"Chemical" vs. Organic Lawn Fertilizer
Anthony Wallis
> What's the scientific argument for why organic lawn fertilizer
> is better than the regular ol' granular stuff. ..
Although *some* "organic" lawn fertilisers may work better
than *some* "chemical" ones (and perhaps vice versa), in general,
the question is vacuous because there is nothing _scientific_
about the implied distinction, the designation "organic" in that
context, or the use of the term "chemical" implying there is a
"non-chemical" alternative.
Vitalism died with the synthesis of urea. Life is chemical.
Most of us are healthy, and, indeed, many of us are alive, because
of that advance in scientific thinking.
( As an aside, the quotes in the subject line are misplaced.
It should have read
"Chemical vs. Organic" ..
or
Chemical vs. "Organic" .. )
This is point I hammer home at regular intervals in this
group. It is not just a question of loose semantics and I am
not being merely simplistically reductionistic. It's more an
issue of fighting magical thinking, or perhaps, more gently,
misplaced religious thinking.
The distinction being alluded to in "chemical vs. organic" is
like the distinction between unconsecrated and consecrated bread
and wine in the Eucharist. It is an inward thing, not an
outward thing; in the mind or spirit of the believer, not a
scientific distinction.
That is not to say there is anything false about either the
Eucharist or the use of "organics". There are truths which
transcend science. I seek help from a priest for a broken
spirit and help from a scientific physician for a broken bone.
I engage in (what others label as) "organic" practises for reasons
that are best described as related to a spiritual or wholistic
view of life and the world, but I don't delude myself that there is
anything a priori scientific about them.
It's a matter of avoiding an egregious category error.
--
to...@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, North York, Canada.
Marion Hess
purchased that are still organic in nature... some sources of commercial
fertilizers are perfectly fine but don't feed the soil, and may harm the
infra structure causing the necessary bacteria in the soil to disappear.
Organic can be used wrong too....Here's one I use as a spray and it's
considered organic....
Title: RECIPE #01 EVERYTHING
Categories: Garden, Bugs, Disease, Fertlizer
MARION HESS KDKP45B
REVISED 03-11-93
Jerry Baker's recipe
Master Gardener & author
Here's a recipe for spraying everything in the yard. 1
can beer, 1C childrens shampoo or liquid soap, 1C liquid
lawn food, 1 oz liquid seaweed, 1/2C molasses. Put
into a 20 gallon hose end sprayer, fill remainder with
ammonia to fill jar. Use on trees, flowers, grass,
shrubs, every 3 wks. Helps soil to release nutrients,
develops beneficial bacterial action, ammonia is
released into the air immediately and absorbed as a
gas, beer starts enzyme activity, soap is a bug
deterrent & antisurfactant. Every 3 wks. Covers 2500
sq ft. Can be used at all times if you prefer.
**Alternative for beer: Make a paste of vegetable
scraps in blender. These can be cooked or raw. Put
into a gallon milk container, fill with water. Put
outdoors in a really hot sunny hot spot until its
really fermented with lid loose or off. This will take
about a wk. Use juice at a rate of 2T per gallon in
any of the recipes in place of whiskey or beer.
--I post more homemade "recipes" like this one actually about 70 of them..
.that were gathered from many organic gardeners... These are posted
monthly by me in the Organic Gardening Topic of Prodigy Gardening BB.....
Marion ---
SKID Photography
>In <4hlk5b$1...@news.halcyon.com> David&Karen <sou...@halcyon.com>
>writes:
>>What's the scientific argument for why organic lawn fertilizer is
>better
>>can't quite figure out how nitrogen from one source would be better
>than
>>nitrogen from another.
>>Karen
>>
>Chemical fertilizers area applied 3 or 4 times a year. They work very
>fast and green up quickly, the lawn. That process doesnt last and
>chemicals are leached out or washed down the street. They create heavy
>flushes of growth making mowing harder. They feed the plants
>artificially and do nothing for the soil. Long term effect is quite
>damaging.
>
>Organic fertilizers provide proper nutrients without damaging soil.
>They only need be applied 2-3 times a year and even if they wash away,
>are safe. They are slow release, feeding plants only what they need
>when they need it. The grass grows slower and more consistently,
>making it easier to avoid catching clippings. It is more economical to
>use slow release organic products on the lawn. There is no difference
>in nitrogen. Nitrogen is nitrogen. I prefer to get it from natural
>sources rather than manufactured sources. They sometimes use polymers
>in chemical fertilizers. They are not really consistent either. Each
>particle can have a different analysis. It is up to you if you want to
>use them or not.
>Victoria*
>>
Dear Victoria,
I find your response to this question a bit lopsided and unfair towards
'chemistry', and what IMHO is distrustful about 'organic' publications. I
further think that it is extremely unfortunate because this allows people
to reject, out of hand, organic methods........
Pollution: To imply the organic fertilizers can't/don't pollute is a
complete fabrication. Farmers who spread large amounts of manure on fields
near water sources (i.e. rivers and streams) have been amongst some of the
worst polluters in the nation. Albeit, the pollution does not last long,
but tell that to the dead fish. Any kind of artificial land
treatment/application can be abusive if done improperly! The key is that
people must THINK before they act, something that was not done in the past.
As far as run-off of chemical fertilizers: I think (but am not positive)
that the only part of over the counter granular, i.e. chemical, fertilizers
that is 'volatile' AND tends to wash away in water is the Nitrogen part.
The Potassium and Phosphorus are relative stable and non-soluble in water.
Soluble forms of P & K are very expensive.......look how much 'Rapid Gro'
et al costs! So once again the pollutive aspects come back to that demon
Nitrogen. Also, not all organics are 'slow release'.
Chemical fertilizers & soil damage: They don't 'damage' the soil; they
might not 'add' anything to the soil structure, but they don't damage
(unless they are over applied; see above).
When to apply: I have never fertilized my lawn (chemically) more than 2
times per year (spring and fall) {in all honesty, at the moment I don't
'own' a lawn, and garden at a property where the owner lets nature take
care of the lawn.....so it's neither chemical or organic fertilization}.
The point you make about chemicals causing too much growth, only making it
harder to mow, is another one of the fabrications which I find annoying.
Probably the most limiting factor in lawn growth is moisture. If it rains
a lot you have to mow more often, if there is a drought the lawn grows
slower. So in that sense, using organics probably actually makes for more
lawn growth during dry conditions, as the soil will better be able to hold
onto moisture because of the addition of humus etc. (Please remember, I am
not against 'organics', just 'over the top' statements about them.)
Economics: Whose economics are you referring to? I would love to find
compost or organic fertilizers for anywhere near the price of chemical
ones! If you are implying that it's cheaper to make your own organics,
then it's an unfair economic comparison......time is money, and we all
don't have unlimited time.
Regarding damage over the long run of organic vs. chemical fertilizers:
Lawns actually produce humus on their own. There was a study done (and
this is from almost 30 years ago when I was in Ag school) on sod farms: Did
they deplete and destroy the soil from years of removing sod? It ends up
that even when the sod was removed for sale, it left more organic matter
than was taken....I believe it was something like a quarter of an inch of
organic matter left behind. Leaving the cut grass ON the lawn after mowing
is probably more helpful to the soil then applying composted organic matter
after the fact.
The last thing I have to say about growth is that I think, that is why
people fertilize....to get more of it. Both High N chemical fertilizers
and high N organics (those with N in the 'available' form) will 'green' the
lawn at the same rate of speed. One can just as easily 'burn' a lawn with
the improper use of organics as with chemicals.....it always comes down to
thinking before acting. Organic fertilizers do not release nutrients 'when
the plants need them', they release them when they are a byproduct of
bacterial action. If the plants 'needs' them, it will use them. In fact,
even if we, human beings don't want the plant to 'take' the fertilizer, it
will take it anyway. Plants don't think, they are plants......they do what
nature intended.
The 'trick' with ALL fertilizers, is to deliver them to the plants, in a
form they can use, when it will best serve your purpose, at a rate which
the plant can use, but not to excess.......so there you have it.
Sorry this post got so long........but I guess some 'button' got pushed,
maybe I just have 'cabin fever' and am feeling surly.
Harvey of:
zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT U.S.A.
Jack Alford
Nitrogen IS nitrogen, as is usually pointed out by proponents of chemical fertilizers.
It may help to change viewpoints, though. Don't think about specific elements, but rather,
think about encouraging and sustaining life in the soil. A frequent result of
chemical fertilization is hard, salt-filled soil with poor drainage,
disease problems, and few living things in the soil. Organic materials
tend to stimulate micro-and macro-organisms in the soil. These organisms
are responsible for improving soil structure and drainage, breaking down the
organic material and soil minerals into readily-used components (many of them
live in symbiotic relationships with the plant roots), extracting nitrogen
from the air, and upon their death, providing huge amounts of additional organic
material. When the soil life is healthy and in balance, N-P-K and a hundred
other trace elements, pH, and disease and pest problems pretty much take
care of themselves. So while a prepackaged *fully* organic fertilizer
(not just one that says "from organic sources" -- like petroleum) may
cost more per square foot, you may find that you save on pest control
and watering costs. In my experience, the organic approach has been easier
and more enjoyable than the chemical approach. And I also like the fact
that I'm helping use up waste products (like manure and feathers),
rather than using up limited resources like oil and gas (prime sources for
urea and ammonium nitrate fertilizers).
It won't hurt to use up the one bag of chemical stuff that you've got --
if not on your lawn, then use it to help rot stumps or speed up your compost pile.
Jack Alford
IBM, Austin, TX
(Obviously not speaking for my employer on this topic)
Mark & Victoria
SKID Photography
> Marion ---
>
>
Dear Marion,
By who's definition is this considered organic? I'm not an organic
gardener, but I gotta tell you, it does not sound organic to me.
Bill & Harvey
Mark & Victoria
>
>Dear Victoria,
>Pollution: To imply the organic fertilizers can't/don't pollute is a
>complete fabrication. Farmers who spread large amounts of manure on
fields
>near water sources (i.e. rivers and streams) have been amongst some of
the
>worst polluters in the nation.
Allowing runoff of untreated soil will do the same thing, so what is
your point? Never mind, dont answer. In this case, we as adults have
to agree to disagree.
Victoria*
David Brachtenbach
>David+Karen ask:
>> What's the scientific argument for why organic lawn fertilizer
Huh?! Didn't quite catch the answer to my question. Does it have
anything to do with whether I go to church? :-)
Karen
SKID Photography
I can't let this go yet.
We both agree that soil erosion (untreated soil) by run off, is a bad
thing.....yes?
That is not the issue. The issue is that you stated that: "Organic
fertilizers...(snip)... even if they wash away, are safe. " THIS IS JUST
NOT SO......that is a VERY dangerous and stupid and indefensible thing to
say!
Once again: Manure washing off a field will, and does, kill
wildlife......this is not 'soil' washing away, it is a form of 'manure tea'
(if you will) which is a NATURAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL....pollution, plain and
simple.
Let's back up: What I was trying to point out with my original post was;
that by using fertilizers WISELY, whether 'organic' or chemical, one can
avoid pollution. Just because a fertilizer is in a chemical form, it does
not make it more likely to pollute, via runoff.
