New partnership National Wildlife Federation and Scott

I dont mean we have to stop talking about RU its just that they distribute many other products so there is a lot more information to be had. Honestly since Im so rural I dont use a lot of products just order seeds online and by fish emulsion. I dont dare browse around the gardening area of any store, I never come out empty handed. I use a Commercial Nursery for Organic Potting soil because they dont have it set up with anything but Natives. Which I already have so its a lot less tempting.

Ms. Parrott, I am sticking my tongue out at you. (teasing)

I was using it for a while, but I was having persistent problems with some sort of weed seed already in the bags. Looks like Cyperus or something similar. Nothing I want to transfer to my garden! I actually opened one bag to find a plant inside almost ready to go to seed!

Check that "Organic" label carefully. I'm not sure it means what it implies - not a certification, I think. At least, I hope not. I've also found Osmocote or something similarly non-organic (little plastic beads) in some bags.

-Rich

The term "organic" is often used loosely to refer to natural ingredients, especially in garden products. I don't think the same restriction applies there as does with food. You can be sure it's truly "organic" if it's OMRI listed; it would state that on the package or bag.

The bags I have are labeled "OMRI Listed". They contain, among other things, pellets that are (or were) obviously some sort of plastic-coated slow release fertilizer like Osmocote.

There is IMHO a serious problem with the govt getting it's fingers into the organic movement. The old definitions have been discarded in favor of govt-mandated standards. Organic used to mean first and foremost that the soil was alive and best able to support healthy growth without the need for a lot of chemicals. Nowadays, organic just means (or is presumed to mean) no detectable poison residues. And there are periodic reports that a LOT of stuff labeled USDA organic isn't, really. Like "organic" milk from cows that were reared conventionally, then somehow magically became "organic" simply by virtue of being moved to a designated farm and fed organically from that point on. I grew up reading Rodale, went through Ag school arguing with professors who insisted "organic" just meant "carbon-based". I know the difference.

-Rich

In Tx it's illegal to advertise something as organic unless it certified. I can't see Scotts putting organic in huge letters on it's bags if it wasn't certified. It is a loosely used word because there is no real agreed upon definition.

The only definition I recognize is the Carbon based one from Organic Chemistry. It has been used since the early 1800's, I wish there was another term for food based organic. Just to make it less confusing. I prefer all natural so my chickens can walk around living like healthy happy chickens. I was told that for their eggs to be called organic they would have to be kept locked up and fed only organic chicken feed.

By definition man made and natural chemicals can both be Organic, containing a Carbon atom. That's an old and easy definition. The rules and definition for food based organic just isn't that clear cut.

What an interesting thread I've stumbled across. That's what I get for being wound up and insomniac, eh? :>)

I haven't read the link drthor gave above but I will in a bit. So the NWF and Scott's has decided to work together on something? Good. Lots of good info should be exchanged there, eh?

I breezed thru the posts here, reading about Roundup and such and just wanted to point out (not a Round Up user here, by the way) that there is a big difference between the "Round Up" product and "glyphosate", one of the ingredients in Round Up. All too often people use the terms interchangeably and there are definite differences.

Someone posted above that "Round Up' was used around wetlands. That might be incorrect (inadvertently) due to the interchange of terms. "Glyphosate", an active ingredient in Round Up, is considered safe to use in wetlands and other areas, "Round Up" is not due to the surfactant added to the formula. Apparently there are products which contain strictly glyphosate (w/out the Round Up surfactant) and it is water soluble and has shown no ill effects/affects on water life (plants or fish). It is when Round Up is used there has been evidence of death to plants, terrestrial, and soil life (the microbial life we all are trying to encourage in our soils). Some pretty interesting reports on line about this.

As for "organic" labeling laws, it used to be the Gov Organic (NOS) applied only to foods and products like herbicides, fertilizer, pesticides applied in the process of being certified (or even non-certified for those exempt from certification) and did not apply to potting mixes/soils. I think I remember reading potting mixes were governed by another entity but perhaps that has changed now, and probably for the better if so. I whole-heartedly agree with someone above about products carrying the OMRI label; they're a great organization not affiliated with the Gov in the least, and are a great "watch dog" over which products are considered "organic" (using the farming/gardening sense of the word as now regulated by the US Gov).

