View Full Version : Oil and Water.(Conventional vs. Organic)
OrganicBananac
08-15-2009, 07:23 PM
The basics of organic gardening is simple.
Organic gardening focuses on life in the soil, we "feed the soil".
Conventional gardening feeds the plant directly, it is the chemical salts the plants are actually consuming.
This is the distinction between the two. This is also the reason why feeding a 15-5-15 chemical salt, essentially broke the very first rule of organic gardening. That chemical salt is meant as nutrition for the plant, not nutrition for the life in the soil.
Anyone who tells you differently is wrong and is displaying a lack of education of the "soil food web".
The two systems do not compliment one another. It is very much a situation of trying to mix oil and water.
Nature is trying to work in one aspect, and humans are trying to work in "our" manmade aspect. Man created one system, nature has been doing its own system, without the need for human interaction... forever (roughly 2-3 billion years).
Organics is nature, everything else is not organic.
Old growth forests are great examples of this and why the need to "feed" plants is a fallacy.
Nobody ever poured chemical salts on those trees for nutrition, so where did this "food" come from that allowed such growth for all these years?
The answer to that question is a cycle of life, known as the soil food web.
Soil Foodweb, Inc. (http://www.soilfoodweb.com) is a research lab with some excellent research materials. We will be discussing these materials from here on.
But for now, the dinner bell is ringing.
Class dismissed till we return.
Tonight's homework question is
"In the old growth forest, where did all the nutrition for 100's of years of growth come from?"
Garden Gnome is not the answer either ;)
:0519:
supermario
08-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Soil Foodweb, Inc. (http://www.soilfoodweb.com) is a research lab with some excellent research materials. We will be discussing these materials from here on.
Copied from the above mentioned site:
SOIL FOODWEB NEW YORK, INC.
THE LABORATORY MEASURING THE LIFE IN YOUR SOIL
-WE PROVIDE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SOIL TESTING IN THE
WORLD TODAY, LOOKING AT SOIL BIOLOGY then we...
-HELP YOU CREATE THE BEST POSSIBLE SOIL CONDITIONS FOR YOUR PLANTS.
-DEVELOP AN EASY TO FOLLOW PROGRAM FOR YOUR PLANT CARE.
-WORK WITH YOU TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE INORGANIC APPLICATIONS, AND SAVE YOU MONEY.
-HELP YOU SELECT THE CORRECT PRODUCTS TO GET YOU THE BEST RESULTS.
HOW DO WE DO IT?
-WE USE SPECIALIZED MICROSCOPES, EQUIPMENT AND METHODS TO TAKE A MORE COMPLETE LOOK AT YOUR SOIL THAN ANY OTHER LAB.
-WE PERFORM DIRECT COUNTS OF YOUR SOIL MICROBES.
-SOIL FOODWEB LABS HAVE AN EVOLVING DATABASE CURRENTLY CONSISTING OF OVER 100,000 SOIL BIOLOGY SAMPLES FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
-WE COMPARE YOUR SOIL TEST RESULTS TO SOILS WHERE YOUR PLANT SPECIES ARE GROWING IN HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE OR NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS. THIS INFORMATION IS THEN USED TO SHAPE A SOIL PROGRAM TO CORRECT
IMBALANCES.
So your source material is a company profile? Do you own stock in them as well?..or just a pitchman?
I'm reporting you to the principal! :p
Richard
08-15-2009, 08:26 PM
Organic gardening focuses on life in the soil, we "feed the soil".
At a dilution of 100ppm to 1000ppm (0.1%), a chelated 20-5-5 also feeds the soil, benefits the microbial life, and causes no harm to the soil or plants.
Where are the Epsom Salts???? Epsom salts and Potassium Nitrate are both chemical salts, and both are found in the chelated 20-5-5 I use.
"Organic" is a very interesting term. Motor oil distilled from crude oil with no synthetics added is 100% Organic.
OrganicBananac
08-15-2009, 08:56 PM
Glad everyone can make it tonight.
OrganicBananac
08-15-2009, 09:16 PM
Lagniappe,
A low dose for feeding beneficials is irrelevant. The reason is, people applying chems are not focused on the soil food web, but feeding the plant, the exact reason the chemicals, directly available to the plant, are used.
This is again the first rule, being broken.
If your soil food web is correct, there would be no need for the application of a directly available nutrient.
These quick fixes are always at the expense of something else.
One of the things I recently researched was that low doses of chemical nutrients are more beneficial to the "bad" microbiology rather than the "good". (Hence the reason problems appear and require something else to fix it, in conventional ag.) There is that distinction and when we start to talk about microbes, we want the good guys. E Coli is a good example of microbiology I personally would rather avoid.
Richard
08-15-2009, 09:20 PM
Matt,
The materials you are advocating contain the same low doses of the same chemicals you are criticizing.
supermario
08-15-2009, 10:15 PM
SOIL FOODWEB NEW YORK, INC.
-HELP YOU SELECT THE CORRECT PRODUCTS TO GET YOU THE BEST RESULTS.
Organicbananac,
I'm just curious as to what products the "soil foodweb" usually recommends..? Have you used/purchased any?
supermario
08-15-2009, 10:30 PM
The below info is copied and pasted from a web site that apparently reviews gardening books..
----Why Natural Gardening?
The scientific definition of “organic” is a compound that contains carbon. The term organic as it is used today has strayed far from the scientific designation. Both synthetically produced and naturally produced compounds contain carbon. Only naturally occurring compounds can be called organic. However, what most people do not understand, and what the book helps explain, is that a product labeled as organic or natural is not necessarily safer (food or chemicals) or more nutritious (food) than a synthetically produced product.
The Truth about Organic Gardening helps gardeners understand how to choose products that have low environmental impacts and are relatively safe for humans, plants and animals. Some of these products are organic, some are synthetic. Gillman presents an explanation and description of each product or technique and then gives a summary of the products benefits, drawbacks and the bottom line (final conclusion). He describes products and processes, helping the gardener understand how natural fertilizers, watering techniques, planting plans, and more can work together for a safe, natural gardening process.----
The above review is of a book called "The Truth About Organic Gardening" by Jeff Gillman.
I have never read, nor am I promoting Jeff Gillman's book. Just pointing out how to properly reference educational material.
Richard
08-15-2009, 10:36 PM
Rather than Oil vs. Water, a better metaphor for my practices are (a) a healthy person who walks casually each day for exercise, vs. (b) a healthy tri-athlete who trains for and competes in triathelons. The casual walker eats a healthy 1200 to 1800 calories per day, while the triathlete consumes a healthy 3000 or more calories per day just to match their activity level.
Ornamental plants comprise about 1% of what I grow. I "feed the soil" to keep them healthy. The other 99% are production fruit and vegetables. From them I require vigorous output. I not only feed the soil to keep them healthy but also feed them additional nutrients to match their activity level.
In contrast, my friend Pete (Lagniappe) is not interested in high production levels from his fruit plants. He feeds them very little. The plants are very happy and produce sufficient fruit for him. I'm all for it.
Soil microbes need the same "toxic Chemicals" as the plants do--Yes they need N to make protein, P to process energy just like plants --in addition they only release them to the plants when they die! That is why it is not recommended to add organic carbon rich materials directly to your plants--the soil microbes will take up all the available nutrients faster than the plant. That is why it is best to compost the organic material and let the microbes take up the available nutrients and then run out and start to die--therefore releasing nutrients for the plants and new microbes.
Tx_Crinum
08-16-2009, 06:12 PM
Tonight's homework question is
"In the old growth forest, where did all the nutrition for 100's of years of growth come from?"
:0519:
Okay, the answer to this question is Plant Succession. Old growth forest represent approx 150 years of different plant life from annual to perennials to shrubs to pines to hardwoods. The nutrition for an old growth forest came from years and years of death of plants. There was no feeding of the soil but rather a plant war was waged and those that could not successfully compete died and were replaced by more adapted plants.
Man created one system, nature has been doing its own system, without the need for human interaction... forever (roughly 2-3 billion years).:0519:
And doing it I might say very slowly and very inefficiently. Without the advent of 'syntheitc' fertilizer we would be a 3rd world country based on subsistence farming. 'Synthetic' fertilizer allowed our country to move from an agrarian to an industrialized society. Take a look at 3rd world countries today. Like it or not, without 'synthetic' fertilizer and the resulting high yield acre production, that would be our normal standard of living. Anyone who tells you differently is wrong and is displaying a lack of education of our nation's agricultural history
Organics is nature, everything else is not organic.
I disagree. As a science teacher and an Ag Teacher the last time I checked there were only 20 man made or truly synthetic elements listed on the periodic table. For you benefit here they are: technetium (Tc), promethium (Pm), neptunium (Np), plutonium (Pu), americium (Am), curium (Cm), berkelium (Bk), californium (Cf), einsteinium (Es), fermium (Fm), mendelevium (Md), nobelium (No), lawrencium (Lr), unnilquadium (Unq), unnilpentium (Unp), unnilhexium (Unh), unnilseptium (Uns), unniloctium (Uno), unnilennium (Une), unununium (Uun). Now when my granular 5-10-10 contains one of these elements I will agree that I am feeding inorganic nutrition to my plants. Inorganic or synthetic fertilizer is nothing more than organic fertilizer without filler. Nothing in granular fertilizer is created, it may be recombined into another form but everything in that bag had its origin from the Earth from either a dead plant or animal.
No matter the form of fertilizer provided, plants and fungus can take up only certain types of N-P. Nitrogen must be in the form of nitrate, ammonium or urea and urea only falls loosely into the classification of organic fertilizer and phosphorus must be in of the form of orthophosphate ions.
To each his own. personally I am not willing to purchase over a ton of organic fertilizer every year and lug a whole bag of it to each banana plant. I don't feel bad because I am not buying the roly poly and worms their high priced meals. I would much rather fill my 5 gallon Homer bucket up with 20lbs of granular and be done with it.
IMO, anyone that espouses organics and uses and enjoys the benefits of our industrialized society is nothing more than a hypocrite or someone who just isn't educated.
supermario
08-17-2009, 09:34 AM
Well stated TX. In this day and age, most eveyone knows about evolution and the process of natural selection. Questioning how a forrest survived before us is just silly. I was going to respond to the "old growth" question.. but, before I replied I clicked on the link he kept advocating. Turn's out it's nothing more than a business trying to sell it's services...so, I decided to call him out on that.
He is either a salesperson for the company(a really bad one), or he is a customer with his blinders on.
Nicolas Naranja
08-17-2009, 01:29 PM
I wouldn't say that organic and conventional are like oil and water, I've got a field of bananas that have never been sprayed with anything. The only thing they have ever gotten in a good dose of chemical fertilizer. I've been controlling the weeds by mowing and I am doing an alright job but it is hard work to keep everything under control. However, very shortly I am going to be out there spraying round-up to try to get some longer term control, because guess what, weeds increase humidity and can aggrevate disease and they can also increase the likelihood of frost and I'd rather not get into a major losing battle with sigatoka.
I agree Nick, They go together quite well in my garden.
Just in case you have any worries about roundup--it is very non toxic to mammals and degrades quick in soil--It is basically glycine and phosphate--in essence an organic fertilizer!
Richard
08-17-2009, 02:53 PM
Glyphosate overspray is very toxic to banana plants.
momoese
08-17-2009, 03:02 PM
SBL, Roundup has been found to be toxic for humans and extreemly toxic for amphibians.
Richard
08-17-2009, 03:20 PM
SBL, Roundup has been found to be toxic for humans and extreemly toxic for amphibians.
Roundup contains glyphosate and other chemicals (mainly soap). Commercial farmers do not buy Roundup, but instead one of several generic brands containing glyphosate alone. Straight glyphosate out of the canister is no better than drinking seaweed extract (toxic). Decomposed glyphosphate (chemical 1/2 life = 2 hours) is non-toxic to humans. However, excessive use leads to excess phosphates that are a significant problem in water ways and bad news for the amphibians you mentioned. A once-per-season spraying of farmland by aircraft 7 days prior to planting row crops creates zero runoff. Overuse by consumers is a serious problem.
momoese
08-17-2009, 03:21 PM
IMO, anyone that espouses organics and uses and enjoys the benefits of our industrialized society is nothing more than a hypocrite or someone who just isn't educated.
You opinion is ridiculous and insulting to say the least, IMO.
Richard
08-17-2009, 07:02 PM
... He is either a salesperson for the company, or ...
I wonder how many people have been dupped on other sites by salespersons for this company?
Glyphosate overspray is very toxic to banana plants.
You are right Richard,
I should have mentioned that. I have even had some effects on non-target plants from the weeds that were sprayed making contact with the non-target plants--transfer by contact.
As for the mammalian toxicity--this is from the MSDS:
TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION GLYPHOSATE
This section is intended for use by toxicologists and other health professionals.
Data obtained on similar products and on components are summarized below.
Acute oral toxicity
Rat, LD50: > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic.
FIFRA category IV.
Acute dermal toxicity
Rat, LD50: > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic.
FIFRA category IV.
Tx_Crinum
08-17-2009, 08:19 PM
However, very shortly I am going to be out there spraying round-up to try to get some longer term control, because guess what, weeds increase humidity and can aggrevate disease and they can also increase the likelihood of frost and I'd rather not get into a major losing battle with sigatoka.
Glyphosate is a good non selective herbicide for just abut every plant except Bermuda grass. I have the equivalent of a PDR for weed control. Under glyphosate for bermuda it gives three different application rates. One for actively growing bermuda to control weeds without killing the Bermuda; a winter rate for the same thing and a kill rate. Glyphosate is not an effective herbicide for Bermuda. If you are dealing with primarily Bermuda, I would recommend using either Fusilade of Fusilade DX, whichever you can get your hands on. One is approved for greenhouse use and the other is not. It is slower than glyphosate but once applied, it is nearly 100% effective. Also it is considered an over the top spray for numerous plants. Bananas are not listed but I have had no incidental damage from drift or unintended application.
momoese
08-17-2009, 09:12 PM
Independent studies show that it is indeed toxic to humans, mammals and amphibians. Monsanto actually lost a French lawsuit over false advertising the safety of this product.
Richard
08-17-2009, 10:24 PM
Independent studies show that it is indeed toxic to humans, mammals and amphibians. Monsanto actually lost a French lawsuit over false advertising the safety of this product.
Mitchel, you are correct about the effects of glyphosate on contact with all of the above. However, after application glyphosate breaks down with a 1/2 life of 2 hours:
in 2 hours: 1/2 remains
in 4 hours: 1/4 remains
in 6 hours: 1/8 remains
...
in 24 hours: below toxic levels for all of the above.
Responsible application is the key. And for heavens sake, don't drink it!
Monsanto's patent for glyphosate ran out decades ago. You can go to an independent nursery and buy a quart of generic glyphosate for 1/4 to 1/2 the price of the same quantity and concentration of Monsanto's "Roundup" product -- and without all the additives. There is even a super-Roundup on the market now from Monsanto that contains glyphosate plus a brush killing chemical used by Ortho in years gone by.
Independent studies show that it is indeed toxic to humans, mammals and amphibians. Monsanto actually lost a French lawsuit over false advertising the safety of this product.
Can you provide some links to human toxicity--everything I can find including EPA data shows it as less toxic than table salt.
Courts decisions are not always the best source for accurate info--you have non-professional people making emotional decisions.
momoese
08-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells - Chemical Research in Toxicology (ACS Publications) (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n)
momoese
08-18-2009, 09:43 AM
Mitchel, you are correct about the effects of glyphosate on contact with all of the above. However, after application glyphosate breaks down with a 1/2 life of 2 hours:
in 2 hours: 1/2 remains
in 4 hours: 1/4 remains
in 6 hours: 1/8 remains
...
in 24 hours: below toxic levels for all of the above.
Responsible application is the key. And for heavens sake, don't drink it!
There seems to be a lot of conficting data on the half life. Most that I seen is much longer than what you have suggested, including data from the state of CA.
Monsanto's patent for glyphosate ran out decades ago.
This is true and it's speculated to be the reason for the creation of Roundup Ready crops.
