What's the Argument Against Non-Organic Fertilizer?

Why do you think companies like Monsanto make fertilizer? They're derived from chemicals, often petroleum based. It adds to oil depletion and other environmental problems. Whereas many organic ferts contain low levels of NPK (like 1 or 2% N), those levels are generally much higher in chemical, man-made ferts.

Have you heard of "dead zones" in oceans, resulting from synthetic ferts? I suggest you google it because the problem is a growing one not only along U.S. coasts but other developed areas worldwide. NASA has a basic explanation but you can learn a lot more by googlin "ocean dead zones"
http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml

Karen

In an ideal world I reckon we all would be doing all things more in harmony with God and nature. STILL, we are not at this present time living in God's Eden but rather Satan's Eden. ....with all the preversions including soil care. I don't know if we could do it all at this time to please the more fervent organic people. When Rodale tried to do BIG farming on an organic practice, they sure had a lot of troubles.


http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/depts/notill/features/2006/1206/update.shtml

OK, KQCRNA, you win. But chew on this. To get the amount of nitrogen and other nutrients needed for proper plant growth (and that IS the point, isn't it?), you will have to apply inordinately large amounts of your organics. The waste, the inefficiency, and the hazards presented by application of so much cowsh** also comes with its own cost. For years, the State of Wisconsin had the highest incidence of "blue babies" of any state in the union. This was attributed directly to nitrogen leaching into the water table from the decomposition of the large amount of cow manure from Wisconsin's dairy industry which was spread on fields. The article to which you linked didn't blame fertilizers, it attributed the cause as being from the runoff of excess fertilizers. Also, organics contribute to dead zones as well. I quote from the link you suggested that I read:

"When the heavy rains of Hurricane Floyd caused extensive flooding in North Carolina in September 1999, the heavy load of nutrients (from dead animals, flooded animal waste ponds, and numerous other sources) reached the sounds that lie between the coast and the Outer Banks, oxygen levels in the water plummeted."

I'm not arguing that there aren't better ways to feed plants, but kneejerk reactions against "chemical fertilizers" will not contribute to the discussion. No matter how they are derived, inorganic fertilizers are the most efficient means of nutrient delivery to plants. You aren't going to feed the world with organic fertilizers. Sensible application combined with more stable delivery platforms for nutrient delivery will do much more to alleviate water table problems than all the organic solutions combined. This is already being done.

Yes, but put into the context of the previous paragraph "The apparent cause of the creeping dead zones is agriculture, specifically fertilizer. While fertilizer is necessary to foster bumper agricultural crops, it also runs off the fields into the streams and rivers of a watershed. When the fertilizer reaches the ocean, it just becomes more nutrients for the phytoplankton, so they do what they do best: they grow and multiply. Which leads to more organic matter reaching the bottom, more bacterial respiration, and more anoxic bottom water." Then, it goes on to say that these effects are magnified by natural disaster. The condition, i.e. dead zones, were already underway before Floyd.

Look, I'm not a farmer and I don't claim to be an agricultural expert, I'm just a home gardener. But farmers did grow crops successfully for hundreds of years before the advent of Miracle Grow. It (chemical ferts) might temporarily increase fruit and/or veggie production in underdeveloped countries, it's also wipes out the main protein supplies for others- fish along coastal areas. Better minds than mine have studied the subject and reached the conclusions. Granted, we all need to do our part. I'm willing to change to organic gardening, don't till, drive a small fuel efficient car, make little changes at a time. Most likely we all need to make more effort in many areas- garbage waste, fuel consumption, sewage treatment, air pollution, many many things, to reverse the effects.

Runoff of N from farm manure and other organics can be decreased by composting the manure or veggie first, preventing runoff and gassing off of the N by absorbing it with the C. Besides high NPK chemical ferts are water soluble while organic ones remain in the soil for a longer time, slowly feeding plants. That's why you might have to apply MG weekly while something like a seed meal might only need to be fed to plants once every month or two. Add to that the fact that the old box of MG sitting in my garage is NPK 15-30-15, recommended weekly feeding, while my favorites, fish fert, is 5-1-1 and liquid kelp is 0.1- 0-1.0. But besides NPK organics contain small amounts micronutrients, also needed by plants, while man made ferts generally don't supply them.

