and
> microbes and enhancing soil structure.
Yes, here the soil amendment I'm refer to improve soil structure.
> While not directly contributing materiel, it is possible that
landscape
> fabric made of polyester (and perhaps also polypropylene) can fixate
> minor amounts of atmospheric nitrogen via wind action and
electrostatic
> effect[3].
I believe N fixed by bacterial using carbon as energy in orgainc mulch
will do a better job.
> Yes, newspapers need to be replaced often compared to landscape
fabric.
> To me, this is not an advantage in permanent or semi-permanent
> installations.
For this I do facing problem to explain my view. In bussiness, we talk
about total cost of ownership. In here we talk about in the total life
span of the product, how much cost involve and how much the return
get.
For this, I'm not know enough to provide a view. Sorry about that.
> [1] http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/horticulture/g810.htm "Table I.
> Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios of Some Common Organic Materials"
> [2] http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/roots.htm
> [3] http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/chubb.html "Findings"
Thanks for the links, I will look at it later. :-)
A few sheet of newspaper will not block earthworm.
> But assuming a population rate of 1-7 worms
> per square meter[4] there should be sufficient openings in a typical
> fabric installation such that the population is not impacted
> significantly (assuming there is no reason why they would not choose
to
> use an available opening). Shallow burrowing earthworms do not
share
> nightcrawler feeding habit, but may exit their wandering burrows
during
> extensive rain[5].
I'm quite sure landscape fabric significantly reduce earthworm
population.
> > Newspapers will not block air and water to the soil, since they
> > decompose quickly.
> > Landscape fabric may, after sometime the holes may blocked by
roots.
>
> Newspapers will block water to the soil or at the minimum cause
pooling
> until drainage hole(s) are formed, which will not necessarily be
> uniformly distributed. Landscape fabric is semi-porous or porous to
> both air and water, as are roots. The mulch is more likely to block
> water than the fabric.
Look at all short of filter we use, they all block. Do a test, remove
the mulch on top of your landscape fabric, put some water on top of
it, see how long it will pass through.
Mulch have critters making tunnel in it, except there is little
critter in it.
> > Newspapers: For adding soil amendment(carbon/organic matter), just
> > spread it on top of organic mulch(newspaper/manure/leaf...),
> > eventurely it will find it way to soil by critters.
> > Landscape fabric: Had to put it under the landscape fabric, or
else
> > only nutrient will pass through the landscape fabric in liquid
form,
> > but not much of organic matter.
>
> Correct, although the fabric will not necessarily pass the suspended
> nutrients, depending on the size of the pores in the fabric.
I'm refer to those nutrien that resolve in water as liquid form.
> > Newspapers: When weeds find the way through the old
newspaper/mulch,
> > just put new newspaper/mulch on top of weeds. Done!
> > Landscape fabric: Do you ever think of putting new landscape
fabric on
> > top of old landscape fabric? ;-)
>
> Weeds other than certain monocotyledons will not find their way
through
> landscape fabric from below. If a plants attempts to colonize the
top
> of the fabric, it is easily picked off. Done! No need to dig or
look
> for a newspaper stand.
>
> Landscape fabric is not overlayed because it is not necessary.
However,
> if you have made a hole in the fabric that you do not want, it can
be
> repaired by simply putting a new piece on top (or tucked below the
> existing fabric).
No comment. <g>
> > Newspapers: Never need to replace, just adding new one.
> > Landscape fabric: It's a nightmare to replace a landscape fabric
that
> > have plant root grow into it.
>
> Landscape fabric: Never need to replace. Period. Okay, not in
5-15
> years at least. Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots
> attempting to penetrate from below, but the removal of such fabric
is of
> minor difficulty. Removing stripable wallpaper takes more effort.
> Landscape fabric: Never need to replace. Period. Okay, not in
5-15
> years at least.
From what I read, if landscape fabric are expose to sun, will not last
long.
> Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots
> attempting to penetrate from below, but the removal of such fabric
is of
> minor difficulty.
From what I read, those user of landscape fabric donot take it as
"minor difficulty". <g>
> >> Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
> >
> > Using a sickle to cut what(weeds) above the mulch, leave it there,
add
> > some new mulch. I can cover 50-ft x 5-ft within one hour, and it
can
> > last for two months. Don't afraid of walking on the mulch, this
will
> > not really compact the soil, walk on bare soil are another story.
>
> Landscape fabric is a long term installation and will take more time
for
> planning and preparation. The actual installation is simple.
No comment. <g>
Sorry, I'm getting a bit impatience. :-(
Sorry,
Jay Chan
I didn't know that the landscape fabrics can prevent earthworms from
living under it. This really makes me pause.
I will have to think this through. Honestly, I don't really know what
to do at this point. I am sure I will think of something.
Thanks again.
Jay Chan
Doug Kanter
garden on a weekly or monthly basis, but you haven't responded. Would you
care to do that now?
"Jay Chan" <jayk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e5acb2.0407...@posting.google.com...
Jay Chan
> "amendments", like compost, before the newspaper breaks down completely, all
> you have to do is poke holes in it with your garden fork.
Seem like a good idea. I assume the earthworm living in the soil will
take care of pulling organic material from the surface to inside the
soil. This means I don't need to actually work the amendments into the
soil. Great!
> Jay, I'm curious about two things:
>
> 1) In any given week, how many hours of work do you think is appropriate to
> keep your garden in shape?
>
> 2) During the "special weeks", at the beginning & end of season, how many
> hours of work do you expect?
Normally, I really don't have a block of uninterrupted time for
gardening. I can only steal some time here to plant a flower, make
some time there to remove some weeds. I tend to spend only 10 to 15
minutes in the morning to do anything related to gardening and that
includes the time to water the flower boxes and the flower garden, and
walk around the garden to just enjoy the view.
In the special week in the spring, I can convict my wife to let me
spend some time working on the garden, and that is when I get most
things done. Here, I am talking about one afternoon work.
Jay Chan
Jay Chan
> garden on a weekly or monthly basis, but you haven't responded. Would you
> care to do that now?
I already responded that yesterday. Seem like we passed each other in
cyber-space. Please scroll up and view my response to your original
question.
Jay Chan
Salty Thumb
"nswong" <n_s_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2kou3bF4ttfeU1@uni-
berlin.de:
>> Adding carbon will quite possibly detract from the amount of
>> N available to a plant. .
>
> It depend on the carbon are in what form. If it's sugar or starch, it
> do. If it's lignin or cellulose, the effect should be unnoticeable.
> Newspaper are compose mostly by cellulose.
As I understand it, for optimal decomposition, you should have a C/N
ratio of 30:1. I have read that wood chips and sawdust will reduce
nitrogen availability during decomposition when used as mulch or in a
compost pile, and I assumed that was because of the high carbon content.
Newspaper has approximately between 1/2x and 5x the carbon of sawdust
(both primarily celluose).
[1] http://compost.css.cornell.edu/calc/lignin.html
>> Adding N to compensate will degrade the weed blocking utility of the
>> newspaper as decomposition accelerates
>
> Adding N will not always speed up the decompostion. It really depend
> on situation.
hmm, according to [1], you are right, at least for lignin decomposition.
A certain quantity of additional nitrogen will speed up anaerobic
decomposition, but excess has little or no effect. It does not say about
cellulose.
> Mulch supress weeds not just because the physical blocking ability, it
> can also leach out some chemical harm weeds. Critters in mulch will
> also help to supress weeds.
Yes and also fungi.
> But to me, I will never add N to the mulch
My point is if you wanted to increase nitrogen availability to the soil
to compensate for newspaper decomposition loss (if there actually is any)
you could add to the soil, but actually if you wanted newspaper for
nutrients (as opposed to weed control), you should probably do that in
the compost pile and not in the flower bed.
>> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume carbon is of limited value
>> as a nutrient amendment, as plants (primarily?) obtain carbon from
>> atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. At any rate, plants
>> do *excrete* carbon from their roots after periods of elevated carbon
>> dioxide[2].
>>
>> However, I'll concede that the newspaper and newspaper debris may have
>> indirect and significant benefits (functioning similarly to deciduous
>> leaf litter) in providing habitat and food for beneficial insects and
>> microbes and enhancing soil structure.
>
> Yes, here the soil amendment I'm refer to improve soil structure.
>> While not directly contributing materiel, it is possible that
>> landscape fabric made of polyester (and perhaps also polypropylene)
>> can fixate minor amounts of atmospheric nitrogen via wind action and
>> electrostatic effect[3].
>
> I believe N fixed by bacterial using carbon as energy in orgainc mulch
> will do a better job.
I agree, the amount of nitrogen fixated (if any) by electrostatic effect
over a surface is probably minor, but I mention it because occasionally
you hear about people growing huge tomatoes with panty hose (nylon) and
the effect may be similar.
>> Yes, newspapers need to be replaced often compared to landscape
>> fabric. To me, this is not an advantage in permanent or semi-permanent
>> installations.
>
> For this I do facing problem to explain my view. In bussiness, we talk
> about total cost of ownership. In here we talk about in the total life
> span of the product, how much cost involve and how much the return
> get.
In these terms, landscape fabric is USD$10 / 150 sq. ft (14 sq. meter),
with a life span of 15 years when installed properly, plus the starting
cost of mulch, USD$2-3 / 3 cubic feet (for large pine bark nuggets) at
recommended coverage rate of 4-6 inches (10-15 cm, mine is probably less
than 2 inches) and periodic replacement cost for wind or decomposition
loss. Other factors: labor savings in amount of time spent weeding,
labor increase in adding amendments, productivity comparisons if
relevant, etc. My recommendation is based on use for a home flower bed,
not a large scale or intensive operation.
> For this, I'm not know enough to provide a view. Sorry about that.
>
>> [1] http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/horticulture/g810.htm "Table I.
>> Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios of Some Common Organic Materials"
>> [2] http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/roots.htm [3]
>> http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/chubb.html "Findings"
>
> Thanks for the links, I will look at it later. :-)
>
>> > Newspapers will not block nightcrawler(earthworm) from pulling plant
>> > debris to their tunnel as their food.
>> > Landscape fabric will, I don't think you will find much earthworm
>> > under the landscape fabric.
>>
>> Unless nightcrawlers will chew a hole through newspaper to open their
>> covered burrow (quite possibly true), unbroken newspaper is as much a
>> barrier as landscape fabric. But assuming a population rate of 1-7
>> worms per square meter[4] there should be sufficient openings in a
>> typical fabric installation such that the population is not impacted
>> significantly (assuming there is no reason why they would not choose
>> to use an available opening). Shallow burrowing earthworms do not
>> share nightcrawler feeding habit, but may exit their wandering burrows
>> during extensive rain[5].
>>
>> [4] http://www.swcs.org/t_pubs_journal_2ndQ02abstracts_water.htm [5]
>> http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/AY/AY-279.html
>
>> Unless nightcrawlers will chew a hole through newspaper to open their
>> covered burrow (quite possibly true)
>
> A few sheet of newspaper will not block earthworm.
In my experience, earthworms (not necessarily nightcrawlers) will
continue to crawl until it finds an existing opening and not attempt to
chew through paper to find an exit. In this way, I assume it is similar
to fabric, although there is no way the earthworm will be able to chew
through landscape fabric. These observations were in daylight, so may
not be representative of normal behaviour.
>> But assuming a population rate of 1-7 worms
>> per square meter[4] there should be sufficient openings in a typical
>> fabric installation such that the population is not impacted
>> significantly (assuming there is no reason why they would not choose
>> to use an available opening). Shallow burrowing earthworms do not
>> share nightcrawler feeding habit, but may exit their wandering burrows
>> during extensive rain[5].
>
> I'm quite sure landscape fabric significantly reduce earthworm
> population.
Okay.
>> > Newspapers will not block air and water to the soil, since they
>> > decompose quickly.
>> > Landscape fabric may, after sometime the holes may blocked by roots.
>>
>> Newspapers will block water to the soil or at the minimum cause
>> pooling until drainage hole(s) are formed, which will not necessarily
>> be uniformly distributed. Landscape fabric is semi-porous or porous
>> to both air and water, as are roots. The mulch is more likely to
>> block water than the fabric.
>
> Look at all short of filter we use, they all block. Do a test, remove
> the mulch on top of your landscape fabric, put some water on top of
> it, see how long it will pass through.
I do not think this is a problem. When it rains, I do not have a problem
with drainage, so the water must go down some where, even if the gutters
are removed (and rain falls directly from the roof to the flower bed).
If you test the fabric by itself, fast moving water (such as from a
faucet) will be deflected from the surface, but slow water (as typical
with mulch impeded flow) will drain. If it weren't porous, you might as
well just you regular black polyethylene sheeting.
> Mulch have critters making tunnel in it, except there is little
> critter in it.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see macroscopic organisms eating
vertical holes through newspaper to gain surface access.
>> > Newspapers: For adding soil amendment(carbon/organic matter), just
>> > spread it on top of organic mulch(newspaper/manure/leaf...),
>> > eventurely it will find it way to soil by critters. Landscape
>> > fabric: Had to put it under the landscape fabric, or else only
>> > nutrient will pass through the landscape fabric in liquid form, but
>> > not much of organic matter.
>>
>> Correct, although the fabric will not necessarily pass the suspended
>> nutrients, depending on the size of the pores in the fabric.
>
> I'm refer to those nutrien that resolve in water as liquid form.
You mean nutrients that are dissolved in water? It is possible that the
fabric (different kinds of fabric vary) will filter the dissolved
nutrients (in the same way a paper coffee filter may filter salt from
seawater). I do not know, so I would not rely on it.
>> > Newspapers: When weeds find the way through the old newspaper/mulch,
>> > just put new newspaper/mulch on top of weeds. Done! Landscape
>> > fabric: Do you ever think of putting new landscape fabric on top of
>> > old landscape fabric? ;-)
>>
>> Weeds other than certain monocotyledons will not find their way
>> through landscape fabric from below. If a plants attempts to colonize
>> the top of the fabric, it is easily picked off. Done! No need to dig
>> or look for a newspaper stand.
>>
>> Landscape fabric is not overlayed because it is not necessary.
>> However, if you have made a hole in the fabric that you do not want,
>> it can be repaired by simply putting a new piece on top (or tucked
>> below the existing fabric).
>
> No comment. <g>
>
>> > Newspapers: Never need to replace, just adding new one.
>> > Landscape fabric: It's a nightmare to replace a landscape fabric
>> > that have plant root grow into it.
>>
>> Landscape fabric: Never need to replace. Period. Okay, not in 5-15
>> years at least. Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots
>> attempting to penetrate from below, but the removal of such fabric is
>> of minor difficulty. Removing stripable wallpaper takes more effort.
>
>> Landscape fabric: Never need to replace. Period. Okay, not in 5-15
>> years at least.
>
> From what I read, if landscape fabric are expose to sun, will not last
> long.
Yes, this is printed on the product labeling. However, I have some
exposed pieces (DuPont Weed Control Fabric, rugged spunbonded
polypropylene, UPC 0 83014 20163 2) outside and after more than a year,
visually they all look the same as pieces that were stored in the
original bag in the garage. (I did not look at them under a microscope.)
The degradation rate probably differs in Canada and Singapore. (Not the
same product as used in my front yard, which is similar to but not
EasyGardener Weedblock.)
>> Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots attempting to penetrate
>> from below, but the removal of such fabric is of minor difficulty.
>
> From what I read, those user of landscape fabric donot take it as
> "minor difficulty". <g>
haha, perhaps the Green lacking in my Thumb is made up with my Incredible
Hulk strength.
>> >> Will I be able to cover a large area (such as 10-ft x 6-ft)
>> >
>> > Using a sickle to cut what(weeds) above the mulch, leave it there,
>> > add some new mulch. I can cover 50-ft x 5-ft within one hour, and
>> > it can last for two months. Don't afraid of walking on the mulch,
>> > this will not really compact the soil, walk on bare soil are another
>> > story.
>>
>> Landscape fabric is a long term installation and will take more time
>> for planning and preparation. The actual installation is simple.
>
> No comment. <g>
>
> Sorry, I'm getting a bit impatience. :-(
No comment. :-)
Salty Thumb
berlin.de:
> Hi Salty Thumb,
>
> I start learnning agriculture by year 2001, that is after I went back
> to my hometown and deal with my land.
>
> In my learnning progress, I do read a lot. Most of the articles I read
> are contrary with other articles. And it's hard to test it up who are
> correct.
>
> I do read before from some articles that talk about the views bring up
> by you. But for going to sustainable and without bring in external
> input(landscape fabric), I tend to remember those comment that say bad
> words to landscape fabric. <g>
>
> I'm not reach the level to able to tell which one are correct by now,
> but will grad to find it out if it does not cost too much of effort.
> Since I will not going to use landscape fabric, if you can share your
> personal experience with me(not those you read from), I'm grateful to
> this. :-)
Here are the previous times I have babbled about landscape fabric:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=be1qe0%24e9q%
241%40plonk.apk.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?
q=landscape+fabric+chives&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=%
25HD4c.99646%246K.92016%40nwrddc02.gnilink.net&rnum=1
I don't think it is a matter of what is 'correct' but what is the best
solution to a given problem. I'm also not an expert to say for sure, but
for your operation, extensive mulch seems a better idea, and more
practical. I don't generate enough vegetation to be able to supply
myself with mulch or significant amounts of compost, so I use newspaper
or fabric. Since I do not add amendments, I find fabric better suited.
Additionally, were I to add amendments, I find sliding large pine bark
nuggets aside and lifting the fabric (feeder roots smeeder roots) an
easier procedure than raking aside mulch that is possibly conmingled with
newspaper and soil debris. If I were to use short term mulch (i.e. not
as long lasting as large pine bark nuggets), newspaper might be a better
idea, as I could just mix everything together and enrich the soil
structure by doing so. With the fabric, aesthetically, I do not have to
use as much nugget mulch to cover what could be unsightly newspapers.
Having reviewed some of the older messages about landscape fabric, if
you're going to grow vegetation that will eventually spred over a flower
bed (making removal of landscape fabric more difficult), it really
doesn't make sense to use long term weed suppression, as once
established, theoretically, the vegetation should be effective in
limiting weed growth to acceptable levels. Certainly in this case you
would want to use something that degrades, replacing as necessary until
the relevant plant is established and doing its own weed control, the
exception being if said vegetation will die back in the winter, in which
case you can plan your amending accordingly and/or resign yourself to
using short term suppression or other methods.
> I'm going off to my land now, will reply you when I'm back.
Okay.
Salty Thumb
> Jay, I've asked you a number of times how much work to expect to do on
> your garden on a weekly or monthly basis, but you haven't responded.
> Would you care to do that now?
Don't let him make you use up all your macaroni minutes.
[for those fortunate not to have TV
http://www.sprinttvads.com/flashcheck.html?movieID=001, under Archive->
Macaroni]
nswong
> Here are the previous times I have babbled about landscape fabric:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=be1qe0%24e9
q%
> 241%40plonk.apk.net
[Message start]
Salty, have you personally *used* landscape fabric and had the desired
results, or did you just see it on TV? Landscape fabric is from hell.
Tree feeder roots grow up through it. Turfgrass encroaches over the
edges and then sends roots down through it. Weeds will germinate in
whatever covers it, and eventually send roots down through it also
unless you pull them promptly. When you change your mind and decide
to
yank out the fabric a year or two later, it will be stuck fast by
several inches of decomposed mulch/grass/weed gunk and a million
infinitesimal feeder roots occupying every individual pore in the
fabric, forcing you to dig it out.