Richard
08-18-2009, 10:30 AM
This is true and it's speculated to be the reason for the creation of Roundup Ready crops.
By continuing to equivocate Glyphosate with Roundup, you are furthering the advertising ambitions of the Monsanto company.
momoese
08-18-2009, 10:56 AM
I am correcting a misleading statement made and later defended by SBL, how exactly is that equivocating? I have provided proof and can provide more if need be. We are talking about the product "Roundup" are we not?
Richard
08-18-2009, 11:49 AM
We are talking about the product "Roundup" are we not?
No. We are talking about the chemical Glyphosate. Monsanto is not the dominant producer of this chemical. The only places I have seen the phrase "Roundup Ready" used is in (a) advertisements from seed subsidaries of the Monsanto company and (b) editorials in organic-lifestyle magazines. In the commercial agricultural world, the phrase "Glyphosate tolerant" is seen almost exclusively. A farmer who hears the product name "Roundup" laughs because the price per gallon is a joke.
supermario
08-18-2009, 12:15 PM
Guys/Gals, why bother with roundup at all? I apply a thick layer of mulch around my banana plants and pull out the very few weeds that appear by hand. You don't even need to buy that much mulch since you can use the banana plants themselves! Once your plant produces bananas, you will have cut it down anyways, so why not use it as mulch?(assuming it wasn't infected with anything) I have run out of people to give my sword suckers to, so I chop those up and toss them on the pile too. Once your "mulch" is about 4 inches thick, you should see very few weeds.
As for other plants and trees, well mulch does not work for all. While you can use it for pretty much any plant, it will need to be at least 8 inches away from the trunk in most cases. In those cases, I pull weeds by hand every few weeks... or I get lazy, let the weeds grow.. and then get inspired one day and go pull them all out at once. :) I haven't experienced any ill effects yet.
Now, a few questions if y'all don't mind..
I've tried several pesticides and am not 100% sold on any of the ones I've tried.(Organocide, Bonide orchard spray, malathion oil, parifine, and a few others) --What pesticides would you guys recommend for fruit trees with fruit on it?...how about while the tree does not have fruit on it?...is there a difference?.. is there an all in 1 product I can rely on, or would I have to use a combination of two or more products?
Im sorry if Im taking the thread off topic.. :)
Richard
08-18-2009, 12:33 PM
There seems to be a lot of conficting data on the half life.
1/2 life in a barrel is very different from 1/2 life diluted in water and applied to plants & soil minerals.
Guys/Gals, why bother with roundup at all ...
Glyphosate was brought up under the context of agricultural use. The only reference to home use was the statement I made: "Overuse by consumers is a serious problem."
... What pesticides would you guys recommend for fruit trees with fruit on it? ...
Green Light Fruit Tree Spray.
momoese
08-18-2009, 01:39 PM
No. We are talking about the chemical Glyphosate.
Richard, below is a quote from SBL. It is this statement that I have been responding to in this thread.
Just in case you have any worries about roundup--it is very non toxic to mammals and degrades quick in soil--It is basically glycine and phosphate--in essence an organic fertilizer!
As for the half life numbers:
Glyphosate is highly adsorbed on most soils especially those with high organic content. The compound is so strongly attracted to the soil that little is expected to leach from the applied area. Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product. The time it takes for half of the product to break down ranges from 1 to 174 days
Glyphosate (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html)
Tx_Crinum
08-18-2009, 08:08 PM
Now, a few questions if y'all don't mind..
I've tried several pesticides and am not 100% sold on any of the ones I've tried.(Organocide, Bonide orchard spray, malathion oil, parifine, and a few others) --What pesticides would you guys recommend for fruit trees with fruit on it?...how about while the tree does not have fruit on it?...is there a difference?.. is there an all in 1 product I can rely on, or would I have to use a combination of two or more products?
Im sorry if Im taking the thread off topic.. :)
Supermario
I'll send you an email over he weekend. If I don't send it by Saturday, drop me an email and let me know. I have a product called Premise. It is a systemic insecticide. I know it is used on Pecans and ornamentals. I need to look up the labeling and let you know. It is great stuff, very effective, once a year app and minimal danger to beneficials.
This is true and it's speculated to be the reason for the creation of Roundup Ready crops.
The creation of RoundUp ready crops was in response to the expiration of Monsanto's product. A farmer using such seed is required to sign a contract with Monsanto. He is only allowed to save a certain minuscule percentage of his crop this year to seed next, is required to purchase the remainder from Monsanto and can not sell, barter or give away any of the seed harvested from RoundUp ready crops. Farmers using such seed undergo vigorous annual inspections to ensure compliance and hefty fines are levied if the farmer is found to be out of compliance.
Richard
08-18-2009, 11:45 PM
As for the half life numbers:
Glyphosate (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html)
Publication Date: 5/94. The "Environmental Fate" section appears to be for direct spills and not herbicide application.
Thanks for the link on Roundup toxicity to human cell lines (not really the same as toxicity to humans). As Richard said earlier, it does appear to be linked to the other ingredients in the formulation. I did use the name roundup when I mentioned the low toxicity, I should have been more specific--the data I was thinking about is for the pure product, glyphosate for which the toxicity (to intact mammals) is lower than that of table salt.
Quote Mario: "I've tried several pesticides and am not 100% sold on any of the ones I've tried.(Organocide, Bonide orchard spray, malathion oil, parifine, and a few others) --What pesticides would you guys recommend for fruit trees with fruit on it?...how about while the tree does not have fruit on it?...is there a difference?.. is there an all in 1 product I can rely on, or would I have to use a combination of two or more products?"
What fruit and what problems?
supermario
08-19-2009, 03:53 PM
There are spiders all over my yard. Odd, small colorful ones with somewhat square bodies and tiny legs. They don't really seem to harm the fruit(except for damaging some flower clusters in my mango trees)...it's just a real pain to get around my yard while trying to avoid getting "caught" in their webs.
The bugs I know I need to watch out for are aphids, ants, mealy bugs, and caterpillars. I see caterpillars quite often, but simply pick them off, so that isn't a big issue. However, if there is a spray that will prevent butterflies from landing on my trees in the first place, that would be great.
Now, I have a few different trees, so I'm not sure if one spray works for all. Any help is appreciated..
-Citrus- my primary concern.. They have lots of leaf miner damage and have lost a few trees to greening(transmitted by insects).
-Mango trees - I use a combination Liquid Copper Fungicide and Sulfur to control anthracnose and powdery mildew. They don't have many bugs bothering them other than the above mentioned spiders. I've rarely sprayed them with anything to try and kill the spiders, but it hasn't worked.
-Sapodilla/zapote/nispero trees- both are crawling with ants! I blast them with some water every other day. Oh, and they had several of these insects on them:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/damethod/insectonsapodillatree011.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/damethod/insectonsapodillatree010.jpg
Any idea what they are? Friend or Foe?
-Jaboticaba trees- trouble free
-Banana trees- trouble free
-Fig tree- occasional leaf rust...some tiny bugs stuck on the fruit themselves sometimes, but not often. Usually pretty trouble free.
-Atemoya tree- leaf damage.. something is eating some of the older leaves. I have yet to spot the culprit
-Avocado tree- trouble free
-Cacao- same as 'atemoya'
I also have a piper nigrum vine that has been relatively trouble free. Some leaf damage, but not much.
TX.. I have never used systemic insecticide since I don't think they are good for tropicals, but I would love to see the info. My fruit trees are listed above.
momoese
08-19-2009, 04:26 PM
Thanks for the link on Roundup toxicity to human cell lines (not really the same as toxicity to humans).
"This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops."
Your welcome. Human cells are human cells, death is death. There are no reliable long term independant human safety studies focusing on the Roundup formulation or Glyphosate for that matter, and I'd rather not wait 30 years to see the effects. :2688:
Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.
Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT)." Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice" and "routine falsification of data."91
IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.91 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.92 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits for histopathological examination."93 (Emphasis added.)
In 1991, EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified tests.94 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."95 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.96
The following year, the owner of Craven Labs and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts.97 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.95
Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, this fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide registration process.
Think Agent Orange (Dioxin) and PCBs. Monsanto is not exactly who I'd trust with my health. Safe as table salt as you say is something they claimed before loosing two lawsuits in New York and France for false advertizing.
The History of PCBs - When Were Problems Detected (http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html)
Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)
Richard, from DOW Chemical: In order to determine the extent of environmental exposure to a chemical, it is necessary to evaluate that chemical’s environmental fate. While the amount and frequency of a chemical’s release, as well as the environmental medium — air, water, or soil — into which it’s released are important considerations, environmental fate is determined by what happens after the chemical has been released into the environment.
As I've said, the numbers you gave are not consistent with other suggested application half life data that's readily available. It pretty much depends on your location and soil type. Here is some info showing how wide spread the numbers can be.
Note: Numbers, as well as the length of the columns, give the half-life, in days, of glyphosate in soil. Half-life is the length of time required for half the applied glyphosate to break down or move out of the test site.
Source: U.S. EPA. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 1993. Pesticide environmental fate one line summary; Glyphosate. Washington, D.C., May 6.
Glyphosate's persistence in soil varies widely, but its half-life in agricultural soil can be over 4 months.
Persistence and Movement in Soil
Glyphosate's persistence in soil varies widely, so giving a simple answer to the question "How long does glyphosate persist in soil?" is not possible. Half-lives (the time required for half of the amount of glyphosate applied to break down or move away) as low as 3 days (in Texas) and as long as 141 days (in Iowa) have been measured by glyphosate's manufacturer.119 (See Figure 6.) Initial degradation (breakdown) is faster than the subsequent degradation of what remains.120 Long persistence has been measured in the following studies: 55 days on an Oregon Coast Range forestry site121: 249 days on Finnish agricultural soils122; between 259 and 296 days on eight Finnish forestry sites120; 335 days on an Ontario (Canada) forestry site123; 360 days on 3 British Columbia forestry sites124; and, from 1 to 3 years on eleven Swedish forestry sites.125 EPA's Ecological Effect's Branch wrote, "In summary, this herbicide is extremely persistent under typical application conditions. "126
Glyphosate is thought to be "tightly complexed [bound] by most soils"127 and therefore "in most soils, glyphosate is essentially immobile."127 This means that the glyphosate will be unlikely to contaminate water or soil away from the application site. However, this binding to soil is "reversible." For example, one study found that glyphosate bound readily to four different soils. However, desorption, when glyphosate unbinds from soil particles, also occurred readily. In one soil, 80 percent of the added glyphosate desorbed in a two hour period. The study concluded that "this herbicide can be extensively mobile in the soil ...." 123
Glyphosate Factsheet (part 1 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00 (http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm)
TX_Crinum, thank you for clarifying was I was attempting to say to Richard.
There are spiders all over my yard. Odd, small colorful ones with somewhat square bodies and tiny legs. They don't really seem to harm the fruit(except for damaging some flower clusters in my mango trees)...it's just a real pain to get around my yard while trying to avoid getting "caught" in their webs.
The bugs I know I need to watch out for are aphids, ants, mealy bugs, and caterpillars. I see caterpillars quite often, but simply pick them off, so that isn't a big issue. However, if there is a spray that will prevent butterflies from landing on my trees in the first place, that would be great.
Now, I have a few different trees, so I'm not sure if one spray works for all. Any help is appreciated..
-Citrus- my primary concern.. They have lots of leaf miner damage and have lost a few trees to greening(transmitted by insects).
-Mango trees - I use a combination Liquid Copper Fungicide and Sulfur to control anthracnose and powdery mildew. They don't have many bugs bothering them other than the above mentioned spiders. I've rarely sprayed them with anything to try and kill the spiders, but it hasn't worked.
-Sapodilla/zapote/nispero trees- both are crawling with ants! I blast them with some water every other day. Oh, and they had several of these insects on them:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/damethod/insectonsapodillatree011.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/damethod/insectonsapodillatree010.jpg
Any idea what they are? Friend or Foe?
-Jaboticaba trees- trouble free
-Banana trees- trouble free
-Fig tree- occasional leaf rust...some tiny bugs stuck on the fruit themselves sometimes, but not often. Usually pretty trouble free.
-Atemoya tree- leaf damage.. something is eating some of the older leaves. I have yet to spot the culprit
-Avocado tree- trouble free
-Cacao- same as 'atemoya'
I also have a piper nigrum vine that has been relatively trouble free. Some leaf damage, but not much.
TX.. I have never used systemic insecticide since I don't think they are good for tropicals, but I would love to see the info. My fruit trees are listed above.
Mario, The picture you have there is a good guy--that is an assasin bug. The larval forms can be hard to distinguish from leaf-footed bugs (a type of stink bug)--you have to look close at the back legs, but most larval stink bugs hang out in groups while the assasin larvae are solitary. Spiders are good guys too--they all kill other bugs, but they can be annoying. As for the citrus leaf miners, nothing works very well, but Spinosad applied with a little oil works better that anything else I have tried. Horticultural oil sprayed on new growth will repel the adult moth from laying eggs--they don't like oily surfaces, but rain will wash it off. Like you I do not like systemics on fruit.
Momoese--the point I was making about cell culture toxicity is that in an intact organism, there are many defensive processes not available to cells--uptake, elimination, detoxification for example. If cell culture toxicity were a viable substitute for animal toxicity test, it would make a lot of people happy--including me. If you have information on what ingredients in Roundup are responsible for the toxicity I would be interested.
momoese
08-19-2009, 11:52 PM
SBL, it may not be what ingredients are individually responsible for the toxicity, likely the combination of ingredients that create the problem. Mostly the surfactants such as polyoxyethyleneamines (POEA) (which by themselves are said to be more toxic than Glyphosate) are mentioned along with a few other ingrediants. The exact ingrediants are not known.
The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations seen in this study – as compared to purified glyphosate – remain unknown. The chemical formulas of herbicide additives are generally protected as trade secrets, and the researchers did not try to chemically identify them. Therefore, their effects cannot be easily investigated and they remain undetected in the environment.
Acording to UC Berkeley, In California, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. I have yet to find the data for this but I'm still looking.
Then there is this. New Study Links World's Biggest Selling Pesticides to Cancer
Swedish Study Finds Exposure to Glyphosate and MCPA Increases
Risk for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
7-Misc: Swedish study shows links between glyphosate and cancer (http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Jun/msg00018.html)
It's really bad for amphibians. There is plenty of data on that.
http://www.pitt.edu/news2009/Roundup.pdf
The only actual human tests that I know of were conducted in Japan and resulted in deaths and suicides from direct ingestion of the product. How they got people to drink it is beyond me.
Again, thanks for the links. The paper on the toxicity to amphibians is a good paper and clearly shows the formulations containing POEA are highly toxic to amphibians.
The study suggesting links with Lymphoma certainly raise concerns and should remind all of us that there are many factors to consider before we call a pesticide "safe". No acute toxicity, does not mean there are not long term effects, and the so called "inert ingredients" are not always inert!
It is not clear if the effects are comming from glyphosate or from the "inert ingredients", but I will certainly handle it more carefully.
Tx_Crinum
08-20-2009, 09:45 PM
Has anyone noticed that the OP who started this thread has evaporated into thin air?
Richard
08-21-2009, 12:34 AM
Whenever someone starts capitalizing, bolding, and especially color-bolding to make a point, I become very skeptical of the writing and the perceptions behind it.
momoese
08-21-2009, 12:53 AM
Whenever someone starts capitalizing, bolding, and especially color-bolding to make a point, I become very skeptical of the writing and the perceptions behind it.
Hey I resemble that. :03:
But I only do it when I believe someone has not read what I wrote. Nothing at all wrong with some skepticism though.
As for the OP I think it's been shown that (he?) is a salesperson. On the other hand there are also many Straw Men that go around posting to various websites to further their agendas.
supermario
08-21-2009, 06:58 AM
Has anyone noticed that the OP who started this thread has evaporated into thin air?
As for the OP I think it's been shown that (he?) is a salesperson. On the other hand there are also many Straw Men that go around posting to various websites to further their agendas.
Indeed. that's the second "organic" guy I've called out on this forum. Some "organicprojim" came on recommending some "TurfPro" product for all your plants. A quick search revealed he was the head of the company! He even went as far as posting fake reviews on Dave's Garden Watchdog!
