Hi,

I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner of the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.

Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along with well rotted manure from the dung heap?

Many thanks,

TT

Timmy T wrote:
Hi,

I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner of
the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.

Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along
with well rotted manure from the dung heap?

Many thanks,

TT



Can you just turn it upside-down and plant over it? (I assume you
don't have bermudagrass over there)

If I ever start a new garden plot from turf again, I plant to spray it
one time with glyphosate (Roundup or equivalent), mow it short when
the grass starts to die, and then disturb the soil as little as
possible when I plant. Mulch heavily at least the first year to keep
the weeds from taking over, and let the earthworms do all the hard
work turning the soil. That first year I probably won't be able to
direct sow anything; just use transplants.

Tilling new ground among other things wakes up dormant weed seeds in
the soil.

-Bob

In article ,
zxcvbob wrote:

Timmy T wrote:
Hi,

I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner of
the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.

Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along
with well rotted manure from the dung heap?

Many thanks,

TT



Can you just turn it upside-down and plant over it? (I assume you
don't have bermudagrass over there)

If I ever start a new garden plot from turf again, I plant to spray it
one time with glyphosate (Roundup or equivalent), mow it short when
the grass starts to die, and then disturb the soil as little as
possible when I plant. Mulch heavily at least the first year to keep
the weeds from taking over, and let the earthworms do all the hard
work turning the soil. That first year I probably won't be able to
direct sow anything; just use transplants.

Tilling new ground among other things wakes up dormant weed seeds in
the soil.

-Bob

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php

ISIS Report 19/05/10

Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil
Don Huber, recently retired from Purdue University, and co-author G.S.
Johal, at Purdue¹s Dept of Botany and Plant Pathology, stated in a paper
published in the October 2009 issue of European Journal of Agronomy that
the widespread **use of glyphosate** in the US can ³significantly
increase the severity of various plants diseases, impair plant defense
to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients
rendering them unavailable for plant use.²

Further, **glyphosate** stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the
virulence of pathogens such as Fusarium, and ³can have serious
consequences for sustainable production of a wide range of susceptible
crops.² They warn that ³Ignoring potential non-target detrimental side
effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may
have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils
infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious.²
----

Round Up is toxic to humans and the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

Other than that, zxcvbob was spot on.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

Timmy T wrote:
Hi,

I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner
of the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.

Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along
with well rotted manure from the dung heap?

Compost it or give it away. Putting it back into the bed will just introduce
weed and grass seed.\

zxcvbob wrote:
Timmy T wrote:
Hi,

I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner
of the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.

Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along
with well rotted manure from the dung heap?

Many thanks,

TT



Can you just turn it upside-down and plant over it? (I assume you
don't have bermudagrass over there)

If I ever start a new garden plot from turf again, I plant to spray it
one time with glyphosate (Roundup or equivalent), mow it short when
the grass starts to die, and then disturb the soil as little as
possible when I plant. Mulch heavily at least the first year to keep
the weeds from taking over, and let the earthworms do all the hard
work turning the soil. That first year I probably won't be able to
direct sow anything; just use transplants.

Tilling new ground among other things wakes up dormant weed seeds in
the soil.

Carefully removing the sod (sod cutters are GOOD) removes the majority of weed
seeds.

Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil
Don Huber, recently retired from Purdue University, and co-author G.S.

Funny, I sprayed glyphosphate onto a section of yard near my back
fence, to kill all of the grass. The soil is rich there, so I was able
to plant without disturbing the soil much, other than adding some
composted cow manure to the bottom of the holes, and then adding straw
later on to conserve moisture.

Tomatoes are probably the most susceptible to damage from
glyphosphate, yet mine are doing great there now. By using
glyphosphate, I was able to minimize soil preparation, soil erosion, and
backbreaking work. In truth, I wouldn't have a nice tomato garden
without the roundup, and the local steam would probably have become
choked with silt from erosion runoff, killing off some endangered
species. Way to go, glyphosphate!

In article ,
Ohioguy wrote:

Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil
Don Huber, recently retired from Purdue University, and co-author G.S.

Funny, I sprayed glyphosphate onto a section of yard near my back
fence, to kill all of the grass. The soil is rich there, so I was able
to plant without disturbing the soil much, other than adding some
composted cow manure to the bottom of the holes, and then adding straw
later on to conserve moisture.