Anytime we, as humans, at the top of the feeding cycle, change or alter the
world (and that includes gardening) we all must be careful about how we are
impacting the environment. It used to be, that there were so relatively
few humans on this planet that it really did not effect
environment..........but that's just not true anymore (and those days were
a long time ago). There are just too many of us, we must all be aware of
how everything we do affects humanity's future.....you know, 'think
globally, act locally.
Victoria, we might disagree about whether chemical amendments are bad, but
I think we really do both agree that we can't abuse the environment. What
I fail to 'hear' from you is the possibility that 'organic' amendments can,
if abused, or are handled improperly, can also cause harm........the
disagreement is that simple.
Looking forward to your reply.
(stubborn) Harvey, half of
Gad Zukes!
>zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT U.S.A.
Dear Bill & Harvey,
Why doesn't it sound organic to you?
Julie
SKID Photography
The below items seem relatively synthetic and chemically based:
>>1C childrens shampoo or liquid soap>>
animal byproducts for quite a while. Therefore we assumed that they would
not be considered 'organic' or 'natural' since they are patently chemically
based.
>>1C liquid lawn food>>
'Liquid lawn food' sounds an awful lot like Rapid Gro, Peter's,
Miracle-Gro.....all exceedingly synthetically chemically based!
Am I looking at this wrong?.........How do you interpret these 'synth
chemical' products?
Eric Martinis
http://www.whitneyfarm.com/lawn.htm
Mark & Victoria
Macrakis) writes:
>Nice line. What a handy way of claiming you're right without
>bothering to justify your claims.
>
> -s
>
No, I just dont feel the intense need to prove organics and their
ability to protect life on earth. It is bigger than I am. It is
bigger than you are. I will grow organically. I dont really think I
need to make claims to anything. There will always be someone out
there to disclaim it. If you would like to justify it, feel free.
I yield to the gentleman.
Victoria*
Stavros Macrakis
No, I just dont feel the intense need to prove organics and their
ability to protect life on earth. It is bigger than I am. It is
bigger than you are. I will grow organically. I dont really think I
need to make claims to anything. There will always be someone out
there to disclaim it. If you would like to justify it, feel free.
The foundation of rational discourse is justifying questioned claims.
You make many claims (despite your disclaimer) but then refuse to
justify them. Note, for instance, that the implicit claim above
(which you never make explicit) is that using organic methods is
better for protecting life on earth. What if this were shown to be
wrong? Remember when everyone thought that paper bags were good and
plastic bags were bad for the environment? It turns out that they're
about equally bad (or equally good).
-s
B.K.
>>can't quite figure out how nitrogen from one source would be better
>than nitrogen from another.
>>Karen
>>
You're right N is N is N. It really depends on your desired results.
On high traffic areas, the organics might not provide nutrients in the
amount needed to repair damage, most organics must undergo some type
of decomposition before the nutrients become plant available. For a
low maintenance lawn the organics are definitely better.
Benefits of "organic" fertilizers:
1. Slow release of nutrients, gives an "even-looking" green all
season.
2. Contain micronutrients not found in a typical synthetic fertilizer.
3. Enhanced activity of soil microfauna/flora.
Benefits of "synthetic" fertilizer:
1. Precise amounts can be applied, based on soil test results, to
reduce losses due to leaching or runoff.
2. No heavy metals. Don't use Milorganite for growing veggies!
3. Timed release of nutrients.
or
4. Immediate availability of nutrients to plants.
You get to choose #3 or #4. Not dictated by weather or decomposition.
Hope that helps.
B.K.
Stavros Macrakis
Chemical [i.e. synthetic] fertilizers area applied 3 or 4 times a
year. They work very fast and green up quickly, the lawn. That
process doesnt last and chemicals are leached out or washed down
the street. They create heavy flushes of growth making mowing
harder.
It depends on _which_ synthetic fertilizer you use. Urea, for
instance, is considerably slower-acting than ammonium or nitrate.
IBDU is even slower.
They feed the plants artificially and do nothing for the soil.
I'm not sure what feeding "artificially" means. Shipping tons of
phosphate rock or guano or seaweed thousands of miles to put it into
gardens seems pretty "artificial", too.
They indeed do nothing for the soil. Everyone agrees that compost and
other organic matter is excellent for the soil.
Long term effect is quite damaging.
It depends on which ones, how they're used, and your existing soil
conditions.
Organic fertilizers provide proper nutrients without damaging soil.
They only need be applied 2-3 times a year and even if they wash
away, are safe. They are slow release, feeding plants only what
they need when they need it. The grass grows slower and more
consistently...
This is clearly wrong. Some organic fertilizers act very fast, and
can in fact "burn" plants. This is true, for instance, of manure
applied in too-large quantities. Organic fertilizers do not break
down as a function of what the plants need (how would they know?), but
rather as a function of microbial activity in the soil, which is
closely related to temperature. The same is true of the breakdown of
urea. I believe that blood meal is rather fast-acting as well. Also,
nutrients (especially ammonium nitrogen) can leach away or evaporate
from organic fertilizers just as they can from synthetic fertilizers.
This is one reason that it is recommended to incorporate manure into
the soil rather than applying it as a top dressing.
It is more economical to use slow release organic products on the
lawn.
It depends. Of course, if you can get composted manure for free, it's
cheaper than synthetic fertilizer.
There is no difference in nitrogen. Nitrogen is nitrogen. I prefer
to get it from natural sources rather than manufactured sources.
They sometimes use polymers in chemical fertilizers.
Which fertilizers use polymers? Is that bad? If so, why?
They are not really consistent either. Each particle can have a
different analysis.
?! It is of course possible to have badly mixed synthetic fertilizer,
but compost and manure are far far more variable in nutrient content.
It is up to you if you want to use them or not.
Yes, but it would be nice if people decided on the basis of solid
facts.
-s
Stavros Macrakis
"already know the answers to [my] own questions" (which I certainly
don't!) and then you say that those who disagree with you are either
ignorant or dishonest:
...There are those who know the material, there are those who do
not, there are those who know, but choose to ignore the material...
and claim "I am not going to get into an arguement about it"!
This is enough for me. Clearly you have no commitment to intellectual
honesty or rational discussion.
-s
Tom Tadfor Little
>
> In <MACRAKIS.96...@pux.osf.org> macr...@osf.org (Stavros
> Macrakis) writes:
>
> >
> >The foundation of rational discourse is justifying questioned claims.
> >You make many claims (despite your disclaimer) but then refuse to
> >justify them.
> Again, I dont have the intense need to banter back and forth with
> someone who already knows the answers to their own questions. I find
> trying to convince someone why organic products are safer for the soil
> a waste of time.
This is clearly a holy war. In my experience, the postition that
organic gardening practices are helpful is easy to justify. Adding
organic matter to the soil and mulching (for example) are things that
obviously help the garden. The more extreme position, that anything
produced in a laboratory is necessarily harmful and must be avoided,
is simply untrue and impossible to justify rationally.
This thread was about the relative merits of organic and
synthetic fertilizers. There was an excellent summary of those
merits, recently posted here by "B.K.", proving that it is
in fact possible to discuss the subject fruitfully. I think
there are plenty of people who are willing to learn from
information presented clearly and objectively. Not everyone
has a closed mind about everything.
So I disagree with Victoria's assertion that there is no reason
to discuss or justify the merits of organic gardening. I think
some organic gardeners get into a very bitter frame of mind
about such discussions, because they make organic gardening
a kind of religion. Open, rational discussion threatens that
"faith" because it opens the possibility that some non-organic
practices and products may in fact have real benefits for gardening.
Organic gardening practices offer much of value to the gardener.
Those positive arguments can be presented fairly and sensibly,
and debated. We don't have to resort to a superstition-ridden
"all chemicals are evil, I won't explain why" mentality.
===============================================================
Tom Tadfor Little tli...@lanl.gov -or- te...@Rt66.com
technical writer/editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telperion Productions http://www.rt66.com/~telp/
===============================================================
M&V
Macrakis) writes:
>
>Victoria, this is getting ridiculous. You criticise me for thinking I
>"already know the answers to [my] own questions" (which I certainly
>don't!) and then you say that those who disagree with you are either
>ignorant or dishonest:
>
> ...There are those who know the material, there are those who do
> not, there are those who know, but choose to ignore the material...
>
ignore the material is what happens when people are lazy and want to
garden quickly. Not take the time to discern what the cause of the
problem is. Pouring chemicals onto lawns to green them up first on the
block, spraying regardless whether the insects are causing damage. I
think American gardeners are lazy. The country has a zero defect
tollerance. Organic vegetables might not look as pristeen as
commercially grown, dousted with chemicals, but who am I? I am just a
gardener in the south who chooses to read the material and use it. It
takes longer to garden organically and it also takes a great deal of
knowledge. It is easier to give in to Dow Chemical who is telling you
these toxins break down quickly. If you want to believe them, it is
your choice, not mine. Just ask a Viet Nam veteran how they feel about
Dow Chemical and agent orange. That too is supposed to break down
quickly.
Victoria*
Mark & Victoria
>
>The foundation of rational discourse is justifying questioned claims.
>You make many claims (despite your disclaimer) but then refuse to
>justify them. Note, for instance, that the implicit claim above
>(which you never make explicit) is that using organic methods is
>better for protecting life on earth. What if this were shown to be
>wrong? Remember when everyone thought that paper bags were good and
>plastic bags were bad for the environment? It turns out that they're
>about equally bad (or equally good).
>
> -s
>
Again, I dont have the intense need to banter back and forth with
someone who already knows the answers to their own questions. I find
trying to convince someone why organic products are safer for the soil
a waste of time. There are those who know the material, there are
those who do not, there are those who know, but choose to ignore the
material. I am not the person questioning the difference between
chemical or animal & plant derived products, you are. But you already
know the answer. If someone asks me to teach them how to go organic, I
will be glad to share my knowledge. I am not going to get into an
arguement about it. I grow organically. I garden intentionally. If
you want to use chemical fertilizers, feel free. Nobody here will stop
you. Just dont get it on my property. That is where I draw the
line...:)
Victoria*
SKID Photography
writes:
>In <MACRAKIS.96...@app3.osf.org> macr...@osf.org (Stavros
>Macrakis) writes:
>>
>>Victoria, this is getting ridiculous. You criticise me for thinking I
>>"already know the answers to [my] own questions" (which I certainly
>>don't!) and then you say that those who disagree with you are either
>>ignorant or dishonest:
>>
>>
>Where in my statement is there anything about dishonesty? Choosing to
>ignore the material is what happens when people are lazy and want to
>garden quickly. Not take the time to discern what the cause of the
>problem is. Pouring chemicals onto lawns to green them up first on the
>block, spraying regardless whether the insects are causing damage. I
>think American gardeners are lazy. The country has a zero defect
>tollerance. Organic vegetables might not look as pristeen as
>commercially grown, dousted with chemicals, but who am I? I am just a
>gardener in the south who chooses to read the material and use it. It
>takes longer to garden organically and it also takes a great deal of
>knowledge. It is easier to give in to Dow Chemical who is telling you
>these toxins break down quickly. If you want to believe them, it is
>your choice, not mine. Just ask a Viet Nam veteran how they feel about
>Dow Chemical and agent orange. That too is supposed to break down
>quickly.