This has been my personal experience, plus the local gardening
columnists and extension agents agree with me, as well as a lot
of people in this newsgroup.
- Alex
[Message end]
I'm more with Alex. <g>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?
> q=landscape+fabric+chives&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=%
> 25HD4c.99646%246K.92016%40nwrddc02.gnilink.net&rnum=1
[Message start]
From: Salty Thumb <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake>
I can live with the onion thingies, so I still stand by my
recommendation.
People who can garden their way out of bank vault probably won't want
to
use landscape fabric, but if you're an average lazy guy, it's good
stuff.
[Message end]
For those really lazy guy, that neglect a corner of garden and let
small bush or tree grow on top of the landscape fabric, I can't
imagine how they will going to separate the landscape fabric from the
mulch(humus) on top, soil below, and plant in between. <g>
> I don't think it is a matter of what is 'correct' but what is the
best
> solution to a given problem.
I'm agree with you that there is no single way for every situation.
But 'correct' here I'm refer to the claim are true to the fact.
> I'm also not an expert to say for sure, but
> for your operation, extensive mulch seems a better idea, and more
> practical.
This still need another few years to test it out when some new need
come in. Maybe by the time another alternative fit better than mulch.
I'm also looking at live mulch(ground cover) now.
> I don't generate enough vegetation to be able to supply
> myself with mulch or significant amounts of compost, so I use
newspaper
> or fabric.
I test out that Perennial peanut(Arachis) work well as live mulch
here.
It grow low, can grow under shading, not appear to compete with crop
plant, do suppress weed germinate from seed, decaying dead root do
provide organic matter and nutrient. It make available by exchange
carbon for N and P with bacterial(N) and fungus(P).
Weed that grow through the live mulch can be weeded by handheld string
trimmer or sickle.
> Additionally, were I to add amendments, I find sliding large pine
bark
> nuggets aside and lifting the fabric (feeder roots smeeder roots) an
> easier procedure than raking aside mulch that is possibly conmingled
with
> newspaper and soil debris.
I don't see the need to raking aside mulch, I will just top dressing
the amendments.
> If I were to use short term mulch (i.e. not
> as long lasting as large pine bark nuggets), newspaper might be a
better
> idea, as I could just mix everything together and enrich the soil
> structure by doing so.
As long as you don't over mulch, the mulch will find it way to soil by
critter live in it.
> Having reviewed some of the older messages about landscape fabric,
if
> you're going to grow vegetation that will eventually spred over a
flower
> bed (making removal of landscape fabric more difficult), it really
> doesn't make sense to use long term weed suppression, as once
> established, theoretically, the vegetation should be effective in
> limiting weed growth to acceptable levels. Certainly in this case
you
> would want to use something that degrades, replacing as necessary
until
> the relevant plant is established and doing its own weed control,
I think people call this vegetation as ground cover or live mulch
depend on situation.
> the
> exception being if said vegetation will die back in the winter, in
which
> case you can plan your amending accordingly and/or resign yourself
to
> using short term suppression or other methods.
I will suggest using plant debris for supplement in this situation.
Regards,
nswong
Hi Salty, <g>
"Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
news:8C_Gc.26038$Xq4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
After finished another reply to your posting, I realize it is too late
to go to my land now. :-(
Never mind, since I'm in good form to write, it's better do my writing
now. :-)
> As I understand it, for optimal decomposition, you should have a C/N
> ratio of 30:1. I have read that wood chips and sawdust will reduce
> nitrogen availability during decomposition when used as mulch or in
a
> compost pile, and I assumed that was because of the high carbon
content.
> Newspaper has approximately between 1/2x and 5x the carbon of
sawdust
> (both primarily celluose).
>
> [1] http://compost.css.cornell.edu/calc/lignin.html
Diamon also having high C/N ration, I can assure you it will not
reduce the N available to plant when use as mulch. <g>
It really depend on the available carbon instead of the total carbon
contain.
I believe mulch will reduce N available to plant when the carbon(in
liquid form) leach to the soil in rain, but not when there is no water
soluble carbon are present in mulch.
In my impression, newspaper does not contain much water soluble
carbon. It need enzyme to convert it, and that is a slow process.
> hmm, according to [1], you are right, at least for lignin
decomposition.
> A certain quantity of additional nitrogen will speed up anaerobic
> decomposition, but excess has little or no effect. It does not say
about
> cellulose.
Adding N more than substrate(mulch, soil, compost...) can hold are
waste of money, the extra N will lost in air or worse, leach to the
groundwater.
If I'm not wrong, cellulose are not one of the form of carbon that
directly available by bacterial.
> > Mulch supress weeds not just because the physical blocking
ability, it
> > can also leach out some chemical harm weeds. Critters in mulch
will
> > also help to supress weeds.
>
> Yes and also fungi.
I thinks I should use "soil live" instead of critters. <g>
> My point is if you wanted to increase nitrogen availability to the
soil
> to compensate for newspaper decomposition loss (if there actually is
any)
> you could add to the soil, but actually if you wanted newspaper for
> nutrients (as opposed to weed control), you should probably do that
in
> the compost pile and not in the flower bed.
I agree.
> I agree, the amount of nitrogen fixated (if any) by electrostatic
effect
> over a surface is probably minor, but I mention it because
occasionally
> you hear about people growing huge tomatoes with panty hose (nylon)
and
> the effect may be similar.
I don't now what is panty hose(nylon).
I do read tomatoe will grow larger when using red "plastic sheet"? as
mulch due to the infrared and the higher warm of soil.
> > For this I do facing problem to explain my view. In bussiness, we
talk
> > about total cost of ownership. In here we talk about in the total
life
> > span of the product, how much cost involve and how much the return
> > get.
>
> In these terms, landscape fabric is USD$10 / 150 sq. ft (14 sq.
meter),
> with a life span of 15 years when installed properly, plus the
starting
> cost of mulch, USD$2-3 / 3 cubic feet (for large pine bark nuggets)
at
> recommended coverage rate of 4-6 inches (10-15 cm, mine is probably
less
> than 2 inches) and periodic replacement cost for wind or
decomposition
> loss. Other factors: labor savings in amount of time spent
weeding,
> labor increase in adding amendments, productivity comparisons if
> relevant, etc. My recommendation is based on use for a home flower
bed,
> not a large scale or intensive operation.
To explain my view, this will become a very long posting.
One of the example of the cost I refer are stocking cost, purchasing
cost(time spend on searching, barginning...), disposing cost(collect
and send to landfill..._)...
> In my experience, earthworms (not necessarily nightcrawlers) will
> continue to crawl until it finds an existing opening and not attempt
to
> chew through paper to find an exit. In this way, I assume it is
similar
> to fabric, although there is no way the earthworm will be able to
chew
> through landscape fabric. These observations were in daylight, so
may
> not be representative of normal behaviour.
From what I read, all the earthworms will not like to expose under the
light.
You may find earthworms gether around the opening of landscape fabric
can be due to they need to feed on plant debris at night time and seek
shelter in the soil under landscape fabric at day time. Earthworm
happen to around opening are the only survival, earthworm under the
landscape fabric that can't manage to find the opening are long dead.
> > Look at all short of filter we use, they all block. Do a test,
remove
> > the mulch on top of your landscape fabric, put some water on top
of
> > it, see how long it will pass through.
>
> I do not think this is a problem. When it rains, I do not have a
problem
> with drainage, so the water must go down some where, even if the
gutters
> are removed (and rain falls directly from the roof to the flower
bed).
> If you test the fabric by itself, fast moving water (such as from a
> faucet) will be deflected from the surface, but slow water (as
typical
> with mulch impeded flow) will drain. If it weren't porous, you
might as
> well just you regular black polyethylene sheeting.
I'm refer to no matter how porous landscape fabric are, it hole will
block by something by one day, either it's a plant root or clay or
something.
> > Mulch have critters making tunnel in it, except there is little
> > critter in it.
>
> I could be wrong, but I just don't see macroscopic organisms eating
> vertical holes through newspaper to gain surface access.
Critter need shelter, food, water and air to survive. In search of
these resource, they will moving around, and creating tunnel through
everything if they can.
E.g. critter will move deeper in soil to avoid the heat at day time,
move to survice of soil to get food, move deeper when soil surface are
dry, move to survice when ground water level are high.
Plant will also grow throug the newspaper in search of resource, be it
shoot from below or root from top.
> > I'm refer to those nutrien that resolve in water as liquid form.
>
> You mean nutrients that are dissolved in water? It is possible that
the
> fabric (different kinds of fabric vary) will filter the dissolved
> nutrients (in the same way a paper coffee filter may filter salt
from
> seawater). I do not know, so I would not rely on it.
Yes, I do mean "dissolve". Thanks for your correction. :-)
I do doubt about the hole of landscape fabric are as small as this.
If it do, I can assure you neary all the rain will end up as run off,
and there will be not enough water to keep plant survive without a
drip irrigation system.
> >> Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots attempting to
penetrate
> >> from below, but the removal of such fabric is of minor
difficulty.
> >
> > From what I read, those user of landscape fabric donot take it as
> > "minor difficulty". <g>
>
> haha, perhaps the Green lacking in my Thumb is made up with my
Incredible
> Hulk strength.
If there is some bush grow on top, and rooting through landscape
fabric, it still will be a mess even you manage to get "Incredible
Hulk" to help you. <g>
> > Sorry, I'm getting a bit impatience. :-(
>
> No comment. :-)
Although try to manage it, I do still affect by mood. ;-p
Cheers,
Salty Thumb
berlin.de:
>> Hello Wong,
>
> Hi Salty, <g>
>
> "Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
> news:8C_Gc.26038$Xq4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> After finished another reply to your posting, I realize it is too late
> to go to my land now. :-(
>
> Never mind, since I'm in good form to write, it's better do my writing
> now. :-)
>
>> As I understand it, for optimal decomposition, you should have a C/N
>> ratio of 30:1. I have read that wood chips and sawdust will reduce
>> nitrogen availability during decomposition when used as mulch or in a
>> compost pile, and I assumed that was because of the high carbon
>> content. Newspaper has approximately between 1/2x and 5x the carbon of
>> sawdust (both primarily celluose).