Tomatoes are probably the most susceptible to damage from
glyphosphate, yet mine are doing great there now. By using
glyphosphate, I was able to minimize soil preparation, soil erosion, and
backbreaking work. In truth, I wouldn't have a nice tomato garden
without the roundup, and the local steam would probably have become
choked with silt from erosion runoff, killing off some endangered
species. Way to go, glyphosphate!

Sounds like it's time to have a nice big plate of tomatoes, mozzarella,
and some basil. Eat hardy ;O)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Health_effects
Health effects

Toxicity

Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in
animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are
caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth
Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate -
has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16]. News reports
have supposed that regulators have been aware of these studies since
1980[17].

The United States Environmental Protection Agency? (EPA) considers
glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic or
teratogenic effects.[18] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk
model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from
glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their
maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these
conditions.[18]

A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of
new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health
risk to humans".[19] The 2000 review has been criticized because it
reviewed mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone,
not as a mixture as in Roundup, and for only one or two years.[20] It
didn't review toxicity studies of Roundup treatments (as a mixture) in
rats or rabbits that last more than 22 days[20] and its potential as an
endocrine disruptor was not assessed with a Roundup mixture at all.[20]
A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and
metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and
umbilical cells in vitro, even at low concentrations. The effects were
not proportional to the main active ingredient concentrations
(glyphosate), but dependent on the nature of the adjuvants used in the
Roundup formulation.[21]

Deliberate ingestion of Roundup herbicide in quantities ranging from 85
to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it
has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild
or moderate symptoms following ingestion.[22] There is a reasonable
correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of
serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of 85 mL of the
concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in
adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and
epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment
are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion.
Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema,
infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring
haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in
severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present
pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations
can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported
occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel
(benzisothiazolin-3-one).Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but
spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in
the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild
conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation
is delayed or inadequate.[12]

Glyphosate is toxic to human skin cells, through causing oxidative
damage; antioxidants such as Vitamin C and E were found to provide some
protection to such damage, leading the authors of the study to recommend
that these chemicals be added to formulations including glyphosate.[23]
Severe skin burns are very rare.[12]

Endocrine disruptor

A 2000 in vitro study on mouse MA-10 cells concluded that Roundup
inhibited progesterone production by disrupting StAR protein
expression.[24] Further studies demonstrated this was not caused by
glyphosate but to surfactants used as inactive ingredients in Roundup
formulations.[25]

A 2005 in vitro study on human placental JEG3 cells concluded that the
glyphosate disruption of aromatase is facilitated by adjuvants of the
Roundup formulation.[9][26]

A 2009 in vitro experiment with glyphosate formulations on human liver
HepG2 cells has observed endocrine disruption at sub-agricultural doses,
where a Roundup formulation showed to be the most active formulation.
The effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the
glyphosate concentration.[27]

A 2009 study on rats has found that Roundup is a potent endocrine
disruptor causing disturbances in the reproductive development when the
exposure was performed during the puberty period.[28]

[edit]
Genetic damage

A 1998 study on mice concluded that Roundup is able to cause genetic
damage. The authors concluded that the damage was "not related to the
active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide
mixture".[29]

A 2005 study raised concerns over the effects of Roundup in
transcription.[30]

A 2009 study on mice has found that a single intraperitoneal injection
of Roundup in concentration of 25*mg/kg caused chromosomal aberrations
and induction of micronuclei.[31]

A 2009 in vitro experiment with glyphosate formulations on human liver
cells has observed DNA damages at sub-agricultural doses, where a
Roundup formulation showed to be the most active formulation. The
effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate
concentration.[27]

Ecologic effects

A 2000 review of the toxicological data on Roundup concluded that "for
terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted
for potentially exposed nontarget organisms". It also concluded that
there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow
water.[32]

Toxicity
A 2009 study has concluded that while physiological pH decreases
glyphosate uptake in animal cells, Roundup formulation contains
surfactants that increase membrane permeability allowing cellular uptake
at physiological pH.[8]

Aquatic effects

Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to Roundup than
terrestrial organisms.[32] Glyphosate is generally less persistent in
water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian
pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the
sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[11]

