Not sure if this question has been asked here already, but just
wondering if you can apply lawn fertilizer and a separate grub control
product at the same time. A few days ago, we just applied the "Scotts
Super Turf Builder Summerguard - With Bug Control To Kill Ants, Fleas,
and Ticks" which is a 30-0-4 formula. We also have a bag of the "Bayer
Advanced Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer" which is a
6-0-1 formula.



The "Scotts Summerguard" doesn't kill grubs, and so we have to use the
separate grub control. to try to kill the grubs, because last September
we had a pesky skunk that ripped up and mutilated our yard every night
last September, October, and November.



On the back of the "Bayer Advanced Grub Control" bag, it states that the
product has to be applied before August 15th. So my question is, should
we wait another week or so before applying the grub control, or can it
be applied now? The "Scotts Summerguard" has 30% percent nitrogen, and
the "Bayer Grub Control" had 6% percent nitrogen. If we apply the "Bayer
Grub Control" right now, won't that be too much nitrogen ( 36% percent
nitrogen in one weeks time ), for the lawn to handle??



Any advice would greatly be appreciated.



Thanks!

On 8/2/2011 5:27 PM, MICHELLE H. wrote:
Not sure if this question has been asked here already, but just
wondering if you can apply lawn fertilizer and a separate grub control
product at the same time. A few days ago, we just applied the "Scotts
Super Turf Builder Summerguard - With Bug Control To Kill Ants, Fleas,
and Ticks" which is a 30-0-4 formula. We also have a bag of the "Bayer
Advanced Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer" which is a
6-0-1 formula.



The "Scotts Summerguard" doesn't kill grubs, and so we have to use the
separate grub control. to try to kill the grubs, because last September
we had a pesky skunk that ripped up and mutilated our yard every night
last September, October, and November.



On the back of the "Bayer Advanced Grub Control" bag, it states that the
product has to be applied before August 15th. So my question is, should
we wait another week or so before applying the grub control, or can it
be applied now? The "Scotts Summerguard" has 30% percent nitrogen, and
the "Bayer Grub Control" had 6% percent nitrogen. If we apply the "Bayer
Grub Control" right now, won't that be too much nitrogen ( 36% percent
nitrogen in one weeks time ), for the lawn to handle??



Any advice would greatly be appreciated.



Thanks!


Not knowing either product, only if lb/1,000 ft sq are the same would
this add up to the high nitrogen value,

I'm not a Scotts fan because while they may be good products, they
probably cost twice as much and fertilizing 4 times a year is work.
I like to treat each problem separately, not carpet bomb my lawn.

On Aug 13, 4:45*pm, Frank wrote:
On 8/2/2011 5:27 PM, MICHELLE H. wrote:









Not sure if this question has been asked here already, but just
wondering if you can apply lawn fertilizer and a separate grub control
product at the same time. A few days ago, we just applied the "Scotts
Super Turf Builder Summerguard - With Bug Control To Kill Ants, Fleas,
and Ticks" which is a 30-0-4 formula. We also have a bag of the "Bayer
Advanced Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer" which is a
6-0-1 formula.

The "Scotts Summerguard" doesn't kill grubs, and so we have to use the
separate grub control. to try to kill the grubs, because last September
we had a pesky skunk that ripped up and mutilated our yard every night
last September, October, and November.

On the back of the "Bayer Advanced Grub Control" bag, it states that the
product has to be applied before August 15th. So my question is, should
we wait another week or so before applying the grub control, or can it
be applied now? The "Scotts Summerguard" has 30% percent nitrogen, and
the "Bayer Grub Control" had 6% percent nitrogen. If we apply the "Bayer
Grub Control" right now, won't that be too much nitrogen ( 36% percent
nitrogen in one weeks time ), for the lawn to handle??

Any advice would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks!

Not knowing either product, only if lb/1,000 ft sq are the same would
this add up to the high nitrogen value,

I'm not a Scotts fan because while they may be good products, they
probably cost twice as much and fertilizing 4 times a year is work.
I like to treat each problem separately, not carpet bomb my lawn.

You could also do away with the lawn entirely and redesign with plants
appropriate to your area. Here in So. Calif., especially in ""green"
cities like Santa Monica, there is a big move to convert to xeriscapic
designs. These are suitable for what is, after all, a desert (which
only has water thanks to Mulholland and others, not to forget the
speculators who bought up land in advance of water arriving).

