Is this explanation okay? Trying to explain why organic is

[GeorgiaGirl]

better than MiracleGrow. (Specifically, the person wanted to know if MG would kill earthworms... several people had chimed in singing the virtues of MG.)

I wrote the following... are there any glaring errors here or anything I left out? I seem to remember a thread here about why not to use MG... should probably have read through that before writing all this off the top of my head:

-----------------------------------

What the others said is correct; MG will not directly harm soil or earthworms.

HOWEVER - MG is sort of like "empty calories" for your plants. It provides a quick chemical rush of the major three nutrients, which get to your plant quickly, but does absolutely nothing to build the health of your SOIL -- which is what is more important in the long term.

Why? because when you feed the soil (with organic methods -- compost, organic protein fertilizer, amendments such as coffee grounds and leaf mold), you are creating an environment where beneficial microbes and earthworms can THRIVE. There is a saying, "Don't feed the plants... feed the soil, and the soil will feed the plants."

Why are these microbes and earthworms so important? because they nourish the soil *increasingly over time* -- not as a one-time blast of artificial nutrients. They have other benefits such as helping the soil retain water better... meaning you eventually won't have to water as much. Your soil becomes rich, dark, friable, and chock full of humus. MG can't do that!

When you're actively FEEDING the earthworms with organic amendments, they reproduce much more quickly, leading to natural aeration of your soil as well as the addition of valuable worm castings (people pay good money to buy worm castings as a natural fertilizer -- why not create your own endless supply that is directly added to the soil for you!).

With the MiracleGrow synthetic approach, you have to CONTINUOUSLY apply it... many times throughout the growing season, for eternity (or as long as you want plants to grow). Organic fertilizers and amendments release the nutrients slowly over time, so they constantly feed your plants (and the soil) for you.

Many people who use MG religiously have an "N-P-K" mentality. In reality, there are many more micronutrients that are important to a plant's growth. Using an organic approach provides so many micronutrients that will benefit your soil, some of which probably haven't even been discovered yet, not just the "big three."

Finally, the burst of chemical nutrients can sometimes cause plants to grow too quickly -- which looks awfully impressive, but the problem is they can become leggy or heavy on leaves rather than blooms or more susceptible to pests (hence the need for those poisonous pesticides which WILL kill earthworms, beneficial microbes, butterflies, etc.). A good organic program will provide balanced nutrition and much healthier plants over time.

[cynthia_h]

I'm sorry that I don't have the time to read your no-doubt excellent message in full this evening. He**acious week.

My usual analogy for people who are wedded to chemical fertilizers is to ask them if they get all their own nutrients from vitamin pills, or if they eat food.

Of course, most people retort that they eat FOOD, thank you!

And we feed our plants real, nourishing food, not just vitamin pills.

Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9

[rainbowgardener]

Very nice explanation. Artificial fertilizers break down the "tilth" (structure) of the soil so it doesn't hold water or nutrients as well. The excess nitrogen in all those high nitrogen fertilizers runs off into the water table, where it leads to eutrophication of lakes and rivers (cutting the life of the lake off from oxygen so it dies, after a smothering overgrowth of algae).

ETC!! Probably more effects that we don't even know yet.

[stella1751]

I enjoyed reading this, GeorgiaGirl. Thank you for sharing!

[GeorgiaGirl]

Ooh, good analogy, Cynthia, and great point about the environmental impact, rainbow. Looks like I can't edit my reply now because the asker chose mine as the best reply (the other three replies all said, "Nahh, MG won't hurt anything, it's great, I've been using it for years and years" type stuff).

Stella, I wish I had included a link to your very moving post here about why you refuse to use chemicals. I've gone back to reread that several times since you posted it.

[stella1751]

Stella, I wish I had included a link to your very moving post here about why you refuse to use chemicals. I've gone back to reread that several times since you posted it.

As I will re-read yours! You make a compelling, pragmatic argument against the use of Miracle Gro; mine was much more emotional. Good job!

[The Helpful Gardener]

GG, you have condensed a very broad topic as nicely as I have ever seen it done. Nice job. I have a few hundred things to add, but I always talk too much. A few points to ponder or expand...

MG won't kill the earthworm, just a lot of the biology that it eats (they "eat" soil to digest the microflora and fauna there). So the soil gets starved so the worms move out. They don't die, they leave (if they can).

Micronutrients have pretty much been discovered, but your point is not invalid; many of these were discovered in relation to plants in the past fifty years. Still, claiming organics will find new ones might be pushing it; we have a high enough bar to hurdle with these folks, so I find it best to soft peddle a little...

All in all a well thought out and presented synopsis; glad to have you aboard. We think alike...

HG

[Decado]

Other than the whole leaking to the water table thing, what's wrong with using synthetic fertilizers on top of creating a really good soil culture? Granted you don't have too much nitrogen and your plants don't become green heavy. Also, what are the implications of slow release granular fertilizers? Do they release slowly enough that the plant gets all the nutrients before the nitrogen leaks into the water table?

[The Helpful Gardener]

Dec you are still using salts, which build up in soil. In smaller doses it will not leach as much, or kill quite as much soil biology, but it is still degrading rather than building soil. Hard stop.

There IS no "Other than the whole leaking to the water table thing". That IS the thing here. My local paper ran a story today about how the hypoxic environment on the scallop beds in Niantic Bay was flushed by the very high tide the other day, and the beds are back open (after having been closed most of the season). I have scalloped these beds back in the day and say without reservation Niantic Bay scallops are the finest I have ever had; small and sweet and decades back, plentiful. But not so anymore, as these "criteria exceedances" which the newspaper characterized as "naturally occurring" ( ) kill off many formerly productive areas. The article also said this current event was called in by "concerned neighbors"; the same concerned neighbors that mow right to the water, use bags of water soluble fertilizers and pesticides, and decry Army Corp oversight (many fought having to go on sewer lines years back). INtertidal areas like this one are suscetible to both the nitrogen blooms of marine water and the phosphorus blooms of the fresh water systems. THIS is the other side of this issue; fertilizers DO end up where they shouldn't be and do a lot of damage and you can't stop them, so I don't use them and hope you all won't either...


HG

[kimbledawn]

There are so many things that could be said about chemicals and fertilizers. I was watching a documentary about someplace in asia that had used so many chemicals when growing their food that they literally killed all the bees. There are no more. So every season the people of this town take little paint brushes and they have to polinate their pear trees by hand. Hundreds and hundreds of flowers by hand because they added something to the environment that didn't belong there.