>>
>> [1] http://compost.css.cornell.edu/calc/lignin.html
>
> Diamon also having high C/N ration, I can assure you it will not
> reduce the N available to plant when use as mulch. <g>
Diamonds (?) do not contain any biologically accessible carbon.
> It really depend on the available carbon instead of the total carbon
> contain.
Both newspaper and sawdust have high cellulose percentage. Sawdust is
reported to reduce nitrogen availability when used in a compost pile.
> I believe mulch will reduce N available to plant when the carbon(in
> liquid form) leach to the soil in rain, but not when there is no water
> soluble carbon are present in mulch.
Many forms of N are water soluable and is leached away by water without
any interaction with C, mulch or newspaper. You may actually get
additional N during rain.
> In my impression, newspaper does not contain much water soluble
> carbon. It need enzyme to convert it, and that is a slow process.
Cellulose is broken down by actinomycetes.
>> hmm, according to [1], you are right, at least for lignin
>> decomposition. A certain quantity of additional nitrogen will speed up
>> anaerobic decomposition, but excess has little or no effect. It does
>> not say about cellulose.
>
> Adding N more than substrate(mulch, soil, compost...) can hold are
> waste of money, the extra N will lost in air or worse, leach to the
> groundwater.
>
> If I'm not wrong, cellulose are not one of the form of carbon that
> directly available by bacterial.
Despite the name and superficial resemblance, actinomycetes are
prokaryotic bacteria, phylum actinobacteria. (Fungi are all eukaryotic.)
>> > Mulch supress weeds not just because the physical blocking ability,
>> > it can also leach out some chemical harm weeds. Critters in mulch
>> > will also help to supress weeds.
>>
>> Yes and also fungi.
>
> I thinks I should use "soil live" instead of critters. <g>
'soil life'
>> My point is if you wanted to increase nitrogen availability to the
>> soil to compensate for newspaper decomposition loss (if there actually
>> is any) you could add to the soil, but actually if you wanted
>> newspaper for nutrients (as opposed to weed control), you should
>> probably do that in the compost pile and not in the flower bed.
>
> I agree.
>
>> I agree, the amount of nitrogen fixated (if any) by electrostatic
>> effect over a surface is probably minor, but I mention it because
>> occasionally you hear about people growing huge tomatoes with panty
>> hose (nylon) and the effect may be similar.
>
> I don't now what is panty hose(nylon).
Panty hose is something women wear on their legs. I do not know why.
> I do read tomatoe will grow larger when using red "plastic sheet"? as
> mulch due to the infrared and the higher warm of soil.
Yes, I have heard that, too. I think there was a Clemson or other
Southern US university study. I am waiting for them to come out with a
UV resistant landscape fabric version. <g>
>> > For this I do facing problem to explain my view. In bussiness, we
>> > talk about total cost of ownership. In here we talk about in the
>> > total life span of the product, how much cost involve and how much
>> > the return get.
>>
>> In these terms, landscape fabric is USD$10 / 150 sq. ft (14 sq.
>> meter), with a life span of 15 years when installed properly, plus the
>> starting cost of mulch, USD$2-3 / 3 cubic feet (for large pine bark
>> nuggets) at recommended coverage rate of 4-6 inches (10-15 cm, mine is
>> probably less than 2 inches) and periodic replacement cost for wind or
>> decomposition loss. Other factors: labor savings in amount of time
>> spent weeding, labor increase in adding amendments, productivity
>> comparisons if relevant, etc. My recommendation is based on use for a
>> home flower bed, not a large scale or intensive operation.
>
> To explain my view, this will become a very long posting.
>
> One of the example of the cost I refer are stocking cost, purchasing
> cost(time spend on searching, barginning...), disposing cost(collect
> and send to landfill..._)...
It is not necessary, I do not think the orginal poster is concerned with
those things. Have you read the sci.bio.agriculture group?
>> In my experience, earthworms (not necessarily nightcrawlers) will
>> continue to crawl until it finds an existing opening and not attempt
>> to chew through paper to find an exit. In this way, I assume it is
>> similar to fabric, although there is no way the earthworm will be able
>> to chew through landscape fabric. These observations were in
>> daylight, so may not be representative of normal behaviour.
>
> From what I read, all the earthworms will not like to expose under the
> light.
They also prefer to avoid becoming lunch.
> You may find earthworms gether around the opening of landscape fabric
> can be due to they need to feed on plant debris at night time and seek
> shelter in the soil under landscape fabric at day time. Earthworm
> happen to around opening are the only survival, earthworm under the
> landscape fabric that can't manage to find the opening are long dead.
If you read the link I posted earlier, it classifies earthworms in 3
groups. One of them i don't remember and is probably not relevant. The
other two are nightcrawlers and regular earthworms. It said that
nightcrawlers have permanent burrows, these are the ones you are talking
about that come out at night to feed on plant debris. Another link I
provided gave the population density for a certain species at some test
location as 0-7 per sq. meter. At this rate, and the size of my flower
bed, I think any detrimental effect by landscape fabric is minimal. I
think, since it is a worm, eventually it will reproduce at a sufficent
rate to exploit any available opening. The other kind of earthworm does
not live in static burrows and only comes out during times of rain. I
would guess that being subterranean, they would also be minimally
affected by landscape fabric.
>> > Look at all short of filter we use, they all block. Do a test,
>> > remove the mulch on top of your landscape fabric, put some water on
>> > top of it, see how long it will pass through.
>>
>> I do not think this is a problem. When it rains, I do not have a
>> problem with drainage, so the water must go down some where, even if
>> the gutters are removed (and rain falls directly from the roof to the
>> flower bed). If you test the fabric by itself, fast moving water (such
>> as from a faucet) will be deflected from the surface, but slow water
>> (as typical with mulch impeded flow) will drain. If it weren't
>> porous, you might as well just you regular black polyethylene
>> sheeting.
>
> I'm refer to no matter how porous landscape fabric are, it hole will
> block by something by one day, either it's a plant root or clay or
> something.
I don't think plant roots are impermeable to water. I don't know how a
chunk of clay is going to get into my flower bed. It has been several
years and I have no problems with water blockage. Even if some clay or
other amendment (as below) were spread over the fabric, water is a very
effective solvent and while the clay or amendment is not guarranteed to
pass, the water certainly will.
>> > Mulch have critters making tunnel in it, except there is little
>> > critter in it.
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I just don't see macroscopic organisms eating
>> vertical holes through newspaper to gain surface access.
>
> Critter need shelter, food, water and air to survive. In search of
> these resource, they will moving around, and creating tunnel through
> everything if they can.
> E.g. critter will move deeper in soil to avoid the heat at day time,
> move to survice of soil to get food, move deeper when soil surface are
> dry, move to survice when ground water level are high.
>
> Plant will also grow throug the newspaper in search of resource, be it
> shoot from below or root from top.
You can try this experiment: Cover some soil with newspaper. Time how
long it takes to develop an opening. It takes over 2 months in a
temperate climate. Any holes that develop are not from macroscopic
organisms. Plants will grow through, but those opening are not available
to macroscopic organisms (being blocked by the plant). Gradually, in wet
areas of the paper, actinomycetes or other microscopic organisms will
weaken the newspaper until a hole forms or mechanical action (wind,
water, etc) hastens the break down. I will be surprised if you can come
up with any large organism (other than termites, paper wasps and people)
that will deliberately make a hole in the newspaper. To be fair, cover
half the newspaper with organic mulch (I have not tried this) and see
what happens. You can cover the other half with a banana leaf or
something if you are worried about sun effects on organisms (you can take
the leaf off when it rains or artifically add water to simulate tho
condition). I predict the only difference is that mulch side will have
accelerated decomposition (1 month to first hole vs. 2 months).
>> > I'm refer to those nutrien that resolve in water as liquid form.
>>
>> You mean nutrients that are dissolved in water? It is possible that
>> the fabric (different kinds of fabric vary) will filter the dissolved
>> nutrients (in the same way a paper coffee filter may filter salt from
>> seawater). I do not know, so I would not rely on it.
>
> Yes, I do mean "dissolve". Thanks for your correction. :-)
>
> I do doubt about the hole of landscape fabric are as small as this.
> If it do, I can assure you neary all the rain will end up as run off,
> and there will be not enough water to keep plant survive without a
> drip irrigation system.
It's not just the size of the hole but also any electrical or chemical
effects that may cause what ever you are adding to clump together
(similar to hard water calcification of drain pipes on a smaller scale).
Also, the landscape fabric regardless of the holes may be semi-porous to
water. That is not necessarily true for the solute. [by 'hole' in this
case, I'm refering to the factory made approx. millimeter sized openings
uniformly distributed over fabric area, not the openings made by users to
plant through.]
>> >> Landscape fabric can become embeded with roots attempting to
>> >> penetrate from below, but the removal of such fabric is of minor
>> >> difficulty.
>> >
>> > From what I read, those user of landscape fabric donot take it as
>> > "minor difficulty". <g>
>>
>> haha, perhaps the Green lacking in my Thumb is made up with my
>> Incredible Hulk strength.
>
> If there is some bush grow on top, and rooting through landscape
> fabric, it still will be a mess even you manage to get "Incredible
> Hulk" to help you. <g>
Your peanut groundcover is more likely to grow to 2 meters tall and start
dancing around with a top hat, cane and monocle.