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion, if you
present a substantive plan that shows you know what you're doing, and
follow through to demonstrable results.

Other parts of the country could do the same with area-appropriate
plantings.

It's a shocker to realize that THE BIGGEST CROP IN THE U.S. IS TURF
GRASS. The money spent on water, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.etc. is
in the billions. This is 2011. It is no longer a mark of prestige to
have the greenest, lushest lawn in the 'burb.

Savvy parents do not let their children play on the lawns of friends
whose parents use toxic chemicals. For obvious reasons.

HB

In
Higgs Boson wrote:

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion,

Which of course means that you're paying for it plus the costs of
adminstering the program.

--
St. Paul, MN

In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

In
Higgs Boson wrote:

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion,

Which of course means that you're paying for it plus the costs of
adminstering the program.

The real question is what do we get, and what does it cost. The cost is
paid for with everybody's taxes, and everybody in the U.S. benefits from
the water conservation. Central Valley farmers benefit, which allows
them to put vegetables and fruit on your table. Fisheries benefit, which
means fish, such as salmon, are available to feed your family. The
environment benefits by maintaining bio-diversity, and recharging
aquifers. And the people of Southern California benefit, because when
they open their tap, there is water to drink or bath in. It's a
societal approach, not a Tea Bagger approach.

Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1


CHAPTER FIVE

Catching, Conserving,
and Using Water

In truth, our planet should be called Water, not
Earth. About 70 percent of the globe is blanketed
by this life-giving liquid, roughly 331 million
cubic miles of it. But most of that is not available to
us. All but 3 percent of Earth's water is salty; and, of
the remaining dab of fresh water, three-quarters is
locked in ice. It gets worse. About half of what's left,
Earth's unfrozen fresh water, is 2,500 feet or more
below ground, embedded in rock. That's too deep
to recover economically. Are you following these
shrinking numbers? The accessible fresh water
in lakes, rivers, groundwater, and the atmosphere
makes up only half of one-quarter of 3 percent‹for
non-Einsteins, that works out to 0.375 percent‹of
Earth's total water. It's precious stuff.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

In
Higgs Boson wrote:

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion,

Which of course means that you're paying for it plus the costs of
adminstering the program.

TROPIC OF CHAOS: Climate change and the New Geography of Violence
http://www.amazon.com/Tropic-Chaos-C...nce/dp/1568586
000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1313390844&sr=1-1

142 TROPIC OF CHAOS

Neoliberalism and Death by Cotton

The farmers in Telangana all grow genetically modified Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, a product of the agricultural giant
Monsanto.The new cotton became available a few years back. Although
advertised as not needing pesticides, it does. At first it boosted
output and incomes, but after a few years, incomes fell and the new
cotton became a curse. Its roots penetrate deep into the soil, sucking
up all the nutrients. Before long the farmers need large amounts of
artificial fertilizer‹and that means taking loans. Scholars call this
the "vicious cycle of chemical agriculture."

"We know that after three or four years, the land will be dead," said
Linga Reddy Sama, whose family are Hindu migrants rather than of the
local tribal Gond people. The farmers in these villages know they are
mining the soil, extracting and exporting its nutrition in the form of
cheap cotton. While their crops decline, their debts increase. And in
the worst of cases, farmers are killing themselves. This is the
catastrophic convergence at the local scale, at the scale of specific
crops and actual families.




INDIA'S DROUGHT REBELS 143

Had anyone committed suicide in Jaamni? Yes, a man named Anjanna, who
was about forty-five years old and had killed himself the previous year
by drinking pesticide. "He killed himself to escape his debts," said one
of the farmers. "Now his wife and grown son are in Maharashtra State
working as farm laborers."

The problem, again, comes back to water. In recent years, irrigation has
suffered under a wave of neoliberal disinvestment. The state has removed
important subsidies from small farmers; as result, thousands of them
have killed themselves.

The process went like this; Starting in 1991 the Indian government
began a process of economic liberalization. Efficiency became the
watch-word; the state cut power subsidies to farmers. With that, running
pumps for wells and irrigation became more expensive. To cope, farmers
started taking loans from local banks or usurious moneylenders.29 The
neoliberal withdrawal of developmentalist policies meant that local
irrigation systems fell into dilapidation. With bad irrigation works
soon the norm, farmers turned to drilling privately-funded wells and
taking groundwater. This was typically done on an ad hoc and individual
or village-by-village basis, with little planning or proper water
management. As a result, the aquifers soon fell into decline. These
private coping strategies require private capital. To drill wells,
farmers had to borrow from local moneylenders‹often at exorbitant rates.
Now, when crops fail or wells run dry, which is becoming more common due
to climate change, farmers cannot repay their debts.