>Victoria*
>
'Agent Orange' vs. 'a little chemical fertilizer' is quite a jump. Once
again it seems that there is no concept of moderation here. ANY extreme,
(in our view) is bad. What ever happened to moderation?
Bill & Harvey
zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT USA
M&V
Macrakis) writes:
>
>Victoria, I have really had it with your style of argumentation.
I agree. I was totally out of line. I get a little nuts every, uh,
month or so! I appologize. My style really is not that good :( I get
yelled at on most newsgroups I attend. I publicly ask your
forgiveness.
V*
M&V
Photography) writes:
>Dear Victoria,
>
>'Agent Orange' vs. 'a little chemical fertilizer' is quite a jump.
Once
>again it seems that there is no concept of moderation here. ANY
extreme,
>(in our view) is bad. What ever happened to moderation?
>
>Bill & Harvey
>zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT USA
Ok, so I am radical! The problem is when people use chemicals they
overuse them. They (not all people) have the theory 'more is better.'
For example, if it calls for one ounce per gallon, I know people who
will put two ounces in a gallon to get a better result! Whew! How
stupid is that? It is very stupid, but it is happening all over the
place. How many gardeners are really knowledgeable? Yes, gardening is
very popular, but there's only a small percentage of gardeners who
actually know what they are doing. People on this list are, for the
most part informed. A lot of others who dont read lists like this are
not. I love moderation, but it is a dying breed. I am the first to
admit I am extreme! PASSIONATE! I dont mean anyone any harm. Maybe I
should change my style. The annonymity of being on this screen gives me
courage like a good douse of booze! I dont drink, but you know what I
mean. :) One more example which scares the hell out of me: Recently I
went to Wolf's nursery to see if they had Gnatrol. I have fungus gnats
in my houseplants. The "professional" there suggested Diazinon (sp?).
FOR INSIDE OF MY HOUSE! WHERE MY CATS GO! When I balked at him, he
then said to me, oh, then use this, it should work...It was SEVIN! FOR
MY INDOOR PLANTS! THAT is what scares me. The people who are the
"pro's" in these nurseries who never went to one class or seminar about
chemicals, but they give recommendations anyway. Doesnt that scare you?
Victoria*
Stavros Macrakis
You drag in Agent Orange in a discussion about synthetic
vs. organic fertilizer.
You don't address a SINGLE one of the substantive points I raised.
You accuse people of wilfully "ignoring" the truth when they
disagree with you, and then deny you're calling them dishonest.
Enough!
-s
Marion Hess
bonds are chemical bonds... These are things that do work for you to
allow the soil to be healthy for supporting plant growth....Organic can
still be chemicals...it depends entirely on what the chemical is whether
it is organic or not. Some commercial fertilizers do no more than add
color to the grass by hitting it with high nitrogen. These do not
promote good root structure. Some can destroy helpful soil borne
organizms.. Feeding the soil and allowing it to set up proper uptake of
nutrients in plants is what this recipe does for you.....
-
MARION HESS DLT...@prodigy.com
Marion Hess
something anyone should put in their house, let alone on their lawns...
Are you aware of the Organic methods you can use for these purposes? I
know you are...<G> But so many are so quick to spend the money for these
commercially prepared solutions for a "quick kill" and don't examine what
it can do to their immediate environment. Marion..in Mi
SKID Photography
writes:
good answer & yes, that would be scary
Bill & Harvey
zuffalig/SKID Zone 6 CT USA
SKID Photography
mgos...@ix.netcom.com(M&V) writes:
>
>
>> Are you implying
>>that one can't overdose nitrogen, using 'organic' fertilizers?
>Or....are
>>you implying that the 'proper' application of 'chemical' fertilizer
>must
>>cause an overdose of nitrogen and therefore lead to the above
>mentioned
>>problems?
>>
>>Bill & Harvey
>
>Both Harvey. I am not Ingrid, but people always over fertilize.
>Chemical fertilizers are highly soluble. Organic fertilizers are not.
>They release slowly in the soil. When the solubility of fertilizer
>puts out too much green in the plant, the root system is overworked.
>Since N is not the key element which roots use to develop, it is
>dificult for the plant to keep up with top growth. Then the homeowner
>mows. Usually once a week is not enough. Only 1/3 of the leaf surface
>
>should be mowed off at a time, or the root system suffers. Then along
>comes high N and puts on more top growth, without benefit of deep
>roots. Mowing occurs, removes 1/2 or more at each mowing, not enough
>photosynthesis, poor, shallow roots etc...How's that?
>Victoria*
Dear Victoria* not Ingrid,
Does not compute.
First, to say that "people always over-fertilize" is a pretty broad
statement to make, one, I doubt, you could back up statistically.
Remember, homeowners (we are still talking about lawns) pay A LOT for those
chemical fertilizers (yeah, I know they are silly consumers, but those
prepackaged, name brand, chemical fertilizers, are wicked expensive and the
'Chem Lawn' people aren't going to waste money over-applying) and usually
don't want to buy more than is necessay).
Given that we are talking about grasses, (and not, let's say, tomatoes or
geraniums), one must remember that they are very high nitrogen users. The
'crop' (as it were) is the lawn itself. The root system of lawn grasses is
shallow at best (which is why they require so much water) and NEVER will
get deep, no matter what you add to the soil.......it is not their nature.
Lawn owners do not want (fruit) seed production, so to say that lawns
should be encouraged to grow a 'certain way' (like tomatoes) is wrong. To
say that the plants are 'overworked', when fertilized is one of those human
anthropomorphising things.
An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow lawns,
especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
Grass will still grow the fastest (without any fertilizer of ANY sort being
applied) when it rains a lot. We conclude, that finally, the limiting
factor in lawn growth is water........having nothing to do with 'added'
nutrients. When it rains a lot, nobody can keep up with the
mowing...........and..... isn't mowing totally artificial anyway?
Loving a good discussion,
SKID Photography
>David&Karen <sou...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>>What's the scientific argument for why organic lawn fertilizer is better
>>than the regular ol' granular stuff. Someone gave me a bag of the
>>regular stuff and I'm thinking about using it on my lawn this year. I
>>can't quite figure out how nitrogen from one source would be better than
>>nitrogen from another. And what is the regular ol' granualar stuff
>>anyway?
>Karen
>.... too much nitrogen all at once leads to weak growth/more
>susceptible to fungus and infestation... Ingrid
Dear Ingrid,
What does this have to do with the question being asked? Are you implying
that one can't overdose nitrogen, using 'organic' fertilizers? Or....are
you implying that the 'proper' application of 'chemical' fertilizer must
cause an overdose of nitrogen and therefore lead to the above mentioned
problems?
Bill & Harvey
Liz Albrook
Do you gentlemen not recognize a Queen Bee when you see one? I couldn't help
but notice in one of your other posts that you questioned the recommendation
of ivy as a flowering vine. Surely you've seen those gorgeous purple and
orange 3 inch wide flowers that cover each and every ivy vine!
I used to read rec.cooking but it has so many Keepers of all Knowledge that I
abandoned it. Rec.gardens has its share but you guys do a great job of
keeping it entertaining and informative. So much so that if you are ever,
god forbid, passing through Idaho let me know and I'll throw a party just for
you. It should keep the neighbors talking for months/years.
Liz
M&V
Photography) writes:
The
>'crop' (as it were) is the lawn itself. The root system of lawn
grasses is
>shallow at best (which is why they require so much water) and NEVER
will
>get deep, no matter what you add to the soil.......it is not their
nature.
>
is softer, has nutrients further down, and are slow release. If you
dont believe me, call your turfgrass expert at your land grant
university.
>An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow lawns,
>especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
>application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
It is unsound to grow turf anywhere in the US since not one variety of
turf is native to the states. We have native grasses, not native
turfgrasses. It is all introduced. Right now A&M is trying to develop
a Bermuda which does not go dormant in high heat, and cold.
>Grass will still grow the fastest (without any fertilizer of ANY sort
being
>applied) when it rains a lot. We conclude, that finally, the limiting
>factor in lawn growth is water........having nothing to do with
'added'
>nutrients. When it rains a lot, nobody can keep up with the
>mowing...........and..... isn't mowing totally artificial anyway?
Yes, it is artificial. Turfgrass is artificial. But since people
insist on having it as the high point in their front yards, there is a
lot of research going on to produce a better variety in all parts of
the country. The reason why it grows well after a rain is usually due
to the ionization of nitrogen from the air during lightening storms,
and the slow seepage of the rain. It is atmospheric, not cultural.
People water grass way too much. Encouraging deep root systems on turf
is the remedy to the high need for water. The way you get a deeper
root system is by slow releasing nutrients with trace elements. You
are incorrect on the root systems being shallow at best. So, it is the
combination of proper fertilization and watering *deeply* once a week
(1 inch) which encourage deep roots. Again, if you dont trust me on
this, call your turf management expert, usually a phD at your local
land grant U.
Victoria*
SKID Photography
Let's start with the lightning 'voodoo'. First, as we previously posted,
studies have been done about lightning and nitrogen ionization. Yes, the
lightning produces it, and then the rain washes it away......just like
those dreaded high nitrogen chemical fertilizers which you hate so. :- )
I'm sorry, we can't cite specific studies, but if you want to debunk this,
go and try.
Second, on the'thunder, rain, grass growth' issue: You keep speaking to
this issue from such a localized point of view (Texas). You have
previously stated that you are originally from New Jersey, do you not
remember that most of the rain that falls here is NOT from thunder storms?
i.e. The grass will 'green' and grow VERY quickly around even when there
is no lightning to supply that alleged ionized nitrogen. The lawn by our
garden in CT is not treated with anything (it's not our lawn) chemical or
otherwise....yet when it rains a lot, the grass grows like crazy. How do
you explain that phenomenon?
Grass Roots: Perhaps we didn't qualify our statement regarding root depth.
We should have said that grass root are very shallow, *relative to other
shrubs and perennials*. That is why lawns go dormant during the heat of
summer when it doesn't rain much (we are now speaking of Northeast US
weather and growth patterns). Lawns go dormant before almost all other
plants.......why you ask? Because of their shallow roots!
Yes, giving lawns a 1" soak, once/week will promote deeper roots (as
compared to a quarter of an inch, 4 times a week).......But if you stop
that watering and it does not rain the lawn will still go dormant (turn
brown) before everything else in your yard. Turf grass is a high water
usage crop.
Of course, providing a better soil will allow the grass plants to develop
deeper, stronger roots and better soil will retain water more than poor,
unamended soil. Grasses, by their very nature add soil ammendments (refer
back to the sod farm studies, which concluded that for every layer of sod
removed, at least a qurater inch of pure (composted) organic matter was
added to the soil.) That line: "The way you get a deeper root system is by
slow releasing nutrients with trace elements." is somewhat of a factual
fabrication, or at best an incomplete thought....and do we detect an
unwritten next line about the only way to provide these (slow release trace
elements) is through a strict adherence to strictly organic principles?
Off subject here: Why is it you {organic enthusiast types} always imply
that we, {chemical/organic moderate types} want to wantonly ruin the
environment and grow plants in rock hard, un-ammended, herbicide filled
soil; in which everthing will die? :- )
But still, no matter how good your soil, the grass will go dormant first,
RELATIVE to essentially all other plants in your yard.
