I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions. If it comes in a non-food
container, and isn't the immediate by-product of animal digestion,
it's "chemical" and bad, bad, bad. People are composed of chemicals,
as are animals, plants, soil, and water. I've been told if you
purchase pure sugar from a "chemical" supply house, it will come with
a safety sheet warning that it is not to be inhaled, and doubtless
other cautions. Too much water (a "chemical"), and not just drowning,
can cause serious health problems, coma, and death.

An "herbicide" is often condemned, but using vinegar (not an
herbicide?) to kill weeds is "organic." Chicken manure is "organic"
fertilizer, but "chemicals" extracted from chicken manure are
unnatural.

My position is definitely *not* to promote wholesale use of known
carcinogens to mow down every bug and weed. I'm delighted that some
have great success growing plants and food crops without supplements
beyond cow manure and compost, and without critter control beyond
encouraging beneficial predators.

My quarrel is that I *do* believe fertilizer from a bag, or some
judicious use of "chemical" weedkillers isn't going to destroy the
planet. F'r heaven's sake -- land is poisoned with *salt* -- what
could be more "organic"? Or "chemical"? I'd just like terms to be more
carefully defined, and "chemical" removed from discussion. Fat chance.
:-)

Just my two cent in this discussion :
"Chemical" is a misnomer. Potentially toxic chemical formulas would be
closer to the issue. As that goes, minimizing the use as much as possible
is a good thing. The main issue is that many of the toxic chemicals are
not water soluble, and therefor store up in fatty tissues, thereby allowing
a buildup in the body of the person ingesting the contaminated food.
Still, overall there is no reason that careful, judicious use of
chemicals should be avoided by anyone who desires to use them, has no access
to alternates, etc. I certainly think it's stupid to denegrate someone in
a city who has no compost pile for using a chemical fertilizer, or for
someone who is growing flower and not veggies to be attacked for using a
systemic.

Philip

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions. If it comes in a non-food
container, and isn't the immediate by-product of animal digestion,
it's "chemical" and bad, bad, bad. People are composed of chemicals,
as are animals, plants, soil, and water. I've been told if you
purchase pure sugar from a "chemical" supply house, it will come with
a safety sheet warning that it is not to be inhaled, and doubtless
other cautions. Too much water (a "chemical"), and not just drowning,
can cause serious health problems, coma, and death.

An "herbicide" is often condemned, but using vinegar (not an
herbicide?) to kill weeds is "organic." Chicken manure is "organic"
fertilizer, but "chemicals" extracted from chicken manure are
unnatural.

My position is definitely *not* to promote wholesale use of known
carcinogens to mow down every bug and weed. I'm delighted that some
have great success growing plants and food crops without supplements
beyond cow manure and compost, and without critter control beyond
encouraging beneficial predators.

My quarrel is that I *do* believe fertilizer from a bag, or some
judicious use of "chemical" weedkillers isn't going to destroy the
planet. F'r heaven's sake -- land is poisoned with *salt* -- what
could be more "organic"? Or "chemical"? I'd just like terms to be more
carefully defined, and "chemical" removed from discussion. Fat chance.
:-)

There is a huge difference between natural chemicals and synthetic chemicals.
Indeed, herbicides like atrazine are absolutely polluting all the ground water.
Scott's Weed and Feed sells it in their bags. It's an oxymoron. It's a big
money making machine. It's the big fat lie.

Synthetic is nothing, not even close to what you find in nature. Nature does
not have catalysts, synergists and the like.

So, wholesale condemnation will continue in the organic community. Why? Because
we know better, are usually better read than people who use synthetic practices
and the greatest of them all is WE DON'T BELIEVE THE BIG LIE.


On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:21:57 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions. If it comes in a non-food
container, and isn't the immediate by-product of animal digestion,
it's "chemical" and bad, bad, bad. People are composed of chemicals,
as are animals, plants, soil, and water. I've been told if you
purchase pure sugar from a "chemical" supply house, it will come with
a safety sheet warning that it is not to be inhaled, and doubtless
other cautions. Too much water (a "chemical"), and not just drowning,
can cause serious health problems, coma, and death.

An "herbicide" is often condemned, but using vinegar (not an
herbicide?) to kill weeds is "organic." Chicken manure is "organic"
fertilizer, but "chemicals" extracted from chicken manure are
unnatural.

