If I wanted to create a new lawn in my own garden (or a client's) I'd have no qualms about using grass seed every single time as I know I can achieve the same results, if not better, than I could with imported turf.
With time on my side, grass seed affords me the opportunity to develop a sward that can be content in its surroundings from the moment of germination.
Grass Seed allows us to select a seed mixture and be confident that the new grass has the best opportunity to grow into indigenous (or imported) soil.
Importing turf is an inflexible process. Grass can be slower to establish and may, in the first few days, weeks or months, react adversely to the sudden change of environment: similar to a child being prematurely removed from its mother's breast milk and forced to drink milk formula.
Whilst I have no doubt at all about my choice when creating a new lawn I realise that as a contractor, I might be under many pressures to create an instant lawn or amenity area in very quick time.
The positives of turf are:
* Instant coverage of bare areas of soil
* Sealing of exposed soil, eliminating the danger of soil erosion
* Fastest time to create an operational space
* Suppresses weeds germination in the soil once laid
Grass seed takes longer to establish and is susceptible, as it establishes its rootzone, to disease, weed infestation and soil erosion.
What are the ethical responsibilities?
Putting the practical reasons to one side, and considering the extra energy and time needed to bring turf to market, should we as an industry have a moral obligation to use grass seed rather than turf?
From a contractual view point, creating a rootzone for turf differs very little from creating a seedbed. From a client's point of view, what can be saved by not paying for turf - that includes the capital outlay, delivery and manual labour for laying - will allow money left over even if a contractor is paid for regular visits whilst grass seed is becoming established.
Taking the argument a step further, the production and delivery of turf not only costs more in a capital outlay sense but it also contributes to carbon dioxide emissions as it's grown in, harvested, delivered and then laid: there's a potential negative to the wider environment in creating a local one.
In contrast, there are less mechanical processes in getting grass seed to market and broadcasting it in its final location.
I spoke this week to a marketing director of a large UK company who told me that consumers are much more aware of their ethical responsibilities with many willing to spend more than if they took a less ethical option.
Should we, as industry practitioners, be thinking differently about how we create grassed areas?
What are your thoughts?
Views: 1297
Replies
Can't argue with the Green issues in using seed, Phil but;
If one had to produce a lawn of X sq m, being 2 days turfing work for 2 men plus some possible margin in the materials, compared to half a day for 1 man and no margin in the seed -with one giving instantaneous results whilst the other is prone to drought, erosion, birds etc, I think I know which method most would choose to use and clients prefer.
As i work as a Headgreenkeeper i have done both turfing and seeding , seeding you get more choice but takes much longer to produce a good surface , two years ago i built a green from fescue seed and taken 2 years to make a good green , but than i have built a green from turf in August and the following spring it was open to play on.
In a garden this past autumn I established an entire lawn from seed + clover (for the bees :)) Aside from the mild weather really helping it along, I found the client Liked the environmentally friendly approach, and the cost saving on turf. With watering on dry days, and a cover of polythene sheet for the first 2 weeks (to keep moisture in), I found it worked a treat, and will continue to steer customers away from turf where possible!
It would be the industry's responsibility to sell the ethical and environmental argument to the client. This process itself would raise the value of seeding over turfing.
On the face of it there appears to be more profit opportunities in laying a lawn using turf but the process also ties up more resources for longer periods of time. I'd argue that whilst seeding, at the moment, is perceived to be low cost/low value, the client is relying on us as industry professionals and experts, to provide them with the best service and product, therefore the margins for providing this service can be higher.
As we have a fixed cost per day, I would argue that a one day seeding job can be sold three times higher (per day) than a three day turfing job.
Seeding can be discounted for larger areas but achieved in less time whilst it's difficult to impossible to reduce costs or time for turfing (especially when done by hand).
One could also argue that there are more opportunities to sell additional treatments and services at higher margins for a seeded lawn as part of the original project.