By the late 1990s, many farmers had run out of options‹they were too far
in arrears to borrow more, too broke to produce crops. For thousands,
the only escape from this debt trap came in the form of suicide‹often by
swallowing pesticides. According to data from the National Crime Records
Bureau, 150,000 Indian farmers killed themselves between 1997 and 2005.
But as Anuradha Mittal reports, "Farmers' organizations believe the
number of suicides to be even greater."30 In Andhra Pradesh, an
estimated 2,000 to 3,000 farmers killed themselves between 1998 and
2004. As one creditor told the New York Times, "Many moneylenders have
made a whole lot of money. . . . Farmers, many of them, are ruined."31



144 TROPIC OF CHAOS

When the links between drought, irrigation, debt, and suicide were
becoming clear a dozen years ago, the Political and Economic Weekly
investigated. "A study of 50 deceased farmers in Warangal District [near
Adilabad] shows that well [water] is the largest source of irrigation
forabout three-fourths of the farmers. Only about one-third of the wells
were dug under the subsidy schemes of the government. In the rest of the
cases farmers themselves have borne the expenses for digging of wells.
Besides this the depletion of groundwater in recent years has
necessitated deepening of wells and laying of in-well bores."

The cost of such a well in the late 1990s averaged between $1,400 and
$3,000.32 As a World Bank study on drought and climate change in Andhra
Pradesh found, that means debt. The Bank noted, "Household responses to
drought have been largely reactive and do little to build longterm
drought resilience. Credit remains the most common coping response to
drought." In fact, 68 percent of households in the study took loans due
to drought, with large landholders borrowing "from formal sources (such
as banks), while the landless and small farmers borrow from moneylenders
at inflated interest rates."33 Not only are the rates usurious, but
these more informal contracts rely on brutal and humiliating enforcement
mechanisms.
---

The point is that we are better off if we coordinate our efforts in
water use.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

Can you tell me you are in indoor cultivated plant or outside?

Billy wrote:
....
Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1


CHAPTER FIVE

Catching, Conserving,
and Using Water

In truth, our planet should be called Water, not
Earth. About 70 percent of the globe is blanketed
by this life-giving liquid, roughly 331 million
cubic miles of it. But most of that is not available to
us. All but 3 percent of Earth's water is salty; and, of
the remaining dab of fresh water, three-quarters is
locked in ice. It gets worse. About half of what's left,
Earth's unfrozen fresh water, is 2,500 feet or more
below ground, embedded in rock. That's too deep
to recover economically. Are you following these
shrinking numbers? The accessible fresh water
in lakes, rivers, groundwater, and the atmosphere
makes up only half of one-quarter of 3 percent‹for
non-Einsteins, that works out to 0.375 percent‹of
Earth's total water. It's precious stuff.

by my rough calculation that comes to 1.28 billion
liters of accessible fresh water per person. that
sounds like plenty, but i suspect when you start
tallying up lakes, rivers, wetlands and the water
needed to keep the plants growing that feed and
support us and all the rest of the creatures we
rely upon that number is going to rapidly shrink.


songbird

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1


CHAPTER FIVE

Catching, Conserving,
and Using Water

In truth, our planet should be called Water, not
Earth. About 70 percent of the globe is blanketed
by this life-giving liquid, roughly 331 million
cubic miles of it. But most of that is not available to
us. All but 3 percent of Earth's water is salty; and, of
the remaining dab of fresh water, three-quarters is
locked in ice. It gets worse. About half of what's left,
Earth's unfrozen fresh water, is 2,500 feet or more
below ground, embedded in rock. That's too deep
to recover economically. Are you following these
shrinking numbers? The accessible fresh water
in lakes, rivers, groundwater, and the atmosphere
makes up only half of one-quarter of 3 percent‹for
non-Einsteins, that works out to 0.375 percent‹of
Earth's total water. It's precious stuff.

by my rough calculation that comes to 1.28 billion
liters of accessible fresh water per person. that
sounds like plenty, but i suspect when you start
tallying up lakes, rivers, wetlands and the water
needed to keep the plants growing that feed and
support us and all the rest of the creatures we
rely upon that number is going to rapidly shrink.


songbird

It was at a lecture so I am not sure this is true or not. The amount of
water on the planet has roughly been the same for millions of years. Some
where down the line we have been drinking water that a dinosaur urinated
out and filtered by the earth.