The reason we mentioned that lawns were 'non native to the US' was to
subtly reinforce the concept that turf grasses, no matter how you raise
them (good soil or otherwise) will go dormant during low natural rain
conditions OR they will need to be irrigated with relatively large amounts
of water on a regular basis.
Finally, it comes back to the fact that, good sound agricultural practices,
will produce the best results in any given weather pattern. It does not
matter if those aformentioned practices are purely 'organic' or a moderate
hybrid of the two. It is NOT written anyplace that people who use
chemicals, on occasion, don't also use sound soil ammending practices as
well!!!!!
Always loving a good discussion of facts,
Bill & Harvey
zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT USA
M&V
Saiyo) writes:
>Gardener's Supply sells a" low maintenance" lawn seed that has herbs
and
>flowers mixed in. Unless one is planting a putting green, it is not
>necessary to have a flawless lawn. There must be another subject in
which
>neighbors can compete. Maybe it has a certain amount of snob appeal.
Sad.
>
Perfect! My lawn is green. It has some wonderful crab grass, clover,
nuthedge, dandilions, etc. It stays green when the neighbors water
every minute in the heat of Dallas. Oh, some bermuda is mixed in with
my other stuff! Works for me.
Victoria*
M&V
Photography) writes:
>
>Finally, it comes back to the fact that, good sound agricultural
practices,
>will produce the best results in any given weather pattern.
Wrong again. The turf grasses go dormant down HERE when the summer
arrives, in around three weeks, and weather is 100+ for three months or
more. People water their little heads off! It doesnt matter. Why are
we debating anyway? I have grown to like you! :) You say tomata I
say tomatta, potata, potatta...You know the rest! Agree to disagree is
the best possible thing we can do here or we will risk driving everyone
in the natural world crazy who is reading this! PHEW!
Victoria* BTW, I am not from NJ, but I am a yenta from New York!
It is NOT written anyplace that people who use
>chemicals, on occasion, don't also use sound soil ammending practices
as
>well!!!!!
>
I never said that. I did say in one of my posts I have to just about
eliminate the people on this newsgroup since most of these people are
well read in the way we garden, chemicals or not...I know you know OUR
stuff! Your not on my s-list.
SKID Photography
writes:
And we like you too; even though you are soooooooo argumentative, we still
read all your posts......teehee ;- )
Now..............why must you twist what we say? Yes, Texas lawns go
dormant when it gets above 100F, but still, if you did not have good
agricultural practices, they would be dormant, or worse, dead,
sooner....... Obviously, turf grass does not grow above a certain temp,
that is true of many plants. We also remember saying that we were talking
from a Northeastern US perspective........so it does not make us wrong.
Why must everything be so black and white (with you), when in reality, it's
always shades of grey (or green).
And we are not imagining it, when we said that you seem to lump all 'non
exclusive organic agricultural practice' people together with Dow Chemical
Co. enthusiasts. You should go back and re-read some of your posts, you
tend to take a 'take no prisoners' attitude, e.g. <snip> "Wrong again.
The turf grasses go dormant down HERE when the summer arrives" <snip>.
But we LOVE the fact that your a 'New Yawka" (by way of Jersey)........it
explains the aggressive, argumentative personality (said in true admiration
:- ) as it takes one to know one!
Attitudinally,
Bill &Harvey
back and forth 'rantings'.......Sort of like a car wreck.....can't look
away :- )
Chris N970
Turf grasses are shallow rooted? My zoysia grass has 18" roots I wish
annuals would
do that. No native turf grasses? What about Buffalo Grass? (Pat.#84609)
Keep Arguing
This is fun!
Chris in Austin, Tx.
:
Photography) writes:
>Why must everything be so black and white (with you), when in reality,
it's
>always shades of grey (or green).
Uh, I'm a nut case!
BTW, this is our new address, so you arent seeing things!
>And we are not imagining it, when we said that you seem to lump all
'non
>exclusive organic agricultural practice' people together with Dow
Chemical
>Co. enthusiasts. You should go back and re-read some of your posts,
you
>tend to take a 'take no prisoners' attitude, e.g. <snip> "Wrong
again.
I do tend to get a little nuts around a certain time of any given
month! If you watch my posts, you will soon be able to tell! And IF
you say ONE WORD OUT OF MY WAY OF THINKING durning that time, watch
out! I do eventually appologize.
>
>But we LOVE the fact that your a 'New Yawka" (by way of
Jersey)........it
>explains the aggressive, argumentative personality (said in true
admiration
> :- ) as it takes one to know one!
>
>Attitudinally,
>Bill &Harvey
>zuffalig/SKID zone 6 CT USA
My Uncle lives in Secaucus, does that count? I grew up in Brooklyn
WITH, are you ready, Andrew Dice Clay! Hey, yo! I am a big mush mosh.
Dont let my agression fool you. After living down here in polite land,
(!) I have calmed, sort of. At least in person I am soft. This
computer persona is my mega agressive self. Dig?
>PS: From the e mail we get, it seems that, in fact, people DO enjoy
these
>back and forth 'rantings'.......Sort of like a car wreck.....can't
look
>away :- )
>
Good, glad to be of some entertainment!
Victoria*
:
writes:
Buffalo Grass is from Africa and is introduced. If I am wrong, by all
means correct me. I was recently with the Turf Specialist from A&M at
Richardson Research Center and he told me we had NO native turf in the
United States. It is all introduced, and hybridized. I think down
here, our grass roots get much deeper because of our heat and drought.
I was not into turf when I lived up north, so I am not sure if our
roots go deeper than cool temp grasses up north.
V*
Rob Witherspoon
: Buffalo Grass is from Africa and is introduced. If I am wrong, by all
: means correct me. I was recently with the Turf Specialist from A&M at
: Richardson Research Center and he told me we had NO native turf in the
: United States. It is all introduced, and hybridized. I think down
: here, our grass roots get much deeper because of our heat and drought.
: I was not into turf when I lived up north, so I am not sure if our
: roots go deeper than cool temp grasses up north.
It is extremely difficult to confirm whether specific turfgrasses are
native or non-native. In the literature I have seen various common
turfgrasses (cool season) called native including red fescue (Festuca
rubra) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) - not sold as seed but very common
in turf areas.
I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an argument
against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations implies
that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be here
either.
Rob Witherspoon
Guelph Turfgrass Institute
http://www.uoguelph.ca/GTI
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario CANADA
Marion Hess
Marion Hess
make a difference...and too much water leaches nutrients away from the
soil...
-
MARION HESS DLT...@prodigy.com
B.K.
>mgos...@ix.netcom.com(M&V) writes:
>
>>In <4ikk5p$b...@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com> zuff...@nyc.pipeline.com (SKID
>>Photography) writes:
>An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow lawns,
>especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
>application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
would all be riding bikes to work. My two wheels worth.
What about the benefits of slowed water movement, reduced erosion(wind
and water), cooling effect on surrounding areas, reduced noise
pollution, reduced air pollution, reduced glare, recreational use, and
aesthetic benefits?
Ever been on Kyle field at TAMU during September? The temp is around
120F, so the football players actually put aluminum foil on/in the
bottom of their shoes to reflect the heat away.
Ask a TAMU summer student what happens to the dashboard of his car
from sitting in the unshaded parking lot.
>It is unsound to grow turf anywhere in the US since not one variety of
>turf is native to the states. We have native grasses, not native
>turfgrasses. It is all introduced. Right now A&M is trying to develop
>a Bermuda which does not go dormant in high heat, and cold.
What about Buffalograss, if you're in TX surely you've heard of it?
Also, Bermudagrass is considered to go "semi-dormant" in the summer,
producing very few tillers. Dormancy is what happens to a warm-season
turfgrass in the winter, a cool-season turfgrass in the summer.
>When it rains a lot, nobody can keep up with the
>mowing...........and..... isn't mowing totally artificial anyway?
Not when you consider that grasses are/were forage for grazing
animals. Cut, chomp, chew. What's the difference?
>>Yes, it is artificial. Turfgrass is artificial.
If it's not native, it's artificial. So, gardens are artificial also.
>The reason why it grows well after a rain is usually due
>to the ionization of nitrogen from the air during lightening storms,
>and the slow seepage of the rain. It is atmospheric, not cultural.
I'd like to see the research to back this up. I believe the benefit
is negligible at best. Roots must come in contact with the nutrients
for adsorption to occur. Are you sure that it's not just due to
nutrients from decomposing OM(thatch, grass clippings) being released
and leached down into the soil profile? Where they then come in
contact with the roots.
Also, nitrification of NH4 after rainfall is very quick to occur.
Especially after a dry spell. The fixed ammonia is converted to
nitrate by soil microbes. Nitrate, since it is mobile, is then able
to move within the soil profile and come in contact with the roots.
>>People water grass way too much. Encouraging deep root systems on turf
>>is the remedy to the high need for water. The way you get a deeper
>>root system is by slow releasing nutrients with trace elements.
Plants need water, and roots grow deep to find water.
You encourage a plant to grow deep roots by periodically subjecting it
to drought stress.
The general rule for laypeople is to water every third day.
Otherwise, stick your finger in the ground to about 1". If it's wet,
don't water. If it's dry, apply 1" of water(try putting a couple of
coffee cans in different locations to get an idea of how much time it
takes to water 1"). You may have to split this into several
applications if the soils' infiltration rate is slower than the water
application rate(ex. water 15 min, let soak 15 min. repeat 3x).
If you see water running off the surface and into the gutter. STOP!
You've exeeded the soils infiltration rate or have already saturated
the soil. If you don't have 1" of water down yet, let it soak for 15
minutes. Then water again. Then let soak again. Then water again....
This should help avoid water loss.
There's also some satisfaction in watching your neighbor water for 3
hours every other day, but still ending up with a brown lawn. While
you split yours into (3) 15 minute applications every 3 days, and have
a lush green lawn.
>Finally, it comes back to the fact that, good sound agricultural practices,
>will produce the best results in any given weather pattern. It does not
>matter if those aformentioned practices are purely 'organic' or a moderate
>hybrid of the two.
Words to live by.
One more tidbit. Research has shown that a soil fertilized with both
manure and synthetics will show an increase in OM over time(30 years),
and larger than that of a manure only soil. Imagine that. Synthetic
fertilizer can actually help increase OM more than manure alone.
Something the organic growers don't want you to know.
B.K.
SKID Photography
YEAH!
Bill & Harvey
Slc.dennis Bishop
B.K.
Buffalograss is a perrenial grass native to the Great Plains from
Montana to Mexico. It is the only "true" native turfgrass in the
South.
I would be interested in knowing who told you this, as I graduated
from A&M with a specialization in turf a few years ago. Maybe
something has occured since 1991 to change their opinion of this?
But every text I own refers to Buffalograss as a native turfgrass.
Brian K.
Greg Tillman
: I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an argument
: that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations implies
: that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be here
: either.
Well, i guess the logic could say that, but the logic I use doesn't.