The jerk that started this thread seemed to be trying to sell everyone on some lab called "soil food web". I'm actually not sure if he really is a salesman though...cause I've worked in sales the majority of my life and know better than to insult or attack a potential customer in any way. I think it's more likely he was one of the "soil food web's" clients and got sick of everyone pointing out his inconsistencies. He's probably planning a demonstration with PETA as we speak.
Richard
08-21-2009, 11:02 AM
A recent report by the Food and Drug Administration says there's no evidence that organic food is any safer than conventionally grown food: Feds Say Organic Food Not Safer Than Food Grown Conventionally | KPBS.org (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/aug/21/feds-say-organic-foods-not-safer-coventionally-gro/)
momoese
08-21-2009, 11:34 AM
The sickest I've ever been was from drinking unpasteurized organic pomegranate juice from a farmer that I had known and trusted for a very long time. You just never know. I still buy from him but I did let him know that his product almost killed me. I'm sure it was the juice because at the time I was dieting and that was the only thing I had consumed that day before becoming violently ill.
supermario
08-21-2009, 04:20 PM
I've had similar negative experiences when purchasing food anywhere other than my usual grocer. That is why I make no exception when I shop for meat, chicken, fish, etc. I may stray from the typical commercial grocer when it comes to fruits and veggies, but that's about it.
Here in Miami, FL.. Sedano's is a very successful grocery chain. I personally will NEVER shop there again unless I am buying something that I can easily judge the quality of for myself(some ethnic canned foods as well.)..The reason why is because I purchased some milk there once... tasted it the same day and it was grainy! YUCK! I guess they left it out too long before refridgerating it again! The milk didn't even expire for another two weeks!
Tx_Crinum
08-21-2009, 08:14 PM
He's probably planning a demonstration with PETA as we speak.
Okay, now that insult was not called for one bit. I am proud to be a card carrying member of PETA. People Eating Tasty Animals.
permaculturekidd
08-22-2009, 01:31 AM
I'll say my bit and I'm done.
We all know pestcides and artificial fertilizers are bad; you eat them they'll kill you. You breathe to much in you can get cancer, you put some types on your skin it can burn you or leave you with a rash.
But many don't care; they have mouths to feed and more importantly money to make.
We have just as many people preaching the miracle grow dogma aswell as the composting commandments; its a battle to me. Those resistant to change and those rebuking a regrettably successful fix (on the short-term).
There is no point to argue, much like all other things that affect people's choices there will be those who simply enjoy to make other people's choices there own.
It's absolutely mind boggling to be on the sidelines and reading what some people say.
Anyway I'm done; carry on.
Richard
08-22-2009, 02:53 AM
Beer is a pesticide when used to control snails and slugs. The term "pesticide" has no bearing on whether a material is naturally occurring, synthetic, or toxic to humans. Legally, it only relates to use.
Lemon juice is a herbicide when used to kill weed seedlings. Again, the term "herbicide" only relates to use and has no bearing on whether the substance is naturally occurring, synthetic, or toxic to humans.
I'll say my bit and I'm done.
We all know pestcides and artificial fertilizers are bad; you eat them they'll kill you. You breathe to much in you can get cancer, you put some types on your skin it can burn you or leave you with a rash.
But many don't care; they have mouths to feed and more importantly money to make.
We have just as many people preaching the miracle grow dogma aswell as the composting commandments; its a battle to me. Those resistant to change and those rebuking a regrettably successful fix (on the short-term).
There is no point to argue, much like all other things that affect people's choices there will be those who simply enjoy to make other people's choices there own.
It's absolutely mind boggling to be on the sidelines and reading what some people say.
Anyway I'm done; carry on.
Both methods have negative consequences and positive benefits. Artificial fertilizer? What does that mean? N fertilizer is made from air by nature in 2 ways; lightening and in the nodules of plants that contain nitrogen fixing bacteria, plants and bacterial then transform it into various forms, ammonia, nitrate, protein. Man makes N fertilizer from air using the Haber-Bosch process using natural gas, heat and electricity (modeled after Mother Natures method - lightening). After the N is fixed, it can be transformed into various forms, like nitrate.
P and K cannot be "created" by man (except in nuclear reactors--at cost that would make it more valuable than gold.) P in modern fertilizer is mined from animal graveyards where bones have turned into phosphate rock. The phosphate rock can be powdered and used directly or transformed into various forms. Most K in nature is found in rocks- (it is radioactive with a half life of 1.5 B yrs by the way and responsible for most of the background radiation we all recieve--especiall if you live in a brick home). In manmade fertilizer, K comes from extraction of rocks with acids to obtain various salts of K.
As I said earlier, the real downside of concentrated fertilizer is that it helps natural soil bacteria consume the organic matter that is there. In soil, when a plant dies, the C to N ratio is lower than what is needed to support bacteria, that N get used fairly rapidly leaving even lower C to N ratio--almost pure organic carbon. This material helps in soil drainage, aeration and maintains a healthy soil. The addition of fertilizer alone will speed up the degredation of the organic matter, it does not kill the bacteria, it provideds them with the nutrients to consume the carbon. If you do not add additional organic matter, the soil will become compacted and depending on soil type, low in minerals.
However, if you continuously add organic matter, you can maintain a healthy soil and more productive plants.
As for pesticides, I understand the concern for use of chemicals that we know little about, especially in a long term sense. We may know that there is low probability of acute toxicity, but how do we know there are not some long term negative effects like cancer or birth defects. But just because a pesticide was made by Mother Nature does not mean it is safe. The most toxic compounds know to man were made by Mother Nature.
The best way to control pest is to maintain a healthy population of predatory insects. To do that I use pesticides very sparingly, and I only use pesticides that have very short half lives (some organic some manmade--mostly malathion and permethrins) and I limit application to problem areas to avoid killing beneficials. I often use soap--a manmade chemical--because it only kills what I put it on.
momoese
08-22-2009, 08:59 AM
Found this and thought I'd share.
First, there's the environmental damage and impact on human health caused by chemical N-P-K fertilizers.
Then, there's the problems of overuse. Excessive doses of some nutrients is a direct cause of other nutrient deficiencies.
And there's the build-up of chemical Salts. Because these fertilizers are by definition SALTS. Everyone knows Salt is BAD for agriculture.
On top of all this is the terrible toll that fertilizer manufacturing takes on the environment and the people who live near the factories. They pollute; they're dangerous. Remember the Bhopal fertilizer plant explosion in India in 1984? The Toulouse fertilizer plant explosion in France in 2001? On our own shores, the worst accident involving fertilizer took place in 1947 in Texas, when 600 people were killed and 3,500 people were injured; it was part of the testimony presented in July 2005 before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which was studying national security risks:
www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2005_h/050713-poje.pdf
Let's look first at the ingredients in a balanced fertilizer: N-P-K.
N, Nitrogen, is the most common element in our atmosphere. It comes in different forms: Elemental N, NO3- (Nitrate), NO2 (Nitrite), NH4+ (ionized Ammonia), NH3+ (poisonous Ammonia gas) and others. Nitrogen is also an essential nutrient; all plants and animals need it to survive. It's essential to the Chlorophyll molecule.
Too much, or the wrong kind of N, will damage or kill these organisms.
news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/august26/yaqui.html
N is especially toxic to fish and invertebrates. It's also toxic to humans; people who depend on rural, private wells for their water source have one of the higher rates of a condition called Methemoglobinemia, aka Blue Baby Syndrome, which damages blood cells and is traced to high Nitrates.
Articles in Science Magazine submitted by the International Nitrogen Initiative last May inspired 'Reactive Nitrogen: The Next Big Pollution Problem' on the Wired Science website. It describes a litany of problems and warns us, 'Nitrogen pollution could eventually render entire stretches of ocean dead, as is now the case in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff has created a 5,800 square mile dead zone.' Here's the URL:
blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/reactive-nitrog.html
More data appears in an essay posted by a company in New Jersey, Alpha Water Systems, titled 'Nitrate Pollution of Groundwater'. You can read it online:
NITRATE POLLUTION OF GROUNDWATER (http://www.reopure.com/nitratinfo.html)
None of this is new. It's just worse.
And that's just the N.
Unlike Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium are immobile in Soil.
Feldspars and Micas contain most of the Potassium in our Soil. K in fertilizers is almost always applied as Potassium Chloride from mines in Canada.
K dissolves in Water. P does not.
Instead, it binds to Soil particles and stays put until some nice microbe comes along and un-locks it. Clay Soils tend to keep the strongest grip on it; Sandy Soils are looser and let it drizzle through.
Phosphate and Potash fertilizers don't just raise the chemical P and K levels; they also add damaging Soil Salts. And although most Soils in the U.S. have perfectly adequate levels of Phosphorus and Potassium, and even though they don't need any more from your fertilizer, people use them anyway. This is a problem because too much Phosphorus locks other nutrients OUT of plants.
Iron and Zinc deficiencies are common in Soil over-loaded with non-dissolving P. A fatal disease in livestock called 'Grass Tetany' -- a complex condition linked to Mg deficiency in cows and other ruminants -- is examined by French author André Voisin: 'Excessive and repeated dressings of Potassium fertilizers cause Magnesium deficiencies in plants, particularly Grasses...' It's even bad for the animals that depend on them; they too develop Mg deficiency:
'GRASS TETANY' Chapter 6 (http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010106voisin/010106gtchap6.html)
Organic Phosphates provide energy for chemical reactions in plant and animal growth and cell reactions. But too much and you end up with growth out of control.
When this happens in a lake, you find so much growing going on that they run out of Oxygen; you end up with a lot of dead plants and animals.
Phosphate pollution is so bad in some areas, people are pushing for a 'Phosphate Fertilizer Act' to deal with it. Phosphorus would be legal only if a Soil Test showed it was needed; only if you were planting new Seed or installing new Sod; or if you're a licensed greenskeeper at a golf course.
You can see how hard fertilizer companies would push to block this law. Their profits depend on getting people to use fertilizer ALL the time, not just when they need it.
Making Phosphate fertilizer is no picnic, either. That's a big problem in Florida, where it's a billion dollar industry. Phosphate fertilizer contains radioactive lead and polonium.
Mine the Phosphate and you end up with radioactive byproducts. As environmentalist George C. Glasser points out, 'Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations... People living near the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average.' You can read his article, 'Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection', in the online Pure Water Gazette:
Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection* by George C (http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm)
Potassium (K) is essential for plant growth. K is generally not considered an environmental problem; in parts of the world where high levels were recorded, industrial waste (and not fertilizer) was blamed. Plants absorb K very efficienty when it's dissolved in the water in your Soil. As with P, too much K in your Soil will chemically lock out other important micronutrients. Calcium and Magnesium are 2 elements upstaged by too much K in Soil.
Now, we all know that Salt damages plants. A Chemical fertilizer is, technically, a Chemical Salt: an Ionic Compound. It can be produced by the reaction of an Acid and a Base; by combining a Cation (positively charged Ion) and an Anion (negative charged Ion) or a Metal and an Acid.
A Salt gets its name from the Cation, followed by the name of the Anion. NaCl - Sodium Chloride, aka Table Salt, is a Sodium Cation bonded to a Chloride Anion. (NH4)2SO4 - Ammonium Sulfate, the preferred N fertilizer for Lawns and Golf Courses, is an Ammonium Cation and a Sulfate Anion. Ca(NO3)2 - Calcium Nitrate, a Calcium Cation and a Nitrate Anion. CO(NH2)2 is Urea, the most inexpensive Nitrogen fertilizer, made of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) (Ammonia bonds directly with Acids to form 'Ammonium Salts').
That, in a very large nutshell, is the problem with chemical fertilizers.
supermario
08-22-2009, 09:34 AM
I'm going to attempt to summarize the below information in as simple a way possible...
Do not apply too much fertilzer. Do not eat the fertilizer nor drink water that may contain runoff..
Did I hit?.. or miss?
Although the info does not provide a solution to the proposed problem, it seems as if one tests their soil regularly and applies only what is needed...there will be no problem.
I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the environmental consequences of excess fertilizers--it is what I spent a significant part of my career working on. However, even natural sources of fertilizer can be responsible for eutrophication--case in point--I remember a river in the Pacific NW where the source of the eutrophication was traced to salt spray from the ocean that acted as a cation exchange to release natural N in soils formed by N fixation in Aspens.
In the Gulf of Mexico, 70% of the excess N in the Mississippi River comes from the corn belt---much of the remainder comes from municipal inputs.
As a scientist, I also think that much of the problem comes from removal of the consumers--In Chesapeake Bay in the 1600s, oysters filtered the entire volume of the bay in 3 to 4 days--now it takes 300-400 days.
I also agree with the damage caused by mining (all mining), but we just need to make the mine companies put up the money for restoration before they do the mining--the mines can be restored --it just takes money.
Last, the argument about salt killing microbes is highly overstated. It is not the presence of salt, it is the concentration of salt. All animals, plants and microbe require salt, but when the concentration inside or outside is too high, it can be lethal.
There are many differences in requirements depending on the soil and environmental or climatic conditions. We have very sandy soil with very low natural nutrient/mineral levels. There are several plants that won't grow here due to salt (IN THE AIR). Our high rainfall (5 to 6 ft a yr) washes out salts and nutrients. Addition of organic matter helps retain nutrients and add trace minerals, but unless you have a farm lot full of animals, it is almost impossible to maintain a productive healthy garden without frequent additions of commercial fertilizers.
Richard
08-22-2009, 10:07 AM
Now, we all know that Salt damages plants.
Table salt, yes. The majority of salts do not have the property of table salts and are acidic, not alkaline. A large number of naturally occuring salts are beneficial to plants.
... people preaching the miracle grow dogma ...
The water soluble fertilizer shown in the bottom photograph is not available from The Scotts MiracleGro Company (http://www.thescottsmiraclegrocompany.com/). The color of the compound is from naturally-occuring Copperas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfate):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Iron%28II%29-sulfate-heptahydrate-sample.jpg/200px-Iron%28II%29-sulfate-heptahydrate-sample.jpg
All of the fertilizer samples in the image below contain chemicals: some non-synthetic, some synthetic.
http://www.bananas.org/gallery/watermark.php?file=21153&size=1 (http://www.bananas.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=21153)
Granular "Triple-15". Does not qualify as an "Organic Fertilizer". In the fertilizer industry, granular refers to a nutrient that is cast on the ground, typically where the irrigation water will hit it. In this particular case, several university studies have demonstrated that soil biology is adversely affected when triple-15 (and some similar products) are applied directly to bare soil. However, when applied to a thick layer of mulch the results range from negative to positive depending upon (a) the underlying soil, (b) the nature of the mulch, and (c) the leaf-fall from surrounding plants.
Pelletized "Pure-N-Natural". Qualifies as an "Organic Fertilizer". Pelletized means that a combination of materials were pressed or baked into a solid, then crushed or pelletized, and sometimes coated (e.g., osmocote). These again are intended to be applied directly to the soil. This particular product contains nutrient chemicals -- both major and minor, non-nutrient chemicals -- e.g., humic acids, plus mycorrhizae and beneficial bacteria all coexisting in the same compound. It is one of several excellent soil conditioners and inoculants on the market. Note that once you inoculate your soil -- you need not do it again for many years if ever ... especially if the soil is maintained with a top layer of mulch. Five to seven years ago I inoculated my orchard soils with this product and since then annual soil tests have shown that no further biotics need be added.
Water Soluble 20-5-5. Qualifies as an "Organic Fertilizer". Water soluble means that the product was designed to be dissolved in water before applying to plants. If you were to apply them directly to the ground, a large percentage of the nutrients would simply escape to the atmosphere. Most agricultural water solubles (including this one) are beneficial to organisms in the soil -- in fact the water solubles often count on microbes to process some of the minerals into a form useful by plants.