However, modern times have changed things allot. Vast amounts of Water is
being depleted from the natural cycle of life. Plastics and and other
manufactured items are binding up the fresh water in vast quantities that
will never enter the life cycle again.

At the lecture they stated how much water was being depleted each year, but
I do not have those notes anymore.

--
Nad

On Aug 14, 11:55*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
*Bert Hyman wrote:


Higgs Boson wrote:

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion,

Which of course means that you're paying for it plus the costs of
adminstering the program.

TROPIC OF CHAOS: Climate change and the New Geography of Violence
http://www.amazon.com/Tropic-Chaos-C...nce/dp/1568586
000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1313390844&sr=1-1

142 TROPIC OF CHAOS

Neoliberalism and Death by Cotton

The farmers in Telangana all grow genetically modified Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, a product of the agricultural giant
Monsanto.The new cotton became available a few years back. Although
advertised as not needing pesticides, it does. At first it boosted
output and incomes, but after a few years, incomes fell and the new
cotton became a curse. Its roots penetrate deep into the soil, sucking
up all the nutrients. Before long the farmers need large amounts of
artificial fertilizer and that means taking loans. Scholars call this
the "vicious cycle of chemical agriculture."

"We know that after three or four years, the land will be dead," said
Linga Reddy Sama, whose family are Hindu migrants rather than of the
local tribal Gond people. The farmers in these villages know they are
mining the soil, extracting and exporting its nutrition in the form of
cheap cotton. While their crops decline, their debts increase. And in
the worst of cases, farmers are killing themselves. This is the
catastrophic convergence at the local scale, at the scale of specific
crops and actual families.

INDIA'S DROUGHT REBELS 143

Had anyone committed suicide in Jaamni? Yes, a man named Anjanna, who
was about forty-five years old and had killed himself the previous year
by drinking pesticide. "He killed himself to escape his debts," said one
of the farmers. "Now his wife and grown son are in Maharashtra State
working as farm laborers."

The problem, again, comes back to water. In recent years, irrigation has
suffered under a wave of neoliberal disinvestment. The state has removed
important subsidies from small farmers; as result, thousands of them
have killed themselves.

The process went like this; Starting in 1991 the Indian government
began a process of economic liberalization. Efficiency became the
watch-word; the state cut power subsidies to farmers. With that, running
pumps for wells and irrigation became more expensive. To cope, farmers
started taking loans from local banks or usurious moneylenders.29 The
neoliberal withdrawal of developmentalist policies meant that local
irrigation systems fell into dilapidation. With bad irrigation works
soon the norm, farmers turned to drilling privately-funded wells and
taking groundwater. This was typically done on an ad hoc and individual
or village-by-village basis, with little planning or proper water
management. As a result, the aquifers soon fell into decline. These
private coping strategies require private capital. To drill wells, *
farmers had to borrow from local moneylenders often at exorbitant rates.
Now, when crops fail or wells run dry, which is becoming more common due
to climate change, farmers cannot repay their debts.

By the late 1990s, many farmers had run out of options they were too far
in arrears to borrow more, too broke to produce crops. For thousands,
the only escape from this debt trap came in the form of suicide often by
swallowing pesticides. According to data from the National Crime Records
Bureau, 150,000 Indian farmers killed themselves between 1997 and 2005.
But as Anuradha Mittal reports, "Farmers' organizations believe the
number of suicides to be even greater."30 In Andhra Pradesh, an
estimated 2,000 to 3,000 farmers killed themselves between 1998 and
2004. As one creditor told the New York Times, "Many moneylenders have
made a whole lot of money. . . . Farmers, many of them, are ruined."31

144 TROPIC OF CHAOS

When the links between drought, irrigation, debt, and suicide were
becoming clear a dozen years ago, the Political and Economic Weekly
investigated. "A study of 50 deceased farmers in Warangal District [near
Adilabad] shows that well [water] is the largest source of irrigation
forabout three-fourths of the farmers. Only about one-third of the wells
were dug under the subsidy schemes of the government. In the rest of the
cases farmers themselves have borne the expenses for digging of wells.
Besides this the depletion of groundwater in recent years has
necessitated deepening of wells and laying of in-well bores."