My position is definitely *not* to promote wholesale use of known
carcinogens to mow down every bug and weed. I'm delighted that some
have great success growing plants and food crops without supplements
beyond cow manure and compost, and without critter control beyond
encouraging beneficial predators.

My quarrel is that I *do* believe fertilizer from a bag, or some
judicious use of "chemical" weedkillers isn't going to destroy the
planet. F'r heaven's sake -- land is poisoned with *salt* -- what
could be more "organic"? Or "chemical"? I'd just like terms to be more
carefully defined, and "chemical" removed from discussion. Fat chance.
:-)

Frogleg wrote:
I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions.

I hear what you're saying. In the context we use the term chemicals,
"organic chemistry" would be an oxymoron.

Personally, I think it all goes back to Dow Chemical's use of the
slogan, "Better living through chemistry." I think you can be pretty
sure that they meant the chemicals they synthesized, and not those
occurring in nature.

I also think there is a belief that the uninitiated to whom we often
preach about chemicals are too likely to believe that the answer to all
their questions lie in the aisle at Home Depot that has the fertilizers
and herbicides, thinking the answer is just which bottle or bag at what
time.

Also there is too much "bigger is better" in the world. Combine that
with "use first, read the directions later (if ever)", and there's a lot
of incentive to go overboard in our demonstrations that you don't get
"better gardens and lawns through chemistry."

I've often preached against the use of Weed 'n Feed, and extolled the
virtues of pulling weeds by hand. Yet if you access the information
grid, you'll find that my credit card has been occasionally used to buy
RoundUp. But I use it sparingly -- less intensively than the directions
say. (Yes, I did feel obligated to apologies and rationalize my
transgressions.)

The trend in gardening is moving away from artificial methods, and to
more organic methods. In shorthand that has been reduced to "chemical
bad, organic good."

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone here would say there is no use
in a gardening or on a lawn care for some synthesized chemicals, and I'm
very sure that everyone is aware that just because it's organic, it
doesn't do all good, and nothing but good.

I'm going to guess that our tenor is less severe than in some health
care forums where prescription drugs are evil, and organic remedies are
king. Those altitudes, and the "chemical bad, organic good" attitude you
see here are essentially backlashes to the assault lead by companies
(like Dow, but they're just one example) having the ears of the unwashed
for the past 40 years. Now the people have a soapbox in the Internet,
and dag nabbit, we're going to undo that 40 years of propaganda as
quickly as we can.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug:
Support me at: http://www.holzemville.com/mall/

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:25:22 GMT, "Warren"
wrote:

Frogleg wrote:
I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions.

I hear what you're saying. In the context we use the term chemicals,
"organic chemistry" would be an oxymoron.
Well boys I got news, there is little if any need to stay on the
unsustainable path of "chemical" gardening. Recently the city of
Austin TX funded a study on turf grass and Texas A&M has changed their
fertilization recommendations there for the first time in 20 years.
Organic fertilizers produced better lawns. Hang on to your antiquated
views or stop the madness and become gardeners!

animaux wrote in
:

There is a huge difference between natural chemicals and synthetic
chemicals. Indeed, herbicides like atrazine are absolutely polluting
all the ground water. Scott's Weed and Feed sells it in their bags.
It's an oxymoron. It's a big money making machine. It's the big fat
lie.

Synthetic is nothing, not even close to what you find in nature.
Nature does not have catalysts, synergists and the like.

Then what is an enzyme?

According to brittanica.com:

in chemistry, any substance that increases the rate of a reaction without
itself being consumed. Enzymes are naturally occurring catalysts
responsible for many essential biochemical reactions.


So, wholesale condemnation will continue in the organic community.
Why? Because we know better, are usually better read than people who
use synthetic practices and the greatest of them all is WE DON'T
BELIEVE THE BIG LIE.


On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:21:57 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions. If it comes in a non-food
container, and isn't the immediate by-product of animal digestion,
it's "chemical" and bad, bad, bad. People are composed of chemicals,
as are animals, plants, soil, and water. I've been told if you
purchase pure sugar from a "chemical" supply house, it will come with
a safety sheet warning that it is not to be inhaled, and doubtless
other cautions. Too much water (a "chemical"), and not just drowning,
can cause serious health problems, coma, and death.

An "herbicide" is often condemned, but using vinegar (not an
herbicide?) to kill weeds is "organic." Chicken manure is "organic"
fertilizer, but "chemicals" extracted from chicken manure are
unnatural.