Synthetic fertilizers do NOT belong they are not naturally occuring and I am sure there are so many people here who could tell you the science behind the soil and all of the ways the different components work together. But the facts are that everything, all things, even our own bodies work a certain way and if you put something wrong in it or damage it and ,keep damaging it, it eventually dies.

Why would you add something to the environment that hurts you or your children? True they may not die right then from drinking the water but if you put just a little poison in their water they wouldn't die either. But think of everyday....Everyday drinking just a little bit of something bad and let's try and figure out how long it takes before they get sick, or get cancer, or get tumors or growths, or don't learn as well.

I know I'm babbling but how about everyday of hurting the soil, so much that it wont produce anymore( the dust bowl) or everyday of poisoning the bugs so much so that we have no food unless we one by one polinate each plant(?)each flower.

I don't know...maybe I'm just too serious about the water table.

[stella1751]

Kimbledawn, you can never be too serious about the water table or the possible consequences attendant upon upsetting the balance of nature. I use chemicals . . . when I have to. When I bred horses, I dewormed them every six weeks. I had to if I wanted to sustain their health. Today I will paint 2-4D on some dandelions I let run amuck. I have to if I want to prevent their further spread. (Too many to pull )

My biggest problem lies with the unnecessary use of chemicals. Organic gardeners clearly demonstrate that their produce is consistently bigger and better and higher yielding and tastier than that produced by the synthetic gardeners. Yes. It's more work, as if gardening could be called work, than grabbing a box off a store shelf. However, we are out-producing the synthetics while we are being responsible guardians of the environment.

Like you suggested, what might be the long-term consequences of chemical use? How many young men and young women today will suffer horrible deaths, some 40 years down the road, while the government mutters under its breath, in a secure room in some safe haven, "Whoops. My bad. Sure should have demanded more testing on THAT one. Oh well."

[top_dollar_bread]

Ther are organic slow releasing ferts and chemical/synthetic. I'm guessing your asking about chemical/synthetic when concerning about ground water contamination.
[url]https://www.grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_food_turf_slowrelease/[/url]

Slow releasing chemical fertilizers minimize the risk of leaks to the ground water, but there is always a greater risk of leaks when not using organics. HP pointed out degrading soil.
Most organic nutrients are consumed & held in soil microorganisms body’s (fungi, bacteria, some nematodes, etc), only to be released when consumed by others higher in the food chain (protozoa, nematodes, arthropods, worms, etc) this natural process helps from over fertilizing and polluting ground water.

Most slow releasing chemical/synthetic fertilizers are N based, which is kind of ridicules when Seventy-five percent of the atmosphere is Nitrogen gas. Nitrogen that is naturaly fixed mostly by N fixing bacteria, and some fungi. Both N fixing bacteria and fungi that are known to work together with our plants (rhizosphere). Plants who then also hold N, only to be retuned to the soil when they die and decompose.
(It is believed that as much as 20% of plants photosynthetic production (carbon sugars) are released through ther roots, feeding soil micro organisms)
[url]https://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach_pgs/a_08_nitro_cycle.html[/url]
From my understanding, chemical ferts release certain nutrients that are chemically altered or processed to a form plants can take up, in result you can easily over fertilize your plant and increase the chances of ground water contamination. Also most chemical/synthetic ferts, altering and processing methods pollute and leave toxins behind.

Nitrogen mostly used by plants is in the form of Ammonium and nitrate. Nitrate being the easiest to affect ground water. (Guess which form chemical/synthetic are mostly made up of)

With organics, the soil microorganisms chemically change the forms of certain nutrients by consuming it for themselves then getting eaten by another organism, at the same time releasing available nutrients to the plants in a natural cycle of eat and be eaten.
This natural form that soil cycles nutrients is based on the diversity of microorganism living in the soil. Witch chemical/synthetic ferts is to believe to have a long term negative affect on.
Soil microbes need to consume nutrients too and organics provides this. Chemicals are mostly made in forms just for the plants, leaving lots of soil organisms hungry. So the microbes leave and the soil structure weekends, your then left with compacted soil. So then you Till, turn and dig, causing more microbes to leave and increasing the chances of polluting ground water when the time comes again to fertilize your crops. Pest and disease become a bigger problem, now that they have no competition with the beneficial insects or microbes & due to the fact the soil can now be even more easily over fertilized. So many then use chemical toxic based pesticides, who in return leave toxic residues, kill beneficial insects, & even people.

It is a fact that beneficial fungi, bacteria, & nematodes protect plants form diseases by out-compete pathogens, consuming some pest and occupy potential sites of infection on the plant.
They also bring structure to the soil, building humus and aggregates (clumps of soil) that help hold water and buffers ph (humus). Organic gardeners like my self use IPM methods to prevent insect & disease infestations. Integrated pest management (IPM) uses a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and controls. Were prevention, knowledge of the pest, and early detection of possible infection /infestation is key.

https://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm

Organic gardeners also use natural steady ways to enrich ther soil,(green crops, manure, compost, plant and rock amendments) & if we need a quick fix tea’s are often used.

Kimbledawn
Mentionded the lost of bee’s(beneficial insects), this is believed to be caused by toxic pesticides used by commercial crops, among others. The great Albert Einstein is to have said that
â€

[kimbledawn]

I can't say that I have never used chemicals, I have with a vengence, and Its so easy when I am having a problem with a pest. That's why I love this site because you have given me so many alternative and answers to issues I didn't know there were answers to.
I have been reading and researching for next season and I came across this film on youtube. It even talks about livestock although I don't know how reliable it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQn6GSHNzBE
I love learning new things You guys rock!!!

[Decado]

Kimbledawn, you can never be too serious about the water table or the possible consequences attendant upon upsetting the balance of nature. I use chemicals . . . when I have to. When I bred horses, I dewormed them every six weeks. I had to if I wanted to sustain their health. Today I will paint 2-4D on some dandelions I let run amuck. I have to if I want to prevent their further spread. (Too many to pull )

My biggest problem lies with the unnecessary use of chemicals. Organic gardeners clearly demonstrate that their produce is consistently bigger and better and higher yielding and tastier than that produced by the synthetic gardeners. Yes. It's more work, as if gardening could be called work, than grabbing a box off a store shelf. However, we are out-producing the synthetics while we are being responsible guardians of the environment.