If a client realised they could install a lawn using seed at a saving great than 50% of the cost of turfing and still get, as part of the deal, future cutting and fungicide/fertiliser treatments within the cost, I'd say that this would be a fairly easy argument to win and a great selling point.
many lawn builds have time constraints,hence the need for turf,plus much easier to look after for the client,just offset the carbon by planting a couple of trees!!
i now work in the sports pitch construction industry and artificial pitch construction and drainage,we use a hell of a lot of seed,but with time constraints turf is a neccessity sometimes (we use very large turf layer) brighton and hove is one of ours at their new stadium.
we surely cant condone the turf industry for its carbon footprint,not when we all use 2 stroke machines a multitude of diggers dumpers,mowers,hedgecutters strimmers,not to mention tractors ,vans. at least we do a lot of planting.
Interesting! I grow Wildflower Turf and lawn turf, but I am also a farmer and grow grass for seed production - some for agriculture, e.g. grass lays for dairy farmers, but also seed for lawns/turf. I can assure you that seed production is not without its fair share of fossil fuel input!
But any area of grass or meadow is presumably contributing to the capture of carbon and should be encouraged however it is established?
Hi James
My thoughts, and thus the question, relate to post-production and how the products i.e. turf or seed, are applied to produce lawns, meadows, amenity areas.
one of the points to consider - certainly for the domestic market - is 'are we questioning whether the client needs a grassed area at all'? ie fescue/rye/etc as distinct from wildflower meadow/ herb lawn
the size of garden is important here; but assuming its a reasonable size, then do you ask the question? I know I do - and often get a blank look (of course we need a lawn! doesnt everyone?!) But its valid in so far as if a play area is needed and the growing conditions are ok, turf is best surface - then next question would then be 'turf or seed'.
and as for the pros and cons, I can now add in the ethics of carbon footprint reduction when talking to the client. I have a feeling they'll be less bothered by that than how soon football can be played on it by all the kids in the neighbourhood...altho I may get to put in some extra conservation elements as a pay-off so it could still be a win-win scenario for the environment...
Morning All, interesting discussion going at the moment and one close to my heart since as a contractor for the last 20 years i have specialised in grass seeding & turf laying, various jobs & applications from 50m to 32,000m recently. Turf is often seen as an instant fix, seeding the poor mans alternative, but as i often point out, how do you think the turf field was created. The ethical responsibilities are a "factor" in my business i have been aware of for a long time. Turf in my opinion is a very costly item to produce in all senses of the word, and that assumes the business producing the turf knows how to do it properly and present a well harvested quality turf to the end user. I have seen many badly produced rolls of turf over the years, meadowgrass, dammaged, scalped, or just not cut true. The potential problem with seeding is that a contractor and indeed the client do not appreciate how to get the best fom their site, soil type, etc and the process, equipment, and expertise required to arrive at a quality result. Just chuck a bit of seed on is the usual train of thought for the uneducated!
I could go into more detail,but my point is this. From a contractors point of view with the equipment & expertise available to achieve a quality result whatever the clients circumstances wether seeding or turf laying, i feel i have the professional duty to point out the main pros and cons together with time and cost comparatives. As the size of an area increases this argument tends to be very one sided and a true "no brainer" in my opinion, if the project has been planned well in advance. The trouble is these days there often isn't the time, projects are brought together quickly and the ethical considerations often get lost in the process. There are also vested interests, prejudices and a lack of knowledge to throw into the mix.
My final comment, given the opportunity some people can make a really bad job of turf laying, the quality of maintenance following turf laying or seeding ALSO makes a lot of difference to the end result. In my experience "others" have often caused the rapid deterioration of a recently turfed or seeded area despite out best efforts to advise them on correct aftercare. Therein begins another discussion!
Of course there's a second ethical question. Not one that relates to the environment but one of how the contractor (or client if it's a commercial application) creates a grass area.
It's long been poor practice (maybe less today but I suspect it's still an issue) to throw a thin layer of topsoil over poorly or non-prepared ground and then roll out fresh green turf over the top.
Once the surface is green and relatively level, all of the bad practice - rubble, pernicious weeds, glass and subsoil compaction is easily forgotten. It can take weeks or months before a client realises it's a poor job and by that time a contractor (or developer) may be able to cite poor maintenance as the cause of the lawn's woes.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next