Lawn mowing

[ardcarp]

Robots aside, our grass has grown quite lush after being starved of water during the summer and having been cut much less often than usual. It's just a question of finding a day when it's not wet with dew for a final trim. Not usually done in mid-November!

[Dave2002]

Not usually done in mid-November!

Later or earlier - usually?

[Serial_Apologist]

Robots aside, our grass has grown quite lush after being starved of water during the summer and having been cut much less often than usual. It's just a question of finding a day when it's not wet with dew for a final trim. Not usually done in mid-November!

That never deters our gardener!

[mikealdren]

That never deters our gardener!

Nor ours (me!!!)

[gurnemanz]

Our grass has not been cut since before the drought. Great to see a lush sward thanks to recent rain. I'm not planning to play croquet and won't be mowing again this year.

[Dave2002]

Our front "lawn" is now a rewilding exercise. I let it go during No Mow May, and was considering trimming it now that we're in June. Recently I heard a radio programme about the benefits to wildlife and diversity in just letting things go - mention of a plot which is somewhere near Cambridge - and observations that many creatures and perhaps also plants do find even a small patch which isn't heavily manicured beneficial.

For me this is both a practical and ethical/aesthetic issue - I'm not sure how it's going to resolve. We live in a rural area with a lot of farmland around. There are also wilder patches alongside roads, with woods not too far away.

The areas occupied by farms will be interfered with by human intervention on a regular basis, so may not necessarily be good for wildlife and biological diversity.

Also, since it has been pretty dry recently, some parts of our front "lawn" have been in a very bad state, with the oak trees at the boundary taking out much of the water. The part of the grass closest to the house is quite lush, but the rest is not. I am inclined to give it all a modest trim once we've had a few thunderstorms to increase the water reaching the ground.

I have observed that a lot of clover has sprung up, and now it's in flower, which bees seem to like. Moss is almost everywhere. I may start a tidy up operation in a week or two, but right now it's a rewilding wilderness.

[Serial_Apologist]

Our front "lawn" is now a rewilding exercise. I let it go during No Mow May, and was considering trimming it now that we're in June. Recently I heard a radio programme about the benefits to wildlife and diversity in just letting things go - mention of a plot which is somewhere near Cambridge - and observations that many creatures and perhaps also plants do find even a small patch which isn't heavily manicured beneficial.

For me this is both a practical and ethical/aesthetic issue - I'm not sure how it's going to resolve. We live in a rural area with a lot of farmland around. There are also wilder patches alongside roads, with woods not too far away.

The areas occupied by farms will be interfered with by human intervention on a regular basis, so may not necessarily be good for wildlife and biological diversity.

Also, since it has been pretty dry recently, some parts of our front "lawn" have been in a very bad state, with the oak trees at the boundary taking out much of the water. The part of the grass closest to the house is quite lush, but the rest is not. I am inclined to give it all a modest trim once we've had a few thunderstorms to increase the water reaching the ground.

I have observed that a lot of clover has sprung up, and now it's in flower, which bees seem to like. Moss is almost everywhere. I may start a tidy up operation in a week or two, but right now it's a rewilding wilderness.

We are privileged to have flowerbeds down each side of our residential road, consisting of alternating hedgerows (which have been allowed to become "eclectic") and mostly Hybrid-T roses. The council workforce comes along occasionally to shape the mostly privet hedges and weed or bark-mulch the rose beds, but lacking sufficient time, it has been left to the likes me me to regularly dead-head the roses, and I have gained something of a positive reputation from neighbours. Yesterday a passer-by indicated black spots on the council's roses, to which I replied that unlike me, they had not applied Rose Clear or some other fungicide to pre-empt this from happening. She answered that she had considered thus treating her own roses, but wasn't sure if it was environmentally desirable to use such products - which I thought was rather sweet! I pointed out that spraying roses was highly unlikely to lead to environmental damage, unlike farmer practices of wholesale herbicide and pesticide applications across vast fields of monocrops!