Like you suggested, what might be the long-term consequences of chemical use? How many young men and young women today will suffer horrible deaths, some 40 years down the road, while the government mutters under its breath, in a secure room in some safe haven, "Whoops. My bad. Sure should have demanded more testing on THAT one. Oh well."

How can organic gardeners possibly get bigger, better tasting, and higher yielding plants without synthetic fertilizers? What do you have to do to your soil to accomplish such things? Even after adding a couple yards of manure to my garden and using synthetic fertilizers my plants haven't gotten overly large (a mere 5.5 feet on my cherry and grape tomatoes, the rest smaller). I'm also realizing I need to use something with much more phosphate next year as my poblano and bell pepper plants are producing only a few peppers per plant. How do you get a really good amount of blooms organically? How do you counter problems like potassium deficiencies organically so that your veggies/fruit fully ripen? If there is a suitable answer for all these things, organic is something I can get behind. But if not, I don't see how I can get behind this. I believe it was Dr. Norman Borlaug, the man who saved a billion lives, who said that if the entire world went organic in food production we'd only be able to feed about 4 billion people. Can you decide which 2.7 billion get to die? I can't.

By the way, this wasn't just for you stella, I'd like to hear from anyone with info on this subject, it was just your statement that sparked my questions .

[top_dollar_bread]

I'm hoping some one with more knowledge will jump in, but this is what I got

How can organic gardeners possibly get bigger, better tasting, and higher yielding plants without synthetic fertilizers?

what you need to ask is what makes synthetic fertilizers so special?
every essential nutrient chemical ferts have to offer are all capable of being provided by organic natural ways. Its the chemicals who actually copied natures organic ways to be what they are. (food for plants)
Chemical/synthetic ferts are fast acting and that is why I think people us them. organic tea's can give that same fast reaction. Also certain dry amendments like blood meal, manure, guano etc will have essential nutrients that are water soluble for a quick consumption by plants. Foliar feeding is also another alternative for fast remedies.

What do you have to do to your soil to accomplish such things?

build a diverse soil boilogy. Bigger crops and higher yields are gained from experience and practice.
Organics isnt a miracle cure!

chemicals deplete soil, leaving crops more capable of disease and infestation, which then minimizes yields. Plants are smaller/weaker because there trying to survive, instead of growing peacefully with nature. Most novice chemical gardeners tend to worry about pest, disease, over feeding, instead of learning on how to get bigger yields.

Even after adding a couple yards of manure to my garden and using synthetic fertilizers my plants haven't gotten overly large (a mere 5.5 feet on my cherry and grape tomatoes, the rest smaller).

when you added chemical ferts, you more then likely caused most of the soil microbes in the compost to seek a more suitable environment. Organics don't have any miracle qualities and by just adding manure your only taking one step towards a healthy soil, when added the synthetic fertilizer you took two steps back.

I'm also realizing I need to use something with much more phosphate next year as my poblano and bell pepper plants are producing only a few peppers per plant. How do you get a really good amount of blooms organically?

bone meal, guano's, and plenty of plants like buckwheat, yarrow, alfalfa can provide your crops blooming essential requirements. Liquid organic fertilizers are on the shelves of garden stores. Look for organic nutrients high in phosphorus, the middle number in nutrient analysis (NPK)

How do you counter problems like potassium deficiencies organically so that your veggies/fruit fully ripen?

Again alfalfa meal, kelp meal, some guano's and other plants will organically prevent deficiencies of K. Look for organic supplements or liquid ferts high in K, the last number in the nutrient analysis.

If there is a suitable answer for all these things, organic is something I can get behind. But if not, I don't see how I can get behind this.

Why not try and read up on some of links many of the organic gardeners have provided. Also gain some knowledge on what your plants need, if its major nutrients(macro) like Nitrogen, Potassium, phosphorus, Calcium, Sulfur, Silica, Magnesium then that is what you need apply, also if they need other micro (trace or secondary)nutrients like iron, cobalt, chromium, copper, iodine, manganese, selenium, zinc and molybdenum then apply nutrients that supply those.

I believe it was Dr. Norman Borlaug, the man who saved a billion lives, who said that if the entire world went organic in food production we'd only be able to feed about 4 billion people. Can you decide which 2.7 billion get to die? I can't.

its nice that he saved lives but were is his scientific data to back this up..If your mother or father who gave you life, told you that you will die tomorrow, would you believe him or her??

also tell me how was it that early human beings were able to get were we are now, when the chemical era of fertilizing wasnt around yet?? Lots of great empires and civilizations didnt have the poisons we do now, to feed plants or kill off pest.

Dr. norman's argument I believe is about how organic crops use more land then chemical crops. I don't find this to be a fair argument, America in general has chemically polluted land (suburban and dairy). So if a organic farm is to be certified organic, they have to surround there farm/land with protected no grown zone because the chemicals in the surrounding landscape can affect crops from passing certification. The no grow zone protects/prevents contaminations from the surrounding pollution and only then the interior safe zone can be certified organic.
If harvesting crops is the issue of demand. I know about 2.7 billion mexican brother and sisters who are looking for work and will be willing to hand pick crops for a very little pay. This is actually how most of our crops, in my neck of woods are harvested. Yet I still see a endless amount of latin americans standing on the corners looking for work.

Also have you ever herd of sustainable agriculture ski scrapers??
[url]https://weburbanist.com/2008/03/30/5-urban-design-proposals-for-3d-city-farms-sustainable-ecological-and-agricultural-skyscrapers/[/url]
I believe this is the future when human population continue to grow. And these can all be grown with organic methods.

Chemical synthetic ferts are based on a market that never needed to exist. In return people are corrupted on the dependency of this nonsense.

[Decado]

ts nice that he saved lives but were is his scientific data to back this up..If your mother or father who gave you life, told you that you will die tomorrow, would you believe him or her??

also tell me how was it that early human beings were able to get were we are now, when the chemical era of fertilizing wasnt around yet?? Lots of great empires and civilizations didnt have the poisons we do now, to feed plants or kill off pest.

Dr. norman's argument I believe is about how organic crops use more land then chemical crops. I don't find this to be a fair argument, America in general has chemically polluted land (suburban and dairy). So if a organic farm is to be certified organic, they have to surround there farm/land with protected no grown zone because the chemicals in the surrounding landscape can affect crops from passing certification. The no grow zone protects/prevents contaminations from the surrounding pollution and only then the interior safe zone can be certified organic.
If harvesting crops is the issue of demand. I know about 2.7 billion mexican brother and sisters who are looking for work and will be willing to hand pick crops for a very little pay. This is actually how most of our crops, in my neck of woods are harvested. Yet I still see a endless amount of latin americans standing on the corners looking for work.

