I'm not the OP, but would you mind sharing the name of the company?Anonymous wrote:We pay a company 850 for premium black mulch on a 1/3 acre with 15 trees and 10 shrubs mulched to include weeding and edging. You’re getting ripped off. Time to shop around.
Anonymous wrote:You don't need to mulch, ever. I have never used mulch. Real gardens should be densely planted, or at least planned to be densely planted at maturity, to avoid unsightly mulch.
The mulch phenomenon is a landscaping company gimmick that busy, non-gardening homeowners fall for because they don't know any better and think a yard needs to be neat above all else. I see the landscapers diligently pull up tiny plantings that are way too spaced-out, replace them seasonally with tiny new ones equally too spaced-out, and add fresh mulch all around them, never allowing anything to actually develop. This is now the "standard", such that people who have never been exposed to actual gardening techniques think this is the way a garden should look. A garden is never neat and tidy. It's alive and should be lush and a little bit "messy". The ultra-neat, spaced-out, "islands of plants in a sea of mulch" look is a lot more sterile in terms of biodiversity, and creates an inhospitable environment to insects, birds and other wildlife. Also it looks ugly.
Anonymous wrote:If I don't mulch, the weeds take over something terrible.
Anonymous wrote:I have about 1/3 of an acre of yard with mostly native plants, I leave the leaves among the plants over the winter and don’t cut the dead stalks until January, and then mulch everything. But now I am thinking i should just let nature run its course as better for bugs and other creatures, though wont look as “neat” as mulch, and we are in neighborhood (Kent) of “neat” yards. Bad idea? Certainly cheaper than the 6k in mulch and labor fees every year
Anonymous wrote:if you fo not mulch and do not clean up the dead plants over the winter, do you need to cut them back in the spring or just let them stay where they fall?