Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

js

--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com

Jack Schmidling expounded:


Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

I am also using the red mulch for the first time this year and I have
to say I am impressed. The plants are stockier, somehow, greener, and
there is absolutely no sign of blight, which is a huge problem for me.
I'm on the way to being a true believer, let's see how July and August
progress with it.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Jack Schmidling wrote:

Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

The row along the fence looks to have nothing under it but vegetation.
In fact, the whole patch looks lush with grass and weeds with
significant encroachment on the un-red mulched row. And that's not
examining the grass on the outside of the fence. Under the
circumstances, I don't see that the positive benefits of red mulch
argument has any validity in this case, as you are essentially comparing
apples and oranges.

Jack Schmidling wrote:
Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

Your comparison is skewed, you are making your unmulched plants
compete with weeds. I would suggest had you kept your unmulched
plants cultivated of weeds they would have equaled or surpassed the
plants surrounded by red plastic sheeting. Actually any medium that
prevents air and moisture from penetrating does not qualify as mulch,
that's simply a plastic barrier. I would also suggest that since your
red plastic is not in direct contact with the ground it also does not
qualify as mulch. You should be embarrassed to present your weed
patch as a vegetable garden.

Sheldon wrote:

Your comparison is skewed, you are making your unmulched plants
compete with weeds.....

Agreed but still not a useless experiment.

I would suggest had you kept your unmulched
plants cultivated of weeds they would have equaled or surpassed the
plants surrounded by red plastic sheeting....


That's just a guess with nothing to back it up.

Actually any medium that
prevents air and moisture from penetrating does not qualify as mulch,
that's simply a plastic barrier.

I agree but check your seed catalogs... they all call it mulch so I went
along with it.


You should be embarrassed to present your weed
patch as a vegetable garden.

Those are your words. It is an experimental plot to see the effect of
mulch. We have about 20 tomatoes planted in a proper garden.

If nothing else, it proves that "mulch" eliminates the hassle of weeding.

It was also pointed out by Ann that it might have an effect on blight
which is the biggest loss we have in tomatoes. We used to stop picking
at frost time. Now we stop when the plants die, which is weeks before
frost.

js

--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com

"Sheldon" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jack Schmidling wrote:
Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic
mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

Your comparison is skewed, you are making your unmulched plants
compete with weeds. I would suggest had you kept your unmulched
plants cultivated of weeds they would have equaled or surpassed the
plants surrounded by red plastic sheeting. Actually any medium that
prevents air and moisture from penetrating does not qualify as
mulch,
that's simply a plastic barrier.

I was recently told by someone using it, that that stuff passes air
and moisture.

Bob

I agree but check your seed catalogs... they all call it mulch so I went
along with it.

They are probally the same cat's that call elements "plant food". Does that
mean we feed plants?

mulch would be anything that facilitates the mycorrhizae.

The best thing you could use to keep so-called weeds down is composted
leaves. Leaves have many benefits as mulch.
here is some info on using leaf. Jim has passed away though. Sad.
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman/bradley/index.html


Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

symplastless wrote:
I agree but check your seed catalogs... they all call it mulch so I went
along with it.


They are probally the same cat's that call elements "plant food". Does that
mean we feed plants?

Sure. You should see my Snapdragons gobble up iron bars. When they are
very young I pulverize it, mix with water and use a doll sized baby
bottle. But only after putting a drop on my wrist to make sure it isn't
too hot.

js


--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com

On Jul 6, 10:02?am, "Bob F" wrote:
"Sheldon" wrote in message

ps.com...

Jack Schmidling wrote:
Marilyn was reading some off-the-wall hype about how red plastic
mulch
under tomatoes will make them grow better and faster. I, of course,
dismissed it as nonsense.

Your comparison is skewed, you are making your unmulched plants
compete with weeds. I would suggest had you kept your unmulched
plants cultivated of weeds they would have equaled or surpassed the
plants surrounded by red plastic sheeting. Actually any medium that
prevents air and moisture from penetrating does not qualify as
mulch,
that's simply a plastic barrier.

I was recently told by someone using it, that that stuff passes air
and moisture.

All I've seen is just plain old plastic sheeting. I buy lots of stuff
from Lee Valley. They say to punch holes by hand so water can pass.
I think this red plastic is a gimmick, and an expensive gimmick
because it wont last long... adn constant exposure to the sun's UV
will change the red to chalky pink.

http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page...t=2,2300,33272

Sheldon wrote:
On Jul 6, 10:02?am, "Bob F" wrote:

"Sheldon" wrote in message

I was recently told by someone using it, that that stuff passes air
and moisture.


All I've seen is just plain old plastic sheeting. I buy lots of stuff
from Lee Valley. They say to punch holes by hand so water can pass.
I think this red plastic is a gimmick, and an expensive gimmick
because it wont last long... adn constant exposure to the sun's UV
will change the red to chalky pink.

There is no way any of the plastic stuff can pass air and water. It is
a mystery to me how the plants get any water I guess enough moisture
seeps over from the uncovered areas and none can evaporate from the
covered areas.