"The bags I have are labeled "OMRI Listed". They contain, among other things, pellets that are (or were) obviously some sort of plastic-coated slow release fertilizer like Osmocote."

Rich, those prills are not coated with plastic but with a soybased coating, which apparently passed to NOSB. (Now whether the soy was grown organic or not I bet we'll never know, eh?)

Lots of good input here. Great thread!
Shoe

Just my opinion, but if they've undergone composting and being stored for months damp in a bag with other "organic" components, and are showing no signs of degradation whatsoever, they may as well be petroleum-based.

Soy can be chemically processed into plastics that are as non-biodegradable as any conventional plastics. Which goes back to my original gripe about the expansion of the "organic" definition.

-Rich

Heheheh, well, I've used CRF over the years and haven't seen any instance where the capsules are non-biodegradable. I guess now a days anything can resemble plastic, eh? Even tree/plant resins sure do appear to be plasticized.

As for "they may as well be petroleum-based"... Isn't it weird how petroleum based now means "not natural" but yet oil pumped up from the depths below the ground is about as natural a product as we can get? What gives there, eh?

As for the organic definition I just take it with a grain of salt (organic salt, please) *grin. I figure if this were a physicists forum or a variant and the term "organic" was used we'd be following the carbon-based definition. If it were a forum discussing the National Organic Standards Program and what is an acceptable product/use we'd be going by the Gov definition. However, I sure do agree, it is important to briefly state which definition we are using the word as.

I hope I didn't step on your toes by mentioning the Osomote/coating. I had looked into that very same issue about 9 years ago when I started using some for my perennial plant sales, needing to know all aspects of it. I don't care to use it for any of my vegetable plants or in the gardens due to the make-up of what's IN the coatings I am comfortable using it in containers plants. In the beginning it was a formulation designed to release the fertilizer inside in response to moisture. Now it is also geared up to release according the temperature as well, that's a good thing, eh?

Shoe

Not at all! My quibble is with the people who keep changing the rules. Organic is the "hot" thing right now, commands premium prices, and in some areas is pushing "conventional" off the shelves. It is certainly at least competing seriously for shelf space everywhere I've been.

Funny how we used to be considered "kooks" for suggesting organically-grown was better.

Anyway, now everyone wants to be organic to cash in, or at least prevent being shut out. Watch out - you'll probably see "Organic Pepsi" on the store shelves any day now.

I think I've been around too long. I still remember a lot of us thought any refined sugar was a bad idea. Then it seemed to some that corn sweeteners might be at least a slight improvement. Now I see drinks and other sweetened products bragging that they are loaded with pure cane sugar [sigh].

Incidentally, my SI has gone back to school to become an RN. She was practically boiling over when she came home the other day and told me the so-and-so instructor was still teaching that egg yolks were bad for you and recommended no more than one whole egg per week. So last-year, really, since the latest research indicates the yolks contain emulsifiers that actually help prevent the deposition of cholesterol in our arteries...

And modern science continues to trumpet their amazing discovery that fish oils can actually help prevent or slow the progress of the symptoms of brain aging. So they have caught up with my grandmother, who always simply said "Fish are brain food"...something she apparently learned from her grandmother...

Too long.

-Rich

Horseshoe, if you read the Australian article that I linked to, they were talking specifically about glyphosate as an ingredient of typical herbicides, not just RoundUp per se. Neither should be used around wetlands because they are toxic to fish and anurans and other wetlands life.

I've read that report before, Gh-gal and noticed there was no stringent definining of the difference between "RoundUp" and glyphosate but rather nearly (not quite, but nearly) considered them the same. There was only one sentence that mentioned when glyphosate was mixed with a surfactant it became 3 times more deadly. (They don't even mention the name of the addition.)

They did mention the low toxicity of glyphosate though by itself, then continues to refer to it as if it was as deadly as the RoundUp/mix.

"While pure Glyphosate has a low acute toxicity (the amount needed to cause death), when it is sold as a commercial herbicide it is combined with surfactants and other ingredients to make it more effective at killing plants. Studies show that the commercial products, such as Round Up, can be three times more toxic than pure glyphosate."

This is much more refined and detailed report regarding glyphosate itself. Having been mr. anti-Roundup all my life (and still won't use it) I first came across this when researching why The Nature Conservancy would consider using it and was surprised at the info contained here: http://www.for-wild.org/download/roundupmyth/roundupmyth.html

"The Nature Conservancy and many foresters have discontinued using the Roundup formulation when they use herbicides, and use instead the glyphosate-only products, or with wetland-safe surfactants, (both on uplands and wetlands)."