Salty Thumb
berlin.de:
> For those really lazy guy, that neglect a corner of garden and let
> small bush or tree grow on top of the landscape fabric, I can't
> imagine how they will going to separate the landscape fabric from the
> mulch(humus) on top, soil below, and plant in between. <g>
I find the idea that anyone wuuld let a tree or bush grow on and through
landscape fabric ridiculous. I neglect my flower beds for months because
they don't need maintenance. After several months, I get a handful of
large weeds (hand sized or smaller) that are easily removed. In any
event, if someone were to let a tree or shrub grow through the landscape
fabric and the plant does not come out easily, it should be a simple
matter to slide the mulch aside, cut a circle in the fabric around the
bush and pry it out with a mattock, then cut another piece of fabric to
patch the hole or plant something else in the opening. Aside from that,
I suggested landscape fabric for use in a flower bed, not the corner of a
garden. If you've got particularly invasive plants around your flower
bed, you've got bigger problems that neither landscape fabric nor mulch
will solve.
>> I don't think it is a matter of what is 'correct' but what is the best
>> solution to a given problem.
>
> I'm agree with you that there is no single way for every situation.
>
> But 'correct' here I'm refer to the claim are true to the fact.
No matter how correct your facts are, if they aren't applicable, then it
does not matter if they are true or not.
>> I'm also not an expert to say for sure, but
>> for your operation, extensive mulch seems a better idea, and more
>> practical.
>
> This still need another few years to test it out when some new need
> come in. Maybe by the time another alternative fit better than mulch.
> I'm also looking at live mulch(ground cover) now.
At this point I'm not sure what you are referring to.
>> I don't generate enough vegetation to be able to supply myself with
>> mulch or significant amounts of compost, so I use newspaper or fabric.
>
> I test out that Perennial peanut(Arachis) work well as live mulch
> here.
> It grow low, can grow under shading, not appear to compete with crop
> plant, do suppress weed germinate from seed, decaying dead root do
> provide organic matter and nutrient. It make available by exchange
> carbon for N and P with bacterial(N) and fungus(P).
> Weed that grow through the live mulch can be weeded by handheld string
> trimmer or sickle.
>> Additionally, were I to add amendments, I find sliding large pine bark
>> nuggets aside and lifting the fabric (feeder roots smeeder roots) an
>> easier procedure than raking aside mulch that is possibly conmingled
>> with newspaper and soil debris.
>
> I don't see the need to raking aside mulch, I will just top dressing
> the amendments.
For a flower bed that needs to be visually appealing, I think it is
important to put amendments under the mulch. Depending on nitrogen
content, you may also want to bury them to avoid volatilization.
>> If I were to use short term mulch (i.e. not as long lasting as large
>> pine bark nuggets), newspaper might be a better
>> idea, as I could just mix everything together and enrich the soil
>> structure by doing so.
>
> As long as you don't over mulch, the mulch will find it way to soil by
> critter live in it.
>
>> Having reviewed some of the older messages about landscape fabric, if
>> you're going to grow vegetation that will eventually spred over a
>> flower bed (making removal of landscape fabric more difficult), it
>> really doesn't make sense to use long term weed suppression, as once
>> established, theoretically, the vegetation should be effective in
>> limiting weed growth to acceptable levels. Certainly in this case you
>> would want to use something that degrades, replacing as necessary
>> until the relevant plant is established and doing its own weed
>> control,
>
> I think people call this vegetation as ground cover or live mulch
> depend on situation.
When I wrote that i wasn't thinking of groundcovers as much as a low
shrub with wide sunblocking canopy. I don't know if that qualifies as a
'groundcover'. The problems I have with groundcovers (such a creeping
groundcover), aside from ignorance and cheapness, is there is a potential
to create a diverse microcosm in your flower bed. So in addition to
'soil critters' you have created another layer of habitat for whatever
insects or animals that move in and the other plants you have (barring
any symbiosis) will have to compete with the groundcover. If you don't
know what you are doing, there is the potential for many problems, hence
the need for 'people who can garden their way out of a bank vault'.
>> the
>> exception being if said vegetation will die back in the winter, in
>> which case you can plan your amending accordingly and/or resign
>> yourself to using short term suppression or other methods.
>
> I will suggest using plant debris for supplement in this situation.
Any plant debris I have either goes in the garbage or compost pile for
the vegetable garden.
nswong
> >> I don't think it is a matter of what is 'correct' but what is the
best
> >> solution to a given problem.
> >
> > I'm agree with you that there is no single way for every
situation.
> >
> > But 'correct' here I'm refer to the claim are true to the fact.
>
> No matter how correct your facts are, if they aren't applicable,
then it
> does not matter if they are true or not.
There is too much of alternative ways to do a work. I don't think I
can test all of them to find out which are the most applicable, what I
do are choose some of them that look like promising, and I need the
"correct facts" to pick those I'm going to test.
> >> I'm also not an expert to say for sure, but
> >> for your operation, extensive mulch seems a better idea, and more
> >> practical.
> >
> > This still need another few years to test it out when some new
need
> > come in. Maybe by the time another alternative fit better than
mulch.
> > I'm also looking at live mulch(ground cover) now.
>
> At this point I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I'm refer to operation on my land. It's a small one, but the ways I
test on it are what I will do when on a large land. It will take a few
years to test before I really go to large scale.
> For a flower bed that needs to be visually appealing, I think it is
> important to put amendments under the mulch.
I agree with you, "for a flower bed".
> The problems I have with groundcovers (such a creeping
> groundcover), aside from ignorance and cheapness, is there is a
potential
> to create a diverse microcosm in your flower bed. So in addition to
> 'soil critters' you have created another layer of habitat for
whatever
> insects or animals that move in and the other plants you have
(barring
> any symbiosis) will have to compete with the groundcover. If you
don't
> know what you are doing, there is the potential for many problems,
hence
> the need for 'people who can garden their way out of a bank vault'.
I agree. For a normal gardenner, it's not worth the effort of choosing
the right groundcover. But for a bigger operation, a right
groundcover do help to save cost.
nswong
> > Diamon also having high C/N ration, I can assure you it will not
> > reduce the N available to plant when use as mulch. <g>
>
> Diamonds (?) do not contain any biologically accessible carbon.
Yes, "diamond" not diamon.
This is my point, it's the carbon available to bacterial, not the
actual amount of carbon that causing temperary N deficiency.
If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial, it will not
cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon there.
> > It really depend on the available carbon instead of the total
carbon
> > contain.
>
> Both newspaper and sawdust have high cellulose percentage. Sawdust
is
> reported to reduce nitrogen availability when used in a compost
pile.
I believe that is starch and sugar in the sawdust that cause this, not
cellulose or lignin. I believe newspaper do lost some of it starch and
sugar while in the process.
> > I believe mulch will reduce N available to plant when the
carbon(in
> > liquid form) leach to the soil in rain, but not when there is no
water
> > soluble carbon are present in mulch.
>
> Many forms of N are water soluable and is leached away by water
without
> any interaction with C, mulch or newspaper. You may actually get
> additional N during rain.
So, either mulch will cause temporary N deficiency or not will depend
on the C/N ratio make available by rain to soil bacterial.
I will say that, some mulch will and some mulch will not causing
temporary N deficiency. It will depend on the amount of the C and N
available to bacterial that do bring to soil by rain water.
> > In my impression, newspaper does not contain much water soluble
> > carbon. It need enzyme to convert it, and that is a slow process.
>
> Cellulose is broken down by actinomycetes.
I believe this process are rather slow. Do actinomycetes got the
ability of N fixation from air?
> > If I'm not wrong, cellulose are not one of the form of carbon that
> > directly available by bacterial.
>
> Despite the name and superficial resemblance, actinomycetes are
> prokaryotic bacteria, phylum actinobacteria. (Fungi are all
eukaryotic.)
To tell the true, I don't know what is actinomycetes. <g>
> 'soil life'
Thanks. :-)
> > To explain my view, this will become a very long posting.
> >
> > One of the example of the cost I refer are stocking cost,
purchasing
> > cost(time spend on searching, barginning...), disposing
cost(collect
> > and send to landfill..._)...
>
> It is not necessary, I do not think the orginal poster is concerned
with
> those things.
You are right.
> Have you read the sci.bio.agriculture group?
I do take a look there when I looking for agriculture newsgroup few
month ago. Forgetted why I decide not to subscribe this group. May be
due to the lack of traffic, or it's more on academic than practical.
Not sure.
Do you think it's good for me to looking information there?
> > From what I read, all the earthworms will not like to expose under
the
> > light.
>
> They also prefer to avoid becoming lunch.
<g>
> If you read the link I posted earlier,
I'm doing a research for X/HTML now for writing some program, will
read the link you provide later.
> it classifies earthworms in 3
> groups. One of them i don't remember and is probably not relevant.
The
> other two are nightcrawlers and regular earthworms.
IIRC:
1. Litter dweller. Those live in the litter/mulch. E.g. red worm for
worm composting
2. Surface dweller. Those "regular earthworms" work their way most of
the time horizontally.
3. Burrower. Nightcrawler/dew worm.
> Another link I
> provided gave the population density for a certain species at some
test
> location as 0-7 per sq. meter. At this rate, and the size of my
flower
> bed, I think any detrimental effect by landscape fabric is minimal.
The reason of some place are 0 per sq. meter, the other are 7 per sq.
meter are due to the environment of that place.
I do believe that for a same place, a landscape fabric do reduce the
earthworm population by reduce the accessability to food for
earthworm.
>I think, since it is a worm, eventually it will reproduce at a
sufficent
> rate to exploit any available opening.
Yes, to a far lower population in the total area.
> The other kind of earthworm does
> not live in static burrows and only comes out during times of rain.
I
> would guess that being subterranean, they would also be minimally
> affected by landscape fabric.
They do need food, the landscape fabric do block organic matter to
reach the soil. If you mixed in a lot of manure yearly to the soil
that is another story.
> I don't think plant roots are impermeable to water. I don't know
how a
> chunk of clay is going to get into my flower bed. It has been
several
> years and I have no problems with water blockage. Even if some clay
or
> other amendment (as below) were spread over the fabric, water is a
very
> effective solvent and while the clay or amendment is not guarranteed
to
> pass, the water certainly will.