Neem Seed Meal. Qualifies as an "Organic Fertilizer". A meal is a ground or shredded plant material. In this case, Neem Seed Meal is comprised of seed casings and fibers left over after Neem Seed Oil is pressed from the seeds. The meal is high in nitrogen for a plant material (~ 5-1-1) and has been used in south Asia for centuries. It is not a significant insecticide but the strong odor will drive away some varieties of insects, bugs, and most teenagers.
momoese
08-22-2009, 04:00 PM
So for the most part you two agree with what this person posted?
SBL, when you say " it is almost impossible to maintain a productive healthy garden without frequent additions of commercial fertilizers." are you 1, referring to the sandy soil in your area, and 2, what is your definition of "comercial fertilizers"? Are you in this specific post talking about chemical ferts or anything packaged and sold at a profit that feeds the plants including organic (non chemical and non synthesized) plant food.
Richard, I see you quoted me and want to make clear that is not my writing, it's something I found while surfing.
Richard
08-22-2009, 04:19 PM
So for the most part you two agree with what this person posted?
No. It is replete with over-generalizations and phobic undertones.
So for the most part you two agree with what this person posted?
What who posted? I have not read the links in your last post.
[/QUOTE]
SBL, when you say " it is almost impossible to maintain a productive healthy garden without frequent additions of commercial fertilizers." are you 1, referring to the sandy soil in your area, and 2, what is your definition of "comercial fertilizers"? Are you in this specific post talking about chemical ferts or anything packaged and sold at a profit that feeds the plants including organic (non chemical and non synthesized) plant food.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about our sandy soil as that is what I know about. The commercial fertilizers I am talking about are typical granular fertilizer used on farms. Various NPK ratios depending on the plants and needs--including things like Ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, urea, diammonium phosphate, potassium nitrate.
The truth is if organic fertilizers like cottonseed meal were as cheap as available and as effective I would use them--I don't have anything against them, but I would have to drive 50 mile to get such materials in addition to the fact that they cost more and work more slowly. The most effective organic material I get is my neighbors grass clippings--once composted it is about as good as manure.
turtile
08-22-2009, 06:56 PM
First, there's the environmental damage and impact on human health caused by chemical N-P-K fertilizers.
The problems with Nitrogen and Phosphorus will be the same whether they came from chemical fertilizer or an organic source. You're going to end up with nitrate from both organic and various chemical fertilizers. Nitrate is nitrate.
And there's the build-up of chemical Salts. Because these fertilizers are by definition SALTS. Everyone knows Salt is BAD for agriculture.
Salts exist in organic material as well. Chemical fertilizers don't remain salts either. As long as the salt doesn't build up in the soil, it isn't a problem. Dry areas have the problem the most. Naturally, desert areas have high amounts of salt in the soil.
That, in a very large nutshell, is the problem with chemical fertilizers.
Most of the problems mentioned are due to poor management and will exist with organic fertilizer as well. For instance, I've mentioned before that the main problem with phosphorus in my area is application of chicken manure. There is tons of it and it needs to go somewhere.
You're going to end up providing unneeded chemicals to your plants by using only organic materials since you can't pick and choose the exact nutrient you want to use. With "chemical" fertilizers you can provide exactly what is needed.
As for the environmental consequences of excess nutrients, much of the problem could be reduced by better land management--buffer zones to absorb runoff, retention areas and reduced application rates. Many corn farmers over apply fertilizer for that 1 yr in 5 when the have sufficient rainfall to use the extra fertilizer.
As Turtile said P from intensive animal farms (hogs, chickens and cows) is as much of the problem as row crops. However, I still think that in coastal waters, overfishing is as much of the problem as nutrient input.
supermario
08-22-2009, 08:51 PM
The truth is if organic fertilizers like cottonseed meal were as cheap as available and as effective I would use them--I don't have anything against them, but I would have to drive 50 mile to get such materials in addition to the fact that they cost more and work more slowly. The most effective organic material I get is my neighbors grass clippings--once composted it is about as good as manure.
Exactly my point. I applaud anyone willing to try and grow things without adding a single thing to their soil, but in reality we all need something. We can pay an arm and a leg for what is "sexy" at the moment...or we can go with what is economic while still taking quality into consideration(only because nowadays we have many options to choose from AND lots of good sources for information)
As for the info momoese posted... I think I summed it up about right. Sure I dumbed it down, but in essence, it seems as though mismanagement of nutrients is the main problem in that example.
momoese
08-22-2009, 09:21 PM
So SBL, let me be clear here. You are trying to tell me and everyone else that at some point we are going to have to apply chemical fert in order to grow our gardens? If that's really what your trying to say which I think it is I have one word for you, hogwash! My garden is as nice as anyone else's and produces as much fruit with zero point zero chemical fert added, never have and never will. My garden is all natural and organic with no synthentic or chemical fert, pesticides, or herbicides. The organic garden where some of my pups came from has been organic for 30 some years, it looks and grows awesome with no chemical or synthentic anything added. They use fish scraps and plant matter, that's all!
If faced with driving 50 miles and paying double for organic material to feed my garden that's exactly what I would do! As a matter of fact I just did not long ago to aquire some composted chicken manure from organic chickens. :)
supermario
08-22-2009, 09:24 PM
My garden is as nice as anyone else's and produces as much fruit with zero point zero chemical fert added, never have and never will. My garden is all natural and organic with no synthentic or chemical fert, pesticides, or herbicides
What fruit trees/veggie plants do you grow?
momoese
08-22-2009, 09:33 PM
What fruit trees/veggie plants do you grow?
Not just fruit and veggies, ornamentals as well. My garden is a chemical free happy place and the birds, bees, earthworms, good and bad insects all aggree!
supermario
08-22-2009, 09:44 PM
Not just fruit and veggies, ornamentals as well. My garden is a chemical free happy place and the birds, bees, earthworms, good and bad insects all aggree!
Sounds great. Can you please specify the plants that you grow?
The reason I ask is because I have several different types of fruit trees. I also grow veggies and have a few ornamentals. I have mangos, sapodillas, bananas, jaboticabas, atemoya, avocado, lime, orange, fig, cacao, black pepper, papaya, and I also grow veggies according to season. The ornamentals I have are purple queen, birds of paradise, hibiscus, and another tree I don't know the name of. If you can give me recommendations for all, that are also cost friendly of course, I would appreciate it.
All of the above mentioned trees have their own set of requirements. How could I possibly meet all of those different trees needs by organic means without spending an arm and a leg? You mention you don't mind driving 50 miles and spending twice as much.. but some people don't have the option. I personally can afford it, but prefer to spend my extra money on travel and entertainment...most other things, I can best be described as "camino con los codos".. Lorax should be able to translate. :)
Richard
08-22-2009, 09:50 PM
Not just fruit and veggies, ornamentals as well. My garden is a chemical free ...
No it isn't. The materials you apply all contain chemical fertilizers, about 2% per pound.
supermario
08-22-2009, 09:54 PM
Come to think of it, the requirements for each of my trees are according to my specific area. So, logic dictates that one would need something far different in another part of the country as opposed to here in Miami, FL. There is no one solution no matter what your beliefs.
If I understand correctly, my soil should be similar to sbl's(judging by his comments)...just not the climate. I doubt our soil is the same as in say...southern California
momoese
08-22-2009, 09:59 PM
No it isn't. The materials you apply all contain chemical fertilizers, about 2% per pound.
Splitting hairs Richard.
Richard
08-22-2009, 10:21 PM
Mitchell,
You have every right to be proud of your garden and fruit production -- I have been envious of your fruit on more than one occasion. But to say your garden is chemical free propagates a lot of misunderstanding. It furthers the marketing goals of those who wish to cast "chemical" as a negative term. Fact is, we would all be in bad shape without the chemical oxygen.
The worm castings in your garden are about 1% nitrates, 0.5% phosphates, and 0.5% potash, plus about another 0.1% minors and micros by weight. These chemical salts are manufactured for you by your wild and untamed worms!
Beer is every bit as synthetic as water soluble fertilizers -- it even contains a surfactant. If you use beer to control slugs and snails in your garden then you are using a synthetic pesticide.
momoese
08-22-2009, 10:25 PM
I grow mostly desert bananas, canna, ginger, tanglad, Ti, heliconia, plumeria, blueberry, strawberry, mango, citrus, babaco, passion fruit, tomato, lettuce, bamboo, palm, night blooming jasmine, hot peppers, giant bird of paradise, geranium, many types of succulents, aloe, agave, lawn for the dogs to play, weeds (they like it here too), many herbs, pineapples, kangaroo paw, yucca, puya, and soon kei apple. I'm sure I missed a bunch of things but you get the point. The acid loving plants receive some coffee grounds, otherwise they all find what they need from the soil. No problems with insects, they eat and get eaten by others, and few holes in my lettuce doesn't scare me.
I'm perfectly happy with the results and as the saying goes, if it aint broke don't fix it.
supermario
08-22-2009, 10:37 PM
I grow mostly desert bananas, canna, ginger, tanglad, Ti, heliconia, plumeria, blueberry, strawberry, mango, citrus, babaco, passion fruit, tomato, lettuce, bamboo, palm, night blooming jasmine, hot peppers, giant bird of paradise, geranium, many types of succulents, aloe, agave, lawn for the dogs to play, weeds (they like it here too), many herbs, pineapples, kangaroo paw, yucca, puya, and soon kei apple. I'm sure I missed a bunch of things but you get the point. The acid loving plants receive some coffee grounds, otherwise they all find what they need from the soil. No problems with insects, they eat and get eaten by others, and few holes in my lettuce doesn't scare me.
I'm perfectly happy with the results and as the saying goes, if it aint broke don't fix it.
Excellent! Now, it seems your working with excellent soil to begin with. I live in South Florida. Mother Nature designed for this area to be a swampland. Man decided to make canals and drain all the water...then level any uneven soil with rocks and build the house we suburbian Miamians live on. :) In some spots in my yard, I need a jack hammer to dig more than a few inches!
I've found Pepsi cans from the 70's, wooden fence posts, chain fence posts, orange construction netting, glass beer bottles, shoes, milk jugs, roof tiles and other construction materials, a leather glove, a sock, rope, and a ton of small budweiser beer cans in my yard while digging holes for my trees and veggie garden.
My point is that "organic" practices have best results in places with rich soil to begin with. What about those in nutrient defficient soils? Jaboticaba is native to Brazil while Figs are from the Mediterranean, yet they are both growing in my yard. The Jaboticaba has far more nutrient needs here than most figs for obvious reasons.
So, how could I meet the nutrient demand for my different trees without resorting to a convenient, cheap fertilizer?
Richard
08-22-2009, 10:59 PM
Excellent! Now, it seems your working with excellent soil to begin with.
Yes, the L.A. basin is about 4,000 to 9,000 feet thick alluvial fan of excellent minerals. There are pockets of bad news though, for example not far from Mitchell's house are the La Brea Tar Pits.
momoese
08-22-2009, 11:29 PM
Mitchell,
You have every right to be proud of your garden and fruit production -- I have been envious of your fruit on more than one occasion. But to say your garden is chemical free propagates a lot of misunderstanding. It furthers the marketing goals of those who wish to cast "chemical" as a negative term. Fact is, we would all be in bad shape without the chemical oxygen.
The worm castings in your garden are about 1% nitrates, 0.5% phosphates, and 0.5% potash, plus about another 0.1% minors and micros by weight. These chemical salts are manufactured for you by your wild and untamed worms!
Beer is every bit as synthetic as water soluble fertilizers -- it even contains a surfactant. If you use beer to control slugs and snails in your garden then you are using a synthetic pesticide.
The slugs climb in the can and die. Nothing is added to the soil, so how is that affecting the plants or the soil for that matter?
My point is that I do my best to keep it free of toxic chemicals and anything synthetic and the results have been satisfactory.
BTW, I'll take the Oxygen, you can have the Dioxin. ;)
Richard
08-22-2009, 11:39 PM
The slugs climb in the can and die. Nothing is added to the soil, so how is that affecting the plants or the soil for that matter?
Nobody said it was. Nobody is suggesting that you change how you garden. It is the negative light you have cast on all chemicals and all synthetics that has been disturbing to me and others.
... and the results have been satisfactory.
I think the results have been great!
momoese
08-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Excellent! Now, it seems your working with excellent soil to begin with. I live in South Florida. Mother Nature designed for this area to be a swampland. Man decided to make canals and drain all the water...then level any uneven soil with rocks and build the house we suburbian Miamians live on. :) In some spots in my yard, I need a jack hammer to dig more than a few inches!
I've found Pepsi cans from the 70's, wooden fence posts, chain fence posts, orange construction netting, glass beer bottles, shoes, milk jugs, roof tiles and other construction materials, a leather glove, a sock, rope, and a ton of small budweiser beer cans in my yard while digging holes for my trees and veggie garden.
My point is that "organic" practices have best results in places with rich soil to begin with. What about those in nutrient defficient soils? Jaboticaba is native to Brazil while Figs are from the Mediterranean, yet they are both growing in my yard. The Jaboticaba has far more nutrient needs here than most figs for obvious reasons.
So, how could I meet the nutrient demand for my different trees without resorting to a convenient, cheap fertilizer?
Our soil is hard packed clay with undesirable debris from years back as well. It has to be wet to dig........well it used to be that way before years of amending and mulching. Now it's soft, dark and easy to dig. When I plant I go deep and mix my new stuff 50/50 with the exsisting soil after removing the large concrete bits, bricks, glass, wooden fence posts, childrens toys, etc. Maybe not the mess you have but still plenty of unwanted crap in there. If you had a pot and wanted to grow your fig in an organic soil mix what would you do, the same thing you'd do in your planting beds, just on a smaller scale. For the beds you have to import large amounts of organic matter and blend it with the existing soil. If not you'll have to use the chemical ferts or something else.
One of the things I like about growing organic the way I do is that I never have to break out a calculator to avoid burning the plants with chemical ferts. I could grow bananas right in my compost pile just fine, and if I spill a whole 5 gallon bucket of compost tea on a plant no biggie!
Richard
08-23-2009, 12:04 AM
One of the things I like about growing organic the way I do is that I never have to break out a calculator to avoid burning the plants with chemical ferts.
I avoid a calculator by following directions on the package.
momoese
08-23-2009, 12:09 AM
Nobody said it was. Nobody is suggesting that you change how you garden.
Mitchell,
Beer is every bit as synthetic as water soluble fertilizers -- it even contains a surfactant. If you use beer to control slugs and snails in your garden then you are using a synthetic pesticide.
If the synthetic (beer) product does not touch the plants or soil then am I really using it in the garden. I think not. I could have an open container of Roundup in the middle of my yard but that does not constitute usage. No application = no usage.
If the synthetic (beer) product does not touch the plants or soil then am I really using it in the garden. I think not.
That would be alchohol abuse, apply to the gardener only as directed.
damaclese
08-23-2009, 07:58 AM
Lagniappe,
A low dose for feeding beneficials is irrelevant. The reason is, people applying chems are not focused on the soil food web, but feeding the plant, the exact reason the chemicals, directly available to the plant, are used.
This is again the first rule, being broken.
If your soil food web is correct, there would be no need for the application of a directly available nutrient.
These quick fixes are always at the expense of something else.
One of the things I recently researched was that low doses of chemical nutrients are more beneficial to the "bad" microbiology rather than the "good". (Hence the reason problems appear and require something else to fix it, in conventional ag.) There is that distinction and when we start to talk about microbes, we want the good guys. E Coli is a good example of microbiology I personally would rather avoid.
First off i don't want you to think in any way I'm against Organic farming.
But i live in a wash area were the soil is 80% gypsum and 15% calcium with 5% non specific micro nutrients. I have done every thing in my power to provide a complex and beneficial organic life to my soil. In the end its poor soil to keep much of any thing in place long enough to benefit the plants. So i must resort to additions to my practices which is what we should be talking about "practices Not Additives". Its in how you use your tools that makes the biggest difference to how your soil reacts to thees chemicals. there all the same more of less if they are pure. i understand the out rage to the commercial farm industries Practices of using 10 times the Fertilizers. Most home gardeners don't fall in to that kind of meager mismanagement of soil resources.