I don't know many people that would say you absolutely *should not*
plant non-native species; wherever I end up, I plan to have both
forsythia and daffodils, because I love both. I think the argument,
or my argument anyway, is more along the lines of trying to remember
that we're a part of the landscape, and maybe we should try to adapt
to it just a little bit more, and force it to adapt to us just a
little bit less. So in addition to my forsythia and daffodils,
I'll try to use some local plants as well.
http://www.prairienet.org/gpf/homepage.html Grand Prairie Friends
http://www.prairienet.org/gpf/natives.html Other Native Plant Societies
Kay Klier
>Buffalo Grass is from Africa and is introduced. If I am wrong, by all
>means correct me. I was recently with the Turf Specialist from A&M at
>Richardson Research Center and he told me we had NO native turf in the
>United States. It is all introduced, and hybridized. I think down
>here, our grass roots get much deeper because of our heat and drought.
>I was not into turf when I lived up north, so I am not sure if our
>roots go deeper than cool temp grasses up north.
You are mistaken. Buchloe dactyloides, buffalo grass, is native to
North America... the sod houses of the early settlers were primarily
made of this species. Bromus ciliatus and Bromus purgans have also
been used (though not often) as turfgrasses; Festuca rubra is native
to the northern hemisphere, including North America.
Kay Klier kk1...@cedarnet.org
Samantha Lane
> was: "Chem"vs"Org" Lawn Fert., now: How to
> water your lawn
>
> bk...@orci.com (B.K.)
> Sun, 24 Mar 1996 19:43:30 GMT
> OnRamp Communications, Inc.
>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.gardens
> References:
> <4imda1$h...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
<4ippg9$s...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>
>
> >In article <4imda1$h...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
> >mgos...@ix.netcom.com(M&V) writes:
> >
> >>In <4ikk5p$b...@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com> zuff...@nyc.pipeline.com
(SKID
> >>Photography) writes:
> You two go at it a lot! What gives?
> >An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow
lawns,
> >especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
> >application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
> I think paved roads are ecologically unsound to. If I had my way, we
> would all be riding bikes to work. My two wheels worth.
> What about the benefits of slowed water movement, reduced erosion(wind
> and water), cooling effect on surrounding areas, reduced noise
> pollution, reduced air pollution, reduced glare, recreational use, and
> aesthetic benefits?
All these benefits could be produced with a lot fewer resources by grass
(as opposed to lawn) or shrubs or trees. Plantings of native species
could provide green corridors and habitats for animals, if they were
wide enough. For an argument against the growing of lawn, see Bill
Mollison's books on permaculture. The statistics are staggering. More
resources are applied to lawn in the USA than any other agricultural
product and for the most part, its just there to look tidy.
Fortunately here in Oz, the trend is away from lawns in median strips
and along roads. Along the freeway north of where I live there are
beautiful plantings of callisteman and grevillea. I almost run off the
road admiring it when its in flower. Is this the trend in USA too? But a
lot of people still maintain huge lawns around their houses where they
could have a low maintenance native garden or useful food trees and
vines.
Samantha
Samantha Lane Australian Nuclear Science and
s...@anpnt22.anp.ansto.gov.au Technology Organistation
ISD + 61 2 717 3601 New Illawarra Rd ,
Lucas Heights. 2234
Thomas C. Waters
bk...@orci.com (B.K.) writes:
> >In article <4imda1$h...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
> >mgos...@ix.netcom.com(M&V) writes:
> >
> >>In <4ikk5p$b...@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com> zuff...@nyc.pipeline.com (SKID
> >>Photography) writes:
> You two go at it a lot! What gives?
> >An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow lawns,
> >especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
> >application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
> I think paved roads are ecologically unsound to. If I had my way, we
> would all be riding bikes to work. My two wheels worth.
>
> What about the benefits of slowed water movement, reduced erosion(wind
> and water), cooling effect on surrounding areas, reduced noise
> pollution, reduced air pollution, reduced glare, recreational use, and
> aesthetic benefits?
> Ever been on Kyle field at TAMU during September? The temp is around
> 120F, so the football players actually put aluminum foil on/in the
> bottom of their shoes to reflect the heat away.
> Ask a TAMU summer student what happens to the dashboard of his car
> from sitting in the unshaded parking lot.
One thought is that a planting of an area in a plant material "other
than a lawn grass" can be a way to have all those benifits and less of
the ecologic issues of a lawn. In SO CA, that might mean an area
planted in Ice plant instead of sod. I am not familiar enough with
Texas to name plants off the top of my head...
Of course, specialized areas of turf like golf areas and sports fields
offer other challenges that a uniform turf grass seems to meet better.
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred,
good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
******************************************************************
Rob Witherspoon
: : I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an
: : argument against using them in the landscape - it
: : smacks of eco-racism. The logic that says we shouldn't use non-native
: : plants in appropriate situations implies that all the non-native
: : persons living in North America shouldn't be here either.
: Well, i guess the logic could say that, but the logic I use doesn't.
: I don't know many people that would say you absolutely *should not*
: plant non-native species; wherever I end up, I plan to have both
: forsythia and daffodils, because I love both. I think the argument,
: or my argument anyway, is more along the lines of trying to remember
: that we're a part of the landscape, and maybe we should try to adapt
: to it just a little bit more, and force it to adapt to us just a
: little bit less. So in addition to my forsythia and daffodils,
: I'll try to use some local plants as well.
Agreed! However, *there are* people who think we should plant only native
plant material, in fact that we should restore the landscape to the way
it was before our ancestors stepped off the boat (or plane or ice flow).
They don't understand or appreciate the human desire to cultivate the
landscape for beauty (i.e. - roses) or recreation (i.e. - golf courses).
I agree with you that even rose growers and golf course superintendents
should manage their respective parts of the landscape as much in harmony
with nature as possible.
Rob
Chad James Segura
: >In article <4imda1$h...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
: >mgos...@ix.netcom.com(M&V) writes:
: >
: >>In <4ikk5p$b...@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com> zuff...@nyc.pipeline.com (SKID
: >>Photography) writes:
: You two go at it a lot! What gives?
: >An argument can be made that it is ecologically unsound to grow lawns,
: >especially in places like Texas and Southern California, but the
: >application of properly timed fertilizers is not an unsound practice.
: I think paved roads are ecologically unsound to. If I had my way, we
: would all be riding bikes to work. My two wheels worth.
: What about the benefits of slowed water movement, reduced erosion(wind
: and water), cooling effect on surrounding areas, reduced noise
: pollution, reduced air pollution, reduced glare, recreational use, and
: aesthetic benefits?
Except for some recreational use, all can be supplied by native plants.
Ever notice that most people outside of Texas think all of Texas is as
dry as Odessa?
: Ever been on Kyle field at TAMU during September? The temp is around
: 120F, so the football players actually put aluminum foil on/in the
: bottom of their shoes to reflect the heat away.
: Ask a TAMU summer student what happens to the dashboard of his car
: from sitting in the unshaded parking lot.
Gets ripped out by the radio thief? :)
: >It is unsound to grow turf anywhere in the US since not one variety of
: >turf is native to the states. We have native grasses, not native
: >turfgrasses. It is all introduced. Right now A&M is trying to develop
: >a Bermuda which does not go dormant in high heat, and cold.
: What about Buffalograss, if you're in TX surely you've heard of it?
: Also, Bermudagrass is considered to go "semi-dormant" in the summer,
: producing very few tillers. Dormancy is what happens to a warm-season
: turfgrass in the winter, a cool-season turfgrass in the summer.
So what would our kids play on? I think we should all cover our
properties with 90% natives and 10% astroturf
: >When it rains a lot, nobody
can keep up with the
: >mowing...........and..... isn't mowing totally artificial anyway?
: Not when you consider that grasses are/were forage for grazing
: animals. Cut, chomp, chew. What's the difference?
Let's see. I hate to mow. Mowing is noisy. Mowing emits fumes. Lots of
people bag the clippings and throw it away. Most grazing animals (sheep
excluded) scissor the grass rather than tear at, which is easier on the
grass.
: >>Yes, it is artificial. Turfgrass is artificial.
: If it's not native, it's artificial. So, gardens are artificial also.
Semantics. What about permaculture?
: >The reason why it grows well after a rain is usually due
: >to the ionization of nitrogen from the air during lightening storms,
: >and the slow seepage of the rain. It is atmospheric, not cultural.
: I'd like to see the research to back this up. I believe the benefit
: is negligible at best. Roots must come in contact with the nutrients
: for adsorption to occur. Are you sure that it's not just due to
: nutrients from decomposing OM(thatch, grass clippings) being released
: and leached down into the soil profile? Where they then come in
: contact with the roots.
I can't believe lightning would make much difference.
: Also, nitrification of NH4 after rainfall is very quick to occur.
Do you have a citation? Would be interesting to see why this occurs.
: Something the organic growers don't want you to know.
Why the suspected conspiracy? Most organic growers don't know this.
Chad
: B.K.
Shawn Hicks
>zuff...@nyc.pipeline.com (SKID Photography) wrote:
>Buffalograss is a perrenial grass native to the Great Plains from
>Montana to Mexico. It is the only "true" native turfgrass in the
>South.
>
>I would be interested in knowing who told you this, as I graduated
>from A&M with a specialization in turf a few years ago. Maybe
>something has occured since 1991 to change their opinion of this?
>But every text I own refers to Buffalograss as a native turfgrass.
I've been interested in replacing my fescue with a hybrid version
of Buffalograss. I know that it doesn't have the same rich green
look to it, but what I really want to know and can't seem to find
out through books is whether it is appropriate for foot traffic,
especially barefoot, and whether it can handle my Beagle and his
"beagle biscuits" along with the associated scooping.
========================================================
Shawn Hicks bali...@wizard.com
Las Vegas, NV, USA http://www.wizard.com/~balistik/
Francis Groeters
> >against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
> >that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations
> >implies that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be
> >here either.
> >
> >
I think you'd get a few Native American people who would whole-heartedly
support such a sentiment - certainly a few hundred years ago I'm sure most
would have preferred it if the colonizing Europeans had turned around and
went back from where they came.
As far as the plants go, generally we see eco-racism in reverse: we
preferentially plant aliens (for some reason unbeknownst to me - probably
novelty, or the fact that our European ancestors wanted plants from home
rather than natives, and this has simply become a cultural tradition). So
don't begrudge the current movement to planting more natives in favor of
aliens. It's a step in the right direction, ecologically speaking.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
:
writes:
>
>You are mistaken. Buchloe dactyloides, buffalo grass, is native to
>North America... the sod houses of the early settlers were primarily
>made of this species. Bromus ciliatus and Bromus purgans have also
>been used (though not often) as turfgrasses; Festuca rubra is native
>to the northern hemisphere, including North America.
>
>Kay Klier kk1...@cedarnet.org
>
>
to show you, never put all your faith in an extension agent! The
specialist told me there were NO native turf grasses in North America.
Oh well, I admit my mistake...!
Victoria*
Gad Zukes!