My position is definitely *not* to promote wholesale use of known
carcinogens to mow down every bug and weed. I'm delighted that some
have great success growing plants and food crops without supplements
beyond cow manure and compost, and without critter control beyond
encouraging beneficial predators.

My quarrel is that I *do* believe fertilizer from a bag, or some
judicious use of "chemical" weedkillers isn't going to destroy the
planet. F'r heaven's sake -- land is poisoned with *salt* -- what
could be more "organic"? Or "chemical"? I'd just like terms to be more
carefully defined, and "chemical" removed from discussion. Fat chance.
:-)

"Warren" wrote in message
news:C7gYa.82534$Ho3.11242@sccrnsc03...
Frogleg wrote:
I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions.

I hear what you're saying. In the context we use the term chemicals,
"organic chemistry" would be an oxymoron.

Personally, I think it all goes back to Dow Chemical's use of the
slogan, "Better living through chemistry." I think you can be pretty
sure that they meant the chemicals they synthesized, and not those
occurring in nature.

This was DuPont's and not Dow's old slogan.
I'm an organic chemist, and you're a moron.
So there
Frank

Warren wrote:

...Personally, I think it all goes back to Dow Chemical's use of the
slogan, "Better living through chemistry."...


I thought that was DuPont's slogan.

Thought I'd add my couple pennies:

There is a difference between a substance produced in nature and the
same (by chemical structure) substance produced synthetically. The
difference is not really in the substance itself, but in the byproducts
of the production of the substance. Some things can be produced
synthetically without any problem, but others produce byproducts that
can be toxic. The trick is in knowing what substances are safely
produced.

As far as using "chemicals" on your garden, there is a place for them.
Chemical fertilizers certainly work, but since they are generally
soluble, they fall into the remedial, or quick-fix category. They will
perk up a plant, but they will leach out of the soil fairly soon. A
better option is to use fertilizers that hold the nutrients in place
until the plant roots act on them to release them. This includes compost
and composted manures. I know there are chemical fertilizers that
release slowly, but these are generally timed-release types: soluble
fertilizers encapsulated in polymers that release the nutrients in
response to water and ambient temperature, whether or not a plant is
there to use them.

Chemical herbicides or natural herbicides? Both can alter groundwater
quality. If you have to kill a weed, how about a hoe? If you have a weed
in your lawn, you can dig it up. In extreme cases, spot application of
herbicides will be the only thing that will work, but broadcasting weed
killer over your lawn is (1) wasting weedkiller and (2) contributing to
non-point-source water pollution.

(...)

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone here would say there is no use
in a gardening or on a lawn care for some synthesized chemicals, and I'm
very sure that everyone is aware that just because it's organic, it
doesn't do all good, and nothing but good.

(...)

Raising hand! You are not accurate about that. Not in my case. I don't use
any pesticides at all. I've been known to use Sunspray oil on one of my
maturing redbuds to save it from a major infestation of scale. That happened
due to the incredible stress it went through when it was dug up in Dallas,
replanted in Austin and, well, stress attracts pest insects.

Natural poisons are just as, if not more toxic than synthetic chemical
pesticides. Personally, I don't use any. I spend my dollars on compost. Good
quality compost which is made intentionally to have both fungal and bacterial
properties, as well as using mycorhizzae fungus at planting time.

http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/SHIGO/WINTER.html

Building the soil is how organic gardeners do their gardening. We don't try to
find better pesticides in nature, as much as we seek out and scientifically test
soil structure and texture for any given plant. The organic community is also a
large part of the Native Plant Society. I say that because chances are if you
grow native plants, with nice soil structure, or the soil they like to grow in,
natively, you don't have the problems the people on the synthetic cycle have.

Synthetic chemicals put people on a treadmill, much the way a gerbil runs and
runs on the running tunnel we provide for them to get exercise. That's what I
think of Monsanto, DowElanco and the like.

As a result of doing this very easy way of gardening, I have a tremendous
population of beneficial insects. Only 5% of all insects on the planet are not
beneficial. If we leave things alone, it really does work out.

One more thing which is part of the organic community; We don't try to force
the issue. For example: I have St. Augustine turf in the front of our home.
Every year I remove more and more of it, till I'm left with the turf which
doesn't require almost a thousand gallons of water a week. Each year when I
notice areas with cupping blades are removed the following fall or early spring
(which is February in my part of the world). I replace the turf with either
native forbs, grasses or trees with native ground cover.