Ultimately if one looks a farm practices in the last 10 year you would see that farmers are moving away from some of the bad ways and on to new more innovative management. I understand that they have a long way to go before one could in any stretch of the imagination call them sustainable. but I'm sure with time they will move to better ways. Besides ultimately they will have to change! we simply do not have the remaining resources to maintain these damaging and wasteful farming strategies.
I don't want to change the subject. but what we need to be focusing on is how are we going to feed the Peoples of this world on organic Techniques. i don't see at this point how that will be possible. i believe one of the meager reasons we have moved forward technically and culturally is that was have not had to struggle to feed are selves. what if that changes? what then? how will we care for are plaint if its vary life is being sucked away by massive over population. i don't care what subject you are talking about in are modern life its aways comes back to this one topic "Over Population" this is the stresser, the catalyst if you were for many of bad things that have happened war famine plague they all come back to this!
Clay soil is very rich in minerals and retains nutrients much better than our sand, This sandy soil is almost the same as pure sandbox sand--no color, no minerals and no capacity to retain nutrients. Organic material aded to the soil, --say 3-4 inches of compost is gone in a yr due to our heat humidity and rainfall--over 5ft on a dry yr and almost 7 ft in some years. It is difficult to maintain a balance of any kind with that kind of leaching. I do not have to worry about burning--I have to add a small amount frequently. I use about 5 pounds a yr of trace mineral mix containing a wide variety of chemical salts, of Iron, Copper, Zinc, Boron, Magnesium, Manganese, and Sulfur. I have a compost pile that is about 4 x 4 x 8 ft--I go through that entire pile in about 6 months adding 2-3 wheelbarrow loads a week.
BTW, I grow tomatoes (no blossom end rot), peppers, eggplant, beans, peas, okra, lettuce, onions, cabbage, broccoli, herbs (dill, thyme, basil, cilantro), snow peas, turnips, kale, mustard greens, and ginger all in an area about 25 x 30 ft. As for fruit trees, I have 7 citrus trees, bananas, peaches, pineapples, pears, pecans, avocados, and figs. Ornamentals--too many to mention.
Edit:I forgot about my blueberries.
momoese
08-23-2009, 08:47 AM
SBL. if you were to truck in a mass amount of clay to mix with your sand what would happen?
Richard
08-23-2009, 08:48 AM
If the synthetic (beer) product does not touch the plants or soil then am I really using it in the garden. I think not. I could have an open container of Roundup in the middle of my yard but that does not constitute usage. No application = no usage.
The point is that you are drinking a product that is no less synthetic or toxic than several of the water soluble fertilizers and pesticides which you are constantly criticizing.
Richard
08-23-2009, 08:50 AM
SBL. if you were to truck in a mass amount of clay to mix with your sand what would happen?
Zeba Quench (http://www.zeba.com/) is a better choice. It takes far less quantity and meets all of Mitchell's environmental requirements.
momoese
08-23-2009, 09:13 AM
The point is that you are drinking a product that is no less synthetic or toxic than several of the water soluble fertilizers and pesticides which you are constantly criticizing.
Spin much? Thanks for a good laugh this morning!
damaclese
08-23-2009, 09:42 AM
Zeba Quench (http://www.zeba.com/) is a better choice. It takes far less quantity and meets all of Mitchell's environmental requirements.
what about plain old cheep Kitty litter its 100%clay and can be bout wholesale by the tun for Cheep if you are wiling to go pick it up and its made all over the country
Tx_Crinum
08-23-2009, 09:52 AM
My garden is as nice as anyone else's and produces as much fruit with zero point zero chemical fert added, never have and never will. My garden is all natural and organic with no synthentic or chemical fert, pesticides, or herbicides. The organic garden where some of my pups came from has been organic for 30 some years, it looks and grows awesome with no chemical or synthentic anything added. They use fish scraps and plant matter, that's all!
And this brings me back full circle to my first post on this thread: Subsistence farming versus commercial production or choosing between living in a third work country or a modern industrialized society. Without all the evils of 'synthetic fertilizers' our standard of living as we know it today would be impossible. Each household would be required to expend a significant amount of their energy just to survive on a day to day basis and forgo many of our modern conveniences. If you own a car, enjoy an air conditioned home, buy your clothes at Target and keep you food fresh in a refrigerator, you are directly benefiting from the use of the evil synthetic fertilizers.
My problem is not about using or not using organic/inorganic production methods and pesticides. MY PROBLEM is with the clueless hypocrites who have found religion through organics and have no idea they should be thanking technology in agriculture on a daily basis for every modern convenience they use on a daily basis. What if Einstein, Ford and the Wright brothers had to spend every day working their own garden just to survive on a daily basis rather than have time to create their inventions. Well we would be using oil lamps, the whales would be extinct*, and we would be riding horses.
* If you think whales are an endangered today, do some research on the kerosene lamp. Prior to the advent of kerosene and kerosene lamp, the fuel of choice was whale oil. The change over from an organic source of oil to a 'synthetic' source exponentially reduced the systematic killing of these creatures.
Mitchell,
Fact is, we would all be in bad shape without the chemical oxygen.
The worm castings in your garden are about 1% nitrates, 0.5% phosphates, and 0.5% potash, plus about another 0.1% minors and micros by weight. These chemical salts are manufactured for you by your wild and untamed worms!
Beer is every bit as synthetic as water soluble fertilizers -- it even contains a surfactant. If you use beer to control slugs and snails in your garden then you are using a synthetic pesticide.
The air we breath is a chemical? ..................Is it just me or has this thread gone a bit over the top? I guess I'm looking at it simply a gardener with no agenda or whatever. How's a gardener able to discuss succesful methods without having it turned in to a scientific debate that most of us are unprepared to respond to?
Back to growing for me...........enough!
SBL. if you were to truck in a mass amount of clay to mix with your sand what would happen?
It would have to come from a long way--the "red clay" base that can be bought around here is rich in iron but not much else. Many people do add a truckload of red clay/sand to their lawns, but it still requires the addition of fertilizers as the subsoil is still sand and leaches nutrients due to our heavy rainfall.
momoese
08-23-2009, 11:07 AM
And this brings me back full circle to my first post on this thread: Subsistence farming versus commercial production or choosing between living in a third work country or a modern industrialized society. Without all the evils of 'synthetic fertilizers' our standard of living as we know it today would be impossible. Each household would be required to expend a significant amount of their energy just to survive on a day to day basis and forgo many of our modern conveniences. If you own a car, enjoy an air conditioned home, buy your clothes at Target and keep you food fresh in a refrigerator, you are directly benefiting from the use of the evil synthetic fertilizers.
My problem is not about using or not using organic/inorganic production methods and pesticides. MY PROBLEM is with the clueless hypocrites who have found religion through organics and have no idea they should be thanking technology in agriculture on a daily basis for every modern convenience they use on a daily basis. What if Einstein, Ford and the Wright brothers had to spend every day working their own garden just to survive on a daily basis rather than have time to create their inventions. Well we would be using oil lamps, the whales would be extinct*, and we would be riding horses.
* If you think whales are an endangered today, do some research on the kerosene lamp. Prior to the advent of kerosene and kerosene lamp, the fuel of choice was whale oil. The change over from an organic source of oil to a 'synthetic' source exponentially reduced the systematic killing of these creatures.
TX, I have never to my knowledge disagreed that "conventional" growing methods are, required to feed the worlds population. I simply don't condone it in my garden. There is just no reason for the addition of chemical ferts or pesticides in a garden that flourishes using organic growing methods. As a byproduct I give less of my hard earned money to multinational corporations like Monsanto and more to local farmers who grow the food I like eat and produce the compost my plants like. The organic free range chickens I buy from a local farmer are the best I've ever tasted and produce organic chicken manure. Win win. I also avoid GMO's by buying organic.
Btw, take at easy with all that bold text, Richard may become skeptical of your writings.
And this brings me back full circle to my first post on this thread:
My problem is not about using or not using organic/inorganic production methods and pesticides. MY PROBLEM is with the clueless hypocrites who have found religion through organics and have no idea they should be thanking technology in agriculture on a daily basis for every modern convenience they use on a daily basis. What if Einstein, Ford and the Wright brothers had to spend every day working their own garden just to survive on a daily basis rather than have time to create their inventions. Well we would be using oil lamps, the whales would be extinct*, and we would be riding horses.
* If you think whales are an endangered today, do some research on the kerosene lamp. Prior to the advent of kerosene and kerosene lamp, the fuel of choice was whale oil. The change over from an organic source of oil to a 'synthetic' source exponentially reduced the systematic killing of these creatures.
This is too funny.:ha: You protest too much and your agendas laid bare. I thought we were just discussing gardening methods? Now your frustration has lead to insults since you obviously have nothing left. It really has no place in this forum. Please stop insulting your fellow banana enthusiasts. I guess you have a problem with gardeners like myself and that obviously "clueless hypocrite" momoese. Not one of you has mentioned how synthetic chemical ferilizers and weed killers is able to improve the long term health,fertility and tilth of the soil. You can't :ha: None of the organic method practicioners has said we don't enjoy modern conveniences and surely we all do. Now we're whale killers? (Is that the best you can do or was it fired in misguided anger off the cuff?) Nor have I read about any one of the organic practioners bringing Einstein in to the..........ahem ...........gardening discussion. Why would you conjure up Ford and the Wright Brothers in a gardening forum? I feel truly sorry for you that you feel compelled to spend your day creating insults and pulling obscure unrelated facts to add to your supposed credibility, while I'm here enjoying the responses of those that feel compelled(for whatever reason?) to guide and chastise the "uninformed".
"Found Religion through organics?...........did you really go there?:(
I'm not going to dignify this behavior here any longer in what has previously been and remains to be a place for banana growers to compare notes and help each other out despite our personal differences for the love of the hobby we should celebrate sharing. It doesn't sound at all as if you have been encouraged to do that.:basketbalhooplnaner
As of now maybe I'd like to swap notes in a separate forum for the like minded so we can all go back to getting along. There will be no more response from me here.
Your's truly , that silly whale killing , and clueless hypocrite
Bob
Tx_Crinum
08-23-2009, 01:22 PM
TX, I have never to my knowledge disagreed that "conventional" growing methods are required to feed the worlds population. I simply don't condone it in my garden. There is just no reason for the addition of chemical ferts or pesticides in a garden that flourishes using organic growing methods. As a byproduct I give less of my hard earned money to multinational corporations like Monsanto and more to local farmers who grow the food I like eat and produce the compost my plants like. The organic free range chickens I buy from a local farmer are the best I've ever tasted and produce organic chicken manure. Win win. I also avoid GMO's by buying organic.
Btw, take at easy with all that bold text, Richard may become skeptical of your writings.
We agree to disagree in a manner of speaking. I believe I have found the only person in the world who recognizes that practicing organic cultural methods is infeasible to meet the national and international demands for nutrition. That is intellectually refreshing. There is a universe of difference between practicing organic production methods and espousing it is the only way we should be doing it and practicing it and realizing it is not a feasible commercial production method. It is reassuring to know there is at least one smart person with common sense.
Yeah, I did get carried away on my bold text. Do you think three words is excessive?
Have a good day but did I really mean it. I have to get back to writing my lesson plans for my little miscreants that will be showing up on Monday.
LOL
Oh and Bob,
Unless you have been following and reading all 80 posts, which I know is probably very difficult to see and do from your perch on that flagpole, it is understandable how you can be so ignorant as to my comments.
momoese
08-23-2009, 01:34 PM
I don't want to change the subject. but what we need to be focusing on is how are we going to feed the Peoples of this world on organic Techniques. i don't see at this point how that will be possible. i believe one of the meager reasons we have moved forward technically and culturally is that was have not had to struggle to feed are selves. what if that changes? what then? how will we care for are plaint if its vary life is being sucked away by massive over population. i don't care what subject you are talking about in are modern life its aways comes back to this one topic "Over Population" this is the stresser, the catalyst if you were for many of bad things that have happened war famine plague they all come back to this!
I have stated the same opinion in past discussions here. I am pretty sure we can't feed the worlds population with organic growing methods, but that said, if we had far less people I think it would be possible. The Hunza's are a good example of this.
According to Tompkins (1989), "In their manuring, the Hunzakuts return everything they can to the soil: all vegetable parts and pieces that will not serve as food for humans or beast, including such fallen leaves as the cattle will not eat, mixed with their own seasoned excrement, plus dung and urine from their barns. Like their Chinese neighbors, the Hunzakuts save their own manure in special underground vats, clear of any contaminable streams, there to be seasoned for a good six months. Everything that once had life is given new to life through loving hands." 7 (emphasis mine)
Sir Albert Howard wrote in 1947, "The Hunzas are described as far surpassing in health and strength the inhabitants of most other countries; a Hunza can walk across the mountains to Gilgit sixty miles away, transact his business, and return forthwith without feeling unduly fatigued." Sir Howard maintains that this is illustrative of the vital connection between a sound agriculture and good health, insisting that the Hunzas have evolved a system of farming which is perfect. He adds, "To provide the essential humus, every kind of waste [sic], vegetable, animal and human, is mixed and decayed together by the cultivators and incorporated into the soil; the law of return is obeyed, the unseen part of the revolution of the great Wheel is faithfully accomplished." 8 Sir Howard's view is that soil fertility is the real basis of public health.
A medical professional associated with the Hunzas claimed, "During the period of my association with these people I never saw a case of asthenic dyspepsia, of gastric or duodenal ulcer, of appendicitis, of mucous colitis, of cancer . . . Among these people the abdomen over-sensitive to nerve impressions, to fatigue, anxiety, or cold was unknown. Indeed their buoyant abdominal health has, since my return to the West, provided a remarkable contrast with the dyspeptic and colonic lamentations of our highly civilized communities."
Sir Howard adds, "The remarkable health of these people is one of the consequences of their agriculture, in which the law of return is scrupulously obeyed. All their vegetable, animal and human wastes [sic] are carefully returned to the soil of the irrigated terraces which produce the grain, fruit, and vegetables which feed them."
Not one of you has mentioned how synthetic chemical ferilizers and weed killers is able to improve the long term health,fertility and tilth of the soil. You can't :ha:
Bob
How do you define long term health, fertility and tilth of the soil?
To me it means repeatable productivity of healthy plants. If I tried to grow plants on the soil that was here when the white man first got here without any additions, most plants would produce little or nothing in this sand--if they survived at all. Native plants here are sea oats and prickley pear cactus.
Addition of natural available organic material (pine straw and live oak leaves) would help some but they are very poor in nutrients. With the addition of lawn grass clippings (fed chemical fertilizers) I can do much better, but still not as good as the same additions with commercial fertilizers and minerals--to me that is improving the soil---how do you think it has hurt the soil?
momoese
08-23-2009, 04:20 PM
Yeah, I did get carried away on my bold text. Do you think three words is excessive?
I don't mind but Richard does. Good thing you didn't use color with those bolds or you might have been sent to your room for a time out. ;)
Whenever someone starts capitalizing, bolding, and especially color-bolding to make a point, I become very skeptical of the writing and the perceptions behind it.
momoese
08-23-2009, 04:31 PM
Zeba Quench (http://www.zeba.com/) is a better choice. It takes far less quantity and meets all of Mitchell's environmental requirements.
There is only one L in my name. Thanks in advance. :)
SBL suggested that clay holds nutrients better so I thought that was what we were talking about, not the water retention of that product. Maybe you just wanted to post the name for more Google hits? Is this something you plan to sell or maybe already are?
Clay soil is very rich in minerals and retains nutrients much better than our sand, This sandy soil is almost the same as pure sandbox sand--no color, no minerals and no capacity to retain nutrients. Organic material aded to the soil, --say 3-4 inches of compost is gone in a yr due to our heat humidity and rainfall--over 5ft on a dry yr and almost 7 ft in some years. It is difficult to maintain a balance of any kind with that kind of leaching. I do not have to worry about burning--I have to add a small amount frequently. I use about 5 pounds a yr of trace mineral mix containing a wide variety of chemical salts, of Iron, Copper, Zinc, Boron, Magnesium, Manganese, and Sulfur. I have a compost pile that is about 4 x 4 x 8 ft--I go through that entire pile in about 6 months adding 2-3 wheelbarrow loads a week.
supermario
08-23-2009, 04:50 PM
Oh and Bob,
Unless you have been following and reading all 80 posts, which I know is probably very difficult to see and do from your perch on that flagpole, it is understandable how you can be so ignorant as to my comments.
