what do you tell people?

I tell them that I use ordinary cornmeal on my lawn instead of chemicals. I explain that it works better than chemicals, smells better in the garage, and attracts birds, toads, and lizards to take care of my insect problems, so I don't have to use insecticides anymore.

how do you explain yourself?

I usually shout, I DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO YOU! Actually I'm not sure what you're asking.

where do you reference material and data?

For what? Bona fide reference material for the ground grains approach to fertilizing is sorely lacking. A good explanation for why it works was only "discovered" in the 1990s. As far as I know the best data is found in the writings of satisfied people here on GardenWeb - which is not an authoratative source. But jeeze Louise! We're not talking about extending the life of the human creature. We're talking about a freakin' HOBBY! If you need reference material and data to make a slight (experimental?) change to the way you take care of your lawn, then you're overthinking it. For $6 you can fertilize 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of lawn. How much reference material do you need before you'll spend $6.00? After the initial cost, the results usually speak for themselves. If you just want to give someone something to read, read this.

Does anyone have good links to websites or charts and graphs etc?

You mean like university websites? I've never found any great ones. I used to like the Cornell website for compost issues, but my emphasis on compost in organic gardening has dropped to nil. I have not been to a university website in five years. That's a long time so if anyone knows of a good one, I'd be interested in seeing it. I used to be the organic lawns moderator for what used to be a very good forum. I can't send you there in good conscience anymore. The main reason for the problems is that the owner decided to make you pay to visit the forums. Thus participation plummeted. Now the only people there are the original moderators and some newbys who got suckered in to paying for the service. If you are looking for a good interactive group with lots of participation, GardenWeb is the best by far. The Rodale site is oriented to people growing specific plants/crops using the old Rodale way. There are several sharp GardenWeb members on the Rodale site but there are few very deep, informative, discussions. If you want to learn about soil biology, which I consider the single most important thing there is to know about gardening, visit the USDA's website called The Soil Biology Primer. Get comfortable because it's 50 pages long.

Here is a link that might be useful: Soil Biology Primer

dchall

how do you explain yourself?.....good reply!

Thanks for your info.

Science exists for CGM, that's about it.

Unless someone drops some additional info. on this topic, I think the conclusion is the GardenWeb Organic Lawn Care forum has THE BEST overall information regarding organic lawn care anwhere. Those of us actually doing organics have the information.

The land grant university in my state has acctually gone on record last April indicating they know nothing about this option.

If you are a casual observer to this forum, know that you are receiving unique information, unavailable anywhere else.

Probably another good place beside Soil Biology Primer is Soil Food Web website (same author by Soil Biology Primer). I don't think I've ever seen anything like that elsewhere.

Here is a link that might be useful: Understanding the Soil Foodweb

vintageways, organic vs. synthetic; the debate continues.
There was a time (and yes! I lived then.) when nothing was added to the soil to make things grow. Then farmers discovered the benefits of farmyard manures. Moving forward, the vitalism theory attempted to separate matter into two groups viz. organic and inorganic, depending upon their reaction to heat. Then a scientist upset things by "synthesizing" urea in the lab; and now the followers of the vitalistic theory were confused. A hitherto organic product had become inorganic! (Scientists can do such marvellous things).
Things exploded (pardon the pun) after World War II because farmers now understood crop nutrition and, the manufacturing facilities were in place for the production of materials used in warfare which could also be used for increasing crop production.
We then entered a (vicious?) cycle of using more synthetics to remedy(?) problems occasioned by the use of other synthetics.
I can answer your second question more easily than the first. In my entire working life I have found it essential to use synthetic products for generating profit and producing plants for food (commercial agriculture) and plants for beauty (horticulture). I am quite convinced that the former cannot be transitioned easily to 'organic' and I fervently hope that in a backyard somewhere a young person is pursuing an activity which will do for organic commercial agriculture what Gates and Jobs did for computers.
At the personal level, I strive to live in an 'environmentally conscious' style. My lawn will not win any awards but I use no chemicals, and watch my use of (reclaimed) water and other things like that.
What do I tell people? Quite simply, to carefully rethink their expectations.
Can one have a weed free lawn? Can one have a pest free lawn? What shade or tint of green do you desire?
The first two are not possible and the third is highly subjective. But if I try to achieve my realistic expectations in a way which is least impactive (and remember, least impact is no impact) on the environment, then I will have done my best. It will require that I learn and practise what I learn. It will not be easy and success is not guaranteed but I must persevere if I have the conviction that I am on the right track.
Reference material, data, graphs, charts and websites are abundantly available; the difficulty is in distilling and crystallising it all into informed plan of action.
Disclaimer. "The opinions expressed in the foregoing are my own and I am solely responsible........etc. etc."

Ronalawn, much of you say is true, however, a couple things are not.

"1. There was a time (and yes! I lived then.) when nothing was added to the soil to make things grow."

Either you're the oldest person on earth or you don't have your facts straight. Farmers have been using fertilizer for thousands of years. Here's a quote from Answers.com:

"The Egyptians are known to have added ashes from burned weeds to soil. Ancient Greek and Roman writings indicate that various animal excrements were used, depending on the type of soil or plant grown. It was also known by this time that growing leguminous plants on plots prior to growing wheat was beneficial."