It do reduce the infiltration, and causing run off when rain are
relative heavy.
> You can try this experiment: Cover some soil with newspaper. Time
how
> long it takes to develop an opening. It takes over 2 months in a
> temperate climate.
Put other organic mulch on top of newspaper, it make difference.
> Any holes that develop are not from macroscopic
> organisms.
I believe soil life do included those like earthworm, groundbettle,
millipede, fungus...
> Plants will grow through, but those opening are not
available
> to macroscopic organisms (being blocked by the plant).
Plants roots will dead, especially feeder roots, after the dead roots
decay, tunnels are there. This applied to fungus as well.
> I will be surprised if you can come
> up with any large organism (other than termites, paper wasps and
people)
> that will deliberately make a hole in the newspaper.
Here I do saw rat making big holes anywhere. ;-)
> To be fair, cover
> half the newspaper with organic mulch (I have not tried this) and
see
> what happens. You can cover the other half with a banana leaf or
> something if you are worried about sun effects on organisms (you can
take
> the leaf off when it rains or artifically add water to simulate tho
> condition). I predict the only difference is that mulch side will
have
> accelerated decomposition (1 month to first hole vs. 2 months).
It really depend on how abundant life form are there. An example are,
I put the newspapers under my curing compost that have abundant of
groundbettle, millipete, earthworm... I do quite sure it take less
than three days to have a first hole that go through all the layer of
newspaper if the newspaper are wet.
> It's not just the size of the hole but also any electrical or
chemical
> effects that may cause what ever you are adding to clump together
> (similar to hard water calcification of drain pipes on a smaller
scale).
> Also, the landscape fabric regardless of the holes may be
semi-porous to
> water. That is not necessarily true for the solute. [by 'hole' in
this
> case, I'm refering to the factory made approx. millimeter sized
openings
> uniformly distributed over fabric area, not the openings made by
users to
> plant through.]
My point are, if the end result are nutrient in liquid form can be
filter/block, it's sure that it also will causing run off, and not
much water can get from rain for soil that is directly under the
landscape fabric. So why landscape fabric? ;-)
Sure, if the rain are long and light, it's another story.
> Your peanut groundcover is more likely to grow to 2 meters tall and
start
> dancing around with a top hat, cane and monocle.
<g>
Salty Thumb
berlin.de:
> "Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
> news:baVHc.39328$Xq4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> > Diamon also having high C/N ration, I can assure you it will not
>> > reduce the N available to plant when use as mulch. <g>
>>
>> Diamonds (?) do not contain any biologically accessible carbon.
>
> Yes, "diamond" not diamon.
>
> This is my point, it's the carbon available to bacterial, not the
> actual amount of carbon that causing temperary N deficiency.
>
> If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial, it will not
> cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The carbon in cellulose is not going
to be released in any significant quantitiy without bacterial action.
The bacteria will not have action without also N being present. When
both are present the bacteria will use both the N and C, making less N
available for plants. [I don't know what happens to the N after the
bacteria get it (it has to go somewhere)]. Regardless, bacteria will not
be able to decompose diamonds.
>> > It really depend on the available carbon instead of the total carbon
>> > contain.
>>
>> Both newspaper and sawdust have high cellulose percentage. Sawdust is
>> reported to reduce nitrogen availability when used in a compost pile.
>
> I believe that is starch and sugar in the sawdust that cause this, not
> cellulose or lignin. I believe newspaper do lost some of it starch and
> sugar while in the process.
Cellulose is made from repeating units of glucose (a simple sugar) [1].
Starch is also made from glucose [2]. So unless there is some other form
of sugar you are thinking of, I don't think so.
[1] http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/cell.htm
[2] http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/starch/whatis.htm
>> > I believe mulch will reduce N available to plant when the carbon(in
>> > liquid form) leach to the soil in rain, but not when there is no
>> > water soluble carbon are present in mulch.
>>
>> Many forms of N are water soluable and is leached away by water
>> without any interaction with C, mulch or newspaper. You may actually
>> get additional N during rain.
>
> So, either mulch will cause temporary N deficiency or not will depend
> on the C/N ratio make available by rain to soil bacterial.
>
> I will say that, some mulch will and some mulch will not causing
> temporary N deficiency. It will depend on the amount of the C and N
> available to bacterial that do bring to soil by rain water.
I think the amount of N from rain is relatively minor, but I do think the
water and biological activity is important, otherwise the decay rate is
slow. If you have low N to start, then the decay rate will be low and
your plants have low N. If you have high N, some of that N will be used
by decomposers leaving X amount for the plants, which still might lead to
low N. If your top layer is biologically active, then most of N from
rain will be intercepted before it reaches the plant roots.
>> > In my impression, newspaper does not contain much water soluble
>> > carbon. It need enzyme to convert it, and that is a slow process.
>>
>> Cellulose is broken down by actinomycetes.
>
> I believe this process are rather slow. Do actinomycetes got the
> ability of N fixation from air?
I think the speed is dependent on N availability, temperature and maybe
water availability. I don't think they can fixate N from air like legume
inhabiting bacteria (rhizobium, phylum proteobacteria) or others, so they
have to use other sources (otherwise, wood would decay quite quickly in
open air).
>> > If I'm not wrong, cellulose are not one of the form of carbon that
>> > directly available by bacterial.
>>
>> Despite the name and superficial resemblance, actinomycetes are
>> prokaryotic bacteria, phylum actinobacteria. (Fungi are all
>> eukaryotic.)
>
> To tell the true, I don't know what is actinomycetes. <g>
"The mulitcellular actinobacteria include filamentous prokaryotes that
were originally mistaken for fungi. Unfortunately, even though they are
prokaryotic in all of their features, they are still sometimes called
'actinomycetes'." _Five Kingdoms_, Margulis and Schwartz, p.98, 3rd ed
1997. [-mycetes = plural of Greek "mykes" = "fungus"]
The other important thing to know about actinomycetes is that they
decompose cellulose.
>> Have you read the sci.bio.agriculture group?
>
> I do take a look there when I looking for agriculture newsgroup few
> month ago. Forgetted why I decide not to subscribe this group. May be
> due to the lack of traffic, or it's more on academic than practical.
> Not sure.
>
> Do you think it's good for me to looking information there?
I only checked a few times, and you are right, aside from the spam, the
traffic is light and usually very academic. But if I were using my land
for commercial interests, I would keep an eye on it.
hmm ... I don't know what happened to the group ... I only see
sci.agriculture now (no '.bio') and that has quite a bit of useless junk
in it.
>> If you read the link I posted earlier,
>
> I'm doing a research for X/HTML now for writing some program, will
> read the link you provide later.
I see it probably doesn't say anything you don't already know.
>> it classifies earthworms in 3
>> groups. One of them i don't remember and is probably not relevant.
>> The other two are nightcrawlers and regular earthworms.
>
> IIRC:
> 1. Litter dweller. Those live in the litter/mulch. E.g. red worm for
> worm composting
> 2. Surface dweller. Those "regular earthworms" work their way most of
> the time horizontally.
> 3. Burrower. Nightcrawler/dew worm.
>
>> Another link I
>> provided gave the population density for a certain species at some
>> test location as 0-7 per sq. meter. At this rate, and the size of my
>> flower bed, I think any detrimental effect by landscape fabric is
>> minimal.
>
> The reason of some place are 0 per sq. meter, the other are 7 per sq.
> meter are due to the environment of that place.
>
> I do believe that for a same place, a landscape fabric do reduce the
> earthworm population by reduce the accessability to food for
> earthworm.
okay
>>I think, since it is a worm, eventually it will reproduce at a
>>sufficent rate to exploit any available opening.
>
> Yes, to a far lower population in the total area.
I think if there is any population loss for type #3 in my case it is
neglibile. The total area of my flower bed is not large and assume the
original poster's is more or less the same. Additionally, one dimension
is significantly shorter than the other, so migration is not severely
affected. This is also assuming the normal population is in the 0-7 per
sq. meter range.
>> The other kind of earthworm does not live in static burrows and only
>> comes out during times of rain. I would guess that being subterranean,
>> they would also be minimally affected by landscape fabric.
>
> They do need food, the landscape fabric do block organic matter to
> reach the soil. If you mixed in a lot of manure yearly to the soil
> that is another story.
I do not know exactly what earthworms(#2) eat, but plants do secret
organic debris from their roots, so perhaps falling surface debris is not
the only source of food for them.
>> I don't think plant roots are impermeable to water. I don't know how
>> a chunk of clay is going to get into my flower bed. It has been
>> several years and I have no problems with water blockage. Even if
>> some clay or other amendment (as below) were spread over the fabric,
>> water is a very effective solvent and while the clay or amendment is
>> not guarranteed to pass, the water certainly will.
>
> It do reduce the infiltration, and causing run off when rain are
> relative heavy.
I have not noticed this, but there is a gutter above the flower bed that
blocks most water flow. But even when the gutter was removed I did not
notice any pooling.
>> You can try this experiment: Cover some soil with newspaper. Time
>> how long it takes to develop an opening. It takes over 2 months in a
>> temperate climate.
>
> Put other organic mulch on top of newspaper, it make difference.
Now, if that is true, then won't the weed blocking effect of the
newspaper be mitigated? It seems to be of marginal benefit when being
used in an active flower bed. You would have to rely on the soil biota
(which would occur with or without the newspaper) for suppression after
the newspaper decays. There may be significant initial suppression, but
it seems to me that would be eventually negated by the additional
fertility (of decaying mulch and other amendments).
>> Any holes that develop are not from macroscopic organisms.
>
> I believe soil life do included those like earthworm, groundbettle,
> millipede, fungus...
I only noticed bacterial decay when I tried, but I did not cover with
organic mulch.
>> Plants will grow through, but those opening are not available to
>> macroscopic organisms (being blocked by the plant).
