The problem with No Mow May

And why we should stop promoting it

The orchard edge

Here at Turtle Paradise we believe in the motto Reuse, Repair, Recycle, even when it comes to writing topics. Especially when it comes to writing topics. I've written extensively about lawns and mowing, but find that these subjects upcycle nicely when fleshed out with details of my current thoughts. For longtime readers who recognize the recurring themes and have little interest in revisiting them, I've included new photos.

The photo above shows the edge of the orchard. This spot was formerly mowed regularly and was an extension of the front yard. Because it greatly reduces work, and the area is more useful as a grazing area, these days we mow it only in late winter and later in the summer when unpalatable plants begin to dominate. The picture illustrates the result of not mowing until June: It is either a lush and lovely pasture prized by graziers or a field of dense, chest-high vegetation impossible to get through without a lawn tractor of considerable horsepower.

Chinook sails a sea of grass

No Mow May probably makes sense in the U.K. where it originated. It might be appropriate for parts of the U.S. especially if you have a shady lawn. Here in the humid eastern U.S. I wouldn't recommend it. If you have a typical lawn of bluegrass, perennial rye, and various fescues, at the end of May you will have a lawn of tall bluegrass, rye, and fescue which is now a huge pain in the ass to mow. Negligible ecological benefits will have accrued.

Putting off mowing until May is essentially what farmers do when they plan to make hay. They let the grass and forbs grow until a dry spell of several days arrives in early summer. The grass is then cut and allowed to dry in the sun before being baled and stored for winter livestock feed. Ideally hayfields are manured to replace the fertility that is taken when hay is removed. When mowing your overgrown yard in June you are also removing fertility, but it is a purposeless removal unless you value the cut grass as compost material or mulch. When cutting a hay field, destroying the homes of the small creatures living there is a necessary evil. Mowing your overgrown lawn on the first of June replicates this destruction without the accompanying benefit.

Betsy favors the tender clover of the recently mowed parking area

It's important to note that you're not doing your grass any favors by putting off mowing. The ancestors of lawn grasses co-evolved with grazing animals and actually benefit from being cut. Grass can be cut or grazed at almost any point on the tiller (the individual grass stalk) and it will begin to regrow due the presence of intercalary meristems. These handy masses of cells occur at the leaf base, and on the stem between leaves. Long story short, no matter where a cut is made, there are usually growth cells nearby that respond by elongating the blades of grass again and again.

If you let your grass go to seed, as it will do if you postpone mowing long enough, the tiller that has produced is done and dies back, and a new one must be regenerated to take over the space. We need to ask ourselves, if it is worthwhile to grow grass, why are we embracing practices that are not optimal for its health? No Mow May doesn't promote healthy turf grass.

Never Mow Ever is being practiced here

Of course, the point isn't to improve the health of your lawn. The purported aim is to create habitat and food sources for beneficial insects at a time when such resources may be scarce. A yard full of dandelions, spring beauties, and woodland violets is not only beautiful, but offers nectar to foraging bees. But while the average British lawn may contain such blossoms, the typical American one does not, and avoiding May mowing won't necessarily invite such plants in. Calling your lawn maintenance company and canceling the service, or taking your personal lawn chemicals to a hazardous waste disposal event would be far more effective. Then set your mower on the highest setting and cease irrigation. In a few years you'll see a greater diversity of plants in the yard. Dutch clover, plantain, and star of Bethlehem are the most common in my yard after the various annual and perennial grasses. The irony lost on many No Mow May cheerleaders is that these low-growers are encouraged by mowing. They compete well with grass and bounce back after being cut. In a mixed lawn, at the end of May, the grasses will have overtopped the low-growers whose growth you been fostered by mowing the previous summer and fall.

Rather than advocating for a mowless month, campaigns to end unnecessary lawn chemical use and watering would be a much better way to spend time and resources. My main objection with most anti-lawn rhetoric is that it presents the case as if all lawns by definition are chemicalized and irrigated. In the northeastern quadrant of the U.S. it's entirely possible to have a decent lawn with neither. By keeping the grass, but foregoing sprinklers and weed and feed treatments, we could save immense amounts of money and reduce the amount of fertilizers and herbicides entering waterways by billions of gallons. Convincing lots of homeowners to take small steps toward environmentally friendly yards will meet with more success than getting a few to delay mowing.

A shady corner has been converted to a gnome home with over two dozen plant species

There is still the problem of fossil fuel use. Minimizing land used for lawns overall is important. Better than No Mow May is Never Mow This Bit. How about planting small trees, shrubs, or pollinator gardens, or simply leaving the spots farthest from the house unmolested by mower blades? What if neighbors got together and decided to share one lawn tractor for the purpose of maintaining paths between ornamental and vegetable gardens, and through nature preserves? Perhaps a large open area could be maintained for communal gatherings and recreation.

An interesting effect I've noticed of No Mow May and other anti-lawn campaigns is that they foster the belief that turfgrasses in themselves are invasive or somehow ecologically damaging. The term invasive has been abused and misused to the point that it is now meaningless. Suffice it to say that among the exotic vegetation striving to swallow the Savanna, not once have I encountered bluegrass or fine fescue. It's not lawn grasses themseves that are the problem, but the need of humans to devote such huge expanses of land to such a pointless and unproductive purpose.

Mountain mint, spicebush, and a pair of dogwoods take up former lawn space

I’m sure others have had different experiences of No Mow May. The newer turfgrasses no doubt have been developed to grow thicker and shorter unlike the chest-high behemoths that populate my orchard, and might not present such a mowing challenge. Perhaps there are benefits others have experienced of which I'm unaware. Has anyone tried it? What's your opinion?