I'm sure that the man who influenced the worlds crops enough to save a billion people probably knows a thing or two about agriculture of the world, I'm not saying he's spot on or anything, just trying to illustrate how hard it can be to get high yielding crops by being organic.

As for the era before chemical fertilizers existed, very many people died in the winter because they couldn't grow enough food to last them all winter. So yes, I do believe chemical fertilizers have had a massive effect on how we live today. Also, I won't use pesticides or fungicides on my garden, I'm just talking about fertilizers here.

FYI, there's not even remotely 2.7 billion mexicans, there's only 111 million in Mexico, plus the lesser amount in the US.

[top_dollar_bread]

I'm sure that the man who influenced the worlds crops enough to save a billion people probably knows a thing or two about agriculture of the world, I'm not saying he's spot on or anything, just trying to illustrate how hard it can be to get high yielding crops by being organic.

Imo your post of what dr norman said, did not illustrate any difficulty of organics producing high yeilding crops. He just made a statement based on what he thought.
Yea your right, maybe it wasent spot on but to me the more we continue to revolve around chemicals, the less we evolve in organic gardening. There is so much more we can learn and I'm sure thers some agriculture breakthroughs waiting to be discovered, if we just open the door to the science of sustainable agriculter.
It seems to me that we have to fight really hard just to bring up a simple idea like composting, tea brewing, permaculter, alternative energy etc etc. And still get flamed when science backs them up or when the few who pratice them prove they work. While the chemical billion dallar companies just kick back and rely on propaganda and deceiving methods of growing healthy crops.

As for the era before chemical fertilizers existed, very many people died in the winter because they couldn't grow enough food to last them all winter. So yes, I do believe chemical fertilizers have had a massive effect on how we live today.

And I'm pretty sure ther are still many people dieing of hunger.(lets not go ther) and I don't believe chemicals were the main result of some people not going hungry. Ther are many other things that have had huge impacts on feeding us, that you need to consider. Think of agronomy, new forms of irrigation, the knowledge of using crops suitable for certain terain, breeding plants to be stronger,yeild higher, resitance to certain deseases, the expanasion of land for raising crops, refigerators, caned food etc, etc.
I was told that in 2007, about one third of the world's workers were employed in agriculture.
some of the food we eat, arnt even grown in our country. its the many countrys who have come together to feed each other is what I believe has had a huge effects on some people going hungry. If califronia alone stoped supply foreign countryes with food, many smaller countrys will starve.
Organic methods is just that, working together not only as people but as creatures of this earth.We need to understand that ther are a whole lot of other physical aspect that play a huge role on how things are cycled.

IMO Chemical and synthetic fertilizer have had a massive affect on depleting nature and human health. much more then feeding people.

Also, I won't use pesticides or fungicides on my garden, I'm just talking about fertilizers here.

Ther are organic natural ways you can deal with pest. A spray made up of strong scented herbs is considered a insecticide. Milk, baking soda, cinnamon and corn meal are natural fungicides. If your garden doesn't need the use of any pesticide then you must really have a great garden.

FYI, there's not even remotely 2.7 billion mexicans, there's only 111 million in Mexico, plus the lesser amount in the US.

I know the comment was ridiculous but my point was ther are many minorities who are willing to work and I may be wrong but I think America is mostly made up of minorities. We opened our doors for many Latin, Asian, Indian, African even Caucasians who made us what we are today.

I'm sorry if I'm rubbing you the wrong way, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm only trying help clarify some things. IMO if you love the way your garden performs with chems, by all means use them..I just think you should you understand the impact it has on the health of the creatures on this earth..

[The Helpful Gardener]

Decado, you are NOT growing organic, so you are NOT getting those results. Just adding cow poop does little because you are killing off the best part of it with the ferts. The only biology that DOES benefit from chems is bacterial, which are nitrogen intensive!

Any chemical fertilization retards the process of better soil. Soil is succesional; first bare rock then lichens then moss them weeds then grass, on up to climax forest, right? Every plant has a specific set of parameters it does best in, tailored to the specific chemistries of that stage of soil, decided (in organics and nature) by the biology of the soil. Acididty decides how much trace and mineral element gets etched from the minerals part of the soil, and pH is decided by the fungal to bacterial ratio of our soil. When you kill the fungus and bacteria, no more etching, so no new nutrients from the rocks; in fact we have now created a soil that will lock up nutrients, which is why chemical fertilizers use such obscene amounts of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. They HAVE to.

I made potatoes au gratin the other night with Yukon Golds and Peru Blues I harvested last week. It was the most amazing potato dish DW and I have ever eaten; she just kept saying "You didn't add suger? How is it so sweet? Despite the long cook the potatoes still held texture nicely, but still managed a creamy consistency. It was the potatoes, pure and simple. Organically grown in a late blight year, kept clean and big without a speck of chemicals.

When we don't feed with salts we get higher Brix levels in our food, a measure of sugar in the plant. It is interesting to note that at higher brix levels plants actually become less palatable to insects and disease and actually immune to either at very high levels. [url=https://nutrition.about.com/od/nutrition101/a/nutrient_dense.htm]Nutrient densities[/url] increase as well, especially in root veggies. This too is succesional, but in organics we are working within the succesional framework and can get our soil right where we want it before we interrupt the succession; in chemical fertilization you are usually starting around the spot that weeds grow best and beating it down from there. You are not building soil you are depleting it. The cow poop will help, but not much. Stop poisoning it and it will...

First couple of years can be harder; my current garden is only a few years old itself. But I see the difference in those years (the addition was nowhere as prolific as the older garden, even identical plants did differently). But stick with it and you WILL have the best, biggest, tastiest, SAFEST veggies around. Don't trust me, TRY it...

HG

[kimbledawn]

You guys said it all. You can't prove that organic doesn't work by using part organic and part chemicals. This is my first garden and I new I wanted to be organic. We started withraised beds and compost that my husband bought from someplace.... I planted my plants, watered and waited.. and nothing happened.. my plants turned a sickly grey and didn't grow for three weeks and I started doing research and I found this site and I added composted munure to my beds... and I added humus, and, bone meal and seaweed and some fish emulsion... and I saw the change, my plants turned a deep green, and one day I saw one dragonfly, then one bee, then another and now there are so many bees and dragonflies and even a toad!