While I'm not a strict organic wacko, I don't think, I am willing to do my small part. I changed from chemicals about 5 years ago and have seen nothing but good results in my yard. I usually use a little organic stuff in the planting hole when I plant and that's it for the summer. I rarely feed again, other than compost. If I do, it's spotty feeding only to a few plants. The change was an easy one to make and I've not seen any poor results. My soil is alive, crawling with worms and lots of bugs I can't identify but my plants are healthy. I plant for the birds, bees, hummingbirds. I can water less often because the compost holds moisture in the soil longer.

The most informative book I have ever read on the subject of soil maintenance is is "Teaming with Microbes" : A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web" by Lowenfels and Lewis. If you honestly want to become informed on organics, read it. I recommend it highly.
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microbes-Gardeners-Guide-Soil/dp/0881927775

Karen

If organic agriculture is so destructive, how did we get here? Humans have been growing food organically since the "invention" of agriculture thousands of years ago. Chemical agriculture has been around for less than a hundred years. I'm not against things that are new, but if organic agriculture were as problematic as you say it is, the human race would've died off long ago.

And I don't think anyone is having a kneejerk reaction. The information in this thread is well documented. Of course there are problems, as well, and they're worth discussing.

Your example of organics being a problem during disaster situations such as a hurricane makes sense, but what's the solution? Ending animal farming? That won't go over well. But it does bring up a good point: Maybe, worldwide, the problem is actually overpopulation and overconsumption.

I appreciate your discussion, but I also don't see your point about using animal waste for fertilizer as being wasteful and inefficient. It's here and we have to do something with it, right? We have lots of it, and we'll continue to have lots of it, so it's sustainable. And all the research shows that this method, when used correctly, improves the soil and gives growing and fruiting plants the nitrogen they need. From what I've read, one of the problems with chemical fertilizer is that we're dumping too much nitrogen into the soil. Which sounds wasteful and inefficient to me. Combine that with others' statements that much chemical fertilizer is made from petroleum, and it almost becomes a nonissue. Petroleum supplies are rapidly decreasing and cost is increasing. How are we going to feed the world using a method that depends on a resource we're running out of?

Good point, Indy, when you put it into those terms: basically, cows are going to poop anyway, it can be put to good use. Remember, I am a city kid who know nothing of farming except what I've read. But in sustainable agriculture, don't farmers just cut down crops and let the vegetative dead matter rot and also spread manure? Effectively, let dead plant waste and manure compost in place to fertilize crops? Or, till in the dead veg waste and manure together? Leave any remaining organic matter there to form mulch the following year? Use cover crops in a similar fashion? I'm a city girl seriously asking the questions, not aiming to give answers here.

But then no-till methods vs. tilling are another whole ball of wax in sustainable agriculture.

Karen

"The problem is actually overpopulation." To quote P.J. O'Rourke: "Just enough of me, way too many of you." When everyone was organic with their agricultural practices, there weren't 5 billion mouths to feed. We cannot go back to that world.

Here in the midwest, GPS spotting of fertilizer applications on farm fields is cutting way back on the amount of fertilizer being applied. No-till farming also helps prevent runoff; I don't know any farmer who does fall plowing anymore. Nonetheless, there will always be some environmental cost to pay for having enough to eat. I daresay the runoff and soil contamination is much worse in China, India and other developing countries which have traditionally relied to a much greater extent on waste as a nutrient source.

To each his own. I know I'm not going to change any minds here, so have a nice day.

The way I look at it is, working with Nature the way it was designed to work is the right thing to do.
Josephine.