I assumed the red was a gimmick also and only a side by side test will
prove it. We will do that next year but there is some logic to the red
light being reflected up to the bottom of the leaves but it needs to be
proven.

js

--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com

.... there could be an explanation... blue and red are the two areas of
the spectrum drives photosynthesis. the reflecting red could put the
light under the leaves where sun doesnt usually fall.
Ingrid

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:44:23 -0600, Jack Schmidling
wrote:
I assumed the red was a gimmick also and only a side by side test will
prove it. We will do that next year but there is some logic to the red
light being reflected up to the bottom of the leaves but it needs to be
proven.

js

r-swrote:
... there could be an explanation... blue and red are the two areas of
the spectrum drives photosynthesis. the reflecting red could put the
light under the leaves where sun doesnt usually fall.
Ingrid

So what, the bottom portion of leaves do not facilitate
photosynthesis, otherwise the leaves would have evolved to be
connected to their stems by little universal joints so they could
revolve 360 deg at a constant rate, like pinwheels (why would mother
nature waste 50pct of their surface area). Dintcha ever notice that
only the top portion of leaves synchronize with the postion of the sun
(the bottom (underside) of leaves is involved with respiration). And
the sun already radiates the full color spectum of visible light
(doesn't need any help, hasn't for billions of years)... I think that
red plastic is a lot of hooey, designed to attract those with more
dollars than brain cells... ask any three year old, they almost always
choose the red candy.

In article . com,
Sheldon wrote:

r-swrote:
... there could be an explanation... blue and red are the two areas of
the spectrum drives photosynthesis. the reflecting red could put the
light under the leaves where sun doesnt usually fall.
Ingrid

So what, the bottom portion of leaves do not facilitate
photosynthesis, otherwise the leaves would have evolved to be
connected to their stems by little universal joints so they could
revolve 360 deg at a constant rate, like pinwheels (why would mother
nature waste 50pct of their surface area). Dintcha ever notice that
only the top portion of leaves synchronize with the postion of the sun
(the bottom (underside) of leaves is involved with respiration). And
the sun already radiates the full color spectum of visible light

As well as light, which like so many other things Sheldon, that you
can't see.

(doesn't need any help, hasn't for billions of years)... I think that
red plastic is a lot of hooey, designed to attract those with more
dollars than brain cells... ask any three year old, they almost always
choose the red candy.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Sheldon wrote:

So what, the bottom portion of leaves do not facilitate
photosynthesis.....

Pray tell what do you base that factoid on?

There is chlorophyll on the bottom as well as the top of all leaves.
Chlorophyll does not require direct sunlight to function. If it did,
there would be nothing growing under the canopy in a forest.

otherwise the leaves would have evolved to be
connected to their stems by little universal joints so they could
revolve 360 deg at a constant rate, like pinwheels (why would mother
nature waste 50pct of their surface area).

That is nonsense but the bottom of most leaves is where the stoma are
concentrated which is where transpiration is effected. The top of the
leaf is a more efficient at photosynthesis but the bottom still works.

Dintcha ever notice that only the top portion of leaves synchronize with the postion of the sun
(the bottom (underside) of leaves is involved with respiration).

Dintcha ever see a Compass Plant? The leaves are oriented North and
South with the large surfaces facing East and West. How silly of Mother
Nature to waste all that leaf bottom facing the Sun for half the day.

And
the sun already radiates the full color spectum of visible light
(doesn't need any help, hasn't for billions of years)...

What does that have to do with the price of milk? Plants don't use the
full spectrum.

I think that red plastic is a lot of hooey

Could be but thinking is not science. It's not even a hypothesis.

The idea that reflecting red up is a reasonable hypothesis which needs
to be proven, not rejected as "hooey" without some evidence.


js

--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com

In article ,
Jack Schmidling wrote:

Sheldon wrote:

So what, the bottom portion of leaves do not facilitate
photosynthesis.....

Pray tell what do you base that factoid on?

There is chlorophyll on the bottom as well as the top of all leaves.
Chlorophyll does not require direct sunlight to function. If it did,
there would be nothing growing under the canopy in a forest.

otherwise the leaves would have evolved to be
connected to their stems by little universal joints so they could
revolve 360 deg at a constant rate, like pinwheels (why would mother
nature waste 50pct of their surface area).

That is nonsense but the bottom of most leaves is where the stoma are
concentrated which is where transpiration is effected. The top of the
leaf is a more efficient at photosynthesis but the bottom still works.

Dintcha ever notice that only the top portion of leaves synchronize with the
postion of the sun
(the bottom (underside) of leaves is involved with respiration).

Dintcha ever see a Compass Plant? The leaves are oriented North and
South with the large surfaces facing East and West. How silly of Mother
Nature to waste all that leaf bottom facing the Sun for half the day.

And
the sun already radiates the full color spectum of visible light
(doesn't need any help, hasn't for billions of years)...

What does that have to do with the price of milk? Plants don't use the
full spectrum.

I think that red plastic is a lot of hooey

Could be but thinking is not science. It's not even a hypothesis.

The idea that reflecting red up is a reasonable hypothesis which needs
to be proven, not rejected as "hooey" without some evidence.


js

Uh, js, can I call you js? Sheldon doesn't really function well in the
realm of rational thought. He is more of a "fiat" kind of guy. We are
all kind of hoping that someone who cares about him will get him some
professional help. You know how it is with compulsive disorders. You
just know the invectives are in the mail.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/