Lawns are good for the environment if managed responsibly – that’s the message of a national teleconference I just sat through put on by the ScottsMiracle-Gro Co. and the National Garden Writers Association called “Water, Lawns and the Environment.”
“Managed responsibly” means mow high, leave the clippings on the lawn, use less water and feed, feed, feed (presumably with oodles of ScottsMiracle-Gro products).
The participants on this panel, which included a Scotts VP of sustainability, had not a word to say about runoff from chemical treatment of lawns into the groundwater supply or air pollution from lawn mowers. They did mention that some experts estimate that about half of the water applied to lawns ends up wasted.
And no one mentioned grass alternatives. The turf specialist from Florida did reveal the results of a study where he compared how well water filtered through a patch of turf and a patch of ornamentals. He found the turf used water more efficiently and filtered water more effectively than the ornamental landscape. I’d like to see that study replicated in the Northwest with turf compared to a landscape planted with natives.
It’s no surprise that a lawn and garden company wants us to keep growing grass and feeding it with loads of fertilizers. The carefully-controlled teleconference struck me as a rather pathetic pep rally for grass.
My position: Grass can be a nice addition to the landscape visually and a place for a good game of flag football. It’s also a major source of air and water pollution. So, if you must, mow high, leave the clippings on the lawn and fertilize at recommended rates. More is not better. Avoid weed-and-feed products.
Also broaden your mind and consider lawn alternatives or replace a portion of the lawn with Northwest natives that, once established, won’t need any supplemental water or fertilizers.
Leave your comments!
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