So, I'm sure you know it is far more than standing on a soap box on the
Internet. It is the way to go. It's a great deal easier these days because
finally, the land grant U's are doing the testing on natural, organic materials
for use in the landscape. I know Texas A&M has released a study this year which
recommends of all the bagged fertilizers they used to conduct the study, the
8-2-4 found in both Sustane and LadyBug Brand far surpassed the synthetic
fertilizers. That's science, not wizardry.

Victoria

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:29:21 -0400, Dwight Sipler
wrote:

There is a difference between a substance produced in nature and the
same (by chemical structure) substance produced synthetically. The
difference is not really in the substance itself, but in the byproducts
of the production of the substance. Some things can be produced
synthetically without any problem, but others produce byproducts that
can be toxic. The trick is in knowing what substances are safely
produced.

OK, I can live with that. But how is a "chemical"/synthetic(?)
fertilizer substantially different (and bad) from what leaches out of
cow manure? If you need to add nitrogen, what *is* the problem with
ammonium nitrate in granules from a box or bag? Are any dolphins
killed in its preparation? Is the soil poisoned? I don't know much
about the manufacturing process -- I imagine it has *something* to do
with ammonia, and I might not want to work in the factory. I don't
want to work in an organic chicken-processing plant, either.

As far as using "chemicals" on your garden, there is a place for them.
Chemical fertilizers certainly work, but since they are generally
soluble, they fall into the remedial, or quick-fix category. They will
perk up a plant, but they will leach out of the soil fairly soon. A
better option is to use fertilizers that hold the nutrients in place
until the plant roots act on them to release them. This includes compost
and composted manures. I know there are chemical fertilizers that
release slowly, but these are generally timed-release types: soluble
fertilizers encapsulated in polymers that release the nutrients in
response to water and ambient temperature, whether or not a plant is
there to use them.

And this is bad? I *adore* compost and manure, and really use
practically no other soil amendments, but I don't think it's a crime
to do so. If "chemical" nutrients leach in/out of the soil, why don't
"organic ones"? Nitrogen is flippin' nitrogen. Compost improves tilth
and provides some minimal nutrients, and seems to make plants happy.
If there's a specific "chemical" deficiency in some particular plant,
what's the beef with adding a little of the "chemical" needed?

Chemical herbicides or natural herbicides? Both can alter groundwater
quality. If you have to kill a weed, how about a hoe? If you have a weed
in your lawn, you can dig it up. In extreme cases, spot application of
herbicides will be the only thing that will work, but broadcasting weed
killer over your lawn is (1) wasting weedkiller and (2) contributing to
non-point-source water pollution.

I agree absolutely. Particularly since I am taxed (currently) $45/yr
for "runoff" into the Bay. I don't wash my car; I don't water the lawn
(it's currently being drowned from "organic" sources :-) ; I have not
broadcast/sprayed any fertilizer, weedkiller, or insecticide on it in
over 15 years, *except* going after a few individual dandelions with
an extremely localized shot of foam weed-b-gon. And I have a pretty
nice-looking lawn. Lush and green in all but the most desperate
drought conditions. Evidently, grasses best-suited to the area and
conditions have taken over. I think there's probably some crabgrass in
there; clover; a persistent patch of ajuga in a shady spot; 2-3
buttercups. It gets mowed to a reasonable height every 10 days or so.

So why are all my green, sustainable, "organic" practices nullified
and I land in the organic celler when I advise a little weed-b-gon for
dandelions instead of digging them out year after year? MiracleGro is
a *very* handy fertilizer. I dig in compost and manure in large areas,
but occasionally supplement mid-season with this "chemical" rather
than removing all the plants and digging in more manure. I also use it
on houseplants.

It *should* be pointed out that dribbling chemicals on plants or soil
is a short term fix, not a long term solution to poor soil. But it's
not criminal.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:55:56 GMT, animaux
wrote:
large snip to isolate one topic

Synthetic chemicals put people on a treadmill, much the way a gerbil runs and
runs on the running tunnel we provide for them to get exercise. That's what I
think of Monsanto, DowElanco and the like.

A small point. This area happens to be prime habitat for dandelions.
While I personally think they're rather pretty, and I *have* used
leaves in salads, prevailing sentiment is that they're noxious weeds
and unwelcome in the neighborhood. I view the gerbil treadmill as
trying to dig them out year after year (which almost always leaves
behind enough root fragements for plants to regenerate) rather than
permanently ("chemically") zapping the ones that appear. In fact,
rather than creating *more* dependence on chemicals, judicious use has
released me from both perpetual weeding AND buying more chemicals. I
started out with 2 foam cans one season, and just discarded (properly)
a single one that I'd had around for 3-4 years which had developed a
clogged spray nozzle.