The EU classifies Roundup as R51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may
cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.[33]
Although Roundup is not registered for aquatic uses[34] and studies of
its effects on amphibians indicate it is toxic to them,[35] scientists
have found that it may wind up in small wetlands where tadpoles live,
due to inadvertent spraying during its application. A recent study found
that even at concentrations one-third of the maximum concentrations
expected in nature, Roundup still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles
raised in outdoor tanks.[36]

A 2010 study has found that long-term exposition to environmental
relevant concentrations of a Roundup formulation causes metabolic
disruption in he fish leporinus obtusidens.[37]

Environmental degradation and effects

When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly
bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[11] Unbound glyphosate can
be degraded by bacteria.[38] Glyphosphate has been shown to increase the
infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight in fields that have been
treated with glyphosphate.[39] A 2009 study using a RoundUp formulation
has concluded that absorption into plants delays subsequent
soil-degradation, and can increase glyphosate persistence in soil from
two to six times.[40]

In soils, half lives vary from as little as 3 days at a site in Texas,
to as much as 141 days at a site in Iowa.[41] In addition, the
glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid was shown to persist up
to 2 years in Swedish forest soils.[42]

A recent study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from
glyphosate use.[43] One study has shown an effect on growth and survival
of earthworms.[44] The results of this study are in conflict with other
data, and have been criticized on methodological grounds.[32] In other
studies, nitrogen fixing bacteria have been impaired, and also crop
plant susceptibility to disease has been
increased.[39][45][46][47][48][49][50]

False advertising and scientific fraud

False advertising
In 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of
glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney
general.[51] Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based
herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and
"practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish.[52]

Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case in France
in 2001 for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it
left the soil clean after use; glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is
classed by the European Union as "dangerous for the environment" and
"toxic for aquatic organisms". In January 2007, Monsanto was convicted
of false advertising.[53] The result was confirmed in 2009.[54]

Scientific fraud

On two occasions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has
caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research
laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[55][56][57] In the
first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA
reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it
was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they
said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[58][59][60]
In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of
the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted on 20 felony
counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $50,000,
the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million
dollars in restitution.[41][61][62] Craven laboratories performed
studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto.

Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and that
Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven
Labs or IBT. Monsanto also said that the Craven Labs investigation was
started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered
irregularities.[63]

yum yum!
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in
animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are
caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth
Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate -
has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16].

I would question the initial assumptions of any study done by a group
called "Earth Open Source". Most likely, they simply decided that they
wanted to see certain results, then did what they could in the study to
try to make them happen.


A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and
metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and
umbilical cells in vitro, even at low concentrations.

Yep, applying various chemicals directly to a human embryo will do
that. Peanut butter and jelly probably will, too. However, in real
life they are a bit less likely to come into direct contact with a human
embryo, don't you think?


Deliberate ingestion of Roundup herbicide in quantities ranging from 85
to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion,

Wow, I'm sure there is a whole list of various products, not meant
for human consumption, that would cause discomfort or death if we ate
them. How about that box of roofing nails out in the garage?

Now I know I'm just being a bit hard on you. Obviously it would be
safer if we didn't use any pesticides. However, that isn't going to
happen, and there are times that crops would completely fail without
them. I'm just saying that I question the impartiality of any studies
out there, because the studies are often funded by groups that are
wanting to bolster a certain, pre-determined point of view. The
environmental groups want to prove that things are dangerous, while the
companies that make the products want to prove that they are not. It's
not good science. I try to see both sides of the issue, because most of
my relatives are farmers, but I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.

I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will. However, I do
try to only use insecticides, fungicides and such after I have verified
a problem that is spreading. Several times I've waited too long and
lost most of a crop. Even so, I'm not comfortable with spraying "just
in case". I figure that my "spraying as necessary" approach probably
only uses 10% of the chemicals that most of the fruits and vegetables at
the store have on them. Plus, I know which chemicals were used, and
they tend to be those that don't hang around as long.

In article ,
Ohioguy wrote:

Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in
animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are
caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth
Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate -
has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16].

I would question the initial assumptions of any study done by a group
called "Earth Open Source". Most likely, they simply decided that they
wanted to see certain results, then did what they could in the study to
try to make them happen.


A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and
metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and
umbilical cells in vitro, even at low concentrations.

Yep, applying various chemicals directly to a human embryo will do
that. Peanut butter and jelly probably will, too. However, in real
life they are a bit less likely to come into direct contact with a human
embryo, don't you think?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically
modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Aris A, Leblanc S.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke
Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of
Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada;
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are
engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and
gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the
correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine
exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid
(AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid
(3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec,
Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant
women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and
not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW,
their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of
circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way
for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and
utero-placental toxicities.