>
> Plants roots will dead, especially feeder roots, after the dead roots
> decay, tunnels are there. This applied to fungus as well.
Yes, but this takes time.
>> I will be surprised if you can come up with any large organism (other
>> than termites, paper wasps and people) that will deliberately make a
>> hole in the newspaper.
>
> Here I do saw rat making big holes anywhere. ;-)
okay, "and rats"
>> To be fair, cover
>> half the newspaper with organic mulch (I have not tried this) and see
>> what happens. You can cover the other half with a banana leaf or
>> something if you are worried about sun effects on organisms (you can
>> take the leaf off when it rains or artifically add water to simulate
>> tho condition). I predict the only difference is that mulch side
>> will have accelerated decomposition (1 month to first hole vs. 2
>> months).
>
> It really depend on how abundant life form are there. An example are,
> I put the newspapers under my curing compost that have abundant of
> groundbettle, millipete, earthworm... I do quite sure it take less
> than three days to have a first hole that go through all the layer of
> newspaper if the newspaper are wet.
See above ... won't this make the newspaper less useful for weed
suppression?
>> It's not just the size of the hole but also any electrical or chemical
>> effects that may cause what ever you are adding to clump together
>> (similar to hard water calcification of drain pipes on a smaller
>> scale). Also, the landscape fabric regardless of the holes may be
>> semi-porous to water. That is not necessarily true for the solute.
>> [by 'hole' in this case, I'm refering to the factory made approx.
>> millimeter sized openings uniformly distributed over fabric area, not
>> the openings made by users to plant through.]
>
> My point are, if the end result are nutrient in liquid form can be
> filter/block, it's sure that it also will causing run off, and not
> much water can get from rain for soil that is directly under the
> landscape fabric. So why landscape fabric? ;-)
okay, but why would you add nutrient to the surface of your mulch (and
not directly to your flowers) or at least under the mulch? I know you
said you like to top dress, and let organisms do the transport, but this
seems inefficient for a small scale (ranking time to nutrient
accessiblity higher than labor time).
I think you are wrong about the soil not getting much water. I rarely
water my flower bed, and have the gutter blocking run-off from the roof,
and the plants appear very healthy.
The good thing about landscape fabric is you don't have to spend any time
weeding. Once every three months (or even longer), you can take a look,
a few thing may grow on top and these can be picked off by hand. No
significant root penetration occurs, so even a child could do it.
More importantly, there is no significant penalty for delayed removal.
Without landscape fabric, a weed may grow quite large and maybe even go
to seed or vegatatively propagate in 3 months (at the same time competing
with desirable plants for resources). With landscape fabric, the weed
may grow large, but the root system will be significantly impaired and
probably will not seed before it is pulled.
nswong
> > This is my point, it's the carbon available to bacterial, not the
> > actual amount of carbon that causing temperary N deficiency.
> >
> > If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial, it will not
> > cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon
there.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. The carbon in cellulose is not
going
> to be released in any significant quantitiy without bacterial
action.
> The bacteria will not have action without also N being present.
When
> both are present the bacteria will use both the N and C, making less
N
> available for plants. [I don't know what happens to the N after the
> bacteria get it (it has to go somewhere)]. Regardless, bacteria
will not
> be able to decompose diamonds.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> > If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial,
Think about fertilizer, there is water soluble and slow release. I
believe carbon do so. I believe sugar and starch are water soluble,
cellulose and lignin are slow release.
>> it will not
> > cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon
there.
For a fertilizer, it will causing root burn or not does not really
relate to the amount of element it contain. With the same content of
element, a water soluble fertilizer will surely having bigger chance
to cause root burn than a slow release fertilizer.
Let say there are total carbon enough to construct 1000 bacterial, but
If the carbon make availble(release) in any bacterial life cycle are
just enough to maintain 10 bacterial, no more than 10 bacterial will
coexist at any given time period.
> The carbon in cellulose is not going
> to be released in any significant quantitiy without bacterial
action.
IIRC, a lot of the form of carbon can be change to
available form by enzyme, and there is also a lot of the life form do
secrete these enzyme. If I'm not wrong, when those carbon in
unavailble form pass through the earthworm digesting system, the
enzyme secrete by earthworm do convert them to available form for
bacterial. Fungus do secrete enzyme too.
Oxidization also will turn it to plant available form. <g>
> >> Both newspaper and sawdust have high cellulose percentage.
Sawdust is
> >> reported to reduce nitrogen availability when used in a compost
pile.
> >
> > I believe that is starch and sugar in the sawdust that cause this,
not
> > cellulose or lignin. I believe newspaper do lost some of it starch
and
> > sugar while in the process.
>
> Cellulose is made from repeating units of glucose (a simple sugar)
[1].
> Starch is also made from glucose [2]. So unless there is some other
form
> of sugar you are thinking of, I don't think so.
I do come across the explanation before, but it's too technical for
me, so I just skip that part.
My explanation are:
Put one part of flour in ten part of water in a container, stir it.
Put one part of newspaper in ten part of water in another container,
stir it also. You will see the different. <g>
> [1] http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/cell.htm
> [2] http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/starch/whatis.htm
Thanks for the links. I do hope it's something that easy to
understand. ;-)
"AY-279 Earthworms and Crop Management"
I personally think this earthworm article as the best I read in
website are because it's something easy to understand for me, not
because it's the one that go to the most detail.
> > So, either mulch will cause temporary N deficiency or not will
depend
> > on the C/N ratio make available by rain to soil bacterial.
> >
> > I will say that, some mulch will and some mulch will not causing
> > temporary N deficiency. It will depend on the amount of the C and
N
> > available to bacterial that do bring to soil by rain water.
What I try to say are: Put a KG of flour as mulch to one plant. Put a
KG of cotton as mulch to another plant. Sprinkle some amount of
water(rain) on top of both "mulch", and see which plant leaves will
turn to yellow due to the carbon bring down by water from mulch.
> If you have high N, some of that N will be
used
> by decomposers leaving X amount for the plants, which still might
lead to
> low N. If your top layer is biologically active, then most of N
from
> rain will be intercepted before it reaches the plant roots.
Maximum number of life form are limited by resource, it included
space, water, air, and other element. The one that lack of will become
the factor of constrain, and those resource that is abundance remain
as abundance.
When a life form are in bloom, other life form depend on this life
form also will increase in number and put this life form in check. We
call this as predator, the poo of this predator mostly in a form that
can use by plant.
Iife form convert N from one form to another form. Man eat plant get
protein give ammonia. Man cannot digest ammonia, that is convert to by
man. An bacteria convert nitrite to nitrate will not take in nitrate
Some bacteria convert the ammonia to nitrite, some bacteria convert
nitrite to nitrate, plant convert nitrate to protein.
So "if my top layer is biologically active", each life form will hold
N in one form for a period, and act as a nutrient bank, at the end
make it slowly release to the plant.
> > To tell the true, I don't know what is actinomycetes. <g>
>
> "The mulitcellular actinobacteria include filamentous prokaryotes
that
> were originally mistaken for fungi. Unfortunately, even though they
are
> prokaryotic in all of their features, they are still sometimes
called
> 'actinomycetes'."
Thanks. But I do doubt I can remember all these names. <g>
> But if I were using my land
> for commercial interests, I would keep an eye on it.
I do research with searching, so instead join and reading in a
newsgroup, I will search in a newsgroup.
I join and reading in a newsgroup because I feel lonely, and want to
participate with other.
> hmm ... I don't know what happened to the group ... I only see
> sci.agriculture now (no '.bio') and that has quite a bit of useless
junk
> in it.
Maybe due to lack of traffic, Google discontinue to carry it.
> > They do need food, the landscape fabric do block organic matter to
> > reach the soil. If you mixed in a lot of manure yearly to the soil
> > that is another story.
>
> I do not know exactly what earthworms(#2) eat, but plants do secret
> organic debris from their roots, so perhaps falling surface debris
is not
> the only source of food for them.
From what I read, earhworm getting microorganisms in rotting plant
debris by ingesting(eatting) rotting plant debris. So if there is more
rotting plant debris available, there is more food for earthworm.
> There may be significant initial suppression,
but
> it seems to me that would be eventually negated by the additional
> fertility (of decaying mulch and other amendments).
As you said, I think the main purpose of newspaper are the initial
suppression before it decay.
> > It really depend on how abundant life form are there. An example
are,
> > I put the newspapers under my curing compost that have abundant of
> > groundbettle, millipete, earthworm... I do quite sure it take
less
> > than three days to have a first hole that go through all the layer
of
> > newspaper if the newspaper are wet.
>
> See above ... won't this make the newspaper less useful for weed
> suppression?
Except initial supression before decay, I think newspaper are for
press down the weed.
Take my case as example, I do cut/mow or roll down the weed before
apply mulch, without doing this, the mulch will be hard to distribute
evenly. With newspaper, I think I don't need cut/mow or roll down the
weed.
> okay, but why would you add nutrient to the surface of your mulch
(and
> not directly to your flowers) or at least under the mulch? I know
you
> said you like to top dress, and let organisms do the transport, but
this
> seems inefficient for a small scale (ranking time to nutrient
> accessiblity higher than labor time).
I never top dress nutrient on my mulch. But I do suggest if someone
need to do fertilization after mulching, he can top dress on the
mulch.
I develop/build up my soil fertility/organic matter before planting
crop, and use organic mulch to maintain the soil fertility/organic
matter.
> I think you are wrong about the soil not getting much water. I
rarely
> water my flower bed, and have the gutter blocking run-off from the
roof,
> and the plants appear very healthy.
As you said, your flower bed are narrow. And if your ground are
level, that will not much run off can occurs.
> The good thing about landscape fabric is you don't have to spend any
time
> weeding. Once every three months (or even longer), you can take a
look,
> a few thing may grow on top and these can be picked off by hand. No
> significant root penetration occurs, so even a child could do it.