When I feed my plants, or water them or spray them I don't have to worry and the toad or bees don't either because everything I spray is OK. It won't hurt them! I was treating powdery mildew on my cukes and the toad didn't move an inch from his little place under the cuke leaves. That makes me proud that I am living with the other life on this earth and we can all live and eat and prosper.

[stella1751]

This is a lovely thread, with some very clear and very persuasive arguments against chemicals and for organics. Thanks, everyone! I think this is one I will need to print off for future reference

[Decado]

This is a lovely thread, with some very clear and very persuasive arguments against chemicals and for organics. Thanks, everyone! I think this is one I will need to print off for future reference

I guess sometimes my argumentative nature can help, .

[stella1751]

Never doubt it, Decado. The best way to truly strengthen and clarify an argument is to present it in contrast to a strong opposition. Sometimes we don't know how we truly feel about an issue until we are compelled to argue our position, countering, point by point, the arguments presented by the opposition.

I teach rhetoric, and for the last essay, I assign what is known as a Rogerian Argument, where the students must convincingly argue both sides of an issue. Those are my favorite papers to read

[GeorgiaGirl]

Interesting that you bring up Dr. Borlaug, Decado. I would be cautious about taking too much of what he has said at face value because of his close affiliation with David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation, whose plans for the world population are anything but benevolent.

(You'll want to do your own research on this, but basically the Rockefeller Foundation and other corporate elite that rule this planet behind the scenes aim to depopulate the world by some 90%... you asked rhetorically how to decide which of the world's population to eliminate, but frighteningly, the likes of Rockefeller have already decided who they plan to dispose of, and how. But that's a whooooole 'nother can of earthworms for another discussion.)

I'll cite just a few valid concerns with Borlaug's "Green Revolution" (the chemical-based, high-yield approach to agriculture that would supposedly free the world of starvation) straight from wikipedia (though you'll be able to find details on all these issues and many more by delving a bit further):

Is food production related to famine?

To some modern Western sociologists and writers, increasing food production is not synonymous with increasing food security, and is only part of a larger equation. For example, Harvard professor Amartya Sen claimed large historic famines were not caused by decreases in food supply, but by socioeconomic dynamics and a failure of public action.[33]. However, economist Peter Bowbrcik refutes that Sen's theory is incorrect as Sen relies on inconsistent arguments, and contradicting available information, including sources that Sen himself cited.[34] Bowbrick further argues that Sen's views coincide with that of the Bengal government at the time of the Bengal famine of 1943 and the policies Sen advocates failed to relieve the famine.[34]

Quality of diet

Some have challenged the value of the increased food production of Green Revolution agriculture. Miguel A. Altieri, (a pioneer of agroecology and peasant-advocate), writes that the comparison between traditional systems of agriculture and Green Revolution agriculture has been unfair, because Green Revolution agriculture produces monocultures of cereal grains, while traditional agriculture usually incorporates polycultures.[35]

These monoculture crops are often used for export, feed for animals, or conversion into biofuel. According to Emile Frison of Biodiversity International, the Green Revolution has also lead to a change in dietary habits, as less people are affected by hunger and die from starvation, but many are affected by malnutrition such as iron or vitamin-A deficiencies.[14] Frison further asserts that almost 60% of yearly deaths of children under age five in developing countries are related to malnutrition.[14]

High-yield rice (HYR), introduced since 1964 to poverty-ridden Asian countries, (such as the Philippines), was found to have inferior flavor and be more glutinous and less savory than their native varieties[citation needed]. This caused its price to be lower than the average market value.[36]

The introduction of pesticides to rice production poisoned and killed off fish and weedy green vegetables that traditionally coexisted in rice paddies. These were nutritious food sources for Filipino farmers prior to the introduction of pesticides, further impacting the diets of locals.[citation needed].

Socioeconomic impacts

The transition from traditional agriculture, in which inputs were generated on-farm, to Green Revolution agriculture, which required the purchase of inputs, led to the widespread establishment of rural credit institutions. Smaller farmers often went into debt, which in many cases results in a loss of their farmland.[13][39] The increased level of mechanization on larger farms made possible by the Green Revolution removed a large source of employment from the rural economy.[13] Because wealthier farmers had better access to credit and land, the Green Revolution increased class disparities. Because some regions were able to adopt Green Revolution agriculture more readily than others (for political or geographical reasons), interregional economic disparities increased as well. Many small farmers are hurt by the dropping prices resulting from increased production overall.

The new economic difficulties of small holder farmers and landless farm workers led to increased rural-urban migration. The increase in food production led to a cheaper food for urban dwellers, and the increase in urban population increased the potential for industrialization.[citation needed]

Globalization

In the most basic sense, the Green Revolution was a product of globalization as evidenced in the creation of international agricultural research centers that shared information, and with transnational funding from groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Additionally, the inputs required in Green Revolution agriculture created new markets for seed and chemical corporations, many of which were based in the United States. For example, Standard Oil of New Jersey established hundreds of distributors in the Philippines to sell agricultural packages composed of HYV seed, fertilizer, and pesticides.

Interesting discussion this has turned out to be! Many thanks to everyone who has participated!

eta: One more thing re: this comment:

As for the era before chemical fertilizers existed, very many people died in the winter because they couldn't grow enough food to last them all winter.

Agreed that many people suffered food shortages during the winter in eras past. But this was not because they couldn't GROW enough food to last them all winter... it's because they couldn't PRESERVE enough food to last them all winter. As top_dollar pointed out, preservation options such as freezing/refrigerating, canning, and dehydrating -- NOT chemical fertilizers -- are what enable food to last through the winter.

[gixxerific]

I have used MG but only in addition to bone meal, blood meal, fish emulsions, kelp meal, horse manure, my own compost among other "green additives". I have already stopped using MG I even threw away what I had left over.

check out the links in this thread https://www.helpfulgardener.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15611 you may change your mind about non-organic practices.

Have a nice day

[cynthia_h]

In the June 2009 National Geographic, "The End of Plenty" is the first article (p. 26), and it's termed a "Special Report: The Global Food Crisis." Dr. Norman Borlaug, born in Iowa, "saw his mission as spreading the high-yield farming methods that had turned the American Midwest into the world's breadbasket to impoverished places throughout the world." Which was the "Green Revolution" of the '70s. For his achievements--wars over food wrought such a change in many countries, Dr. Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.

