On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:01:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



I have been searching for long for precise definitions, but every time I
come across only wishy-washy ones like that porposed by you higher up in
this thread.

I gave you the name of the formal association for organic gardening,
if you choose not to delve further that's your business.

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware processed coals like this
contain additives in order to regulate their burn. I know for sure
that there's a substantial difference in the quality of the ash from
plain old coal.
I wouldn't recommend coal ash on the garden anyway.

I would have thought that if anything was organic, coal was. Now do you
understand my problem?

No, I don't.
Not all coal is 'coal'. Your bog-standard lump of house coal, straight
out of the ground, is coal. The stuff that's been formed into neat
little ovals may well contain additives that enhance or retard its
speed of burn.

It would be considered organic.
If you chucked a plastic bottle into the converter you'd render the
coke inorganic.

In spite of the fact that the plastic yields only gases in its combustion
product, and therfore leaves no residue in the solid ash?

In other words it doesn't matter what you chuck into the atmosphere.
That kind of negates the principle a bit, don't you think?

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:17:45 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

+snip+

Or consider the following: Wood ash is OK. What is the situation
vis-a-vis wood which has first been converted into coke by heat and
subsequently burnt as coke? Is this ash "organic" or "not organic"?

Franz

I may be wrong but isn't wood that has been converted by heat called
charcoal?
I always thought coke was converted coal (or a banned substance or pop)
Nic.

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

By the way, I used the wrong word when I said "coke". I obviously meant
"charcoal".

So much for your boasts to be a scientist concerned with correct
definitions.

Janet

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:53:25 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

snip

Why? Do you believe that organic substances cant be harmful? Havent you
seen
the reports of organic crops having higher levels of toxic fungi on them?
Seen the reports on sufactants used with glyphosphate being a problem?
Thats
detergents to you. Ever sprayed your aphids with a solution of washing up
liquid, or poured the old washing up liquid on the garden? WHo knows what
unpleasant surprises may be waiting for you down the line.

I have decided that "organic" is nearer to being a religion than a
science, you either believe in it or you don't. Making scientific
based criticism, only upsets the believers and causes unpleasantness.
No end of arguing here is going to change the minds of the converted
or the sceptics.

That is precisely the situation as I see it. A bandwaggon.

Franz

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Shannie
writes
During the winter I burn only peat briquettes. I don't burn coal or
anything
else on the fire. The result of which is two buckets of very dusty peat
ash
per week. Is it alright to add this to the compost heap or would it upset
the balance too much? Is there any other way I could use it? Also, now
the
weather has cooled right off is it still essential to 'activate' the heap
as
often as during the summer?

You do realise that burning peat for heat and power is actually far
worse for the environment than using it as compost for gardening?

Peat ash can concentrate elements that you don't really want to add to
your garden. Change to renewable wood burning instead and you would
have a nice alkaline potash fertiliser.

Which is in every respect identical to the potash with which the heathens
like me feed their plants.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:53:25 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:53:52 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

What on earth more could one in fact ask for?

No unpleasant surprises several years down the line, for one.

You ask for the impossible. There are plenty of 'organic' thinsg that are
harmful.
Lettuce contains more carcinogenic chemicals than many artificial
pesticides
(banned or otherwise), for example. What are you going to do if thats one
of
your unpleasant surprises, that you've been happily muching on those for
years whilst avoiding spraying them with pesticides that are less toxic
than
the lettuces!

For sure, I'm well aware that nature has its own arsenal of nasties -
but that's the whole point, it's nature. The biggest killer of all by
far is life itself. Got anything I can put on that?
And bunging yet more chemicals onto an already carcinogenic vegetable
does what, exactly?

It depends on the chemical. But as a rough and ready rule, not much as far
as eating it is concerned. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the pesticide
typically adds to the lettuce's "badness" only slightly in comparison with
its inherent "badness", both of which are in any case pretty well negligible
in practice.

[snip]

Which is perhaps the best reason I've yet seen not to compound the
problem by adding yet more chemicals or otherwise monkeying about with
nature.

But you are adding more chemicals. You (the metaphorical "you") add those
which the afficionados have pronounced to be on the side of the angels.
And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or tomatoes
to choose from.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:53:52 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



John, I keep seeing wishy washy definitions of what is considered as
being
"organic" by organic gardeners. None of them stand up to any detailed
scrutiny.

Talk to the Soil Assoc. people then - I'm sure they'll be only too
pleased to debate the issue on the scientific level you aspire
to....us lot are just 'umble gardeners.

I have read much of the literature produced by the Soil Association. I am
sure that its heart is essentially in the right place, but I have
nevertheless not yet seen a definition of what constitiutes "organic
gardening", except perhaps for one along the lines "organic gardening is
gardening conducted according to the rules laid down by the Soil
Association". If that is the case, they have hijacked the meaning of the
word "organic".