This message was edited Mar 2, 2009 11:55 AM

Fertisorb, no need to run off, you've opened up some interesting discussion, one that has brought forth lots of good info, albeit more of it pro-organic than synthetic feeding/techniques, etc. I realize you are in the business of selling "chemical" fertilizer so I'm sure you have a strong belief in your product. I bet lots of people use it and are happy w/it, too. That being said, folks in this thread also have a strong belief; discussing two strong beliefs often make for new perspectives, quite often opening up minds.

Having been brought up growing "organically" I tend to know only that way. I couldn't tell you how to apply 10-10-10 if I had to. I'm also one of those who feel you can feed the world using 'organic' principles and techniques. Having fed on ideas and philosophies ranging from Fukuoka to Rodale to Lady Eve Balfour to the Haughley experiment I admit I've read and witnessed much more from a natural/Nature perspective than from a synthetic/chemical one.

Nitrogen is nitrogen, period. How it becomes available for use and what happens to the surroundings along the way is a whole 'nuther ball game.

Over-use of anything, be it organic/manure/etc or synthetic/chemical, is a definite no-no. Referring, momentarily, back to the above-mentioned Hurricane Floyd episode of dead animal nutrients washing into the watershed and proving organics are dangerous and at fault carries very little weight from an overall perspective. Actually, the same could be said if a humongous shoe factory was destroyed by a storm and caused a gazillion pairs of tennis shoes to upset the ecology. It, too, could happen but it wouldn't mean we need to look unkindly or negatively at shoes. *grin (Grinning here 'cus I seldom wear shoes!)

All in all, this is a great conversation. I enjoy the different perspectives, thoughts, research, and feelings. In the minds of mature adults these two "sides" can be easily discussed; I'm glad to see a great conversation going on here.

Best,
Shoe (who woke up to nearly 4" of snow, very rare here in NC, and enjoyable!)

Thanks, shoe. I've read a few things, but I have nowhere near your level of knowledge or experience. I'm glad I started this thread because I'm learning a lot from it!

Ferti said something that I'd like someone to explain in more detail. Or maybe I just need to look over some textbooks and refresh my foggy memory.

I'm curious to know what exactly is meant by "man-made" "chemical" fertilizers. The fertilizers I deal with are a combination of naturally occurring, inorganic materials (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.) Nothing manmade about those. Plants don't eat organic material, they, and all living things, eat inorganic materials like those noted above. Therefore, your organic materials must be converted to their constituent inorganic compounds to be of any use.

So chemical fertilizers contain natural elements, but is it the source and process that makes the final product synthetic? Seems like the answer to this question would help us understand what types of fertilizers are accepted as organic and what types are considered synthetic. There are probably some gray areas. I'm sure that the USDA defines this, but I'm having trouble finding a document on their website that gives a quick summary. www.ams.usda.gov/nop/

Ferti, if you could give us a quick, general outline of how most fertilizer is made, that would be helpful. I really have no idea, but it's something I should probably find out about.

This message was edited Mar 2, 2009 11:42 AM

I'm not willing to argue or listen to the hogwash coming from the chemistry side of this discussion. The simple facts are that biodegradable parts and biology is on one side of the discussion supported by the natural minerals. These are the building blocks to better soil and better crops....always were and always will be. Chemistry has never created a sustainable product.

In the mixes of man made chemicals is absolutely nothing that supports the betterment of biological soil. There is no abolutely nothing in it that is part of natures package. It does not belong. When they are added to the mix they function as biocides killing off the very biology needed to rebuild the soil. When added to the mix the sustainablity of the biological soil is always reduced. The soil so treated is already reduced to very low organic content which was as late as the 1920's very healthy soil. No backyard gardener now needs to use the harsh chemical fertilizers, harsh insect and fungi chemicals. There are instructions and examples to follow in nearly every community. Alternate organic materials are now within nearly everyone's reach.