[Dave2002]

We are privileged to have flowerbeds down each side of our residential road, consisting of alternating hedgerows (which have been allowed to become "eclectic") and mostly Hybrid-T roses. The council workforce comes along occasionally to shape the mostly privet hedges and weed or bark-mulch the rose beds, but lacking sufficient time, it has been left to the likes me me to regularly dead-head the roses, and I have gained something of a positive reputation from neighbours. Yesterday a passer-by indicated black spots on the council's roses, to which I replied that unlike me, they had not applied Rose Clear or some other fungicide to pre-empt this from happening. She answered that she had considered thus treating her own roses, but wasn't sure if it was environmentally desirable to use such products - which I thought was rather sweet! I pointed out that spraying roses was highly unlikely to lead to environmental damage, unlike farmer practices of wholesale herbicide and pesticide applications across vast fields of monocrops!

This does sound very suburban - or urban. The comment on monocrops makes me wonder if I should leave our lawn for considerably longer - there are already more diverse plants that I didn't know much about, and I've previously mentioned the bees. I look out on fields of green, which sometimes turn golden, and are then harvested, and there seems to be some sort of rotation pattern between arable and livestock farming, as from time to time sheep come onto the fields. I don't know if the farmer uses herbicide and pesticides - probably does - maybe it's mixed in with the seed and fertiliser. Perhaps the fields don't actually have very many different types of plants as they may be considered disadvantageous regarding production. Further down the road there are fields which turn yellow around May - because for a month or more they are home to oil seed rape, which we find gives us allergy problems.

Don't worry though, I'll probably trim things back in a while, and I'm not intending to get rid of the rhododendrons, which are not strictly indigenous, but then neither are the Christmas trees which seem to self propagate. For a while I'll support the local honey producers by not cutting the clover. Beech, oak and other plants keep taking hold, but I will reduce their number soon. The two oak trees are huge, so I don't suppose that removing a modest number of small ones before they start to get established is going to present any big problems.

[Serial_Apologist]

This does sound very suburban - or urban. The comment on monocrops makes me wonder if I should leave our lawn for considerably longer - there are already more diverse plants that I didn't know much about, and I've previously mentioned the bees. I look out on fields of green, which sometimes turn golden, and are then harvested, and there seems to be some sort of rotation pattern between arable and livestock farming, as from time to time sheep come onto the fields. I don't know if the farmer uses herbicide and pesticides - probably does - maybe it's mixed in with the seed and fertiliser. Perhaps the fields don't actually have very many different types of plants as they may be considered disadvantageous regarding production. Further down the road there are fields which turn yellow around May - because for a month or more they are home to oil seed rape, which we find gives us allergy problems.

Don't worry though, I'll probably trim things back in a while, and I'm not intending to get rid of the rhododendrons, which are not strictly indigenous, but then neither are the Christmas trees which seem to self propagate. For a while I'll support the local honey producers by not cutting the clover. Beech, oak and other plants keep taking hold, but I will reduce their number soon. The two oak trees are huge, so I don't suppose that removing a modest number of small ones before they start to get established is going to present any big problems.

In relation to the adjacent monoculture, your garden probably acts as the equivalent of a field margin left unattended, which must be beneficial for wildlife, Here of course we are in the London suburbs, but whether here or in a rural locale current advice is to leave an area of one's garden to literally go to seed, like you say; it needn't be more than a small area - and btw creating a pond, even if it no larger than a small bath, is also recommended. We don't have a pond - there are several kids living in the block - but an area in a far corner next to one of our two compost heaps , adjacent to the fence boundaries, remains in effect permanently "fallow".

[oddoneout]

We are privileged to have flowerbeds down each side of our residential road, consisting of alternating hedgerows (which have been allowed to become "eclectic") and mostly Hybrid-T roses. The council workforce comes along occasionally to shape the mostly privet hedges and weed or bark-mulch the rose beds, but lacking sufficient time, it has been left to the likes me me to regularly dead-head the roses, and I have gained something of a positive reputation from neighbours. Yesterday a passer-by indicated black spots on the council's roses, to which I replied that unlike me, they had not applied Rose Clear or some other fungicide to pre-empt this from happening. She answered that she had considered thus treating her own roses, but wasn't sure if it was environmentally desirable to use such products - which I thought was rather sweet! I pointed out that spraying roses was highly unlikely to lead to environmental damage, unlike farmer practices of wholesale herbicide and pesticide applications across vast fields of monocrops!