The cost of such a well in the late 1990s averaged between $1,400 and
$3,000.32 As a World Bank study on drought and climate change in Andhra
Pradesh found, that means debt. The Bank noted, "Household responses to
drought have been largely reactive and do little to build longterm
drought resilience. Credit remains the most common coping response to
drought." In fact, 68 percent of households in the study took loans due
to drought, with large landholders borrowing "from formal sources (such
as banks), while the landless and small farmers borrow from moneylenders
at inflated interest rates."33 Not only are the rates usurious, but
these more informal contracts rely on brutal and humiliating enforcement
mechanisms.
---

The point is that we are better off if we coordinate our efforts in
water use.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug


Billy has nailed it, as he often does.

The exploitation of indigenous peoples by international corporations
has been going on for nearly a century. Big Ag makes a deal with the
local dictator to let them come in & grow [peanuts] [cotton] [coffee]
whatever, on an industrial scale. So the little subsistence farmer
who has been feeding his family home-grown (horrors! ORGANIC!) food
these many centuries is persuaded to turn over his land to Big Ag.
They show him how to Do Things on an industrial scale. Soon it
becomes apparent that he has to buy fuel for his tractor, fertilizer,
pesticides, all the usual s***t.

When the land has been exhausted and/or when the market for the
exploitation crop crashes, Big Ag pulls out and the farmer is left
with ruined land, often huge debts, and generally a far worse life
than he and family had when Big Ag greased the local dictator's hand
to let them come in.

HB

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:55 pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:


Higgs Boson wrote:

This city actually pays half (I think) the cost of conversion,

Which of course means that you're paying for it plus the costs of
adminstering the program.

TROPIC OF CHAOS: Climate change and the New Geography of Violence
http://www.amazon.com/Tropic-Chaos-C...nce/dp/1568586
000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1313390844&sr=1-1

142 TROPIC OF CHAOS

Neoliberalism and Death by Cotton

The farmers in Telangana all grow genetically modified Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, a product of the agricultural giant
Monsanto.The new cotton became available a few years back. Although
advertised as not needing pesticides, it does. At first it boosted
output and incomes, but after a few years, incomes fell and the new
cotton became a curse. Its roots penetrate deep into the soil,
sucking up all the nutrients. Before long the farmers need large
amounts of artificial fertilizer and that means taking loans.
Scholars call this the "vicious cycle of chemical agriculture."

"We know that after three or four years, the land will be dead," said
Linga Reddy Sama, whose family are Hindu migrants rather than of the
local tribal Gond people. The farmers in these villages know they are
mining the soil, extracting and exporting its nutrition in the form
of cheap cotton. While their crops decline, their debts increase.
And in the worst of cases, farmers are killing themselves. This is
the catastrophic convergence at the local scale, at the scale of
specific crops and actual families.

INDIA'S DROUGHT REBELS 143

Had anyone committed suicide in Jaamni? Yes, a man named Anjanna, who
was about forty-five years old and had killed himself the previous
year by drinking pesticide. "He killed himself to escape his debts,"
said one of the farmers. "Now his wife and grown son are in
Maharashtra State working as farm laborers."

The problem, again, comes back to water. In recent years, irrigation
has suffered under a wave of neoliberal disinvestment. The state has
removed important subsidies from small farmers; as result, thousands
of them have killed themselves.

The process went like this; Starting in 1991 the Indian government
began a process of economic liberalization. Efficiency became the
watch-word; the state cut power subsidies to farmers. With that,
running pumps for wells and irrigation became more expensive. To
cope, farmers started taking loans from local banks or usurious
moneylenders.29 The neoliberal withdrawal of developmentalist
policies meant that local irrigation systems fell into dilapidation.
With bad irrigation works soon the norm, farmers turned to drilling
privately-funded wells and taking groundwater. This was typically
done on an ad hoc and individual or village-by-village basis, with
little planning or proper water management. As a result, the
aquifers soon fell into decline. These private coping strategies
require private capital. To drill wells, farmers had to borrow from
local moneylenders often at exorbitant rates. Now, when crops fail
or wells run dry, which is becoming more common due to climate
change, farmers cannot repay their debts.