Deliberate ingestion of Roundup herbicide in quantities ranging from 85
to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion,

Wow, I'm sure there is a whole list of various products, not meant
for human consumption, that would cause discomfort or death if we ate
them. How about that box of roofing nails out in the garage?

Now I know I'm just being a bit hard on you. Obviously it would be
safer if we didn't use any pesticides. However, that isn't going to
happen, and there are times that crops would completely fail without
them. I'm just saying that I question the impartiality of any studies
out there, because the studies are often funded by groups that are
wanting to bolster a certain, pre-determined point of view. The
environmental groups want to prove that things are dangerous, while the
companies that make the products want to prove that they are not. It's
not good science. I try to see both sides of the issue, because most of
my relatives are farmers, but I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.

I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will. However, I do
try to only use insecticides, fungicides and such after I have verified
a problem that is spreading. Several times I've waited too long and
lost most of a crop. Even so, I'm not comfortable with spraying "just
in case". I figure that my "spraying as necessary" approach probably
only uses 10% of the chemicals that most of the fruits and vegetables at
the store have on them. Plus, I know which chemicals were used, and
they tend to be those that don't hang around as long.

No one said that you weren't stupid.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

"Ohioguy" wrote in message

I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.

I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will.

LOL.

Ohioguy wrote:
billy quoted:
....
Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in
animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are
caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth
Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate -
has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16].

I would question the initial assumptions of any study done by a group
called "Earth Open Source". Most likely, they simply decided that they
wanted to see certain results, then did what they could in the study to
try to make them happen.

i have no idea how credible many of
these cites are. you're welcome to post
some actual knowledge on the subject
instead of slander.


A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and
metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and
umbilical cells in vitro, even at low concentrations.

Yep, applying various chemicals directly to a human embryo will do
that. Peanut butter and jelly probably will, too. However, in real
life they are a bit less likely to come into direct contact with a human
embryo, don't you think?

heh, i always thought such studies as pretty
far fetched too, but if you want to use them as
a basis of comparison or to test mutagenisis then
they at least say "this substance is worse than
that other one". which is useful to know even if
the likelyhood of direct contact is low.

i think the most useful studies are those that
get into the liver metabolic pathways and other
organs of the body that might accumulate or
filter the substance in question. i notice not
many cite mentions actual accumulation in the
body or how the liver or other organs processes
glyphosate.


Deliberate ingestion of Roundup herbicide in quantities ranging from 85
to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion,

Wow, I'm sure there is a whole list of various products, not meant
for human consumption, that would cause discomfort or death if we ate
them. How about that box of roofing nails out in the garage?

a good source of iron.


Now I know I'm just being a bit hard on you. Obviously it would be
safer if we didn't use any pesticides. However, that isn't going to
happen,

it happens here all the time (no pesticides).
in this case glyphosate isn't a pesticide anyways
it is a herbicide.


and there are times that crops would completely fail without
them.

unlikely to be true. many pests when left alone will
not kill the host plant completely. they will chew some
leaves and then spin a cocoon and then pupate and go on
to the next generation like many other critters.

this season i have several examples of pests doing
some damage, but not "complete failure" level damage.
i've left them alone and most of the plants have easily
outgrown the damage.


I'm just saying that I question the impartiality of any studies
out there, because the studies are often funded by groups that are
wanting to bolster a certain, pre-determined point of view. The
environmental groups want to prove that things are dangerous, while the
companies that make the products want to prove that they are not. It's
not good science. I try to see both sides of the issue, because most of
my relatives are farmers, but I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.

i wouldn't say that from what you write here.


I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will. However, I do
try to only use insecticides, fungicides and such after I have verified
a problem that is spreading. Several times I've waited too long and
lost most of a crop.

there are few plantings i've done and lost
"most" and as of yet i've not lost "everything"
not ever. interplanting, mixed beds, paying
attention and getting at some troubles when
first noticed goes a long ways towards avoiding
later losses.