Bob, this thread actually "sprouted" from another one that got so heated it was closed for good. If you go back to the very first post of this thread, you will see the person responsible for the previous thread being closed, and of course, starting this one.
Previous thread: http://www.bananas.org/f312/organic-fertillizer-7785.html
Here's a great quote from our friend organicbananac...probably the perfect example of what TX is upset about..
Trust this one when i say i realize the proportion of land needed vs. land available to sustain a family, trust me. It is a sad, sad fact in America, of what we have done to this land (which WAS stolen from the NATIVE Americans). Who were respectful stewards, not materialism oriented, before the "settlers" came along. You also have proven my point of the solution to the problems we continue to create. We need overgrowth of PLANTS, the plants are the only things cleaning the air that we continue to pollute excessively, along with water and soil. The solution is easy, its here, but we are too arrogant and stubborn to allow nature to take its course and fix the problems. Because nature is...slow, and would take patience. (But nature WILL kill us if we dont stop, so...)
Anything GREEN, growing, sequestering carbon from the air, giving crisp, pure oxygen back IS THE SOLUTION, along with education.
More development, more concrete, more malls,more gas guzzlers, the throw away society, EMPTY neighborhoods of cookie cutters,etc,etc,etc.... is NOT THE SOLUTION.
But back to the sad state of the nation, I can not afford anything over my pathetic 1/4acre because I am near a concrete jungle. The price of land, once again, is just because we have the greedy individuals. More for them (useless money at that, HA!), at the cost of an arm and leg for me and you... I see much solution to this in the form of vertical gardening... ill go up as far as i want i guess. Or until code enforcement comes..
"Note that even if we were as efficient as the Mennonites, have a longer growing season, and included our mechanization: we don't have the land, water, or economy to use low-percentage nutrients; i.e., "natural" methods."
Now, i do understand your point here, but the problem does not originate with lack of land,water,or economy... it is the fact that so many are cowards not up to facing the fact that unless they are part of the solution, you ARE the problem. If you run around in your SUV,demanding you have a right to feed your 7 person family fruit from Costa Rica while you irrigate your acre of st augustine and azaleas... then im sorry to bust the bubble you must live in, but thats an example of THE PROBLEMS. Do these attitudes display any means of solution?
"Ohhhh yeah we recycle."
Well what about those two trash cans of brush you had the trashman come pick up? tsk tsk... its time we EDUCATE.
If every person would learn how to "almost" sustain their family on what they have, using the waste generated naturally by the cycle of life, there would be no need for "high percentage nutrients". The cycle of life,nature.. leaves us with the waste, which is up to us to use, or it goes to being non-productive for us humans.
Richard, its very obvious that you and I, are worlds apart. I see your points on many of these subject matters, and all I can say to you is that I understand your logic and where you come from. But where we are, and have been is not where we need to "go". Do you feel me?
Because I 110% agree with your concern of sustaining a food supply for the population. (being a diabetic since 6yrs old, i am concerned when there is not a jug of juice in the fridge in case my blood sugar were to become low) Now making sure the population understands we do not even have enough for all who are here, downright scary!
There is only one L in my name. Thanks in advance. :)
SBL suggested that clay holds nutrients better so I thought that was what we were talking about, not the water retention of that product. Maybe you just wanted to post the name for more Google hits? Is this something you plan to sell or maybe already are?
There is no doubt that a truckload of clay would improve my garden soil, but a truckload of real clay would cost a lot since I had to pay $150 for a truckload of our local "red clay" (which is really red sand). The nearest real clay is probably hundreds of miles away. Even then that is not permanent as our heavy rainfall even washes the minerals out of that. Red clay roads here turn from red to orange to yellow orange over time as the minerals are washed out. I have added several buckets of "red clay" over the years and I am sure it has helped.
Eventhough we have lots of rain we do need to enhance water retention--it can rain 6 inches here in a day and the garden needs watering 3 to 4 days later.
permaculturekidd
08-23-2009, 09:13 PM
You live near an ocean use seaweed; heavy mulching I would think helps prevent erosion so does the roots of plants.
The soil here is weird; heavy clay with little organic matter and little sand yet it drains very well. But it'll turn to a brick during the summer without proper mulching. Also wouldn't adding clay to sand or vice versa simply create an adobe when it drys?
supermario
08-23-2009, 09:23 PM
You live near an ocean use seaweed; heavy mulching I would think helps prevent erosion so does the roots of plants.
Not all fruit trees will produce well when heavily mulched. As a matter of fact, very few of them will produce well when mulched up to the trunk(pretty sure "heavy" mulch falls in that category). I learned this the hard way with citrus...as did Sbl. Here in FL, the humidity will kill most trees with too much mulch. Every climate has different requirements, so there never will be one solution for all!
Permaculturekidd, Your arguments are valid when talking about the fertile soils in the amazon...other than that...I think your point is lost. However, that is my opinion and I am in no way an expert.
We don't get much seaweed on the beach here-- some years there is a big raft of sargasum that washes ashore, but other than that 1 in 10 yr event the beaches here are pure sand with a few shells.
Mario is right about the mulch-- I do mulch most of my garden and trees--except citrus--they have bare ground under them after I lost several to root rot from mulching.
But mulch alone will not supply the nutrition needed for most plants. My blueberries are a good example of the problem here--my blueberries have a thick layer of mulch--at least 6 inches and I apply a new layer of several inches a yr. I also apply a little ammonium sulfate at bloom time and normally again in June (about 2 oz per tree) . This yr I ran out before I could make the June application--Ace Hardware was out as well, so I was not able to make the June application before the mid season growth spurt--the new growth is very yellow--the mulch has lost all of it's nutritional value.
supermario
08-23-2009, 10:39 PM
But mulch alone will not supply the nutrition needed for most plants. My blueberries are a good example of the problem here--my blueberries have a thick layer of mulch--at least 6 inches and I apply a new layer of several inches a yr. I also apply a little ammonium sulfate at bloom time and normally again in June (about 2 oz per tree) . This yr I ran out before I could make the June application--Ace Hardware was out as well, so I was not able to make the June application before the mid season growth spurt--the new growth is very yellow--the mulch has lost all of it's nutritional value.
Seems VERY similar to my Jaboticaba trees. Imagine...they are native to Brazil of all places...probably some of the most fertile soil on earth! My jaboticaba trees have several inches of mulch while all my other trees(other than banana) have the mulch no closer than 1 FT from the trunk. Anyways....
MY comparisson may be out of line since blueberries come from up north...but, we are both attempting to grow things out of our natural area... so kudos to us right? :)
I tried growin 'Navajo' blackberries and did not like the taste as opposed to store bought berries. I figured it's because the variety I had was made to grow in my area, not for it's taste, but for it's ability to survive... So, How do you like your blueberries compared to store bought ones?
Be honest now!
I have 17 varieties of blueberries, some that produce as early as late april to as late as late July. Variety has a lot to do with flavor, but another major factor is timing--they get sweeter and sweeter after they turn and are best just before they start to shrivle. Climate can also influence taste--a moderately dry season will produce the best flavor--a really wet season will cause splitting if they are left on after they ripen. Love my blueberries--my favorite fruit!
BTW Mario, UF has developed some very low chill blueberries that might grow in your area, but I am sure you would have to lower the pH of your soil--they like pH 4.5-5.
damaclese
08-24-2009, 06:26 PM
I would so love to grow Blue Barries but have not tried as my soil PH here is 7.5 are soil is 80% gypsum i mostly take it out of the planting holes an throw it away I've tried amending it but i just cant get the Ph below 6.9 and thats with 4 applications of sulfur and iron a year hardly seems worth it
I know try Potting them up! i could but with the water at a firm 7.0 PH id have to correct every time i watered again it just seems its not meant to be
so in the end i have to learn to like what grows in my neck of the woods or should i say Cati LOL
At least i have Bananas Right?
it accrues to me that when one is talking soil theirs just so much you can do to affect the native soils there are many factors as to why a particular soil is the way it is water seems to me to be the biggest influences as to Ph at least its hard to change something if your are continually give inputs that are contrary to your goal
That is very true Damaclese, soils are the result of a lot of different geological, biological, chemical and physical factors including climate. To get the most out of your particular soils requires knowledge and experimentation. The best way to get that knowledge is from a good gardener that has experience with that type of soil, but it is always rewarding to try something new that works. When it comes to pH, in general it is very hard to fight an uphill battle--especially with calcarous soils.
permaculturekidd
08-24-2009, 11:10 PM
Citrus grow like weeds here; there are literally thousands of citrus trees all over the city, alot not even taken care of but are totally massive.
I read books of fruit trees and people say to water and feed them monthly; which is mind boggling since trees over here don't need water past the first year and after that they can stand the summer droughts tell late september with weather going into the 90's and 100's during late July to mid-Aug every year.
Feeding them fertilizer is even weirder; there are massive trees atleast 4 or 5 decades old in downtown that dump fruit year after year like mad. No one tends to alot of trees in town; were formerly orchard country so walnuts, almonds, citrus, stone fruit; etc... thrive once established all by themselves(a year to 3)
I guess its the soil here; alot of things grow extremely well and there is no need for the miraclegro-type stuff (unless you a flower gardener or your really looking to push the limits of fruiting).
Richard
08-24-2009, 11:16 PM
... miraclegro-type stuff ...
A phrase so broad it is vacuous.
Miracle-Gro is a brand name, not an attribute. For example, there are several manufacturers who produce 50-lb bags of certified-organic granular soil conditioner for commercial agriculture from sea-kelp, grain meal, humates, plus a bit of dolomite or similar for buffer. The Scotts Miracle-Gro company is one of them.
BadPun
08-25-2009, 12:53 AM
A phrase so broad it is vacuous.
I do enjoy your zingers :bananas_b Your speak reminds me of a good friend of mine :)
But seriously I have actually learned something from reading this thread... plus all the statements made, claims dispelled, hyperbole debunked, accusations thrown, etc. make it all worthwhile :2623:
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of this spectrum of "natural" vs synthetic. I'm starting out with a clay soil about the consistency of a brick. I can't tell you how many cubic feet of compost I've bought in an effort to add some organic material and break up da clay (not to mention bags of steer manure, sand, etc.)... Seeing as how some of my bananas seemed a little nutrient deprived I bought some 13-13-13. I've only added a very small amount to each plant as I didn't want to overdo it, kinda wanted to ease into it. Going entirely natural or "organic" does appeal to me as I do have a 2.5-year old that will hopefully be eating bananas from our backyard within the next couple of years, so I wanna do right by him.... but I also minored in chemistry, so I've got a special place in my heart for synthetics :) I guess like most people I'll find myself somewhere in between until my soil is enriched enough to Go Green:birthdaynana:
I do enjoy your zingers :bananas_b Your speak reminds me of a good friend of mine :)
But seriously I have actually learned something from reading this thread... plus all the statements made, claims dispelled, hyperbole debunked, accusations thrown, etc. make it all worthwhile :2623:
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of this spectrum of "natural" vs synthetic. I'm starting out with a clay soil about the consistency of a brick. I can't tell you how many cubic feet of compost I've bought in an effort to add some organic material and break up da clay (not to mention bags of steer manure, sand, etc.)... Seeing as how some of my bananas seemed a little nutrient deprived I bought some 13-13-13. I've only added a very small amount to each plant as I didn't want to overdo it, kinda wanted to ease into it. Going entirely natural or "organic" does appeal to me as I do have a 2.5-year old that will hopefully be eating bananas from our backyard within the next couple of years, so I wanna do right by him.... but I also minored in chemistry, so I've got a special place in my heart for synthetics :) I guess like most people I'll find myself somewhere in between until my soil is enriched enough to Go Green:birthdaynana:
I think you have it exactly right. You feed the soil organic matter--it greatly improves the soil properties. You feed the plant fertilizer--there is nothing in triple 13 that is toxic when taken up by your plants.
momoese
08-25-2009, 08:33 AM
I think you have it exactly right. You feed the soil organic matter--it greatly improves the soil properties. You feed the plant fertilizer--there is nothing in triple 13 that is toxic when taken up by your plants.
Not that there is anything wrong with triple 13, but I will say it again that organic matter like chicken, cow, horse manure, gauno, blood meal, alphalpha meal, etc etc etc, does feed the soil and the plant. Is it as fast acting as trple 13, no it's not, but does it feed the plants and the soil, yes it does. It took years of adding organic matter to my hard packed clay to get the soil I have now, it's not an overnight process. When I first planted I mixed 50/50 with the existing soil. Again I'm not looking down on your choice of chemical fert, just your matter of fact statements that are not true.
Not that there is anything wrong with triple 13, but I will say it again that organic matter like chicken, cow, horse manure, gauno, blood meal, alphalpha meal, etc etc etc, does feed the soil and the plant. Is it as fast acting as trple 13, no it's not, but does it feed the plants and the soil, yes it does. It took years of adding organic matter to my hard packed clay to get the soil I have now, it's not an overnight process. When I first planted I mixed 50/50 with the existing soil. Again I'm not looking down on your choice of chemical fert, just your matter of fact statements that are not true.
So what have I said that you believe is not true?
momoese
08-25-2009, 09:55 AM
So what have I said that you believe is not true?
You feed the soil organic matter--it greatly improves the soil properties. You feed the plant fertilizer
This above qouted statement from you is phrased in such a way that it sounds matter of fact. Nowhere do you mention that organic matter breaks down and feeds the plants. This whole idea of yours that "you have to give the plant comercial fert" is just not true, I don't how else to put it to you. Again I don't care if you or someone else wants use the fert of your choice, but please stop with the missleading matter of fact statements.
damaclese
08-25-2009, 09:59 AM
That is very true Damaclese, soils are the result of a lot of different geological, biological, chemical and physical factors including climate. To get the most out of your particular soils requires knowledge and experimentation. The best way to get that knowledge is from a good gardener that has experience with that type of soil, but it is always rewarding to try something new that works. When it comes to pH, in general it is very hard to fight an uphill battle--especially with calcarous soils.
What more could i or any one add to that "so true" what iv learn so far about gardening in my particular part of the world is that its important to remove a good portion of the native soil its such a toxic substance adding tones of organics i add lots of bio char and microsomal as well as trace minerals in the form of Kelp this has been as successfully a formula as i have ever used so I'm sticking to it until something comes along better how ever i still have to apply fertilizers many times more often then most of you. do to the 3 times a day water cycle i have to maintain to keep my plants from burning up and yes i mulch were appropriate not on my citrus i think you would be surprised at the success I've had with my Bananas sure they don't grow as fast as they would in a more tropical environment but they don't do as badly as one would imagine how ever throw experimentation i have found that organic firt just isn't powerfully enough to over come that water cycle but i still use it along with additions of the man mad stuff in a perfect world id go all organic but I'm just one man fighting a climate that has been known to drive certain people madd but I'm always up for advice on the subject and love learning so keep on posting
Richard
08-25-2009, 10:24 AM
This whole idea of yours that "you have to give the plant comercial fert" ...
One way to avoid commercial fertilizer is to go out to the public lands (deserts, mountains) and collect the minerals yourself.
Seriously Mitchell, your attempts to create a dichotomy between "organic" and "commercial" seem very strange to me. There is a tremendous amount of overlap.
supermario
08-25-2009, 10:36 AM
Feeding them fertilizer is even weirder; there are massive trees atleast 4 or 5 decades old in downtown that dump fruit year after year like mad. No one tends to alot of trees in town; were formerly orchard country so walnuts, almonds, citrus, stone fruit; etc... thrive once established all by themselves(a year to 3)
There is no tree that will be established in 1 year. Mangos grow insanely fast and are not considered mature until at least 5years! You stated yourself that your area was formerly orchard country..That means those trees were nurtured up until they were abandoned after 15-20 years! The only trees you will see producing with little to no care are just that...decade old trees that were once used for agricultural production.