I admire your garden and gardening practices very much, but not
everyone is prepared to devote quite as much time and effort as you
have. All *I* want is a little slack.

Does anyone else besides me think that Warren is the next unibomber in the making?


Richard wrote in message 6...
animaux wrote in
:

There is a huge difference between natural chemicals and synthetic
chemicals. Indeed, herbicides like atrazine are absolutely polluting
all the ground water. Scott's Weed and Feed sells it in their bags.
It's an oxymoron. It's a big money making machine. It's the big fat
lie.

Synthetic is nothing, not even close to what you find in nature.
Nature does not have catalysts, synergists and the like.

Then what is an enzyme?

According to brittanica.com:

in chemistry, any substance that increases the rate of a reaction without
itself being consumed. Enzymes are naturally occurring catalysts
responsible for many essential biochemical reactions.


So, wholesale condemnation will continue in the organic community.
Why? Because we know better, are usually better read than people who
use synthetic practices and the greatest of them all is WE DON'T
BELIEVE THE BIG LIE.


On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:21:57 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I'm getting awfully bloody tired of the wholesale condemnation of
"chemicals" in gardening discussions. If it comes in a non-food
container, and isn't the immediate by-product of animal digestion,
it's "chemical" and bad, bad, bad. People are composed of chemicals,
as are animals, plants, soil, and water. I've been told if you
purchase pure sugar from a "chemical" supply house, it will come with
a safety sheet warning that it is not to be inhaled, and doubtless
other cautions. Too much water (a "chemical"), and not just drowning,
can cause serious health problems, coma, and death.

An "herbicide" is often condemned, but using vinegar (not an
herbicide?) to kill weeds is "organic." Chicken manure is "organic"
fertilizer, but "chemicals" extracted from chicken manure are
unnatural.

My position is definitely *not* to promote wholesale use of known
carcinogens to mow down every bug and weed. I'm delighted that some
have great success growing plants and food crops without supplements
beyond cow manure and compost, and without critter control beyond
encouraging beneficial predators.

My quarrel is that I *do* believe fertilizer from a bag, or some
judicious use of "chemical" weedkillers isn't going to destroy the
planet. F'r heaven's sake -- land is poisoned with *salt* -- what
could be more "organic"? Or "chemical"? I'd just like terms to be more
carefully defined, and "chemical" removed from discussion. Fat chance.
:-)

GrumpyAboutSpam wrote:
Does anyone else besides me think that Warren is the next unibomber in
the making?

I'm not sure why you would say that. Nothing you've quoted is anything
I've written, and I've positioned myself a little left of the middle
ground in my support for organic gardening as much as pracitical.

Now if you want me to get started about how top-posting is wrong, I
could spin quite a manifesto.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug:
Support me at: http://www.holzemville.com/mall/

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:39:12 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

OK, I can live with that. But how is a "chemical"/synthetic(?)
fertilizer substantially different (and bad) from what leaches out of
cow manure? If you need to add nitrogen, what *is* the problem with
ammonium nitrate in granules from a box or bag? Are any dolphins
killed in its preparation? Is the soil poisoned? I don't know much
about the manufacturing process -- I imagine it has *something* to do
with ammonia, and I might not want to work in the factory. I don't
want to work in an organic chicken-processing plant, either.

It's not all that complex. Natural and synthetic nitrogen are not the same.
One leaches right out of the soil, the other is carried by organic matter which
takes much longer to break down, thus, slow release instead of rapid release and
washing into the watershed.


And this is bad? I *adore* compost and manure, and really use
practically no other soil amendments, but I don't think it's a crime
to do so. If "chemical" nutrients leach in/out of the soil, why don't
"organic ones"? Nitrogen is flippin' nitrogen. Compost improves tilth
and provides some minimal nutrients, and seems to make plants happy.
If there's a specific "chemical" deficiency in some particular plant,
what's the beef with adding a little of the "chemical" needed?