>
>
> More importantly, there is no significant penalty for delayed
removal.
> Without landscape fabric, a weed may grow quite large and maybe even
go
> to seed or vegatatively propagate in 3 months (at the same time
competing
> with desirable plants for resources). With landscape fabric, the
weed
> may grow large, but the root system will be significantly impaired
and
> probably will not seed before it is pulled.
When weed go through the mulch:
In my case of not using newspaper, I will use sickle or handheld
string trimmer cut off the weed part that on top of mulch, on top of
the weed debris, add some more mulch. This will last about two month.
Using newspaper, I will simply laydown the newspaper on top of the
weed, add some more mulch. I believe it will last more than two month.
BTW: Weed here grow quite fast, today I cut it to the ground, next day
it can grow up to one and half inches. Weeding without mulch are not
the way to go.
Getting sleepy, brain are not clear now, write shorter. :-)
4:04 AM here.
Good night,
Salty Thumb
berlin.de:
> "Salty Thumb" <sa...@notsogreenthumb.fake> wrote in message
> news:caUIc.54009$6e7....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
>> > This is my point, it's the carbon available to bacterial, not the
>> > actual amount of carbon that causing temperary N deficiency.
>> >
>> > If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial, it will not
>> > cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon there.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this. The carbon in cellulose is not
>> going to be released in any significant quantitiy without bacterial
>> action. The bacteria will not have action without also N being
>> present. When both are present the bacteria will use both the N and C,
>> making less N available for plants. [I don't know what happens to the
>> N after the bacteria get it (it has to go somewhere)]. Regardless,
>> bacteria will not be able to decompose diamonds.
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
>> > If the carbon do in a slow release form for bacterial,
>
> Think about fertilizer, there is water soluble and slow release. I
> believe carbon do so. I believe sugar and starch are water soluble,
> cellulose and lignin are slow release.
okay, sure, I can go along with the concept that carbon locked in
cellulose and lignin usually do not as easily participate in reactions as
other forms.
>>> it will not
>> > cause a suddent bacterial bloom even there is a lot of carbon there.
>
> For a fertilizer, it will causing root burn or not does not really
> relate to the amount of element it contain. With the same content of
> element, a water soluble fertilizer will surely having bigger chance
> to cause root burn than a slow release fertilizer.
okay
> Let say there are total carbon enough to construct 1000 bacterial, but
> If the carbon make availble(release) in any bacterial life cycle are
> just enough to maintain 10 bacterial, no more than 10 bacterial will
> coexist at any given time period.
I think the difference between slow release fertilizers and cellulose is
that the coatings on slow release fertilizers are designed to degrade
mechanically or chemically (wind/water action, soil chemistry or natural
instability) and not by biological effect. The speed at which cellulose
decays can be accelerated or decelerated by the presence or absense of
nitrogen (and water). I don't think that is true of slow release
fertilizers. So while wood is usually a 'slow release form', with the
addition of nitrogen in a biologically active situation it ceases to be
'slow release'. Similar degradation does not occur with the fertilizers
in the time scale of normal (non-compost) bed, because quite frankly,
normal bacteria don't have much to gain by decomposing artifical
fertilizer pellets. To put another way, if the carbon is milk and
nitrogen is cookies, when the bacteria see the two together, they are
going to eat regardless of any ideas about 'slow release'.
.
>> The carbon in cellulose is not going to be released in any significant
>> quantitiy without bacterial action.
>
> IIRC, a lot of the form of carbon can be change to
> available form by enzyme, and there is also a lot of the life form do
> secrete these enzyme. If I'm not wrong, when those carbon in
> unavailble form pass through the earthworm digesting system, the
> enzyme secrete by earthworm do convert them to available form for
> bacterial. Fungus do secrete enzyme too.
I think this is still dependent on the presense of nitrogen to make
proteins with energy supplied from the carbons.
> Oxidization also will turn it to plant available form. <g>
>
>> >> Both newspaper and sawdust have high cellulose percentage. Sawdust
>> >> is reported to reduce nitrogen availability when used in a compost
>> >> pile.
>> >
>> > I believe that is starch and sugar in the sawdust that cause this,
>> > not cellulose or lignin. I believe newspaper do lost some of it
>> > starch and sugar while in the process.
>>
>> Cellulose is made from repeating units of glucose (a simple sugar)
>> [1]. Starch is also made from glucose [2]. So unless there is some
>> other form of sugar you are thinking of, I don't think so.
>
> I do come across the explanation before, but it's too technical for
> me, so I just skip that part.
>
> My explanation are:
> Put one part of flour in ten part of water in a container, stir it.
> Put one part of newspaper in ten part of water in another container,
> stir it also. You will see the different. <g>
Okay, but I'm not saying the starch in flour isn't different from the
cellulose in newspaper. I'm saying newspaper and sawdust probably have
similar nitrogen leaching effects due to the cellulose content. Do the
same experiment with sawdust and compare to the flour. Even if you shred
the newspaper or stick it in a blender, I think you will find them both
more similar to each other than to the flour.
>> [1] http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/cell.htm [2]
>> http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/starch/whatis.htm
>
> Thanks for the links. I do hope it's something that easy to
> understand. ;-)
>
> "AY-279 Earthworms and Crop Management"
> I personally think this earthworm article as the best I read in
> website are because it's something easy to understand for me, not
> because it's the one that go to the most detail.
>
>> > So, either mulch will cause temporary N deficiency or not will
>> > depend on the C/N ratio make available by rain to soil bacterial.
>> >
>> > I will say that, some mulch will and some mulch will not causing
>> > temporary N deficiency. It will depend on the amount of the C and N
>> > available to bacterial that do bring to soil by rain water.
>
> What I try to say are: Put a KG of flour as mulch to one plant. Put a
> KG of cotton as mulch to another plant. Sprinkle some amount of
> water(rain) on top of both "mulch", and see which plant leaves will
> turn to yellow due to the carbon bring down by water from mulch.
I think yellow leaves are a sign of nitrogen deficiency. My explanation
is the soil organisms are using the nitrogen and the very accessible
carbon in the flour (which also easily washes down into the soil). So
it's not really the carbon, it's the hungry soil organisms that see the
carbon but also need nitrogen to digest it, leaving little nitrogen for
plants and then the leaves turn yellow. The plant may also not like some
of the gluten in the flour. The cotton is cellulose and less accessible
than flour, but that doesn't mean it wont't cause some nitrogen
deficiency by intercepting nitrogen that would normally wash through the
soil.
>> If you have high N, some of that N will be used by decomposers leaving
>> X amount for the plants, which still might lead to low N. If your top
>> layer is biologically active, then most of N from rain will be
>> intercepted before it reaches the plant roots.
>
> Maximum number of life form are limited by resource, it included
> space, water, air, and other element. The one that lack of will become
> the factor of constrain, and those resource that is abundance remain
> as abundance.
>
> When a life form are in bloom, other life form depend on this life
> form also will increase in number and put this life form in check. We
> call this as predator, the poo of this predator mostly in a form that
> can use by plant.
>
> Iife form convert N from one form to another form. Man eat plant get
> protein give ammonia. Man cannot digest ammonia, that is convert to by
> man. An bacteria convert nitrite to nitrate will not take in nitrate
>
> Some bacteria convert the ammonia to nitrite, some bacteria convert
> nitrite to nitrate, plant convert nitrate to protein.
>
> So "if my top layer is biologically active", each life form will hold
> N in one form for a period, and act as a nutrient bank, at the end
> make it slowly release to the plant.
yea, but not all forms of nutrients are exclusive, the set of resources
required by bacteria is less than that of plants, so it is less likely
that deficiency in one will limit the population. (For example bacteria
may only need C, N, H20, and plants need H20, CO2, N, Fe, P, K, so
limiting Fe will not limit bacterial population, but will limit plant
population). Also, discounting the presence of legumes, your plants are
not going to have a nitrogen generating source below the soil. The
nitrogen will wash down from above and the bacteria in the top layer will
have first access.
> When weed go through the mulch:
>
> In my case of not using newspaper, I will use sickle or handheld
> string trimmer cut off the weed part that on top of mulch, on top of
> the weed debris, add some more mulch. This will last about two month.
>
> Using newspaper, I will simply laydown the newspaper on top of the
> weed, add some more mulch. I believe it will last more than two month.
>
> BTW: Weed here grow quite fast, today I cut it to the ground, next day
> it can grow up to one and half inches. Weeding without mulch are not
> the way to go.
If I were in your situation, I would probably do the same + the living
mulch or cover crop you mentioned earlier. The only difference is I may
worry about weeds resprouting from roots, so I may dig them out instead
of cutting them if it is not too time consuming. Maybe also some
research into plants that are alleopathic to the weeds.
nswong
> Okay, but I'm not saying the starch in flour isn't different from
the
> cellulose in newspaper. I'm saying newspaper and sawdust probably
have
> similar nitrogen leaching effects due to the cellulose content. Do
the
> same experiment with sawdust and compare to the flour. Even if you
shred
> the newspaper or stick it in a blender, I think you will find them
both
> more similar to each other than to the flour.
Okay. <g>
> Also, discounting the presence of legumes, your plants are
> not going to have a nitrogen generating source below the soil.
There is bacterial that exist in soil freely that can use carbon as
energy to fix N without work with legume, and release the N to plant
available form when they die and decay. :-)
> If I were in your situation, I would probably do the same + the
living
> mulch or cover crop you mentioned earlier. The only difference is I
may
> worry about weeds resprouting from roots, so I may dig them out
instead
> of cutting them if it is not too time consuming. Maybe also some
> research into plants that are alleopathic to the weeds.
Yes, it's not cost effective to remove the weeds root.
BTW: I do enjoy to read your posting, but it become a stress for me to
reply you. I read quite fast, it take not more than 10 minute to read
your post. But I write slow, it take nearly 2 hours to reply you. I
hope next time we talk again it will be some simpler one. :-)
Regards,