However, 30 to 35 years later, "the miracle of the green revolution is over in Punjab: Yield has essentially flattened since the mid-1990s. Over-irrigation has led to steep drops in the water table, now tapped by 1.3 million tube wells, while thousands of hectares of productive land have been lost to salinization and waterlogged soils. Forty years of intensive irrigation, fertilization, and pesticides have not been kind to the loamy gray fields of Punjab. Nor, in some cases, to the people themselves."

There follows a very sad discussion about cancer from poisonous earth and toxic drinking water.

No one is wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people. No one.

Further into the article, Michael Pollan responds to the situation of "tainted soil and depleted aquifers" by saying that "The only way you can have one farmer feed 140 Americans is with monocultures. And monocultures need lots of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and lots of fossil-fuel-based pesticides. That only works in an era of cheap fossil fuels, and that era is coming to an end. Moving anyone to a dependence on fossil fuels seems the height of irresponsibility."

Before anyone demonizes another person on this thread or elsewhere on the forum, please consider that he (Dr. Borlaug) or she (any member here) is of good intention. Borlaug brought peace to areas of the world which had been on the edge of despair and hunger for many years.

I recently read an interview with him (perhaps another NatGeo) where he sadly reflected that we need another green revolution to take care of what he and the others who worked with him (UN agencies, USA agencies, international working tasks forces) were unable to foresee. He is NOT happy that so many around the world face severe hunger every day.

Let's try and work together to solve our situations. Support statements made here with science, logic, and sources, please.

Cynthia H.
Moderator

[stella1751]

Crop rotation has proved the answer in many areas. Corn years are followed by soybean years. Soybeans fix the nitrogen in the soil that is necessary for corn to excel. Corn stalks are tilled under in the fall to provide nutrition and texture for soybeans. Many farmers don't use chemical fertilizers.

However, to feed a nation or a world, the responsible use of herbicides is, I believe, necessary. While living in South Dakota, I many times occupied a seat on my neighbor's bean buggy, which was a tractor modified to seat four passengers, two on each side, and a 100-gallon drum of herbicide. We traveled the rows, each of us armed with a wand, squirting velvet leaf, cockleburrs, thistles, black nightshade, and sunflowers, all of these weeds that could significantly compromise yield.

This was in the Great Plains, the breadbasket of the nation. I never saw a farmer touch a pesticide there. My Dad's favorite saying about North Dakota was that the weather kept out the riff-raff. By "riff-raff," he was talking about all the insects that those in the south must deal with. Temperatures that can run as low as -40 degrees in the winter tend to discourage over-winter propagation

I agree with Cynthia_H's statement that we should "Support statements made here with science, logic, and sources, please." It's nice, too, when people are unfraid to disagree, to argue their points. If everyone followed the same path, agreeing with the same line of thought, no serious thinking would be accomplished, and we would forget why we believe as we do

[!potatoes!]

part of what I got from the michael pollan quote that cynthia posted was that large-scale monoculture, as hugely dependent on cheap-oil as its current incarnation stands, will almost by necessity have to give way to smaller, more locally-based (and, to be most productive, probably more diverse) systems. more (especially well-planned) diversity of things that you want in your growing areas means considerably less need for anything like an herbicide to combat the unwanted interlopers, as there is considerably less ecological 'room' for them in the first place.

[GeorgiaGirl]

That sounds like an intriguing article, Cynthia -- thank you for mentioning it. I will have to look that up and read it. Just want to clarify too that I was not questioning Dr. Borlaug's motives in any way. I have no doubt that he has had the best of intentions in all of his work. It's just unfortunate that his good intentions were usurped by the Global Elite (Monsanto, Rockefeller, etc.) whose intentions are not as good-willed.

[top_dollar_bread]

Dr. Borlaug intentions may have been good, but his supporters got the most out of it.

I don't believe dr. borlaug had wished harm to any one nor did some people in the field of agriculture. But I can not say the same with some corporation and how they shape how we live.

As human beings we can do anything. Anything, if we put our focus on how to do it, rather then how much money is gained.

Corporations relay on money and profit, if these are being lost then they will do almost anything to keep on gaining. Famine will go unseen, genocide, corruption, war, pollution, etc, will continue, as long as ther is a gain.

IMO if you want to save people from going hungry then do just that. Ther is no need to profit on something as rewarding as saving lives.

The green revolution introduced pesticides, irrigation, and synthetic fertilizer technologies sold by foreign corporations, to country’s who were already in a time of poverty. Most of the people who benefited, were those who had money.
Letting the rich get richer & the poor get poorer… yet they claim we did a good thing?

For dr. borlaug to make his statement that Decado posted, is angering. In stead of his comments about a need for another green revolution, he should first bite his tongue publicly. It is his Nobel piece price that most look up too, and its stressful for me when some one with that prize, makes a statement like that.

A sustainable revolution is in need and the green revolution should be looked at on its negatives and what paths not to take.
Some good things came out of it, yes, but to me, as a whole, it failed.

The green revolution also introduced mutant gene crops who only out perform traditional varieties in the presence of adequate irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers. With out these, they do not perform well.
The pesticides and fertilizers used on the crops, deplete the land and nature, So they actually were paying to pollute ther home land.
These mutant miracle seeds or high yielding varieties also increased the use of valuable water to irrigate the land.
If they werent struggling for water, you can bet they are now..

These corrupted corporate companies IMO used trickery and propaganda to convince the poverty countries that the use of monoculture will save them from going hungry and resulting in war.
In result monoculture increased the countries to rely on mined fossil fuel products. Fossil fuels that many poor countries do not have the funds to mine them selves.
the words poverty, struggle, and unfairness, usually end up in the words of war and violence.
So to try and fix war or poverty by digging deeper into foreign dependency will only result into more inner struggles for money/ land/ survival and result in even worse poverty, again leading to violence/war.
Believe it or not, some corporations profit off of war and violence!

This green revolution has caused a huge gain in population of humans, but it cant sustain the growth. It is said that we may have a global food crisis on our hands, if we continue down this road.
Corporate companies have made such a huge profit, while a catastrophic disaster continues to bubbles under. Question is, did they for see this coming?

