Practical information for consumers on going green.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sunday, April 13, 2003
Feeding Your Monster Grass
I was out in the yard this weekend pruning and generally doing some spring cleaning. It looks very sad. Some areas have little bunches of grass, and other areas are covered with grass, but the total effect doesn't rise to the level of a turf. And then there are the weeds. I've already dug up some dandelions, but they're like the Terminator. They'll be back. Maybe if I made salad out of them I wouldn't mind weeding so much.
In past years, I've found that using corn gluten on my lawn in the early spring is a good way to fend off the dandelions. Corn gluten, according to something I read somewhere once upon a time, is a byproduct of the wet milling process (no, I don't know exactly what that is). Its ability to inhibit the growth or sprouting of weeds was discovered by accident. If you apply it to your lawn in, say, March, and apply it every 8 weeks thereafter until the fall, it will keep the dandelions in check. Corn gluten works by preventing the dandelions from sprouting, so it won't do much to the ones that have already come up. However, I have found that if I dig up the dandelions and then apply corn gluten, it seems to inhibit the old weeds from coming back.
Corn gluten is expensive. The last time I bought some, at Echter's Greenhouse in Arvada, Colorado, I paid $28 for 40 pounds, which just about covered my yard.
The advantages of corn gluten are its lack of toxicity and its properties as a mild fertilizer.
If you really want your lawn to look thick, you'll have to do more than apply corn gluten. One option in the Denver North Metro area is Eco-Lawn, a company in Boulder. Their slogan is "Growing Healthy Lawns, Safely." They know that a truly healthy lawn is less hospitable to weeds, so they do everything they can to build up microorganisms in the soil that promote steady root growth. Lawns with deeper roots won't be as quick to turn brown in the heat. Last summer, we got an estimate from Eco-Lawn for fertilization, aeration, and application of a water retention solvent in the form of pellets that get into the soil and retains water. Their estimate for our lawn was $242 for treatment of 2,265 square feet. Of course, you can buy organic fertilizers and a spreader and rent your own aerator, but I think it would be worth it to get the water retention solvent. That cost less than $50.
We didn't use Eco-Lawn last year because we decided to put in a new lawn this year, so I can't tell you how well it worked. You can call them at (303) 494-6500.
posted by Beth at 4:59 PM
bapartin@yahoo.com
It's time to write about grass again.
I think I've finally worked up the financial courage to replace my backyard lawn with buffalograss sod. I estimate that our backyard is 1,500 square feet, so the new sod will probably cost about $750.
But first, how do I get rid of the old lawn?
1. I could spray it with Roundup. Besides being toxic, however, spraying all that square footage would make my hand hurt. And I would probably need to do several applications.
2. I could have the soil rototilled. But would my sprinkler system survive it?
3. I could have the sod stripped off. That would provide a fairly flat surface for the buffalograss sod. But would the bluegrass start growing back?
I can't just overseed with buffalograss. It doesn't compete well with bluegrass and fescue.
When I figure it out, I'll let you know.
posted by Beth at 4:37 PM
bapartin@yahoo.com
Friday, April 04, 2003
Nice Try
Sometimes I read Wired because it's around the house. It always has an article that's interesting, even if the tone is a little breathless. In the April 2003 issue, the article that caught my eye was "How Hydrogen Power Can Save America: A 5-Point Plan to End the Oil Era" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html).
Now I do believe we are at the beginning of the end of the oil era. But it will take the better part of the twenty-first century to completely shuck our dependence on it.
This article proposes that President Bush spend $100 billion to develop a hydrogen infrastructure and encourage manufacture of hydrogen-powered vehicles in the next ten years. It takes John Kennedy's 1960s Apollo program as its model. So far, so good.
It's a great idea, except for three problems. In Step 1, "Solve the Hydrogen Fuel Tank Problem," the authors conclude that "the most promising approach is to fill the tank with a solid material that soaks up hydrogen like a sponge at fill-up and releases it during drive time. Currently, the options include lithium hydride, sodium borohydride, and an emerging class of ultraporous nanotech materials." What the authors don't tell us is where we are supposed to get large quantities of these materials. Will we need labs to make them? Will we need to mine them? Are they toxic to produce?
Second, the authors dismiss wind and solar as viable ways to solve our energy problems. Some people have claimed that there's enough wind in the Dakotas to power the entire U.S. energy grid, but there's no mention of such promise from this article (I'd go look for a source, but it's early in the morning, and I'm too lazy). Here is what they have to say about the potential of currently viable alternative energy sources: "Far preferable would be to use carbon-free resources like solar, wind, and hydropower to produce electricity for electrolysis, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen would make renewable energy practical, acting as a storage medium for the modest amounts of energy such resources produce." So that's the potential of solar and wind power for the authors of this article. They would reduce technology that has been proven but is severely underutilized to the role of servant to an idea.
The third problem I have with this article is the authors' attitude toward nuclear energy, which they call a "clean, efficient, and much neglected energy source." Since when has nuclear been efficient or clean? How can an industry that produces waste that is toxic for thousands of years ever be called clean? It's nonsense!
OK, I feel better now. Part of the reason this article annoyed me is that I'm one of the people investing in wind power through WindSource, XCEL Energy's wind program. If you're an XCEL customer in Colorado, New Mexico, or Minnesota, go buy at least one 100-kilowatt hour block of wind power. It will cost you a measly $2.50 (go to http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,2914,1-1-1_3729_3677_3682-3148-0_0_0-0,00.html).
posted by Beth at 6:30 AM
bapartin@yahoo.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