By the late 1990s, many farmers had run out of options they were too
far in arrears to borrow more, too broke to produce crops. For
thousands, the only escape from this debt trap came in the form of
suicide often by swallowing pesticides. According to data from the
National Crime Records Bureau, 150,000 Indian farmers killed
themselves between 1997 and 2005. But as Anuradha Mittal reports,
"Farmers' organizations believe the number of suicides to be even
greater."30 In Andhra Pradesh, an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 farmers
killed themselves between 1998 and 2004. As one creditor told the
New York Times, "Many moneylenders have made a whole lot of money. .
. . Farmers, many of them, are ruined."31

144 TROPIC OF CHAOS

When the links between drought, irrigation, debt, and suicide were
becoming clear a dozen years ago, the Political and Economic Weekly
investigated. "A study of 50 deceased farmers in Warangal District
[near Adilabad] shows that well [water] is the largest source of
irrigation forabout three-fourths of the farmers. Only about
one-third of the wells were dug under the subsidy schemes of the
government. In the rest of the cases farmers themselves have borne
the expenses for digging of wells. Besides this the depletion of
groundwater in recent years has necessitated deepening of wells and
laying of in-well bores."

The cost of such a well in the late 1990s averaged between $1,400 and
$3,000.32 As a World Bank study on drought and climate change in
Andhra Pradesh found, that means debt. The Bank noted, "Household
responses to drought have been largely reactive and do little to
build longterm drought resilience. Credit remains the most common
coping response to drought." In fact, 68 percent of households in
the study took loans due to drought, with large landholders
borrowing "from formal sources (such as banks), while the landless
and small farmers borrow from moneylenders at inflated interest
rates."33 Not only are the rates usurious, but these more informal
contracts rely on brutal and humiliating enforcement mechanisms.
---

The point is that we are better off if we coordinate our efforts in
water use.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug


Billy has nailed it, as he often does.

The exploitation of indigenous peoples by international corporations
has been going on for nearly a century.

This game has been played for many centuries and was a key part of European
colonisation of the other continents. In the early days of colonialism
they were more direct, the corporation would steal the land and/or enslave
the locals, as overt slavery became less popular the approach was to get the
indigenes to work the land and to become consumers of the products of
European factories.

The local chiefs, rajahs and feudal lords got their cut for allowing this
and in some cases participated directly by supplying forced labour. For a
good example of the massive scale that this was done long before the phrase
multinational corporation was coined see the East India Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Company

In the colonial era European governments openly supported the exploiters
with royal and parliamentary authority and would supply muscle and guns if
the Company troops needed help subduing any local potentate who didn't want
to play. Nearly everybody considered this A Good Thing and the proper role
for whites who were after all superior. The modern version is slightly more
subtle.

David

On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 5:27:16 PM UTC-4, MICHELLE H. wrote:
Not sure if this question has been asked here already, but just
wondering if you can apply lawn fertilizer and a separate grub control
product at the same time. A few days ago, we just applied the "Scotts
Super Turf Builder Summerguard - With Bug Control To Kill Ants, Fleas,
and Ticks" which is a 30-0-4 formula. We also have a bag of the "Bayer
Advanced Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer" which is a
6-0-1 formula.



The "Scotts Summerguard" doesn't kill grubs, and so we have to use the
separate grub control. to try to kill the grubs, because last September
we had a pesky skunk that ripped up and mutilated our yard every night
last September, October, and November.



On the back of the "Bayer Advanced Grub Control" bag, it states that the
product has to be applied before August 15th. So my question is, should
we wait another week or so before applying the grub control, or can it
be applied now? The "Scotts Summerguard" has 30% percent nitrogen, and
the "Bayer Grub Control" had 6% percent nitrogen. If we apply the "Bayer
Grub Control" right now, won't that be too much nitrogen ( 36% percent
nitrogen in one weeks time ), for the lawn to handle??



Any advice would greatly be appreciated.



Thanks!

I'm looking for an answer to the same question. I applied Scotts Summerguard tonight and, although I'm a fanatic with my lawncare, noticed patches of dead grass that must've surfaced since yesterday. I suspect grubs are underneath the soil surface and have attacked the root system of the grass, thereby the patches. Consequently, I bought Grubex several weeks ago to apply but have been late in getting it down on the lawn. Can I apply it within a day over the Summerguard or should I wait longer?

Respectfully, Frank only has addressed the original question without digressing from the issue at hand...thanks all...