"Eco-racism"??? You've GOT to be kidding. We're talking plants here,
not people. Choosing plants because of their origin, be it native or
non-native is a matter of personal choice. By not growing a certain
plant in your garden because of its origin, you're not denying them
the right to earn a livelihood, or a seat on a bus, or the freedom to
buy a home in whatever neighborhood they want...you're not sending them
to a concentration camp. I mean, we're not talking ethnic cleansing
here. These are plants. We all make choices about what plants we
grow...based on everything from the way they look to the way the smell
to their growth habits to their origins. If we choose just for the way
the look, what kind of "racism" is that. Some people just want to grow
natives, and in many landscapes, that makes sense. Eco-racism? C'mon
..let's worry about racism against human beings and not get wrapped up
in a non-issue like plant "racism". Julie
SKID Photography
>>Fran Groeters
>>groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
>
>"Eco-racism"??? You've GOT to be kidding. We're talking plants here,
>not people. Choosing plants because of their origin, be it native or
>non-native is a matter of personal choice. By not growing a certain
>plant in your garden because of its origin, you're not denying them
>the right to earn a livelihood, or a seat on a bus, or the freedom to
>buy a home in whatever neighborhood they want...you're not sending them
>to a concentration camp. I mean, we're not talking ethnic cleansing
>here. These are plants. We all make choices about what plants we
>grow...based on everything from the way they look to the way the smell
>to their growth habits to their origins. If we choose just for the way
>the look, what kind of "racism" is that. Some people just want to grow
>natives, and in many landscapes, that makes sense. Eco-racism? C'mon
>..let's worry about racism against human beings and not get wrapped up
>in a non-issue like plant "racism". Julie
>
Julie,
This is not an argument.....this is an observation:
We think you missed the point here. The post was a response to the "you
*MUST* not grow anything but native species".....(implying, that anything
else would be wrong and immoral). People don't like to be told what to do
or not to do.....In our humble opinion: suggestions, qualified as personal
opinions are acceptable, but diatribes which don't allow for discussion
garner rebukes of the above sort.
Bill & Harvey
zuffalig/SKID Zone 6 CT USA
"reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in
quotes"--TKK
"Reality is local"
Allyn Weaks
Witherspoon) wrote:
>I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an argument
>against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
>that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations implies
>that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be here
>either.
Not at all. I'll be happy to argue that there are too _many_ of us :-)
But we are the same species as the Native Americans, who have been in the
Puget Sound area since the last glaciation at least, which is as long as
we've had any soil to grow plants in this time around. Of course, we
aren't as well behaved on the whole, so perhaps one could argue on
provinance grounds after all...
Just because humans have already done one bad thing (overpopulated the
planet beyond sustainability at our current rate of resource utilization),
why does that makes it fine and dandy to willy-nilly and _knowingly_ do
further bad things that risk reducing that sustainability further?
The _rate_ at which we are spreading new species around the globe
(species, not races, though even races can be a problem; look into reed
canary grass) can be disasterous. Yes indeed, even without humans,
species travel on their own, invade new territories, and eventually settle
down into 'native' status. But without modern humans, not very many into
an area at a time. One or two here, one or two there, even a few dozen,
over a century or so. What we've done is increase the rate of mixing
_enormously_; many thousands of introduced species over the last few
hundred years, which although not the sole cause by any means, is
contributing to the loss of habitat and species at an unprecedented rate;
we are losing animal species as fast now as they were lost when the
dinosaurs died out, and worse, we are losing _plant_ species at a probably
faster rate than at any time in geological history (there is now a little
evidence for a mass plant die-off just before the dinosaurs took over, but
it's controversial; and even if it did happen, it's not clear that species
were lost then so much as individuals, a very different thing).
The species which are surviving our machinations tend to be generalists,
and they crowd out the more delicate and fussy specialists, reducing the
total number of species in our ecosystems, breaking the links between
others, and reducing the elasticity of those systems to shock. We _need_
our prairies and forests and wetlands and even healthy, biodiverse urban
ecosystems, because we _cannot_ in the forseeable future mimic what they
do: keep our water and air and climate livable for mammals. At a time
when we are all trying to shock the planet very badly indeed from several
different directions at once, with massive amounts of pesticides, ozone
depletion, CO2 and other greenhouse gas buildup, massive clear-cutting and
other erosion-producing activities, etc. it's in our own best interest to
try to protect what's left, even ignoring some of the probable direct
human medical benefits of some of the species that are now on the brink.
You say that we should be able to use non-natives in appropriate
situations, and I'll agree to some extent (I'd have a hard time changing
my diet at my age :-)). I'm certainly not a fanatic, and I am guilty of
planting exotics, though I become less inclined to do so the more ecology
I learn; I've now reached the point where I would be quite strict with
myself if I lived anywhere near a natural area, instead of being buried in
a city. But far too many people consider their personal aesthetics or
profits to be ample justification for doing anything they please,
regardless of the effects on others: neighbors, local ecosystem, or the
planet as a whole. 80% of invasive, habitat destroying, noxious weeds in
the US are escaped ornamentals (loosestrife, water hyacinth, scotch broom,
english ivy, norway maple, japanese honeysuckle, hundreds more ...). Some
of the other noxious weeds were introduced for such 'appropriate' and
useful reasons as stabilizing sand dunes, or reducing erosion (reed canary
grass) or animal fodder (kudzu); the others are due to carelessness
(spartina). Spartina, a coastal grass native to the eastern US and
accidentally introduced about 100 years ago to the PNW, sat around for
decades not doing very well, and would certainly not have been considered
invasive 40 or 50 years ago; it suddenly reached some sort of critical
mass a few years ago and has explosively increased its population,
crowding out estuaries with wild abandon. This scenario is not uncommon
with invasive plants, so although the majority of exotics will probably
never be a problem, it's darned hard to guess in advance which could turn
into a disaster for your kids and grand-kids. The effects of kudzu should
be known to pretty much everyone by now, but at the time it was
introduced, it couldn't have been expected that it could bury a house in a
couple of months. Nor were the effects of multiflora rose as hedges, or
japanese honeysuckle, scotch broom, and water hyacinths as pretty
ornamentals, or hymalayan blackberries as a tasty berry, or starlings to
have all the birds from shakespeare, or rabbits for food and cane toads to
eat pest bugs in Australia guessed at... And then there are the many
people, who sometimes show up right here in rec.gardens, who are bound and
determined to grow something like loosestrife even when informed (not even
by me! there are usually at least a dozen people who jump in against
loosestrife) that it's illegal under federal law, irresponsible, and even
downright antagonistic, simply because they personally happen to enjoy
it. Self restraint is necessary, in landscaping choices as in other
things.
The other side of the non-native ornamental coin is how many resources a
non-native plant can use up, turf grass being a major, though not the
only, case in point. Even in rainy Seattle, if people want green lawns
all summer long, it takes a _lot_ of watering, even with modern grass
varieties. But North Seattle doesn't have any extra summer water
anymore. It becomes nearly undrinkable in August now, as the reservoir
(the Tolt) is drawn down lower than it should be even in a good year with
adequate snow-pack. Several new development projects have been denied
permission here because there isn't enough water to serve yet more thirsty
lawns (this could be considered a good thing :-)). But a new reservoir is
under discussion. If it's built, which is almost certain at some point,
we will lose most of that watershed and yet another salmon river (only 10%
of salmon runs are still wild, which bodes poorly for their long-term
survival). Without summer lawn water use, we could tolerate some new
development (like it or not, it's going to happen anyway; there are simply
too many people to stop it altogether) but still leave that watershed and
salmon run intact for awhile longer. Now, there are drought tolerant
non-natives that one can use in a lawn (some of which are classed as
noxious weeds outside of the city), or one can accept that turf grass goes
dormant for six to eight weeks every summer, and leave it brown, or
better, one can plant something altogether more appropriate, such as
natives of value to wildlife, which get along well in the climate and
soils they've had 12,000 years to get used to, and which can tolerate the
local pests with aplomb (and without pesticides), and are quite beautiful
as well. With the $25-30 billion per year petrochem/turf industry pushing
weed&feed green, green, grass lawns with every tv commercial and magazine
ad, that's not likely to happen on a large scale without either government
interference, or wide public education and proselytization by some of us
who care about our local urban environments, and sustainability for future
generations. If you object to the mere proselytization, how will you feel
when the government starts in on interference, as it already has in some
communities in the southwest?
Mind you, none of this make the slightest bit of difference on an
evolutionary time scale. Enough species will remain despite anything we
do to start off the next cycle, with us or without us; it makes no
difference to the planet. But we don't happen to live on that scale. In
the three decades that I've been aware of the world around me, I've seen a
_tremendous_ amount of deterioration in the habitats that should matter
most to us: the very yards we live in. Just look up any
backyard-naturalist book from the 60s to see how much is gone. If we're
going to turn it around, it had better be soon, in what's left of _our_
lifetimes. Because most of the current crop of kids already don't know
that there's something out there that could be restored to them.
--
Allyn Weaks
al...@u.washington.edu
PNW Native Wildlife Gardening: (under construction)
http://chemwww.chem.washington.edu/natives/
Shawn Hicks
liz...@ix.netcom.com (Gad Zukes!) wrote:
>"Eco-racism"??? You've GOT to be kidding. We're talking plants here,
>not people. Choosing plants because of their origin, be it native or
>non-native is a matter of personal choice. By not growing a certain
>plant in your garden because of its origin, you're not denying them
>the right to earn a livelihood, or a seat on a bus, or the freedom to
>buy a home in whatever neighborhood they want...you're not sending them
>to a concentration camp.
True. But you could be spreading a plant that will invade the local
wilderness. There are examples of plants, like kudzu, that smother
and kill trees, reduce habitat for native animals, and push some
native plant species to extinction.
So, you could, in fact, be denying some plant or animal species a
livelihood or the freedom to have a home. (It's a bit of a stretch,
but you get my point.)
>I mean, we're not talking ethnic cleansing
>here. These are plants. We all make choices about what plants we
>grow...based on everything from the way they look to the way the smell
>to their growth habits to their origins. If we choose just for the way
>the look, what kind of "racism" is that.
None. It's simply being suggested that you also consider the effects
the plant will have on the local wilderness. Don't just say "Gee, this
vine has pretty flowers and grows fast--I'll plant it!" Also ask
yourself what it might do if it gets "free." If the answer is "die,"
then great, plant it.
When I was in New Zealand, the whole country was trying to kill this
ugly weed that was brought over from Scottland to feed cattle. I
believe they call it Gorse. It was choking out the landscape and
it seemed to resist all efforts. The stuff was everywhere.
Jeffrey K. Bounds
In article <4jnm05$d...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
liz...@ix.netcom.com (Gad Zukes!) writes:
In <groeters-300...@129.252.46.214>
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu (Francis Groeters) writes:
>> In article <4iud9g$b...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, Rob Witherspoon
writes:
>> >I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an argument
>> >against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
[ stuff deleted ]
>> >Rob Witherspoon
[ stuff deleted ]
>As far as the plants go, generally we see eco-racism in reverse: we
>preferentially plant aliens (for some reason unbeknownst to me -probably
>novelty, or the fact that our European ancestors wanted plants from home
>rather than natives, and this has simply become a cultural tradition). So
>don't begrudge the current movement to planting more natives in favor of
>aliens. It's a step in the right direction, ecologically speaking.
>Fran Groeters
"Eco-racism"??? You've GOT to be kidding. We're talking plants here,
not people. Choosing plants because of their origin, be it native or
[ stuff deleted ]
Julie
Wow, this thread has really gone off the deep end! I have to weigh in
with Julie--comparing preference for plants according to origin with
racism is really overblowing things JUST A BIT, don't you think?