It gives many good points, and alerts as well, and seems (to me) to be well written and covering many angles. (It almost looks like something Rich would write; you may want to have a look, Rich.)

All in all, I'm glad this topic continues to come to the forefront; very glad it is being discussed.

By the way, the link drthor gave in the first post now takes you to "Mr. Grumpy" and Heucheras. Any idea why?

Shoe

Oh, Im so confused. Is Organic potting soil organic or not? In Texas it takes 5 yrs to get certified in some states less. But I just want to know about potting soil. I wish "they" would think of a whole other Title that had one definition.

call Scotts and ask, frame correct query

I was referring to a post by Shoe above that says that soils are governed by a different body. I don't really understand it. I'm not concerned about Scotts per say but potting soil in general.

As far as I know petroleum products are considered "all natural" just not biodegradable. Too long of a 1/2 life. That has been one of my main points that I have been blasted for many times. Is that petroleum products are about as all natural as you can get but that doesn't mean they are good for the environment. Too confusing for me. I'll stick to the Carbon based definition and hope somebody comes up with another term for "organic products" that doesn't change so often.

It certainly makes a lot more sense. The research I've seen has been on "glyphosate". I remember some of the reps were demonstrating it's safety by drinking it (or pretending to). Many of us thought they were nuts. Unfortunately I have no idea what formulation we were using 25-30 years ago, but the alternatives were all far more toxic (e.g.: "paraquat") or far less effective.

Most agronomy students (I mean "row crop" specialists, the heaviest users of herbicides) saw as their first job producing enough food to supply America and also to export (we knew about the importance of maintaining the Balance of Trade back then), and they hoped to make a decent living while doing it. They certainly weren't out to fool the American public or to poison them.

BTW agronomists aren't like horticulturists. Farms growing "row crops" (corn, wheat, soy, etc.) make a living - or not - on very slim margins, need VERY large acreages to compete globally, and can go out of business even (or especially) in good productive years if crop prices drop too low. Horticulturists can conceivably make a living on much smaller acreage with careful crop selection, diversification and rotations, and by taking advantage of demand for locally-grown produce. Herbicides are used, but the scale of operations in most cases is a fraction of what is used and needed by the agronomic growers.

Incidentally, my personal favorite surfactant is one of Dr. Bronner's liquid soaps (potassium-based). All the information I have is that it breaks down quickly, though I can personally testify it is toxic to some insects. A 10% solution of his Peppermint soap in water in a hand sprayer set to a tight stream is death to cockroaches and used to be a way to pass the time when I lived in apartments with cockroach "issues". That takes me way back...

-Rich

Yes, and excuse the redundancy but arsenic, lead, uranium, cadmium, thorium, mercury, etc. are also gotten from the depths of the earth.

For that matter, I've studied herbal medicine extensively over the past 40-something years and can name you dozens of plants that can kill animals and people much more rapidly and effectively than a little Roundup - and do it "organically"!

Hmm...is it better to die organically (say by Conium maculatum or Amanita phalloides) than inorganically?

And then there is Rotenone - once one of the darlings of the organic movement, one of those rare effective plant-based insecticides sold everywhere and assumed to be safe - and now strongly linked to the later development of Parkinson's disease ( http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002839 ). Lovely stuff.

-Rich

I looked for the Organic Miracle Grow this weekend but couldn't find it yet. The Wally World employee told me that this would probably go into stock as soon as the Valentines Day promos are over.

Actually, rjogden, as you mentioned mercury above I will mention a nagging wory that I have involving the compact fluorescent light bulbs. I don't want to highjack the thread and am perfectly willing to start a new one. How are we supposed to properly dispose of those bulb. The have mercury in them. Probably not a lot, but still.....I just installed a new one as the old burned out. The new bulb even has "caution Mercury" right on the throat of the bulb. So I dont' want to just throw it in the garbage. What are we to do? This has been bugging me for some time.

Please dont' start a big discussion here. If this warrents a new thread I'll start one. Just a quick responce and back to the original topic is good for me. I'm just sitting here with the old bulb in my hand and you mentioned mercury, so I thought maybe I could get my answer here......