"2. Then a scientist upset things by "synthesizing" urea in the lab; and now the followers of the vitalistic theory were confused. A hitherto organic product had become inorganic!"

This work was done by German chemist Friedrich Wöhler in 1828. He did not convert an organic compound to an inorganic compound. He synthesized (made by man) the first organic compound. Natural occurring urea and synthesized urea have the same chemical formula. They are indistinguishable.

-Deerslayer

deerslayer, you may be right that I am the oldest person on earth if first hand knowledge (experience) of 'shifting cultivation' is a criterion. If you are ever interested, we can discuss the Wapisiana Indians of what was British Guiana (now Guyana), their methods of cultivating cassava (Manihot utlissima) and their contribution to the culinary culture to that country.

When urea was synthesized in 1828, the followers of the vitalistic theory must have had a fairly serious and basic problem. Until then they believed that organic materials contained the "vital force" of life and they had urea placed in the organic category. Their question had to be, "how can a material with the "vital force" be made by man in a laboratory using materials of which NONE had the said "vital force"? For them, an 'organic' material could now be proven to be 'inorganic'.

Here and there my posting on this forum has become problematic and I must accept the responsibility for that because the effectiveness of any communication rests solely with the communicator. I hope that I have established that I may not have been right but I was not wrong. Can we hit each other a 'high five' and continue?

Ronalawn, I am not sure why you referenced shifting cultivation or growing cassava. I agree that crops can be grown without fertilizer. My point was that fertilizer has been used for thousands of years -- it wasn't discovered during your lifetime.

Vitalism was a popular theory before 1828. The theory was disproved when urea was synthesized. By definition, urea is an organic compound whether it is produced naturally or is synthesized.

I agree that some believers of the Vitalism theory may have thought that synthesized urea must be an inorganic compound because it lacked the "life force". They were wrong but who cares? Those people have been dead for over a century.

I can do a high five if you can.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer (and I have to ask why I jump into conversations with you), I think he was saying that where he lived he saw agriculture going on without fertilizer, and later they started to use it. So where he lived, there was a transition that happened within his lifetime. There might still be places where agriculture is going on without the benefit of fertilizer, even without large animal manures.

Still there is something he said that I disagree with.
What do I tell people? Quite simply, to carefully rethink their expectations.
Can one have a weed free lawn? Can one have a pest free lawn? What shade or tint of green do you desire?
The first two are not possible and the third is highly subjective.

I don't see any reason to compromise on expectations. Whether you have weeds or not is a cultural issue, not a chemical vs organic issue. If you don't nurture the weed seeds, you can certainly minimize, if not eliminate, them. Whether you have pests or not partially depends on your definition of pest. By my definition, pest free is impossible with either style of cultivation; however, my lawn is organic and I have eradicated fungal diseases and grubs using organic materials. Regarding color: yes it is a subjective test but when I pick a blade of my grass and compare it to chemically fertilized grass in the same neighborhood, mine appears to me to be darker green. If darker green is what you're after, then you might consider organic.

vintageways, if you change forums, you can ask the question, "organic or organic," because nobody seems to agree on what that means either.

"I have to ask why I jump into conversations with you"

Maybe it's because the conversations are controversial and/or interesting and you can't help yourself. 8^) I know that I learn the most from people that I sometimes disagree with...maybe it's the same for you.

"I think he was saying that where he lived he saw agriculture going on without fertilizer, and later they started to use it...There might still be places where agriculture is going on without the benefit of fertilizer, even without large animal manures."

I agree. Perhaps that is what Rona(?) meant. That's why I responded with:

"I agree that crops can be grown without fertilizer. My point was that fertilizer has been used for thousands of years -- it wasn't discovered during your lifetime."

-Deerslayer

dchall san antonio, thanks for clearing up a slight confusion.
When I urge people to 'carefully rethink their expectations', it is within the context that all lawn 'problems' should have an acceptance level. Below this level, one should not have to apply corrective measures. That acceptance level is both personal and subjective. The idea took hold many years ago when we were urged to reduce the use of all products applied to lawns. Home owners are often at loggerheads with their lawn care providers because of a gap in their expectations. You and I and everyone else can say right now that any lawn has an infestation of its 'favorite' animal pest, an infection of its typical fungus and an 'invasion' of some weed or another.

We just have to look hard enough.

This is why Lawn Care Companies can place hangers on my front-door knob proclaiming the ills on my lawn. I know one outfit that required its employees to examine 32 lawns in four hours. Excluding travelling time, it allowed less than eight minutes per lawn; and they are asking me to pay them my hard earned money to provide services based on such a superficial examination. I defy any lawn professional to provide credible reports, based upon current and objective methods, within that time frame.
Yet I find it hard to blame these business people. It appears to me that the home owners are at a disadvantage because we have all failed to provide ourselves and them with the information that would lead to enlightened decisions which ultimately impact the environment.
Disclaimer: "the opinions etc. etc..."