When pressed by the truths responses like the most recent words of wisdom from one who lives, eats and was educated in and by the chemical philosophy are quite typical. Unfortunately they are usually words designed to create doubt and stress where those are gathered to learn and discuss plain and simple organic principles. Pennsylvania is still one of the leading states in the use and development of organic principles. Even Penn State University is begining to see the light while remaining mostly a chemical company supported receiver of many grants to prove the worth of the chemicals. The controll has been and will remain where the money is.....and that is undeniably in the hands of the chemical manufacturers. Yet as any observer can see the organic principles are now supported by strong organic material distributors. You might say the worm has turned but never has been known to move very fast. It must be painful to some to have to recognize the truths while trying to hang onto the chemical profits of the days gone by.

Little things are interesting. The folks at Lowe's told me that Mirical Grow's Organic Potting Soil is in only two years the number one potting soil sold today. That is from a firm that was totally chemically orientated until recently. I also see other organic products increasing by type and amount on the sales shelves. Change will be one garden or farm at a time. Our area now has half a dozen proven and certified organic farms. There are another dozen or so using the organic principles but for one reason or another are not certified. The main reason is that it takes time and money to be certified in addition to developing the soil to the point it can be certified.

"Those of you who are container gardeners will find that organic is even more inefficient, since container media usually lacks the necessary microbial elements necessary to break down organics."

That's why God made compost, which you add to the soil in a pot. For that matter, you can just use ordinary soil from your own yard to add microbes. I have regularly grown tomatoes and eggplants in pots with nothing but organic amendments and have harvested plenty.

I would also disagree that floodwater contaminated with manure demonstrates that organic fertilizer is problematic. That is from confined feeding operations, where thousands of cattle or swine are kept in very tiny areas and manure is washed into giant lagoons where it cannot decompose in a normal way. If this is mixed into a flooded river, yes, there are going to be problems. To say that this is representative of organics is nothing but just plain misrepresentation.

To say that plants just need nitrogen is like saying people just need vitamins and fats and carbs. It reminds me of old sf movies where the astronauts would open a packet and pop a food cube into their mouth. THAT is what synthetic ferts are to plants.

Synthetic ferts are simply too expensive in all the ways it is possible to be--not only per bag, but in runoff, and in the costs of manufacture--ALL the costs.

This message was edited Mar 3, 2009 7:11 AM

I wonder if anyone really went THROUGH the link I posted on March 1st from the Rodale farms? If so, what are your thoughts?

This begins to deal with larger operations out there. They found that there were great difficulties in incorporating more green crop organics into the soil in a more sustainable way. First there was the difficulty of sowing the crop in late summer or fall. I don't suppose there are going to be fields just setting there empty at the price of maybe $200 per acre per year to lease.

Then in the spring they had to wait abnormally late to knock down and kill the green crop and often the crop did not want to die and perhaps was sprayed to kill it ...if I am reading right. Half the time the new crop had to be replanted because of a poor stand. Now the harvest will be late and now how will they sow another green crop for the next season?

I may sound pessimistic but reality beckons...concerning bigger farming. Sure we home gardeners can manipulate things fairly well, but if that is as far as it goes, there is a lot lacking. Yes, gardening can often be like pilot projects. Still.......what now?

Indy, I read the report and hope to find more results from their research. that experiment (undertaken in 2005) was strictly about a No-Till Plus program and it was also not only trialing a new machine (a roller-crimper) but learning/teaching the operators the best use of it.

Considering that drought was a major factor in the majority of the test regions and that there was a learning curve for the operators they point out that more research needs to continue. I hope we can find a more recent follow-up, especially since some of those test plots hadn't even harvested their crops at the time of the article to give a truer report.

And by the way, I don't think you sound pessimistic at all! You have your "antennae" out there gaining info and showing an interest. That's a plus!

Thanks docgipe for your input, you hit the nail on the head, or should I say quite a few nails on the heads.

Shoe, now back to hands on growing activities. (Love getting started and moving into the new growing season!)

Thanks Shoe for your reply.
I think that some of the drought problems relate to such late planting. ........because of trying to incorporate cover crops ...and if that doesn't work, where will the help come from for big time farming to cut back on chemical fertilizer?