There are many sapodilla trees lining the road in Coral Gables. They were planted for looks and were cared for as such. They are over a century old and have not produced any fruit in the 30 years I've been around.
This above qouted statement from you is phrased in such a way that it sounds matter of fact. Nowhere do you mention that organic matter breaks down and feeds the plants. This whole idea of yours that "you have to give the plant comercial fert" is just not true, I don't how else to put it to you. Again I don't care if you or someone else wants use the fert of your choice, but please stop with the missleading matter of fact statements.
I did not say that "organic matter does not break down and feed plants", you just believe I implied it--you can believe anything--I cannot control your mind. I never said "you have to give a plant commercial fertilizer", but my experience has shown me that they will grow much faster and are more productive. In my opinion, organic matter is more important for what it does to the soil, not what nutrients it provides. Some of the plants I grow do not like rich organic soils--citrus and periwinkle, some prefer it --blueberries and bananas, but all of them do better with commercial fertilizer in my experience.
momoese
08-25-2009, 11:03 AM
One way to avoid commercial fertilizer is to go out to the public lands (deserts, mountains) and collect the minerals yourself.
Seriously Mitchell, your attempts to create a dichotomy between "organic" and "commercial" seem very strange to me. There is a tremendous amount of overlap.
Richard, you need to pay attention to what's being said and by whom in this thread. It is SBL who said he was referring to chemical ferts when he said commercial fert. I asked him directly if that's what he meant and he said yes. I'm doing my best to communicate with him using his terminology. As I said dirrectly to you Richard in another thread, I understand that some commercial ferts are organic. I do actually pay attention unlike people around here.
Now please stop putting words in my mouth and would you also please stop misspelling my name. It's not much to ask for and I've asked you several times. Show a tiny bit of respect please!
momoese
08-25-2009, 11:05 AM
I did not say that "organic matter does not break down and feed plants", you just believe I implied it--you can believe anything--I cannot control your mind. I never said "you have to give a plant commercial fertilizer", but my experience has shown me that they will grow much faster and are more productive. In my opinion, organic matter is more important for what it does to the soil, not what nutrients it provides. Some of the plants I grow do not like rich organic soils--citrus and periwinkle, some prefer it --blueberries and bananas, but all of them do better with commercial fertilizer in my experience.
Ok, are you really going to make go and fetch your quote proving that you said it? I'm growing tired of you guys spinning this.
Richard
08-25-2009, 11:10 AM
Richard, you need to pay attention to what's being said and by whom in this thread.
Mitchel, I have been paying attention to what you are saying in this thread and throughout this site. You consistantly push for a dichotomy of "organic" vs. "commercial", "organic" vs. "chemical", etc. No such dichotomy exists -- there is a tremendous amount of overlap.
http://www.bananas.org/gallery/watermark.php?file=10595&size=1 (http://www.bananas.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10595)
Ok, are you really going to make go and fetch your quote proving that you said it? I'm growing tired of you guys spinning this.
This is my quote--
"I think you have it exactly right. You feed the soil organic matter--it greatly improves the soil properties. You feed the plant fertilizer--there is nothing in triple 13 that is toxic when taken up by your plants."
Where did I say "organic matter does not feed the plant some nutrients" --Where did I say "you have to feed them commercial fertilizer". I have said they will be more productive with commercial fertilizer, but I have also always said that organic matter is good for most plants--but there are some that do not like it.
momoese
08-25-2009, 11:26 AM
Richard, I've stated over and over what I use in my garden. It's all organic material that's derived from composted organic plant and animal matter with no water soluble chemical ferts or synthesized ferts. I also apply minerals that have been mined by man, not made by man. Now if you'd like to come up with a terminoligy for this type of gardening I'd be more than happy to use it.
And thanks for spelling my name correctly, I do appreciate it.
momoese
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
This is my quote--
"I think you have it exactly right. You feed the soil organic matter--it greatly improves the soil properties. You feed the plant fertilizer--there is nothing in triple 13 that is toxic when taken up by your plants."
Where did I say "organic matter does not feed the plant some nutrients" --Where did I say "you have to feed them commercial fertilizer". I have said they will be more productive with commercial fertilizer, but I have also always said that organic matter is good for most plants--but there are some that do not like it.
Much earlier in thread and you never replied to my response to it.
damaclese
08-25-2009, 11:38 AM
can we all agree that we have are best interests at hart?
i for one respect each and every one of you. I don't need for you to agree or disagree for me to respect you all. Each one of you has brought to this table as it were your unique selfs and for that I'm really grateful. but i sure would like for you'll to see that in each other
I don't think any one at this point is going to convince the other of there position. I commend you all for trying but in the end is it so impotent to be right at the expense of another's feelings? are we a collective mind of spirit? or are we just like all the other garden forums were we kick each other mentally to death. what is this saying to are new Members?
Or are we going to have this thread deleted too?
Richard, I've stated over and over what I use in my garden. It's all organic material that's derived from composted organic plant and animal matter with no water soluble chemical ferts or synthesized ferts. I also apply minerals that have been mined by man, not made by man. Now if you'd like to come up with a terminoligy for this type of gardening I'd be more than happy to use it.
And thanks for spelling my name correctly, I do appreciate it.
Minerals are only made by man in Nuclear Reactors--those would be way to expensive to use on gardens.
As for where I said what you believe I said--I could not find it in this entire thread.
Damaclese is right, we all have a common interest--growing plants. We each have different soils and climates to contend with, but if we pay attention and have an open mind we may just learn something new.
Richard
08-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Richard, I've stated over and over what I use in my garden. It's all organic material that's derived from composted organic plant and animal matter with no water soluble chemical ferts or synthesized ferts.
Composted organic plant and animal matter contains 2% or more water soluble chemical fertilizers by weight.
And thanks for spelling my name correctly, I do appreciate it.
You're welcome (chagrin :o)
permaculturekidd
08-25-2009, 05:56 PM
There is no tree that will be established in 1 year. Mangos grow insanely fast and are not considered mature until at least 5 years! You stated yourself that your area was formerly orchard country..That means those trees were nurtured up until they were abandoned after 15-20 years! The only trees you will see producing with little to no care are just that...decade old trees that were once used for agricultural production.
There are many sapodilla trees lining the road in Coral Gables. They were planted for looks and were cared for as such. They are over a century old and have not produced any fruit in the 30 years I've been around.
I'm just talking about watering; after that the rains seem enough to water the rest of the plants. My grandmother planted a tree in her backyard a long time ago watered it for a little more than a year and quit since it seemed by the end of winter the plant was doing well on its own.
So towith many other trees; there are little almond trees a few feet high that surround the older trees they are only a decade to a few years old with no human intervention at all. Under the highways, out in the sticks, in the creeks, downtown, etc... many edible trees that came to be eithier with human intervention decades ago or the descendants of those trees with little or no help. Even at the abandoned side of school I see a few little trees growing with no one to care for them..
Pretty much all plants will survive and reproduce without human intervention--they evolved that way and wouldn't be here if they couldn't (with possible exceptions of some of our most highly domesticated plants). The difference is how much they will produce.
supermario
08-25-2009, 09:09 PM
Pretty much all plants will survive and reproduce without human intervention--they evolved that way and wouldn't be here if they couldn't (with possible exceptions of some of our most highly domesticated plants). The difference is how much they will produce.
Exactly. My grandfather used to toss papaya seeds in the ground all the time and then forget about them. The trees would produce little to no fruit..and the little fruit it did produce...was tasteless.
momoese
08-26-2009, 11:09 AM
Here ya go SBL. I was wrong, you said "almost impossible"
it is almost impossible to maintain a productive healthy garden without frequent additions of commercial fertilizers.
momoese
08-26-2009, 11:14 AM
Composted organic plant and animal matter contains 2% or more water soluble chemical fertilizers by weight.
:rolleyes: Your splitting hairs again and what, still no terminoligy for my growing method?
Richard
08-26-2009, 11:24 AM
:rolleyes: Your splitting hairs again and what, still no terminoligy for my growing method?
No I'm not, you just don't want to admit that the nutrients in the materials you apply contain chemicals.
momoese
08-26-2009, 11:37 AM
No I'm not, you just don't want to admit that the nutrients in the materials you apply contain chemicals.
I'm not deniying it, and honestly I know nothing about it, just what you have said here. What I'm saying is I'm not going to the store and buying big bags of man made water soluble fert and adding pounds of it to my garden. Now please stop putting words in my mouth, again! jeez
This is the entire paragraph--my point in that statement was directed at the conditions here--and I did say unless you have a farm lot full of animals. That is because no matter what your source of nutrients is, here it is washed away quiclky. I probably add 50 to 100 wheelbarrow loads of organic material to my compost bed--most of that is then applied to my small garden--the soil is still mainly sand--analysis would probably indicate 5 to 8% organic.
There are many differences in requirements depending on the soil and environmental or climatic conditions. We have very sandy soil with very low natural nutrient/mineral levels. There are several plants that won't grow here due to salt (IN THE AIR). Our high rainfall (5 to 6 ft a yr) washes out salts and nutrients. Addition of organic matter helps retain nutrients and add trace minerals, but unless you have a farm lot full of animals, it is almost impossible to maintain a productive healthy garden without frequent additions of commercial fertilizers.
Richard
08-26-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm not deniying it, and honestly I know nothing about it, just what you have said here. What I'm saying is I'm not going to the store and buying big bags of man made water soluble fert and adding pounds of it to my garden.
I have said several times in this thread that no one (especially me) is trying to get you to change what you are doing.
At the same time, you have been very critical of people using water solubles fertilizers -- which we keep pointing out to you:
1. are not man made
2. are in the materials you apply in your garden
3. are no more toxic or synthetic than the beer, wine, (and rum?) that you drink.
Further, you keep arguing that there is a dichotomy between "chemical" fertilizers and "organic" fertilizers -- but this is not true. You also argue that there is a dichotomy between "natural" and "synthetic" fertilizers but this also is not true.
If you are looking for an accurate term that describes your methods, call it "gardening".
momoese
08-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Where in thread have I been critical of water soluble ferts? Because I choose not to use them or synthetic ferts that makes me a critic? That's some strange reasoning on your part. I think your being a little overly sensitive.
you keep arguing that there is a dichotomy between "chemical" fertilizers and "organic" fertilizers
I have repeatedly stated that I understand there are organic chemical ferts. I just choose not to knowingly use them. If there are some (2% as you claim) in my composted organic chicken poop than so be it. It's the best I can do to make myself happy about the way I grow my garden. How many times do I need to say this to you? My choice not to use them is not a dichotomy, it's a personal choice. What's so hard to understand about that?
I'm tired of talking to you, I've said the same thing so many times it's just getting frustrating for me. I posted in this thread originally about the evils of the product Roundup and was able to prove my point. I'll leave it at that.
Richard
08-26-2009, 01:13 PM
Actually Mitchel, you have stated over and over again that composted organic plant material does not contain water soluble chemical fertilizers. This is not true.
Richard, I've stated over and over what I use in my garden. It's all organic material that's derived from composted organic plant and animal matter with no water soluble chemical ferts or synthesized ferts.
You have also stated that you have made these choices because to avoid health issues with "chemicals" -- which is a direct criticism and false dichotomy.
Patty in Wisc
08-26-2009, 02:39 PM
I will say that I use my compost AND water soluble chemical ferts such as miracle grow & banana fuel. I take it that when someone says they don't use 'water soluble chemical ferts', then they DON'T use this added chemical ferts.
Richard, why do you 'flame' people with useless information that you often times make up? You go out of your way to piss ppl off. Are you trying to get this thread locked like you've done before?
turtile
08-26-2009, 09:12 PM
The air we breath is a chemical? ..................Is it just me or has this thread gone a bit over the top? I guess I'm looking at it simply a gardener with no agenda or whatever. How's a gardener able to discuss succesful methods without having it turned in to a scientific debate that most of us are unprepared to respond to?
Back to growing for me...........enough!
When you call something a chemical, you're saying that it is substance which contains a certain chemical composition.
For example, if you take water the chemical H2O (water) from rain water or make it yourself through a reaction, the output is still the chemical H2O. Therefore, the chemical H2O is a chemical regardless of the source. The same goes for every type of fertilizer. Regardless of source, they are all chemicals.
It is important to use science when discussing this type of subject. Without science, you're going to end up with a bunch of opinions that will lead nowhere.
There is no difference between what the plant takes up between "chemical" fertilizer and "organic" fertilizer.
For example, nitrogen is taken up mainly in the form of NH4+ (Ammonium) and NO3- (Nitrate) with very little taken up as (NH2)2CO (Urea). These chemicals are the same whether they come from organic material or if they are applied with a "chemical" fertilizer.
In the end, you end up with the same exact thing. There is nothing toxic about "chemical" fertilizer.
Not one of you has mentioned how synthetic chemical ferilizers and weed killers is able to improve the long term health,fertility and tilth of the soil. You can't :ha:
Bob
Basically, "chemical" fertilizers just contain highly concentrated forms of fertilizer. They directly provide nutrients to the plant and the soil. They also give you the ability to give the plants nutrients when the plant needs them.
Organic matter improves many aspects of the soil but it also can do harm when overused. Like I've mentioned many times, much of the fertilizer goes unused since the nutrients are provided in the ratio required for the plant (or never required in the first place. Organic material also tends to be acidic which can have negative impacts on plants requiring higher pH soils. Copper is also locked up by organic material.
Not that there is anything wrong with triple 13, but I will say it again that organic matter like chicken, cow, horse manure, gauno, blood meal, alphalpha meal, etc etc etc, does feed the soil and the plant. Is it as fast acting as trple 13, no it's not, but does it feed the plants and the soil, yes it does.
"Chemical" fertilizer will be taken up by soil organisms. They will take it up much easier than plant roots. "Chemical" fertilizer feeds both the plant and the "soil".
momoese
08-26-2009, 09:27 PM
"Chemical" fertilizer will be taken up by soil organisms. They will take it up much easier than plant roots. "Chemical" fertilizer feeds both the plant and the "soil".
You mean organic materials are broken down by soil organisms into usable chemical salts that the plants can use? Yes that's true.
Well said Turtile!
I used to work on a commercial dairy and I can tell you there are things in manure that you would not want on your food, I'm not saying it is all bad but you should know your source.
If you want to see that warning from a different source try this Environmental News article:Livestock Antibiotics Can End Up in Human Foods (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2007/2007-07-12-01.asp)
turtile
08-26-2009, 10:25 PM
You mean organic materials are broken down by soil organisms into usable chemical salts that the plants can use? Yes that's true.
Yes, soil organism are made of these chemicals. The elements must be present in the first place for them to exist. When the carbon level becomes too high, soil organisms will lock up nutrients such as nitrogen.
Patty in Wisc
08-26-2009, 11:10 PM
Wow SBL, thanks for posting that link. I did not know thatfarmers give those antibiotics w/ hormones to all the cows. My farmer friend raised cattle for over 50 years & never gave antibiotics unless they were sick & then they were separated.
I also read couple years ago, that some cattle farmers down south were told to gradually mix corn in the cow poop & mix with the hay that they eat. Then, gradually add more poop as they get used to it - to cut the cost of feeding them. The farmer that wrote of it (on another forum) from I think TX, said he wouldn't do it but some were.
Next time I get horse or cow manure I'm gonna ask about all this. Thanks for this info.
CValentine
08-26-2009, 11:51 PM
Boy is there a rant brewing in me...
What we put in/on the food we grow...conventional or organic...
People worried about all what goes in their food & bodies.
Do you see the junk that most people eat?
What about HFC??? Do we really know what is marketing & truth or not?
Do we care about the production/processing of the food that we eat - in that we avoid all enriched, vitamin added mass-produced items?
Do we really know if we are eating genetically altered plants & what it/if it will do(anything) to us?
Do we REALLY know if we are eating cloned meat or not??
IS IT GOING TO KILL US IF WE DO????
We need to start a health Forum, or you guys need to post the links on all this stuff so the Gov't knows that we know...
Oh...Hold on...they do & they don't care - unless they can make a buck off of it, patent it or start another program.