Well, don't get me started on rotenone, or why the NOSB allows its use in organic production. Not an "organic" grower (or permaculturalist) would think of using it any more. There are some non-organic products safer than rotenone. Oh well. It's all up to the individual to learn and decide, eh?

Shoe (off to sow seeds in the greenhouse)

Sorry, Terri, I got detained from posting on time and didn't see yours....

That's a great topic though...and now that "they" are moving more and more to ALL light bulbs being the mercury types I think they will run into a big problem with the disposal. I haven't heard any positive news about that yet. It's sure a catch-22, isn't it...the new bulbs are supposed to be more environmentally sound because they use less power, burn longer, but when they've been used up we have more landfill and/or toxic mercury to deal with. Sheesh.

Shoe

I do not have any of the curly type florescent bulbs even though our power company offers six of them for free. According to this link, LEDs don't contain mercury. I'm waiting for the price to go down:

http://findleds.com/faq.asp

I think it is just the CLF's that have mercury, Honeybee. The LEDS seem to contain lead, nicke., arsenic, and more carcinogenic goodies, etc from their circuit board/make-up. What's worse with the LED's is they are disposed of like a standard incandescent, just thrown in the trash, eventually ending up breaking either in your trash bag or the landfil.

It's a tough call, isn't it? I imagine at some point there will be a recycle system in place for LEDs, making disposal much safer.

Shoe (who would be happy with a few candles or ol' fashion kerosene lantern burning for light, as long as the computer was still operating!) :>)

You can probably trust our government to leave the expense up to the end user and make big fine for improper disposal, and you will have to pay for hazardous disposal.

I'll keep it short. I wish I knew. Congress in their infinite wisdom has mandated the phased replacement of most of the old filament-type bulbs "to save energy". (Actually there is a story going around about connections to firms producing the new bulbs, but you didn't hear that from me...). At this time, our county has asked us NOT to put them in the trash or the recycle bins. The only option we have here is to carry them across town to a hazardous waste collection center run by the county. Picture that - cars traveling 20-30 miles to drop off fragile mercury-contaminated light bulbs. Now, that's a real government-mandated energy savings for you! If it were a business we would be required to hazmat-placard our vehicles. And what do you do when one breaks? Evacuate the house and call the EPA?

All we can really hope for is that development of LED bulbs will eventually allow them to be produced and sold at a competitive price. I've replaced a lot of the lights in my house (ones I use a lot) with LED's and I've been very happy with them. They are easier to dim than fluorescent bulbs, last a LOT longer than either fluorescent or filament bulbs, and the new Warm White colors coming out now are easier on the eyes.

In fact, I'm sitting under one right now. It's a floodlight in a recessed ceiling fixture, fully dimmable, puts out about a 70-watt equivalent illumination, and it stays cool to the touch. But it wasn't cheap.

-Rich

The BIG difference is that those compounds aren't released into the air when the bulbs break. The amount of the "nasties" in each LED is relatively tiny, and they are present as solids bonded to circuit boards and the like so they don't present the same sort of immediate danger. It is still a cleanup task, for sure, but I will bet as the use of LED's becomes more common companies and counties will set up recycling to reclaim and reuse the materials. It's just a matter of scaling up to the point it becomes economically feasible. IMHO, recycling of CFL's will never happen.

I've seen the stories out of California about LED's containing "8 times the lead" allowed by law - but honestly, unless you're planning to eat the things it's hard to understand the problem. I'm sure some of us here will remember when all gasoline used to contain tetraethyl lead, and most of us who were alive back then made it through with no drastic ill effects. If you live east of the Big Muddy (and some places out West), you have no doubt passed historical markers denoting the locations of Revolutionary War and Civil War battles and skirmishes - they are everywhere. And so is the lead from the musket balls. Lead has been banned from waterfowl hunting, but mainly because the birds sometimes ingest the actual pellets.

Sorry, I really was trying to keep this short, but it's a complicated topic... Bottom line: don't eat the LED's.

-Rich

Hmmm.... somehow I can't see me buying a light bulb that lasts longer than I will. LOL

Actually, it's kinda nice to think I'm probably replacing a bulb for the last time. Especially when I'm on the top of a ladder I had to drag in from the garage.

-Rich

Thats exactly what I was thinking, bee.

Well, I'm only 62, so I expect I may outlast even some of the LED's. ;o)

-Rich