When I look out my back window, I first see my gardens, but right behind that I see the farm fields out there and wonder just how all these garden practices could be utilized in any meaningful way. Right now I don't see much beyond some no-till and possibly a lttle less fertilizer used because of input costs and gps technology.

Have a good day Shoe.

Thanks, Indy. Very quickly, incorporating cover crops does work and has worked for generations. All farming, organic or otherwise, all techniques, tools, etc, are at the mercy of the weather, be it drought or floods, and no-till/roller crimper is right in there w/the rest.

"Right now I don't see much beyond some no-till and possibly a lttle less fertilizer used because of input costs..."

I think those things (no-till, less ferts) are more of a plus than we realize. It is much more than merely keeping a farmer from using excessive fuel and dollars (by plowing, disking, harrowing, going over the same field many more times than no-till requires) and fertilizer expense. By not having to break up the soil via plowing it allows the soil life to continue uninterrupted, contributing not only a food source for plants but also keeping good soil tilth which, in turn, allows better water absorption and drainage, and increased oxygen content. The decaying plant matter (cover crop/green manure crop) also adds more food to the soil (and the existing bacteria) in various forms ranging from N (from legumes) to calcium, magnesium and potassium (in the case of Alfalfa), for example. And remember, some green manure crops do double duty for us, giving us a usable harvest (beans for example) for humans and grains (for both humans and animal feed).

Okay, this time I'm really heading back out. 'Tis up to a balmy 33º, the sun is calling my name, and so is the work in the greenhouse. Back later! (And forgive me for not going back and proof-reading my typing.)

Happy Gardening to all!
Shoe

In the UK, organic non-animal/non-synthetic farming is a type of certification, like being certified organic. They use green manure only, and the land in use is rotated through different manure crops. This involves no pasturing or any animal inputs and a enormous minimizing of any outside inputs at all. So yes, it is possible, definitely. They are way ahead of us in this area.

But all of this requires a completely different way of thinking about food and about agriculture. It's not just about how much food is produced how cheaply, but how nutritious that food is, how much energy is involved in not only producing it but moving it to where it's consumed, and so forth. If you think of it only in terms of mechanized monoculture using synthetic ferts, then of course you are going to see a bleak future. But we have to change the way we farm, because those synthetic ferts and the fuel to drive those tractors and combines and then move that non-nutritious food to the market and the pay for the health problems that result from eating non-nutritious food are going to rise and rise in price, and that cheap non-nutritious food is not going to be cheap anymore into the bargain.

I had previously read the info about using the rolling mower and green manure. There are many different types of green manure. One study does not mean much in the scheme of things. There's tons of info out there on using green manures. Not only is not just for gardening--it is primarily NOT for gardening but for farming.

One of the biggest balls of baloney is constantly advertising by the major chemical production companies supported by a host of universities and distributor moneys. Little by little gains are being made using the organic principles. In time the soil improves and produces more and better crops. It is indeed possible that some soils are so far wasted that backing out of the situation may require years of rebuilding. We hope of course that we have not created a steril soil that can not rebound biologically. The soil has one advantage over those already identified dead sea recorded areas and that is it leaches out the poison so called fertilizers. This poison is what goes down stream never changing by biodegrading therefore dead is dead in so far as the spots in the oceans that are known to be dead. Dead is a very powerful word and in so far as I know a final condition not evolved but rather dumpped upon by mis use and over use of chemicals. No bottled solution is available to change what has transpired nor is there any known way to reverse the killed zones......anywhere not just in the ocean ponds of silence.

When our great farmlands were first plowed they had very high organic contents. This has been reduced to very low and dangerous percentages in the last seventy five years or so. The only way to rebuild those soils and return to wholesome produce taken from the soils is to patiently using biological proven methods of organic principle slowly bring them back into real sustainable soils. We can only hope that these profit making and soil ruining techniques have not gone beyond the point of return. Starvation is not the issue in the least. Ripping off the land and moving on to better lands to do the same thing to has been the practice. There really is no really good land to continue these practices on in this country. The produce has been proven to be less valuable in real food value over the years of chemical production from sea to shining sea. There is hope as many relatively smaller farms have proven. We of course hope the larger farms will turn the corner. If they do not there will be starvation but not because of less production on good soils.