OR...they're getting a kickback from a manufacturer that can pump so much $$$ into lawsuits to bury the truth.
Marketing, hidden agendas, lies, manipulation....
More needless arguing about menial crap that isn't going to kill us any faster than the fluoride or chemical levels in our water. (Read on that if you want scary.)
Guess what....
No one gets out of life alive. Is the magic of the universe.
I do what I do, you do what you do and they do what they do.
We are all called individuals. We must live & commune together on this planet until it is no more.
Do what you have to do...conventional or organic......just let's get along & agree to disagree, whichever side you choose.
Live & let live & let's get on with taking care of ourselves(in whatever way we deem for ourselves), raising our children & our bananas!!
Rant over...Back to your normally fired-up, arguementative, un-derailed program (thread). ~Cheryl
P.S. - I understand the 'vs.' regarding this thread, which is to encourage the discussion and presentation of the pros/cons of each method...
Would just be nice to see more 'Discussion & Presentation' than 'Bashing & Finger-pointing'
Richard
08-26-2009, 11:56 PM
Cheryl, you are an epistemologist!
momoese
08-27-2009, 01:25 AM
Well said Turtile!
I used to work on a commercial dairy and I can tell you there are things in manure that you would not want on your food, I'm not saying it is all bad but you should know your source.
If you want to see that warning from a different source try this Environmental News article:Livestock Antibiotics Can End Up in Human Foods (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2007/2007-07-12-01.asp)
What the info in this link doesn't tell you is that it's rBGH (growth hormone) made by Monsanto that makes the cows sick and in need of the antibiotics. Another fact they leave out is that feeding a cow corn it's whole life also makes them sick and in need of antibiotics. You see cows have rumens and can not properly digest corn/grain. They can be safely finished on corn in a feedlot awaiting slaughter, but not for their whole lives. Basically the term we all know from the beef advertising campaigns "Corn Fed" is total BS! Another rather important thing it doesn't mention is that we now have pharmaceuticals in our ground water. Yay!
Good clean organic steer and chicken manure is still available but you may have to make some friends to find it, or make your own.
Here is a facinating true story written my Michael Pollan and published in the NY Times in 2002 called "Power Steer" If your not up to speed on the beef industry it's a real eye opener.
...........Michael Pollan........... (http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=14)
damaclese
08-27-2009, 08:33 AM
Boy is there a rant brewing in me...
What we put in/on the food we grow...conventional or organic...
People worried about all what goes in their food & bodies.
Do you see the junk that most people eat?
What about HF??? Do we really know what is marketing & truth or not?
Do we care about the production/processing of the food that we eat - in that we avoid all enriched, vitamin added mass-produced items?
Do we really know if we are eating genetically altered plants & what it/if it will do(anything) to us?
Do we REALLY know if we are eating cloned meat or not??
IS IT GOING TO KILL US IF WE DO????
We need to start a health Forum, or you guys need to post the links on all this stuff so the Govt knows that we know...
Oh...Hold on...they do & they don't care - unless they can make a buck off of it, patent it or start another program.
OR...they're getting a kickback from a manufacturer that can pump so much $$$ into lawsuits to bury the truth.
Marketing, hidden agendas, lies, manipulation....
More needless arguing about menial crap that isn't going to kill us any faster than the fluoride or chemical levels in our water. (Read on that if you want scary.)
Guess what....
No one gets out of life alive. Is the magic of the universe.
I do what I do, you do what you do and they do what they do.
We are all called individuals. We must live & commune together on this planet until it is no more.
Do what you have to do...conventional or organic......just let's get along & agree to disagree, whichever side you choose.
Live & let live & let's get on with taking care of ourselves(in whatever way we deem for ourselves), raising our children & our bananas!!
Rant over...Back to your normally fired-up, argumentative, UN-derailed program (thread). ~Cheryl
P.S. - I understand the 'vs.' regarding this thread, which is to encourage the discussion and presentation of the pros/cons of each method...
Would just be nice to see more 'Discussion & Presentation' than 'Bashing & Finger-pointing'
I already tried this approach it didn't work
Paulo
Wow SBL, thanks for posting that link. I did not know thatfarmers give those antibiotics w/ hormones to all the cows. My farmer friend raised cattle for over 50 years & never gave antibiotics unless they were sick & then they were separated.
I also read couple years ago, that some cattle farmers down south were told to gradually mix corn in the cow poop & mix with the hay that they eat. Then, gradually add more poop as they get used to it - to cut the cost of feeding them. The farmer that wrote of it (on another forum) from I think TX, said he wouldn't do it but some were.
Next time I get horse or cow manure I'm gonna ask about all this. Thanks for this info.
I don't think the article said that all farmers give antibiotics (w/wo hormones) to all cows, but depending on the needs or the problem they may dose the entire herd as a preventive and/or treatment.
It was yrs ago when I worked at the dairy farm--one thing we did was fog the milking barn with pesticides like DDT or Chlordane to kill the flies (the floor would end up with a solid layer of flies). All of this was pushed out and washed down with the manure at the end of the milking shift. Of course, DDT and Chlordane are no longer used, but I'm sure the fly problem is still there--I don't know what they use now. Pretty much all farm animals need wormers every yr or so, depending on the parasite there are various chemicals that are used--the only one I can think of is pyranyl palmoate--not very toxic, but certainly synthetic.
Again I am not saying don't use manures, but you might want to know a little more about your source.
supermario
08-27-2009, 09:06 AM
To those who feel the thread is getting out of hand...
How else would we learn but through a passionate expression of ideas? It seems some of the most passionate and fiery posts have been left by those who want to believe that convential and organic are indeed polar opposites. I think it's clear that most "chemical" ferts have been given a bad name for no reason. If used properly, they are no more harmful than anything else that we eat. I also feel the "organic" craze is largely overblown. Much like the Atkins diet when it first came out... Why would you think switching rice or pasta for cheese and bacon would be a good thing???
Patty, Richards to the point approach and use of vocabulary can irritate some. I frequently find myself googling words!..However, I really don't think he means any harm.
As stated previously, the purpose of this thread was to state the pro's and cons of each method, and I've seen plenty of that in the close to 150 posts..(although it was actually started as propoganda for some stupid site...but w/e).. Thanks to all for a great discussion!
momoese
08-27-2009, 09:16 AM
I don't think the article said that all farmers give antibiotics (w/wo hormones) to all cows, but depending on the needs or the problem they may dose the entire herd as a preventive and/or treatment.
It was yrs ago when I worked at the dairy farm--one thing we did was fog the milking barn with pesticides like DDT or Chlordane to kill the flies (the floor would end up with a solid layer of flies). All of this was pushed out and washed down with the manure at the end of the milking shift. Of course, DDT and Chlordane are no longer used, but I'm sure the fly problem is still there--I don't know what they use now. Pretty much all farm animals need wormers every yr or so, depending on the parasite there are various chemicals that are used--the only one I can think of is pyranyl palmoate--not very toxic, but certainly synthetic.
Again I am not saying don't use manures, but you might want to know a little more about your source.
I was not condeming the article, it's a good article, just pointing out that there is a reason for the antibiotics in the manure. Of course there are lots of farmers who have chosen not to use the growth hormone but most do feed corn which again leads to antibiotics. You are correct that you have to know the source if you want to avoid it.
Oh and about the worming, we buy organic grass fed bison that has never been wormed. They use Diatomaceous earth on them.
momoese
08-27-2009, 09:26 AM
I also feel the "organic" craze is largely overblown.
I couldn't disagree more. Regardless how you feel about the different growing methods you can be assured that there are no GMO's in organic food. That to me is something that I highly value seeing how Monsanto was able to get their way in regards to the lack of GMO labeling in this country.
To those who feel the thread is getting out of hand...
How else would we learn but through a passionate expression of ideas? It seems some of the most passionate and fiery posts have been left by those who want to believe that convential and organic are indeed polar opposites. I think it's clear that most "chemical" ferts have been given a bad name for no reason. If used properly, they are no more harmful than anything else that we eat. I also feel the "organic" craze is largely overblown. Much like the Atkins diet when it first came out... Why would you think switching rice or pasta for cheese and bacon would be a good thing???
Patty, Richards to the point approach and use of vocabulary can irritate some. I frequently find myself googling words!..However, I really don't think he means any harm.
As stated previously, the purpose of this thread was to state the pro's and cons of each method, and I've seen plenty of that in the close to 150 posts..(although it was actually started as propoganda for some stupid site...but w/e).. Thanks to all for a great discussion!
I agree Mario, but one thing I have not gotten from this thread is any reason to believe that commercial fertilizers contain anything that is harmful--show me some evidence.
As for buying organic foods at the grocery--that is a different subject--I can understand peoples concerns about commercial pesticides.
CValentine
08-27-2009, 10:20 AM
To those who feel the thread is getting out of hand...
How else would we learn but through a passionate expression of ideas? It seems some of the most passionate and fiery posts have been left by those who want to believe that convential and organic are indeed polar opposites. I think it's clear that most "chemical" ferts have been given a bad name for no reason. If used properly, they are no more harmful than anything else that we eat. I also feel the "organic" craze is largely overblown.
Good Point made. :)
Passion is one thing...just the negativity gets overwhelming...it gets deep in here, get out the shovel, ya know?! :ha:
Much like the Atkins diet when it first came out... Why would you think switching rice or pasta for cheese and bacon would be a good thing???
Diet...is a whole 'nother Forum... homemade cheese...AND BACON!!! OMG!!!
I used to be a BIG girl, haven't bought pasta in over 2 years...:D
(Not an Atkin-ite either)
Now making it...:D
Make your own sausage, grind your own wheat berries, roll out the Atlas...Viola!! Ravioli!
Beats bleached, re-enriched crap ATH!
Back to Whole foods...with your choice of Conventional OR Organic(Soil, Additives or Fertilizer)!
Re-railed!!
Watching with baited breath...and a shovel...:lurk: :) ~Cheryl
supermario
08-27-2009, 10:35 AM
I couldn't disagree more. Regardless how you feel about the different growing methods you can be assured that there are no GMO's in organic food. That to me is something that I highly value seeing how Monsanto was able to get their way in regards to the lack of GMO labeling in this country.
I have to admit that you have opened my eyes to the evils of Monsanto.. It's amazing how much power you can buy with cold hard cash.
As for the craze I'm referring to.. I don't think calling out Monsanto on it's poor business practices falls into that category. I agree with those who are opposed to their actions. The craze I'm referring to are those that imply that organic gardening is the only way and everyone else is destroying the planet. Example: first post in this thread.
Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 10:48 AM
That Michael Pollan article sure is a eye opener!! Scary.
I bought some buffalo meat in PA 2 1/2 yrs ago & heard it is s'posed to be healthier for us. I'm thinking it was raised organically - grass fed. Anyone heard of a hamberger joint called Tallgrass? They only use grassfed beef...& I assume called organic - without all the crap injected into them. Little bit of a gamey taste & similar to buffalo, but good.
Somewhere in the article it mentioned premature adolescence (from hormones) in the cows. This is prolly why my neices & young girls are starting to menstrate at only 8-9 years old! Physically a woman but still playing w/ dolls! It's from eating these cows - scary. I was 13 which was normal then.
Makes me not want to eat beef.
Richard
08-27-2009, 10:49 AM
The craze I'm referring to are those that imply that organic gardening is the only way and everyone else is destroying the planet. Example: first post in this thread.
The "organic lifestyle" craze. A gold mine for advertizers. A prime example of divide-and-conquer-by-fear marketing.
djmb74
08-27-2009, 11:07 AM
I somewhat agree that most of the organic market is just a marketing gold mine!
On the beef front my family eats mostly Venison and wild turkey and a lot of fish. I have a huge freezer stocked full of it thanks to my wife's step father and his friends hunting trips all over the country. Just got a huge delivery of lobster tails as well thanks to her relatives yearly month long lobster trip to the keys! hehe
The "organic lifestyle" craze. A gold mine for advertizers. A prime example of divide-and-conquer-by-fear marketing.
damaclese
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
Yes what happened to OrganicBananac the Originator of this thread
I don't eat beef--for many of the reasons you listed, but for cardiac health as a main reason. My main red meat is venison I harvest from the woods of the SE.
Hormones are used in growing a lot of animals--I do not know a lot about that, but they are also natural. Estrogen is getting into our drinking water from animal and human sources--it survives sewage processing.
But getting back to organic vs conventional fertilizers, can anyone provide any scientific evidence that conventional --even "man-made" fertilizers contain anything that is harmful (other than in the concentrated form or when applied in excess). We are also not talking about the soil compaction and depletion of organic matter--I think we are all in agreement that some organic matter is necessary and I think we are all adding it.
Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 11:46 AM
My source for venison is my brother - a great hunter. I make a killer venison chili!
I certainly hope that the man made/conventional ferts are harmless. That would be nice to know.
djmb74
08-27-2009, 11:50 AM
haha I make a great chili as well that the kids love with my ground venison!
sweet vidalia onion marinade soaked Backstrap on the grill for the win though!
My source for venison is my brother - a great hunter. I make a killer venison chili!
I certainly hope that the man made/conventional ferts are harmless. That would be nice to know.
Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 12:32 PM
I have my grandma's old meat grinder - the kind you clamp onto a table & crank, so I grind the meat. Make my own It sausage this way too. My uncle lost a whole finger in it. He was pushing the meat in funnel & my aunt was turning the crank. She didn't know his finger caught as she was turning it. OUCH
Backstraps! Oh yum...never heard of them before 2 years ago. Made on the grill - we cut it with a spoon.
Oops, I think I'm derailing, but the person who started this thread isn't around I guess.
djmb74
08-27-2009, 12:43 PM
isn't venison eating organic? hehe
I usually take the back strap cut it into strips wrap it in bacon then marinate it over night... grill it and it just melts in your mouth...
Dang I am gonna take some back strap out of the freezer right now for dinner tomorrow!
Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 12:47 PM
Pull some of that lobster out too. What time is dinner?
momoese
08-27-2009, 12:57 PM
Hormones are used in growing a lot of animals--I do not know a lot about that, but they are also natural.
Natural or not, anything that makes an animal so sick that antibiotics must be administered to keep it alive can't be a good thing. Also the amount of antibiotics given to the animals is frightening.
Much of the venison around here is chemically fed--feeding on chemically grown crops. We use tons of synthetic ammonium nitrate on our food plots--funny thing is the deer will walk right over any unfertilized areas to get to the rich green chemically enhanced grass--I wonder why that is?
djmb74
08-27-2009, 01:11 PM
synthetic ammonium nitrate adds a much more robust flavor to all grass? :08:
Much of the venison around here is chemically fed--feeding on chemically grown crops. We use tons of synthetic ammonium nitrate on our food plots--funny thing is the deer will walk right over any unfertilized areas to get to the rich green chemically enhanced grass--I wonder why that is?
Richard
08-27-2009, 01:16 PM
Hey! It's still "free-range" meat!
Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
No chemicals in deer here. They live in highly wooded areas and eat anything. Winter it's bark off the trees. They get in ppls gardens & eat plants & fruits off trees. My brother says when they gut a deer & find corn in their bellies, that means it will be good eating venison. Corn is bad for cows - good for deer I guess.
Richard
08-27-2009, 01:25 PM
No chemicals in deer here.
Cool. In markets though, meat products advertised as "free range" are not necessarily free of enriched grasses and grains. Aircraft application is popular.
No chemicals in deer here. They live in highly wooded areas and eat anything. Winter it's bark off the trees. They get in ppls gardens & eat plants & fruits off trees. My brother says when they gut a deer & find corn in their bellies, that means it will be good eating venison. Corn is bad for cows - good for deer I guess.
My guess is that corn is not organically grown--but it definitely makes for better venison! Our food plots contain corn and peas in summer, wheat, oats rye and clover for winter.
I killed a doe 2 yrs ago that had at least an inch of fat on her rump--fattest doe I have ever seen. I process all of my own deer--I cut away every speck of fat. We probably use most of it in tacos and burritos, but chilli and spagetti sauce as well. One of my favorites is cube steak (pounded), coated with bread crumbs and parmesan cheese---fried and used to make a sandwich--awesome!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.