We have Douglas fir bark mulch that's chunky with fines, and then there is the chunkies of various size nuggets.
The two don't look good blended at all.
The nuggets are a horror story for fall leaf cleanup.
So the finer multitexture usually wins.
So we need to switch between the choices depending on maintenance and customer preference.
Around here, either one performs very well for local needs, considering our weather.
That table on the page is a nice tool. A printout of it could be handy to carry along.
Drouin's page may be a bit innacurate. Its accurate from the angle at which its presented. Some of the mulch that it speaks "less" of, is actually better for certain purposes, and the wood mulch better and worse for other purposes.
I've used most mulches extensively, even personally, and found benefits to each of them.
It may boil down to why people are mulching. The nutrient part may not be relevent if nutrition is not needed. The Online Forums that offers articles for CEU credits, ran an article not long ago, indicating that mulches don't draw nutrients up from the soil. So it may depend on if the mulch is for topdressing, or incorporating.
For incorporation and mixing, I've found that the finest mulches of all (not bark) improve soil the fastes and the best.
Some country clubs have purposely used bark in golf greens mixtures, because the type they used decomposed more slowly. And that was what they were hoping for.
The main negative I've seen from a mulch, is when ultrafine bark mulch gets compacted and crusted on top. It can almost be knocked on. I'd imagine that it really repels water, and may slow down gas exchange significantly. Thats one thing that the chunks have going for them - breathing. |