You folks with the surburban lots can really build the soil up to the point you can feed many mouths better quality produce. Keep up the good work and stick to your guns. You can literally make a monkey out of the larger farms by growing more and better food per square foot than they can.

That is sure what I am working on, docgipe. I have been gardening for years but mostly focused on flowers. I always grew some food, but just extras I couldn't get at the store. In the past few years, though, I have begun to focus on food plants instead, with the aim of providing as much of my own food as I possibly can. It's a real learning experience, and I am glad I can do it now, while we still have plenty.

paracelsus, I just re-read some of the above posts and wanted to ask you if the UK has a term they use for the system they work with ("organic non-animal/non-synthetic farming). That sounds like something I'd like to read more about. It must involved much more than just cover crops.

Thanks,
Shoe

The idea of our food supply on chemicals always likens me to what happens to our youth on chemicals. They are alive but...

BTW I just pulled up some bigoldcarrots and they were just as sweet as could be, not woody at all. I attribute that to the organic matter I worked and worked and worked into my dirt to transform it into enlivened soil. Great reward for me.

Over the years I have arrived at a neat way to figure your production's value on a per pound basis. It does not matter if you eat it fresh, can or freeze it. Going up and down the grocery iles frozen food departments I figure an average four serving bag of any frozen non-meat or non fish food costs me $2.00. Therefore I can simply count the bags going onto the table or into the freezer as two dollars worth. This does not figure the better quality factor. That is just your bonus lest we get all bogged down nit picking. Surely four nice servings of anything out of your garden is worth two bucks. Now just count your four person meals or the bags going into the freezer and end up with a seasons value estimate real easy.

On one thousand square feet the last two years I grew an average 750 lb. giant pumpkin. Around the edges of that patch there were many tomatoes, peppers, asparagus, onions and herbs. I figured the food value estimate at $2000.00. This does not account for free standing fruit shrubs or trees. We gave away bushels of pears, some apples while consuming all of the berries. I figured honest bushels at 60 pounds. Ten bushels went to the soup kitchen. This plus what we ate or froze you may safely conservatively chaulk up another $1500.00. Here on this surburban lot we say we raised over $3500.00 worth of food... better food... than we could have bought from the big box grocers. The above is fairly typical of what we grew over the past twenty years in this patch. Crunch those numbers for a rough total of what we had because we grew.

The only problem I now have is getting older and the lack of ability to make my hands fit a hoe handle any longer. We now have that great garden in grass. Our future garden will be a three foot band of soil worked around the edge of our pattio where I can tinker with much less effort.
......If you figure the memories are worth a million bucks you may figure the returns have been huge. We could if push comes to shove in this crazy world economy....open it back up and count those numbers as long as we could have family help to make it happen.

My internet access has been down and remains shaky now. I have missed a lot.

Karen

Hi, Shoe,

They call it stockfree-organic. I got a book about it called "Growing Green: Animal-Free Organic Techniques" by Jenny Hall and Iain Tolhurst. It's a pretty technical book, dry, but it describes everything they do and all the variations possible. True, it is describing stuff in the UK, but a lot can be applied here in a continental climate. Actually, some of it is being used here--the idea of keeping only 1/3 of the land in production and using the other 2/3s for green manures and then rotating. I wish I had the land to do this, because it would completely simplify everything. I barely have enough room to garden as it is.

Harry

Thanks, Harry. {All these years on DG and (1) I never caught your real name and (2) always wondered why you chose your DG moniker!}

I just found the book on Amazon. For any others interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Green-Animal-Free-Organic-Techniques/dp/1933392495/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236259103&sr=1-1

I remember some years back Dick Raymond (of TroyBilt fame) and his book, The Joy of Gardening, told of his perpetual "Eternal Yield" garden using only garden crops and annual rye grass as his green manure. This is something very similar to stock-free and it can be utilized in the backyard garden with good results. With Dick Raymond's plan there is not so much "down time" (fallow) in sections of the garden because of using edible green manure crops to contribute N and tilth to the soil. This might be something ya'll might be interested in checking out.