Dr. borlauge had to have seen that monoculture wasn't just about feeding people, but making money on causing a country to be dependent on foreign corporations. Dependent on corporations like the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller.
Dr. borlauge may have not known that the Food was less nutritious at the time but he had to have known that the fertilizers/pesticides were toxic to the land and nature. Especially at the rate they applied. You don't have to be a Doctor to know arsenic, mercury and lead are toxic.

Also there is lot of evidence that the funding corporations intentions, were to weakened the socialist and communist movements to the countries in need. And the intent to globalize chemical corporations, to again gain more money.

This has convinced me that the green revolution was more of a part in the cold war, then it was for saving people. Corporations took something great like the science of agriculture and used for there own gains, the same thing that is going on in the field of medicine.

Organics and sustainable agriculture practices have the ability to reverse dependency on corporations and bring countries closer together. small farmers can profit and there is no need to use commercial fertilizers. Crop rotation, beneficial insects/plants, green manures, green energy, the list can go on but most important people working together to feed those in need.
This to me, is what corporations fear the most, Organics! and the methods of agriculture that revolve around it. giving the modern man the ability to feed and bring others together with out corportaions. Agriculture also has a huge effect on medicine and energy, witch I'm sure is in the hands of corporations as well.

Gixxerific posted a great link,
in the thread, ther is a awesome video called one man, one cow, one planet. it's a long video but comforting for those who believe we can achieve sustainable agriculture and reserve what the green revolution has done. Thers also other video’s, movies mentioned that tell stories of the negative impact the chemical era has brought to many, including those in our own country.

Again these are my opinions, please feel free to burn me if I said something wrong.

in the end, dr. borlauge statement needs to be seen as irresponsible and cruel to those in the field of sustainable agriculture, organics, permaculture, energy etc. We are trying to evolve not revolve around our current situation!!

[cynthia_h]

Dr. Borlaug intentions may have been good, ....
For dr. borlaug to make his statement that Decado posted, is angering. In stead of his comments about a need for another green revolution, he should first bite his tongue publicly. It is his Nobel piece price that most look up too, and its stressful for me when some one with that prize, makes a statement like that.

This thread has now "gone political" twice in two days, despite good efforts by several participants to steer it away from such prohibited waters (see the webmaster's policies re. topics to avoid in the Introductory forums).

The casus belli attributed by one member to Dr. Borlaug and made the seed of an extended post by a second member referring to the first is a precise example of the type of "discussion" I was trying to avert when, early yesterday morning, I recommended accurate quotes, providing sources, and assuming good intentions by all involved parties.

Nowhere on this thread have I seen exactly what Dr. Borlaug said/wrote or, perhaps even more importantly, when he said/wrote it regarding the population of the Earth. Knowledge re. sustainability, organic methods, and most related topics wasn't as developed in the '70s as it is now.

It looked good to the world in general NOT to have people in poor countries starving to death and/or going to war to acquire either food or the means of producing food.

The '60s "green revolution" was so named because Borlaug--and others--wanted it to stand in opposition to the Red (Communist/Bolshevik) Revolutions. Please see the same article I cited above; this analysis is provided there.

The Red Revolutions had been accomplished with violence and blood; the "green revolution" was almost universally believed to be positive, and it involved growing plants peacefully and giving parents in precarious national economies food security for their families. Non-bloody. Non-violent. What's the opposite color from red? Green. And that's why the improved, disease-resistant, increased-yield plants were introduced as a "green revolution."

Nothing to do with today's Green movement or sustainability.

Please. If anyone wants to discuss organic vs. conventional methods, it absolutely must be done without diatribe or attack, whether of members here at THG or third parties unable to speak for themselves.

Thank you.

Cynthia H.
Moderator

[Decado]

Hoo boy, it looks like I've ignited a flame war on an otherwise peaceful forum with one statement. *facepalm*

[gixxerific]

Gixxerific posted a great link,
in the thread, there is a awesome video called one man, one cow, one planet. it's a long video but comforting for those who believe we can achieve sustainable agriculture and reserve what the green revolution has done.

The "One man, One cow.." Video is the one I wanted to post but since there were other good sources in that thread I just linked the thread. If you haven't watched that vid give it a look as said it is long but very enlightening.

here it is
https://www.abundantlifefarm.com/index.php/Video20080630/Video

[stella1751]

Gixxerific, I am distraught. I was 25 minutes into this video when I got this "buffering" thing, and the video stopped. I was right at "Harvesting and Marketing." How much do you think I missed? (I'm not all that into harvesting and marketing )

This is extraordinary. So many things it said completely mirrored my beliefs! It's all about the soil. Were I not able to play with my soil, creating the best possible environment for my worms, beneficial nematodes, and microbacteria, I would not garden.

BTW, I used to wait until I was certain none of my neighbors were out and about when I played with the manure, spreading it or mixing it in with my soil. I use my bare hands with it, too. Now, I figure I'm old enough to qualify for eccentric status, and I just play away

[applestar]

Stella, most on-line videos, I find that if I start the video, hit pause and go do something else for a while, then come back to watch they play better without the annoying start and stops. With seriously huge files or interesting videos, I go watch on DH's computer which is newer and has better everything.

Maybe the this trick will work for you with this video too, though it is a LONG video. Rudolph Steiner's Biodynamic Agriculture is a WHOLE 'nother study though. Be prepared!

[top_dollar_bread]

For dr. borlaug to make his statement that Decado posted, is angering. In stead of his comments about a need for another green revolution, he should first bite his tongue publicly. It is his Nobel piece price that most look up too, and its stressful for me when some one with that prize, makes a statement like that.

I want to invite any one who is reading,
to take the time and carefully read this interview

[url]https://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html[/url]

this is a interview by Reasonin, in April of 2000 and what I was rambling about the other day

I apologize for not giving out this source earlier
please read it… again my bad

[Decado]

Thank you TDB, I didn't really know what to search for to find where he had said this.

[Diane]

In the June 2009 National Geographic,
Before anyone demonizes another person on this thread or elsewhere on the forum, please consider that he (Dr. Borlaug) or she (any member here) is of good intention.
Borlaug brought peace to areas of the world which had been on the edge of despair and hunger for many years.

Let's try and work together to solve our situations. Support statements made here with science, logic, and sources, please.

Cynthia H.
Moderator

I agree with this.

[top_dollar_bread]

Hmmm?
No response on the link??

Any way, ther was a statement in here, regarding organic methods, and sustainability weren’t as developed as they are now.