What's next? Is your preference for a particular kind of dog or cat
insidious breedism? I don't think so. Are you going on a
serial-eco-killing spree when you go out to weed your flower bed in
the morning? Hardly. The analogy between plants and people is
preposterous.
This is not to say that I don't object as much as the next guy to
someone making pronouncements about what I can and cannot plant in my
yard--that seems like a pretty basic freedom to many people in this
group. But with freedom goes responsibility, and that means that you
should be aware that there are some very good reasons for being
extraordinarily careful about introducing non-native species. Those
of us forced to live with kudzu, "popcorn" trees, privet, torpedo
grass, and a few hundred other rampant imports that someone, somewhere
foolishly thought would look nice in the front yard, wish everyone
would be a bit more careful. And "eco-racism" has nothing to do with
it.
Jeff
--
Kay Klier
>In article <4iud9g$b...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, rob...@uoguelph.ca (Rob
>Witherspoon) wrote:
>
>>I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an argument
>>against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
>>that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations implies
>>that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be here
>>either.
>
>Not at all. I'll be happy to argue that there are too _many_ of us :-)
>But we are the same species as the Native Americans, who have been in the
>Puget Sound area since the last glaciation at least, which is as long as
>we've had any soil to grow plants in this time around. Of course, we
>aren't as well behaved on the whole, so perhaps one could argue on
>provinance grounds after all...
Well, Allyn, I'd ordinarily pretty much agree with you, but I'm feeling
a bit feisty today, and would suggest that one of the problems with the
carrying capacity in the PNW is too many midwesterners... which means we
both better head out, even though neither of us likes the winters back
home... ;-)
Seriously, I'm all in favor of using as many native species as possible
in landscapes, esp. urban landscapes, but there's a certain spiciness to
mixing up plants from different parts of the world... I've never seen
so many hummingbirds as the years that I grew Mexican Cupheas, for instance.
And, if we were to insist on a diet of native foods, it might be a bit
less than the USDA's balanced dietary recommendations -- native berries,
a few nuts, some sunflowers and Iva axillaris (povertyweed), etc. Remember
that tomatoes, beans, corn, and squash are all native to central
and South America, and most of the other common veggies are Eurasian in
origin. Personally, I *like* a varied diet....
It's shameful when we cannot leave any natural areas alone, but think
we must continually alter them to our ideas of "productive" and "neat and
tidy". It also seems a bit overdone to me to forbid non-native species
that have not been problems in an area.
Kay (moderation in most things except chocolate) Klier kl...@fern.com
--
----
Kay Klier kl...@fern.com
Francis Groeters
> In <groeters-300...@129.252.46.214>
> groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu (Francis Groeters) writes:
> >
> >> In article <4iud9g$b...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, Rob Witherspoon
> writes:
> >>
> >> >I am always a little concerned when plant origin is used as an
> argument
> >> >against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The
> logic
> >> >that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate
> situations
> >> >implies that all the non-native persons living in North America
> shouldn't be
> >> >here either.
> >> >
> >I think you'd get a few Native American people who would
> whole-heartedly
> >support such a sentiment - certainly a few hundred years ago I'm sure
> most
> >would have preferred it if the colonizing Europeans had turned around
> and
> >went back from where they came.
> >As far as the plants go, generally we see eco-racism in reverse: we
>
> "Eco-racism"??? You've GOT to be kidding. We're talking plants here,
> not people. Choosing plants because of their origin, be it native or
> natives, and in many landscapes, that makes sense. Eco-racism? C'mon
> ..let's worry about racism against human beings and not get wrapped up
> in a non-issue like plant "racism". Julie
C'mon Julie, lighten up. I was simply using the original poster's term.
There's probably a better term, although it must be said that race is a
commonly used term in ecology and evolution, referring to a group of
populations that is adapted to local environmental conditions and that is
genetically differentiated from other such groups of populations. In the
extreme, races become different species. So eco-racism doesn't necessarily
carry all the connotations that you seem to be so hot and bothered about.
Would you be happier if we said 'eco-speciesism'? I agree with you that
it's a bit silly comparing preference in plant origin to racism against
people, (that's why I sarcastically replied that a fair number of NA
native people probably wouldn't mind if Europeans went back from where
they came). But contrary to your claim, there is an issue here that needs
to be discussed. Namely this puzzling phenomenon of preference for the
exotic which contributes to the loss of native species (most gardeners
don't care that we have trashed our prairies as long as they have
marigolds, petunias, and impatiens to grow). This speciesism is not good
for the long-term health of our native ecological communities. It's not
just a question of gardener's plant preferences -it's a question of
ecological health of diverse native communities.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
BGarcia274
my two cents into this to see what you all think . BTW you can email me at
BGarc...@aol.com ( I AM ONLY ON AOL TILL I CAN GET MY NETCOM BACK!)
anyhow i live in beautiful Monterey County California zone 9. THis place
is very beautiful and very non native invaded. Among the natural perrenial
bunch grasses ( needle, oat, hair ) we have these non native annual
grasses ( Wild oat, Ripgut) very invasive and very ugly, especially in
summer when it all dies. Along the beaches we have iceplant ( argument is
to weather it arrived here on its own via ocean , or by the army) we also
have german ivy, nasturiums, cranesbill, thistle, and european beach
grass. My point is, that despite all these non natives they do sometimes
add beauty , like when the nasturtium blooms or when the iceplant blooms.
but they also cause many problems. Iceplant covers the dunes in huge rafts
that choke out beautiful natives like the rare Menzies Wall flower or
beach lupine. The german Ivy covers up the Monterey pine trees. Ripgut
causes bad intestinal damage to cows. I believe that some non natives have
their place in gardens as long as they are not invasive or will harm
anything or can be controlled. I also believe that Natives are the best
bet where you live because they are used to the seasonal weather patters
and do not need any care after they are established.
Some garden styles have absolutely no place for natives in
certain areas like a japanese garden in the middle of a desert. While
others you can incorporate. We are putting in a japanese style garden in
our front yard and i have a needle grass plant that, hopefully i will be
able to incorporate into the garden. Also this discussion wether we ALL
should have to put ONLY natives in our gardens should stop. Most people
look at non natives for beauty rather than like one of you said, if it
gets loose will it run rampant. There are ways to control non natives and
keep them in their place. As long as we have gardens, there will be some
who will put only natives in and some who mix the two and some who put
only non natives.
Barry
Richard A. Ifft
Uh, actually there is a historical connection between the strong
preference for native plants and your general xenophobic racism. Don't
pick on me; I read this in a Brooklyn Botanic Garden Newsletter.
Someone just sponsored a symposium or debate on this very issue. The
Nazis were one of the first, if not the first, strong proponents of
native plants, on the basis that Chinese and Latin plants (I seem to
remember that those were the two cultures they worried about but I
might be wrong) would destroy the nice native Aryan plants. Of course
noone is fallaciously accusing native plant lovers of being racists;
but there is a historical basis for calling it eco-racism.
Beth.
Shawn Hicks
bgarc...@aol.com (BGarcia274) wrote:
> Some garden styles have absolutely no place for natives in
>certain areas like a japanese garden in the middle of a desert.
Barry,
I was agreeing with you all the way up until this point. Maybe I'm
being too picky about semantics, but *any* style will work *anywhere*,
it's simply a matter of which plants you choose.
One thing I've been interested in trying is using the Japanese gardening
style with desert plants. I really think the main philosphy behind
Japanese gardening is to create a small reflection of nature. The
tenets behind their style should fit easily into any garden. Instead
of a Koi pond, we might use a dry river bed (arroyo) and instead of
Koi I'd place large flat rocks out for native lizards to sun and
adopt a desert tortoise. Raked gravel walkways are a natural here
and a small water feature is acceptable and can mimic the tiny springs
that trickle out of the mountains. Desert trees don't need careful
pruning to acheive that stark architectural look--it comes naturally
to them.
Will it look exactly like the lush bamboo gardens of Japan? No. But
would it instill the same relaxing aura? Yes.
>While
>others you can incorporate. We are putting in a japanese style garden in
>our front yard and i have a needle grass plant that, hopefully i will be
>able to incorporate into the garden. Also this discussion wether we ALL
>should have to put ONLY natives in our gardens should stop. Most people
>look at non natives for beauty rather than like one of you said, if it
>gets loose will it run rampant. There are ways to control non natives and
>keep them in their place. As long as we have gardens, there will be some
>who will put only natives in and some who mix the two and some who put
>only non natives.
Needle grass is a non-native here and has run rampant. The hills are
covered with it instead of penstamon, indian paint brush, and other
native flowers. I think a local biologist used the term "blight" to
refer to needle grass.
Good luck on your Japanese garden! I've always had a soft spot for
them. :)
BGarcia274
gardens in deserts. I live in a basically semi arid ( close to desert
status ) area. We decided on a dry creek ( arroyo ) since that is
basically what all the creek beds around here are like until winter. We
hope to make the dry creek as real as possible, any suggestions?
Barry
Mark W Stephens
>native or non-native. In the literature I have seen various common
>turfgrasses (cool season) called native including red fescue (Festuca
>rubra) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) - not sold as seed but very common
>in turf areas.
>
>against using them in the landscape - it smacks of eco-racism. The logic
>that says we shouldn't use non-native plants in appropriate situations
implies
>that all the non-native persons living in North America shouldn't be here
>either.
Rob,
Hi. I am might be one of the eco-racist people that you spoke of in your
message. The point that I always try to make is that native plants need to be
looked at more, and invasive exotics need to be eliminated. I think plants
and humans can be treated differently. Humans can use reason to stop invasive
activities (sometimes :-)), but plants can not. I am sure that you are
familier with Kudzu. Other exotic plants can do just as much damage, but it
takes longer. The concern that I have is for the natural North American
eco-systems and the danger that introduced exotics can pose to these. These
dangers are not only to plants but also to animals (changing food supplies).
It seems to me that we should be able to use native plants much more than we
currently do. We can also use exotic plants that do no freely propogate. We
just need to analyse and then make intelligent decisions about what plants to
use. For example; I have never seen a Japanese maple growing in the woods
around Cincinnati.
I am curious why anyone would want to label a group anyway. I have heard the
terms "enviromental nazis" and "eco-racist". Is this a fear that the POP
(popular) plants currently sold are running out of favor? Is the industry
scared? Name calling is usually a last resort used when no logical argument
exists.
I did notice that you said _appropriate_ situations, and I can agree with that
statement somewhat, but I would counter with "Have all the native alternatives
been considered first?" and "Are we sure that this solution is non-invasive?".
Thanks for listening!
{:-)}
mar...@one.net (Mark W Stephens) - Cincinnati, OH Zone 5
Jeffrey K. Bounds
In article <4k3ans$1...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
rai...@ix.netcom.com(Richard A. Ifft ) writes:
Uh, actually there is a historical connection between the strong
preference for native plants and your general xenophobic racism. Don't
pick on me; I read this in a Brooklyn Botanic Garden Newsletter.
Someone just sponsored a symposium or debate on this very issue. The
Nazis were one of the first, if not the first, strong proponents of
native plants, on the basis that Chinese and Latin plants (I seem to
remember that those were the two cultures they worried about but I
might be wrong) would destroy the nice native Aryan plants. Of course
noone is fallaciously accusing native plant lovers of being racists;
but there is a historical basis for calling it eco-racism.