I would disagree with you I'm afraid about the use of sprays against blackspot. The condition is largely a cosmetic issue, the roses are unlikely to be killed by it although severe repeated attacks reduces vigour. Some roses are more susceptible than others, (although apparently bred-for resistance can reduce over time as the fungus changes) and the appearance and severity of attack will vary throughout a season and from year to year. A spray such as Roseclear, which is a systemic, containing an insecticide as well as fungicide, does have environmental implications. I realise that in the context of public planting a better approach is unlikely to be possible(although bark mulch will help) but there are non-chemical ways to deal with such problems. In due course the council may decide to remove the roses, which unless carefully chosen will always need more attention than cash strapped public authorities can provide, and in any case have a limited lifespan, and replace with bushes that can provide good visual and amenity advantages(and also the increasingly necessary green credential tick box being filled) with only minimal attention.
All credit to you for caring, and taking time to deadhead though.

[gradus]

Re fungicide/insecticide of course it is best to avoid if possible but careful modest application is extremely unlikely to do long term harm, although a minor risk is always there.

[oddoneout]

Re fungicide/insecticide of course it is best to avoid if possible but careful modest application is extremely unlikely to do long term harm, although a minor risk is always there.

It's the cumulative aspect I think about - x million each gardeners using a small amount, not necessarily observing the usage, disposal and warning information - for something which in perhaps the majority of cases isn't actually essential, since it won't be to ensure they can put food on the table.
Given the enormous choice of plants we (as gardeners rather than commercial food producers)can grow in this country it seems more sensible to me to choose something that doesn't need such inputs, and/or improve growing conditions and methods to reduce the incidence of disease.

[Serial_Apologist]

I would disagree with you I'm afraid about the use of sprays against blackspot. The condition is largely a cosmetic issue, the roses are unlikely to be killed by it although severe repeated attacks reduces vigour. Some roses are more susceptible than others, (although apparently bred-for resistance can reduce over time as the fungus changes) and the appearance and severity of attack will vary throughout a season and from year to year. A spray such as Roseclear, which is a systemic, containing an insecticide as well as fungicide, does have environmental implications. I realise that in the context of public planting a better approach is unlikely to be possible(although bark mulch will help) but there are non-chemical ways to deal with such problems. In due course the council may decide to remove the roses, which unless carefully chosen will always need more attention than cash strapped public authorities can provide, and in any case have a limited lifespan, and replace with bushes that can provide good visual and amenity advantages(and also the increasingly necessary green credential tick box being filled) with only minimal attention.
All credit to you for caring, and taking time to deadhead though.

You may be right, although I only spray on leaves, never the flower heads, where after all pollinators are most attracted. The longer black spot can be held at bay the longer the flowering season, I find. It would be sad were the roses to be grubbed for reasons of costing, though I guess this is what will happen once they die and have to be replaced with something other than roses.

[Dave2002]

It's the cumulative aspect I think about - x million each gardeners using a small amount, not necessarily observing the usage, disposal and warning information - for something which in perhaps the majority of cases isn't actually essential, since it won't be to ensure they can put food on the table.

That's a good point. There are I suspect many gardeners who use products which are perhaps now banned, but they have old stock stored in a shed. They "know" that the equivalent modern products are not so effective, and they assure themselves that "I'm only making a very small difference ....". Of course some others may just not even know about which products may have a long term deleterious effect.

[gradus]

Peach leaf curl is another nuisance that can be sprayed against and may be the only option if the tree is too big to cover from December until flowering unless you're willing to collect all the damaged leaves and dispose of them safely, something I'd imagine few people doing. I'd guess that every peach, nectarine and almond we eat has been sprayed against leaf curl although modern growers with small sized trees may be using protective covers, rather like cherry growers who for different reasons plant modern smaller growing varieties under plastic covers mostly to reduce bird damage to the crop.