ing the area, stakes and string were 

 used to prevent foot traffic while 

 the turf was being reestablished. 

 Posters were also put on display to 

 explain and identify components of 

 the demonstration. 



Results 



This demonstration did not attempt 

 to quantity the potential ditterenc- 

 es in growth response between the 

 different treatments. Instead, visual 

 observation was used to assess the 

 relative efficacy ot each treatment. 

 Also, the costs tor each type of 

 treatment were compared. Finally, 

 an evaluation of the ease ot applica- 

 tion is offered. 



Figures 3-7 below show the 

 amount ot grass growth on each 

 treatment trom May 5, 2003 to 

 June 17, 2003. Between May 5''' 

 and June 17'*', there was no mow- 

 ing or foot traffic across the plot. 

 During this six week period, all 

 tour treatments were managed in 

 an identical manner, affording each 

 the same potential for grass germi- 

 nation and grow. The control plot 

 had a slight advantage in that some 

 grass was already established at the 

 start of the demonstration as op- 

 posed to the other three treatments 

 in which all turt was destroyed dur- 

 ing the incorporation process when 

 these plot were initially established. 

 In comparing figure 1 and figure 7, 

 it is obvious that all plots benefited 



\>j!ife*.- ■**vir ■"../.:**. 



Table 1. Comparison of Material Costs per 1000 sq. ft. for Each Treatment 



PLOT 



Figure 3. 



SEED COST 

 PER 1000 SQ. FT. 



AMENDMENT COST 

 PER 1000 SQ. FT. 



TOTAL COST 

 PER 1000 SQ.FT. 



Control 



Chemical Fertilizer 

 Biosollds Compost 

 Leaf & Yard Waste Compost 



a — based on retail price quote from New England Organics 



trom being reseeded. It also seems 

 that both composts were superior 

 to chemical fertilizer tor establish- 

 ing turf. The composts plots have 

 both denser and higher growth. Us- 

 ing grass height as an indication ot 

 grass production, figures 3-6 seems 

 to show that the control produced 

 the most grass. However, caretul 

 observation would suggest denser 

 growth in the compost treatments, 

 particularly for biosolids. While not 

 discernible trom the figures, the 

 amount ot newly germinated grass 

 was clearly greater in the com- 

 post plots than in the control. The 

 appearance ot greater production in 

 the control can mostly be attributed 

 to previously established turt. 



Table 1 shows the material costs 

 tor managing turt using the tour 

 treatments discussed above. Costs 

 have been equalized to show the cost 

 per 1000 square feet tor each man- 



.?^-^..K.^ 





higiirc 4. 



^^^mmmki^sM 



b — based on retail price quote from Earthtenders 



agement regimen. These costs do 

 not reflect labor costs necessary to 

 have a professional landscaper, turf 

 professional, or groundskeeper per- 

 form the work. As would be expect- 

 ed, the cost ot reseeding is less than 

 the cost ot reseeding combined with 

 the addition of a soil amendment. 

 Among the amendments, chemical 

 fertilizers were the least costly. Al- 

 though the leaf & yard waste com- 

 post, seems to be the most expensive 

 option, the actual cost of using vari- 

 ous composts may vary depending 

 on the quality, quantity, and truck- 

 ing distance. 



Regarding the issue of ease ap- 

 plication, clearly, simple reseeding 

 or reseeding coupled with chemical 

 fertilization were the easiest options. 

 Because composts are far more bulky 

 than seed or chemical fertilizer, 

 transporting and handling compost 

 requires far more time and effort. In 

 addition, home lawn spreaders are 

 adapted to spreading commercial 

 seed and fertilizer and may not be 

 able to handle many types ot com- 

 post. 



Conclusions 



Although cost and ease of applica- 

 tion favor reseeding or reseeding 

 with chemical fertilization, compost 

 use seems to enhance germination 

 and grass production. Compost use 

 has other advantages not readily ap- 

 parent from such a short demonstra- 

 tion. Table 2, opposite, compares 

 the relative benefits of the organic 

 amendments such as compost to 

 chemical fertilizers. 



The I'lantsmati 