Surely there are only beneficient and deleterious substances as far as
gardening is concerned. Keep on using the beneficient substances and
cease
to use a substance as soon as it is proven to be sufficiently deleterious
to
warrant such action.

Might be too late then....DDT, Creosote etc..

It is never too late.

What on earth more could one in fact ask for?

No unpleasant surprises several years down the line, for one.

So we must sit on our hands because even pyrethrum, which was once an
organically acceptable chemical, is no longer amongst the good things of
life? And Bordeaux Mixture is a non-poisonous substance?

I'm perfectly happy to stick with my 'wishy washy' definition of
organic gardening - it renders the need for concern about the use of
this and that academic. If, in future years, I see a report on the
telly that says such-and-such a chemical is implicated in
such-and-such an illness I can just shrug my shoulders and get on with
my dinner.
If I don't see such a report then everyone's happy.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:01:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



I have been searching for long for precise definitions, but every time I
come across only wishy-washy ones like that porposed by you higher up in
this thread.

I gave you the name of the formal association for organic gardening,
if you choose not to delve further that's your business.

I had hoped it might not be necessary to say it yet again, but here goes:
I possess a considerable amount of the literature of the Soil Association.
I have read it all avidly. I have studied their website. It is all very
interesting to read, but nowhere did I find a definition of what the actual
formal definition of "organic gardening" is, except perhaps "To follow the
rules laid out by the Soil Association". That is *not* a scientific
definition.

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware processed coals like this
contain additives in order to regulate their burn. I know for sure
that there's a substantial difference in the quality of the ash from
plain old coal.
I wouldn't recommend coal ash on the garden anyway.

I would have thought that if anything was organic, coal was. Now do you
understand my problem?

No, I don't.
Not all coal is 'coal'. Your bog-standard lump of house coal, straight
out of the ground, is coal. The stuff that's been formed into neat
little ovals may well contain additives that enhance or retard its
speed of burn.

That might or might not be true. I suspect that it contains only a cement
to allow the dust to hang together.
But if you are unhappy, please feel free to replace the word "Phurnacite" by
the word coal and reread the whole thread.


It would be considered organic.
If you chucked a plastic bottle into the converter you'd render the
coke inorganic.

In spite of the fact that the plastic yields only gases in its combustion
product, and therfore leaves no residue in the solid ash?

In other words it doesn't matter what you chuck into the atmosphere.
That kind of negates the principle a bit, don't you think?

Please don't put words into my mouth. It is a technique which is guaranteed
to fail.
It was the *coke* which you said wouild magically be rendered "inorganic".
Of course the *atmosphere* will be given a burden of possibly harmful gases.

Franz

"Nic O'Demus" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:17:45 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

+snip+

Or consider the following: Wood ash is OK. What is the situation
vis-a-vis wood which has first been converted into coke by heat and
subsequently burnt as coke? Is this ash "organic" or "not organic"?

Franz

I may be wrong but isn't wood that has been converted by heat called
charcoal?

Your criticism comes after I had already corrected myself on that point more
than once.

I always thought coke was converted coal (or a banned substance or pop)

Yes.

Franz

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

By the way, I used the wrong word when I said "coke". I obviously meant
"charcoal".

So much for your boasts to be a scientist concerned with correct
definitions.

English is my second language, and although I am totally fluent in it, I do
very occasionally use an incorrect word. I did in this instance, and I
corrected myself immediately after I realised it.
Yes. I am intensely concerned with learning about the correct definitions
of things and processes, your sarcarm notwithstanding.

Franz

Franz

"Shannie" wrote in message
...
During the winter I burn only peat briquettes. I don't burn coal or
anything
else on the fire. The result of which is two buckets of very dusty peat
ash
per week. Is it alright to add this to the compost heap or would it upset
the balance too much? Is there any other way I could use it? Also, now
the
weather has cooled right off is it still essential to 'activate' the heap
as
often as during the summer?


Thanks guys
Shannie
Just my 10Ps worth. If you have any reservations about a certain material
going on the HEAP leave it out. There are many things you can add without
worry so why bother with a suspect item?
Cover your heap with an old bit of carpet and let the worms and bacteria get
on with their work no need for any special activators though an occasional
turning of the heap does help. Jim 2

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

I gave you the name of the formal association for organic gardening,
if you choose not to delve further that's your business.

I had hoped it might not be necessary to say it yet again, but here goes:
I possess a considerable amount of the literature of the Soil Association.
I have read it all avidly. I have studied their website. It is all very
interesting to read, but nowhere did I find a definition of what the actual
formal definition of "organic gardening" is, except perhaps "To follow the
rules laid out by the Soil Association". That is *not* a scientific
definition.

Perhaps you should drop them an email and ask them to answer your
specific question, I'm sure they'll be only too pleased to oblige.

I would have thought that if anything was organic, coal was. Now do you
understand my problem?

No, I don't.
Not all coal is 'coal'. Your bog-standard lump of house coal, straight
out of the ground, is coal. The stuff that's been formed into neat
little ovals may well contain additives that enhance or retard its
speed of burn.