Indy-v, I think we've gotten away from your original question and hope we are not getting too off-topic. It's all interesting though, ain't it!?

Shoe

Nah, alternatives to synthetic fertilizer is still on topic.

Vegan gardening and farming - who knew!

Hey, Shoe--I don't think I ever used my real name until recently. I figured what the heck.:) Paracelsus is a hero of mine. I'm into alchemy.

That is neat about the TroyBilt founder. I am a tiller user. My neighbor uses annual rye with good success in his plot.

Harry

Any cover crop including weeds is fine. The whole idea is to keep roots in the ground so you can return plants to the soil. Annual Rye is excellent in the Northeast. The goal is to exceed five percent organic content in the soil. Very good starts at about that point. After thirty five years of working at it my organic content is over fifteen percent. I gave up gardening in the larger sense. I just can not dig tatters that grow as big as basketballs anymore. My hands do not fit a hoe handle very well anymore either. The grass I just planted should turn into frog grass real quick this spring..........knee deep knee deep. LOL

Frog grass, lol! That is great. I am afraid I sometimes have that and I do not have any excuses other than laziness.

Harry, I had to go read up on Theophrastus Bonbastus von Hohenheim! (Isn't that a great name?). It sound like he was quite a character as well as a great physician/alchemist. What an interesting guy to read more about.

Oh, by the way, I don't think Dick Raymond was the Troybilt founder, he was just associated w/them and most likely, being the good gardener that he was, was chosen to promote and show different ways/techniques of gardening using a tiller, something that was fairly new in those early days.

Doc, for the rest of my life I'll think of "frog grass" (and you) whenever I see tall grass! *grin It's the perfect name for it!

Shoe

My gardens are grown without chemical fertilizers and without manure. I mulch heavily with partially decomposed grass clippings. The mulch is 6-12 inches deep throughout the garden. I spray a sea water solution for trace elements. I garden year round, I don't have room for down time in the garden, so I use the mulch to add organic matter instead of a cover crop. My neighbors grow cover crops, but they have more acreage to work with. They grow a type of radish to improve the soil and to keep nematodes under control.

Calalily, long time since we have been on same thread. I live in the country foothills of the Cascades, and garden on 2 1/2 acres, No till, no chemical fert. I do use some organic fert and all the compost I can make. The Electric service people dumped three dump trucks of large chipped tree trimmings here at edge of my yard a couple of years ago. I have used one truck load so far.

I have very little lawn area and all the grass is mulched to go back on to the lawn and I don't do other fertilizing for the lawn. I have a fairly large veggie garden area, supplies all the veggies I need for my Vegan diet and quite a lot more that I take to Senior Center for those who don't have gardens.

Donna

another little tidbit about Miracle Gro--the company is absolute Nazi's telling their employee's what they can do and not do when they are not at work. For instance if they are ever caught drinking, smoking, or anything else they don't approve of (and their list is long) they will cancel their health insurance. Second offense and they fire them.

And this coming from a company that thinks nothing of poisoning the planet--such hypocrites

so there are valid ecological as well as political reasons to avoid them, in my opinion
Debbie

Debbie, I haven't bought anything that Miracle Gro/Scotts makes for a long time for that exact reason.
Donna, long time no see! I wish the tree trimmers here would let people have their chippings. I'd love a big pile of them.

next they will probably want RFID chips implanted in their employees--or threaten not to pay them if they refuse

I get the impression that many posters in this thread are basing their knowledge and opinion on emotion instead of fact. I try to use as little "manmade" materials as I can but the fact remains that nitrite is nitrite, weather it's made by man or flown in from the moon. There is nothing "natural" about the vegatables we raise today, they were designed to produce as much product as possible, way more than they would in nature.