I'm going to have to disagree, on organic methods; organic agriculture relies on crop rotation, green manures, compost, and biologic pest control.

All of these methods have been developing for thousands of years, its just ther isn’t too many people funding the science behind it.

It was 10,000 BCE when the first agriculture revolution turned hunter gather to societies of towns and villages, who then gave birth to empires and so forth.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution[/url]

It is said that manure was one of the only common known sources of fertilizer till the 1940’s. It wasn't till recently that science finally figured different analysis of types of manures, giving us numbers to work with. Then science has also proved that manure is still the best know fertilizer when they explain that even insects ,worms, bacteria, fungi, soil organisms excretes(pooh) actually feed plants better, increase soil health, and build soil diversity.

Manure(excrete) does the same and contains many soil organism to continue to pooh and feed plants.
[url]https://tucsonorganicgardeners.org/Assets/ManureSoilFood.pdf[/url]

Compost is another very old practice in agriculture, developed in the Neolithic revolution, were discarding food refuse in a heap, would result in re growth of seeds discarded in soil.
(read the wiki link on NR)

Following info from
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost[/url]
Compost history

Composting dates to at least the early Roman era since Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79), author, naturalist and natural philosopher refers to compost in his writings.

The Arab Agriculture Revolution, Medieval green revolution or the Muslim agricultural revolution developed advanced crop rotation systems, irrigation techniques, and crops catalogues consisting info of required season, type of land, and amount of water.

During the Muslim Agricultural Revolution 8th-13th centuries, Muslim scientists laid the foundations of agricultural science, which included significant advances in the fields of agronomy, astronomy, botany, earth science, environmental philosophy, and environmental science.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Agricultural_Revolution[/url]

Its believe that compost and manure tea’s were used in ancient agriculture as well.

[url]https://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:vBCzezN_VV8J:www.marthastewart.com/article/compost-tea-system+roman+agriculture+compost+tea&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us[/url]
quote from link

Compost teas and extracts have been used for thousands of years in many ancient agricultural systems, including Mayan, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, and Polynesian. These traditional approaches were primitive in their design. However, the goal was the same -- to provide crops with a highly effective solution containing essential micro-life, organic compounds, and nutrients

Companion planting is also very well documented, on the top of my head is native Americans.
Corn and pole beans were commonly grown together and of course the three sisters.
[url]https://www.reneesgarden.com/articles/3sisters.html[/url]

Biological pest control can date back to ancient Egypt, were simply raising cats killed off rodents
In 1700 parasitoidism insects were observed and documented on its uses when they successfully removed female parasitic eggs out of aphids. & the great Darwin had pointed out the roles parasitics and predators play in regulating insect and pest.

[url]https://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/biotact/bc-2.htm[/url]
A good read on the history of biological control

quote from link

Insect Predation was recognized at an early date, but the significance of entomophagy and exploitation was lost except for a few early human populations in Asia where a sophisticated agriculture had developed. The Chinese citrus growers placed nests of predaceous ants, Oncophylla smaradina, in trees where the ants fed on foliage-feeding insects

And I believe sustainability has been apart of agriculture since it was born, agriculture sustainability IMO is the heart of any civilization. So I'm pretty sure sustainable agriculture has played a role in farms and crops for some time.

Today there is now abundant scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably….Organics can reverse this and again comments stated in the 2000 issue of reason, only slow this process down. Organics wernt even considered, just mentioned once and smashed with nonsense.
All I ask is were’s the science, logic, and sources of the many of things said in ther??

Father of the green revolution, overlooked our ancient ancestors teaching listed above. In stead used Monoculture, harsh synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides as alternatives.

"If We Can Do It with Science, We Should Do It." If we can do *whatever it is* quicker, with fewer steps, etc., then it's obviously The Best Way.

quote is from member here at THG (if reading I'm requesting permission to add name)

I understand that at the time, it sounded like a good idea, but NOW many continue to suffer.
Why we continue down this road, is beyond me
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture[/url]

our ancestors respected nature and almost every element on this earth. Many respected them so much, they worshiped them, even held sacrifices for them. I'm not saying lets go crazy about nature but lets at least consider and reform ther methods of organic gardening. They obviously new a lot of things many seem to overlook.

here’s some more links for further reading

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture[/url]
[url]https://www.energybulletin.net/node/23428[/url]
[url]https://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html[/url]

I consider my statements as logic and I have given my sources.
I'm not trying to demonize any one!!, please don't mistake my bark as my bite.

[applestar]

All of these methods have been developing for thousands of years, its just there isn’t too many people funding the science behind it.

(My underline) I think this says it all. We live in age of marketing and hype, and the hidden agenda is to create dependency on the product being marketed. It's not conspiracy, necessarily, just $ signs. It's what are marketable that get the most money behind them. Familiarity and recognition creates acceptance and sense of benign intent, even security.

It's easier to accept without question and expect someone else to do the work, especially when they're supposed to be there to do the work for you, and it's more work to question and research for yourself, even when technology has come so far that that a quick verification is a keystroke or two away.

It has also become possible to just as easily share critical information with others. I think many of us here on HGG Forum are learning to look beyond information that are doled out to us and re-discover what REALLY works, and finding out that there have been uncelebrated people toiling for us all along. I want to be one of those people, toiling for OUR future generations, even if it's just in my small corner.

[gixxerific]

I think many of us here on HGG Forum are learning to look beyond information that are doled out to us and re-discover what REALLY works, and finding out that there have been uncelebrated people toiling for us all along. I want to be one of those people, toiling for OUR future generations, even if it's just in my small corner.

Amen to that Apple, count me in as one of those newly enlightened. I was trying to explain this to my neighbor today. Never fear I will teach as much as I can of what I have learned here.

Most people just use what is popular or fast. They don't understand the negative effect that most of these products have on your garden or should I say "Our World" or "Our Childrens World".

I wrote a whole bunch more but deleted it. It was getting to angry. Sorry again HG in advance. It's my punk rock upbringing, I'm a little violent but I mean well. I am very pro "the little guy". The guy that get's hurt by others wanting to make a buck or just not caring about others well being.
Meaning Mother Earth's health as well.

What I'm trying to say is I will spread the good word of orgaincs, it is yet another one of my missions in life. I will educate myself and if noone else listens at least I have done my part to try to help my kids live on a planet that doesn't try to kill itself.