That might or might not be true. I suspect that it contains only a cement
to allow the dust to hang together.
But if you are unhappy, please feel free to replace the word "Phurnacite" by
the word coal and reread the whole thread.

As it happens, Phurnacite ( at least the modern version of it )
contains no additives or cements at all - so the only issue of concern
would be the concentration of residues in the ash.

In spite of the fact that the plastic yields only gases in its combustion
product, and therfore leaves no residue in the solid ash?

In other words it doesn't matter what you chuck into the atmosphere.
That kind of negates the principle a bit, don't you think?

Please don't put words into my mouth. It is a technique which is guaranteed
to fail.
It was the *coke* which you said wouild magically be rendered "inorganic".

Ah Franz....I was trying to put thoughts into your mind - is that too
a technique guaranteed to fail?

Of course the *atmosphere* will be given a burden of possibly harmful gases.

OK, so can you now see a correlation forming here?

Let's take a pile of coal and set it burning.
If left alone is would produce a pile of ashes which would be
considered fit for organic use.

If, however, you tossed a plastic bottle on the fire, you'd render the
ashes unsuitable for organic use. This is because the coal ashes would
be contaminated with the residues of the burnt plastic ( complete
conversion requires a high temperature, controlled burn ).
Assuming you could supply that, the emissions of the gas produced
would mean that in order to attain your pile of ash you would still
have unnecessarily contaminated the atmosphere.

Maybe that's why the concept of organic gardening seems to evade you -
it's more than picking packets off a shelf, you have to think a bit
further down the line.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


For sure, I'm well aware that nature has its own arsenal of nasties -
but that's the whole point, it's nature. The biggest killer of all by
far is life itself. Got anything I can put on that?
And bunging yet more chemicals onto an already carcinogenic vegetable
does what, exactly?

It depends on the chemical.

'Nuff said!
Not today, thanks.

But as a rough and ready rule, not much as far
as eating it is concerned. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the pesticide
typically adds to the lettuce's "badness" only slightly in comparison with
its inherent "badness", both of which are in any case pretty well negligible
in practice.

Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?
Just enough, say, to use as the basis for a specious argument?
Academic really - I grow my own lettuces for the opiates

[snip]

Which is perhaps the best reason I've yet seen not to compound the
problem by adding yet more chemicals or otherwise monkeying about with
nature.

But you are adding more chemicals. You (the metaphorical "you") add those
which the afficionados have pronounced to be on the side of the angels.

Horse shit.
And lots of it ( plenty of flies, not too many angels ).

And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or tomatoes
to choose from.

As opposed to dead birds/fish etc etc etc..

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



Which is in every respect identical to the potash with which the heathens
like me feed their plants.

See? You're an organic gardener...and you didn't even know it!

Here, have a badge and a slightly cloudy pint. The beard is optional.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC), Franz Heymann wrote:

Yes. I am intensely concerned with learning about the correct definitions
of things and processes, your sarcarm notwithstanding.

In that case, you are doomed to disappoint as far as defining
"organic gardening" is concerned.

Maybe it would be helpful to approach the matter from another
perspective entirely. The methods of organic garden partly arose
in reaction to the excesses of the 1950's, when the slogan
"Better living through chemistry" wasn't a sour joke. The advent
of synthetic insecticides -- DDT the most famous -- meant that it
was practical to have a garden free of insect damage. It was
common advice that the entire garden be sprayed from stem to
stern twice a week to keep the insects at bay.

Organic gardening was also a reaction to the overuse of synthetic
fertilizers. Such fertilizers -- introduced by Justus Liebig in
the mid 1800's, I believe -- meant that growers no longer had to
grow green fertilizer crops, use manure, and so on.

Both of these "chemical" or "non-organic" practices had
downsides. Insects became resistant to the insecticides (as did
fungi to the f-cides), and the chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides such as DDT turned out to have serious effects on
birds. Likewise, ending the use of manure and green manures led
ot an impoverishment of the microbial flora of the soil, and
changes in soil texture and characteristics. Moreover, fertilizer
applied in excess of plant needs caused algal blooms in rivers
and lakes.

I personally consider hardcore organic gardening an over-reaction
and often fuelled by ignorance of basic scientific findings. As a
lazy gardener, I can't be bothered to get out the sprayer unless
something serious goes wrong, but if some serious *does* go
wrong, I will not hesitate to use an insecticide, if that is an
appropriate solution.

In the same vein, I have no hesitation in using glyphosphate on
blackberries, couch grass, and other weeds very difficult to
control.

Likewise, if one's soil is impoverished in the major nutrients,
there's nothing like bagged fertilizer to relieve the deficit and
get things growing well again. But at the same time, I am a great
believer in mulches of leaves, compost, etc on flower beds.

So perhaps you can define organic gardening in terms of what it
isn't, rather than what it is.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
change "invalid" to "net" to respond