Using a little fertlizer and minerals is tantamount to burning the rainforest according to some of the posters here!

the scientific knowledge is well known--if we are emotional, perhaps its because we really do see and understand what's going on--and don't "just go along to get along"
Debbie

I don't consider myself an extremist though some might as I don't drink, smoke, cuss. run around, and I recycle and try to buy as little as possible. I have a niece by marriage who would hardly eat anything with a face on it or from anything with a face on it. she finally ate some macaroni and cheese...quite a step towards more sanity in my opinion.
i wonder if it would be ok for a baby to drink its mother's milk? lol
So my extreme might be castigated and visa versa.
Anyway I use some fertilizer from "chemical" sources. also I got 2 kinds of all organic fertilizer and one ¾ organic. ....and I don't go along to get along either.

Hi,

Well, this is quite an interesting thread, especially for someone, like myself, who is working toward organic certification on my little piece of heaven. And, right smack dab in the middle of farmers who only know how to farm using chemicals, but I must say they are coming around. After all sustainability is what their ancestors practiced, so it must of worked, cause they did inherit the land they work today.

I have found local farmers to be very much aware of sustainable practices. Also, they are more inclined, these days to discuss social responsibility. At the end of the day, farmers just want to work in the dirt and make a decent living doing so.

Going organic does not mean scrawny veg's or stunted flowers, if that is what you got, then best take a look at what your doing, read up, make some changes and try again.

I am not against anyone using chemicals. I would however, suggest having an open mind, do a little homework, and then go with whatever you choose.

The only absolute in life is there are no absolutes, change is inevitable. So you can get out in front, or wait til it comes to you, or pretend it isn't happening, whatever floats your boat. In my opinion the principles of growing organic, being socially responsible, recycling, etc. is no longer some pie in the sky dream of a bunch laid back hippie guys and gals, it is now a serious movement, with lots of big guns behind it, and I feel it has too much momentum to be stifled by naysayers.

If you want more information, then check out these sites:

http://www.georgiaorganics.org - Michael Pollan will keynote GO's 12th annual Conference and Trade Show to be held on March 20-21 at Agnes Scott College in Decatur. Lots of info on this site, and links to other sites with good info.

Prefer to get your info from tv, while you eat your 'organic popcorn', slathered in 'real butter' from a free grazing cow, no antibiotics, feed nice wholesome grass with no chemicals, etc. :) ...just joking :) then tune into Discovery's new (June 2008) network dedicated to green living, Planet Green, its on cable. Great stuff, really cool stuff. Or check out their website: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/about.html or their other website: http://www.treehugger.com/

Now, for the government side of it, go here and poke around: http://tiny.cc/zxPMB

USDA: The National Organic Program (NOP) develops, implements, and administers national production, handling, and labeling standards for organic agricultural products. The NOP also accredits the certifying agents (foreign and domestic) who inspect organic production and handling operations to certify that they meet USDA standards.

I believe someone mentioned Rodale, go here if you want to read about where Rodale stands on the principles of organics: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/home

And last of all, go to the library, any question you might have is probably answered here: The USDA National Agriculture Library: Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - http://tiny.cc/6r8PU

Keep in mind, I am not out to change anyone's opinion, I have learned as with most things, it is better to lead and show by example: I have seen more converts from a person actually tasting a just picked organically grown tomato or seeing a field full of gorgeous organically grown flowers, than any argument I could mount 'for' organics.

Also, I am new here, so please don't skewer me for a spit bar-b-que if you don't like what I wrote. Just wanted to contribute a little something worthwhile (hopefully) to the discussion.

"the fact remains that nitrite is nitrite, weather it's made by man or flown in from the moon."

Actually, NO. That's the whole point. There is more to growing plants than NPK, just for starters. But why is it that whenever anyone pops in here to let us all know about how dumb we are, and how we don't know nothing about no chemistry, and it's all chemicals anyhow, and what difference does it make, we have to reinvent the wheel for them, re-educate them? If you don't believe in organic, don't post in a forum called "organic gardening." Seems simple enough to me.