You are not understanding the organic method. In the organic method we do not
feed plants, or make plants happy. We feed soil organisms which gives plants
nutrients slowly, over time, as they naturally decompose. Natural forms of
nitrogen break down slowly over time, as I said in my former paragraph. It also
carries with it organic matter. The soil biota ingests the organic matter and
makes is available to the root hairs. Synthetic nitrogen does not add anything
to the soil, and burns and kills soil biota with the amount of salts found in
the process. Thus, the synthetic cycle and thus how Scotts came to their 4 bag
a year "method" of turf fertilization.

If you want to fall for their synthetic treadmill, go ahead. I don't choose
that. I choose sustainable horticulture whereby the plants don't starve because
the soil is dead. When you use synthetic nitrogen, you are feeding the plants,
not the soil. That's the huge difference between conventional gardening vs.
organic method. I'll say it again; we don't feed the plants, we fertilize the
soil and the biota in the soil provides the plants with nutrients en masse. Not
simply traces, but the correct amount necessary for good, stiff, strong growth.

I agree absolutely. Particularly since I am taxed (currently) $45/yr
for "runoff" into the Bay. I don't wash my car; I don't water the lawn
(it's currently being drowned from "organic" sources :-) ; I have not
broadcast/sprayed any fertilizer, weedkiller, or insecticide on it in
over 15 years, *except* going after a few individual dandelions with
an extremely localized shot of foam weed-b-gon. And I have a pretty
nice-looking lawn. Lush and green in all but the most desperate
drought conditions. Evidently, grasses best-suited to the area and
conditions have taken over. I think there's probably some crabgrass in
there; clover; a persistent patch of ajuga in a shady spot; 2-3
buttercups. It gets mowed to a reasonable height every 10 days or so.

So why are you defending synthetic practices? Just to incite a riot? What?

So why are all my green, sustainable, "organic" practices nullified
and I land in the organic celler when I advise a little weed-b-gon for
dandelions instead of digging them out year after year? MiracleGro is
a *very* handy fertilizer. I dig in compost and manure in large areas,
but occasionally supplement mid-season with this "chemical" rather
than removing all the plants and digging in more manure. I also use it
on houseplants.

I have no problem with container plants and synthetic fertilizer, but I always
suggest slow release Osmocote, or the like. And it's not us who nullified your
organic practices, it's YOU who did that when you used Weed B Gone.

It *should* be pointed out that dribbling chemicals on plants or soil
is a short term fix, not a long term solution to poor soil. But it's
not criminal.

Nobody said it was criminalistic. The problem is nobody dribbles it. They use
4 bags a year of it to the tune of many billions of pounds of it each year.
And, there is no regulation for what carries this synthetic fertilizer. It can
be any number of waste products, including those found in nuclear power plants.
And no, I will not cite the information, if you are interested, do the research.

I would love to give in to synthetic herbicides. If you think I love weeding
huge honkers of Johnson grass, you are sorely mistaken. I hold steadfast to
myself and the critters on this land...which I borrow from the owners, the
wildlife which was here way before I was.

I prefer to not mess with that. If you don't care, so be it. I do, as do many
others. Makes the world go around, I suppose.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:50:35 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

A small point. This area happens to be prime habitat for dandelions.
While I personally think they're rather pretty, and I *have* used
leaves in salads, prevailing sentiment is that they're noxious weeds
and unwelcome in the neighborhood. I view the gerbil treadmill as
trying to dig them out year after year (which almost always leaves
behind enough root fragements for plants to regenerate) rather than
permanently ("chemically") zapping the ones that appear. In fact,
rather than creating *more* dependence on chemicals, judicious use has
released me from both perpetual weeding AND buying more chemicals. I
started out with 2 foam cans one season, and just discarded (properly)
a single one that I'd had around for 3-4 years which had developed a
clogged spray nozzle.

I admire your garden and gardening practices very much, but not
everyone is prepared to devote quite as much time and effort as you
have. All *I* want is a little slack.

I know what you want, but that's not how it works. If you are talking to
people who agree with your every practice you will get slack. If you are
talking to people who disagree with you, you may get slack. Certainly nobody
character assassinated you, did they? If it appeared that way, I sincerely
apologize.

I don't have a garden. I am a gardener. Maybe that's the difference. I do love
to garden. I love when I come in from a day of gardening and I can hardly move
from stiffness in every joint and muscle. I love feeling the soil, having the
lizard stare me down, seeing a snake squiggle by. That's church to me.

It's not church to everyone. But, people who have adapted sound organic methods
in gardening cannot and will not tolerate anything less. So, give ME some
slack. Maybe it only works in one direction, not sure.