Talk:Hydroseeding

---

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IHeartPlants00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dirty Jobs

Was featured on about half an episode of Dirty Jobs. Worth including? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.29.52 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

As per the WP:MOS, specifically addressing retaining the existing variety, I have twice reverted edits changing the originator's spelling of fertilizer to fertiliser. I have also twice reverted the introduction of the misspelled "hydraseeding" as an alternative to the correctly spelled "hydroseeding". I'm assuming coincidence for now but documenting just in case. ~ hydnjo talk 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: 90.240.106.171 and 81.151.22.227. ~ hydnjo talk 04:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of original spelling preference

This article was started [1] by hydnjo on 6 May, 2005 . This posting is intended to document this article's genesis as it seems to be under deliberate and persistent vandalism as partially documented in the Talk:Hydroseeding#Spelling section above. The next instance of vandalism will be followed by an appeal at WP:VIP for appropriate action. This notice is being posted here because the offender is apparently utilizing a dynamic IP with no active talk page. See diffs [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for evidence of the described behavior. Each instance of vandalism was by a first and only. Hmmm... ~ hydnjo talk 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings have been posted at: User_talk:84.69.111.1, User_talk:84.64.240.118, User_talk:81.155.146.231, User_talk:90.240.106.171, User_talk:81.151.22.227 and User_talk:81.153.142.229 ~ hydnjo talk 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a non-word

Additionally, this series of edits seems intent on introducing the misspelled variant "hydraseeding" rather than the properly spelled "hydroseeding". Although I can find some reason for arguing the alternative "fertilising" spelling rather than the originator's preference "fertilizing", I see no argument at all for the introduction of a made-up word such as "hydraseeding.

This whole thing seems to me a bit of bullcrap within such an obscure encyclopedia article and it seems to me to have attracted an undue vandalistic effort. This is indeed puzzling. Hmmm... ~ hydnjo talk 05:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the following regarding the alternative spelling "hydraseeding". ~ hydnjo talk 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HydrAseeding - not a misspelling

I've been working in the civil engineering industry for sometime now in both North America and Europe, hydAseeding is found in project specifications from time to time as is not a misspelling - Just thought you might want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.154.147 (talk • contribs)

OK and thanks, I'll add it back into the article. ~ hydnjo talk 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget the science

Not all hydroseeding is the same. Although hydoseeding has been used in this country since the 1970's, this has mainly been on large scale projects were price has been the deciding factor. This has resulted in a very basic mix and the full benefits have had to be ignored. The mulch can be separated into two main types, Cellulose (this is made from recycled paper)and Fibre (made from wood) or a mix of the two. From a personal viewpoint a good quality cellulose mulch will give good results unless you are looking for erosion control on embankments when longer fibers are needed so that the mulch forms a blanket that will trap sediment. The cellulose mulch not only holds water for the young plant it also holds the other additives thus creating a food bank. On most hydroseeding situations the soil has been either disturbed or removed and their is little or no goodness left. The hydroseeding system has the ability to replace the goodness in the soil, however financial restraints often result in normal agricultural fertilisers being used. This is like feeding steak to a baby, rather than using the scientific approach which will result in fast germination and good root development, without which the natural weedbank in the soil will outperform the freshly sown seed. --Highlandhydroseeding (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoting Commercial Websites

Why are people listing their company's website, I thought this was not allowed?

Surly if companies put links to their website on Wikipedia it becomes one giant company directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.46.5 (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Proofs

Who says that hydroseeding is a successful method for revegetation (the article states that it provides fast germination)? References are lacking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derlaffe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A view from Australia.

Here in Oz, the spelling is Hydroseeding and Fertiliser.

In about 1970, the then Department of Main Roads in the state of New South Wales used hydroseeding on the very first freeway to be built in the state. It was then a very new technique.

It was a mixture of seeds [of native trees and shrubs], finely chopped straw, water, and "tar" (which from the context I think was the bitumen used to surface the road) to hold it all together. It was used to plant the face of the filled gullies, which were completely inaccessable n any other way. Now, 50 years later, those trees and shrubs are quite mature, and the planting has grown quite dense. So the process was very very successful. I have some old DMR brochures that explain all this. If I can get my scanner working again, I will scan those pages and post them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:6d1f:75ea:efef:4494 (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Facts about hydroseeding" Section

Does anyone else feel like this section reads like an ad?

While it isn't specifically saying "but this" the language of that serving doesn't mesh with the rest of the article. FerretDog (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are welcome to rewrite this section to conform to Wikipedia standards. This section needs a rewrite. First of all, the section title is inappropriate; the entire article is supposed to be factual. Some of the text is redundant with the rest of the article. Text can be moved to other sections where appropriate, and new sections that have more specific, coherent titles can be created. Moreau1 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)