Even so, I'm not comfortable with spraying "just
in case". I figure that my "spraying as necessary" approach probably
only uses 10% of the chemicals that most of the fruits and vegetables at
the store have on them. Plus, I know which chemicals were used, and
they tend to be those that don't hang around as long.

i'm glad. it seems that much of
what people do when they put in lawns
and gardens is try to outdo the neighbors
on how many pounds of fertilizers and
poisons they can shove at the problems
and how much water they can pollute.

i don't have much good to say about
the commercial farmers here either.
the number of times they spray on a
windy day when not much reaches the
ground/weeds is sad. the way they plow
right up to the edge of the ditches
or burn and trench through ditches or
don't leave any kind of erosion
control or cover crops for the winter
is like saying they don't even care
about actually building fertile topsoil.
instead they pump fertilizers and
chemicals at the problems. all those
chemicals run off too in some form or
another.

i don't know how you can think any
of this current chemical infusion madness
is sustainable or good for the long term.


songbird

it happens here all the time (no pesticides).
in this case glyphosate isn't a pesticide anyways
it is a herbicide.

There are many different kinds of pesticides. Herbicides kill
plants. Fungicides kill fungus. Insecticides kill insects. There are
also rodenticides, biocides and others. Anyway, these are all pesticides.


this season i have several examples of pests doing
some damage, but not "complete failure" level damage.
i've left them alone and most of the plants have easily
outgrown the damage.

I have previously had a fungus get so out of control that it
completely wiped out my gourds. This was despite applying garden
sulphur to the leaves. I have also had other vine crops utterly
destroyed by squash vine borer. This last one is very aggravating,
because you can even have large fruits on the vine, and be expecting a
harvest when it happens.


i'm glad. it seems that much of
what people do when they put in lawns
and gardens is try to outdo the neighbors

I never use fertilizer or anything on my lawn. What's the point?
You just have to mow more often, and it kills off fireflies and
diversity. Why pay for something you don't need, just to force yourself
to spend more time mowing and buying more gasoline, which pollutes the
air further? Anyway, I have more clover and variety out in the yard
than just about anybody else nearby. The 'Trugreen' trucks like to
target our house as one of the lone standouts in the neighborhood when
they go around trying to drum up business. I know it probably sounds
strange, but I'll put chemicals on my food way before I'll spray it all
around the yard. My plants have to look like they're dying or
something, though, and I do tend to try to manually pick off the
offending critters first, if possible.

The only way I'm interested in "outdoing" the neighbors is perhaps by
installing a cistern to capture some of the rainwater to water plants
with, or maybe in converting more of my lawn into a productive garden.
If we had enough room, I would also have a small wetland area in the
back. This year I planted some garden crops out in the front yard,
around the mailbox. (kohlrabi and kale) I may expand this slowly. I
would like almost my whole front yard to be a garden, but I'm a bit
worried about how the neighbors in this area would react to something
that unusual. We are fairly new to the place, and I'm already putting
out an urban chicken coop in the back yard.

Derald wrote:

As far as I have been able to determine, trying to converse with a religious
zealot is a Sisyphian excercise akin to arguing with an idiot.

or a drunk... i hate it when i do that.


songbird

In article ,
Ohioguy wrote:

Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in
animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are
caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth
Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate -
has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16].

I would question the initial assumptions of any study done by a group
called "Earth Open Source". Most likely, they simply decided that they
wanted to see certain results, then did what they could in the study to
try to make them happen.

You say you have a degree in Environmental Studies, but you question a
groups findings because of their name? Were you taught the scientific
method? It has very little to do with names.

Then when confronted with "Health Effects" of Roundup, or it's
"Ecological Effects", or its sale using "false advertising and
scientific fraud", you duck the questions.

Then you pose a question,"
Yep, applying various chemicals directly to a human embryo will do
that. Peanut butter and jelly probably will, too. However, in real
life they are a bit less likely to come into direct contact with a human
embryo, don't you think?
Then using your vast knowledge of Environmental Studies, you don't
respond to the answer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically
modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Aris A, Leblanc S.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke
Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of
Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada;
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are
engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and
gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the
correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine
exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid
(AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid
(3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec,
Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant
women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and
not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW,
their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of
circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way
for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and
utero-placental toxicities.
--
What's the matter? Don't you like the National Institute of Health's
name either?

Not to worry, you should fit right in with Shelly, and Derald the Dim.

--
"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

FarmI wrote:
"Ohioguy" wrote in message

I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.

I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will.

LOL.

You don't need tertiary studies to have BS.

D