Here's an unpleasant discussion I would have as soon avoided, but it
keeps coming up, so I'm throwing in my $US0.02. The people being
referred to as "eco-racists" (a preposterous term, IMHO, but there it
is) are (in this thread, at least) people urging use of native North
American plants in North America. Surely I am not the only one so
uncomfortable with the use of this term as it has been flung about in
this thread. Part of the reason plant origin became such an issue is
the planting of aggressive non-native plants which escaped cultivation
and wrought havoc in local ecosystems over the last 300 years. Most
of these N.A. non-natives are native European species, or Asian
species cultivated by Europeans over the centuries, which European
colonists had cultural and sentimental attachments with. Part of the
reason they are preferred by many Americans over native flora today is
the same European ethno-centrism that's been repsonsible for a lot of
other headaches in this century. This is why so many Americans have
this implicit attitude that European oaks are somehow morally superior
plants to, say, native pines (an example from my experience)--some dim
cultural memory of the Black Forest, I've always imagined.
Though I disagree strongly with the implied analogy between
plant-origin biases in gardening and human racism, it seems clear to
me that a logical analogy for your use of the term "eco-racism" would
be the claims by settlers hoping to sieze Indian reservation lands in
Oklahoma that maintaining special land for native Americans was
racist. The irony is palpable. So if you want to talk historical
precedence, I don't think I'd care to be in the position of
simultaneously advocating European plants, to the decimation of native
American species, and attempting to garner sympathy with claims of
"eco-racism".
By way of a more reasonable perspective, I should point out that a
fair number of non-native plants have been introduced to N.A. by plant
collectors (like myself) with fairly innocent motives. For the
record, I don't advocate exclusive use of native or non-native
species. Nevertheless, I have come to think I have a responsibility
to consider very carefully the possible consequences of planting any
non-natives I would like to have.
With apologies to anyone who, like me, finds the use of such terms as
"eco-racism" inappropriate and offensive in what should be a reasoned
discussion of real issues for concerned gardeners. I take my
gardening seriously, but I think racism and anything that sounds like
it are in a completely different league in terms of seriousness, and
are a bit out-of-place in a group like this one.
Jeff
--
Richard A. Ifft
Let me clarify my statement in case anyone is offended: I am not
recommending the use of the term "eco-racism" (though I admit that the
terms "exotic aliens" or "alien exotics" make me uncomfortable);
frankly, I had never even heard of it before this thread began. I was
simply REPORTING that there WAS a historical connection in the PAST
between people who were racist and xenophobic in general, and who
extended their desire for racial purity into a desire for native plant
purity as well. It is a HISTORICAL connection that I thought was
pertinent to the discussion and historically interesting. It was NOT a
comment, implied or otherwise, regarding ANYONE who prefers native
American plants to others.
In <JKBOUNDS.9...@m11-113-11.mit.edu> jkbo...@athena.mit.edu
Dan Zarembski
comes to mind. If one wishes to grow a cool season grass in an area such
as Chicago with summer temperatures reaching the high nineties than the
amount of water, fertalizer, etc. that must be used will bre compounded
because the grass does not want to be lush and green when it should have
already put forth its seed and gone dormant for the season.
By sticking with species that are native to the area a homeowner will
have less worry over the odd or even day they have to water, the $100 the
have to spend on Oftenol or the like to kill the grubs to get rid of the
moles. Your entire yard will be more healthy, more wildlife will visit
and you will have more free time to enjoy what you have created.
Allyn Weaks
> >But we are the same species as the Native Americans, who have been in the
> >Puget Sound area since the last glaciation at least, which is as long as
> >we've had any soil to grow plants in this time around. Of course, we
> >aren't as well behaved on the whole, so perhaps one could argue on
> >provinance grounds after all...
>
> a bit feisty today, and would suggest that one of the problems with the
> carrying capacity in the PNW is too many midwesterners... which means we
> both better head out, even though neither of us likes the winters back
> home... ;-)
Didn't phrase that very well, did I? The first sentence was intended to
refer to the planet as a whole; I forgot about the current anti-immigrant
sentiments here (and besides, all of us are glad you moved this
direction!). And I probably should have stuck a smiley on the provinance
comment... Oh well. Actually it's the midwest summers I couldn't stand;
the winters weren't so bad (though being a couple of hundred or so miles
south of you probably has a lot to do with that!) But judging by the
overall deterioration of driving manners in seattle over the last 6-8
years, it's the east-coasters who are the _real_ problem :-) But hey, I'd
have gone back to Britain whence (most of) my ancestors came, but they
wouldn't give me a work permit!
> Seriously, I'm all in favor of using as many native species as possible
> in landscapes, esp. urban landscapes, but there's a certain spiciness to
> mixing up plants from different parts of the world... I've never seen
> so many hummingbirds as the years that I grew Mexican Cupheas, for instance.
Well, I did say I wasn't fanatical; my impulse-buy strawberries seem to be
settling in pretty well :-)... If I went overboard, blame it on my just
having finished typing in the 100 species on the Washington state noxious
weed list (and according to some of the people in Washington Native Plant
Society, the list is shorter than it should be), and wandering through
Steward park a couple of weeks ago for the first time since I became
botanically awake, where the ivy, english holly, and blackberry are still
woefully prominant in spite of some determined weed pullings by volunteers
over the last couple of years.
> And, if we were to insist on a diet of native foods, it might be a bit
> less than the USDA's balanced dietary recommendations -- native berries,
> a few nuts, some sunflowers and Iva axillaris (povertyweed), etc. Remember
> that tomatoes, beans, corn, and squash are all native to central
> and South America, and most of the other common veggies are Eurasian in
> origin. Personally, I *like* a varied diet....
I dunno, from the ethnobotany notes in Pojar & MacKinnon, and the potlatch
term paper I worked on many many years ago, the PNW tribes at least had it
pretty good on the whole, even though their staples were different from
ours ("oh mom, smoked salmon with huckleberry sauce and steamed camas
bulbs _again_?!" whine the kids :-)). This was one of the richest corners
of the world for supporting hunting-gathering. People pretty regularly
made it into their 70s and beyond, even though they ate plenty of things
that we consider rather toxic, such as fern parts. Rather short on
carbohydrates at some times of the year, maybe, but there seem to have
been lots of different flavors available, though not all foods were used
by all tribes. I've always been suspicious of dietary recommendations;
judging from the abstracts and other sources, the research into that sort
of thing is generally based on very poorly controlled statistics (largely
by necessity, since properly controlled experiments on humans are frowned
upon!). But I agree, at my age and pickiness level, I wouldn't want to
have to turn my eating habits upside down, and life without tea, potatoes
and pizza, even if I could have venison to help make up for it, would be
hard!!
> It's shameful when we cannot leave any natural areas alone, but think
> we must continually alter them to our ideas of "productive" and "neat and
> tidy". It also seems a bit overdone to me to forbid non-native species
> that have not been problems in an area.
Yeah, but many people (including me until a couple of years ago :-)) don't
realize that they should be paying attention and checking a bit before
buying and planting. Nurseries seem most to blame, since they don't have
the excuse of not knowing that regulations exist, and are different in
different regions. You can still buy purple loosestrife seeds if you hunt
a bit. English ivy, english holly, butterfly bush, Japanese knotweed, and
scotch broom are for sale all over seattle and king county.
'Meadows-in-a-can' are getting more popular all the time and are often
chock-full of noxious weed seeds, and...but thou-who-girdled-alder knowest
this and far more already, so I'll shut up now :-)
> Kay (moderation in most things except chocolate) Klier kl...@fern.com
Ah, lovely chocolate. I'm still somewhat miffed that Dove changed their
recipe, but am vastly enjoying too many truffle eggs anyway!
Is fern.com now stable and receiving mail again?
--
Allyn Weaks al...@u.washington.edu
PNW Native Wildlife Gardening: http://chemwww.chem.washington.edu/natives/
Any advertisements sent to any of my email accounts will be billed $25 per
message, $1 per character, including all header lines. No exceptions. Sending
such mail constitutes agreement to these terms.
Karen Fletcher
: Here's an unpleasant discussion I would have as soon avoided, but it
: keeps coming up, so I'm throwing in my $US0.02. The people being
: referred to as "eco-racists" (a preposterous term, IMHO, but there it
: is) are (in this thread, at least) people urging use of native North
: American plants in North America. Surely I am not the only one so
: uncomfortable with the use of this term as it has been flung about in
: this thread.
Of course not. It is argument-by-intimidation, pure and simple. This is a
kind of verbal bullying that is unforgivable in civilized exchanges, in my
not-very-humble opinion.
What's interesting is that many of our 'humble' native plants - especially
tallgrass prairie natives so long disregarded here - have been cherished
garden plants in Europe for many years. Perhaps it is simply human nature
to value the unusual over the commonplace.
Perhaps the way to sell the idea of native plants to American gardeners
is to say "But, dearie, they've been planting this in England for decades!
Where have you been?" (No smilie because it's pretty sad that this is
what would probably work...)
-- Karen
Karen Fletcher flet...@prairienet.org
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Garden Gate on Prairienet http://www.prairienet.org/garden-gate/
The Garden Spider's Web http://www.gardenweb.com/spdrsweb/
The Tallgrass Prairie in Illinois http://www.prairienet.org/tallgrass/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ed and Mary Fletcher
>In article <4k3ans$1...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
>rai...@ix.netcom.com(Richard A. Ifft ) writes:
>
> Uh, actually there is a historical connection between the strong
> preference for native plants and your general xenophobic racism.
Don't
> pick on me; I read this in a Brooklyn Botanic Garden Newsletter.
> Someone just sponsored a symposium or debate on this very issue.
The
> Nazis were one of the first, if not the first, strong proponents of
> native plants, on the basis that Chinese and Latin plants (I seem
to
> remember that those were the two cultures they worried about but I
> might be wrong) would destroy the nice native Aryan plants. Of
course
> noone is fallaciously accusing native plant lovers of being
racists;
> but there is a historical basis for calling it eco-racism.
>
Get a life, pal. What nonsense.
:
Oy vey
Oy vey
Oy vey!
I thought I saw everything, but now I am almost sure I have. What on
earth has this topic gotten into? Native plants are used because they
are easier to handle and with little or no attention once established.
This whole arian thing was barbaric when it was going on in the days of
Hitler, and now the arian movement is regarded by most to be a bunch of
mental patients who STILL want racial purity. Let's get on with the
discussions and fighting and argueing about gardening!
Victoria*
Mark W Stephens
The first term I heard was "enviromental nazi" and it was from my mother! She
was watching the gardening network on cable, I don't get it on my system :(,
and it was a story about a lady who collected numerous exotic flowers and
planted them in her garden. The interviewer ask her if she was concerned
about any of the plants becoming invasive. Her response was why worry, and
that the people who worry are environmental nazis. My mom was pretty
appalled! I got this second hand so if anyone has a better account I would
like to here it. Anyway, this is how it is related to gardening. Absurd,
offensive, but related.
By the way, I prefer native plants over non-indegionous (spelling?) because of
my concerns about a plant becoming invasive. This is my overwhelming concern,
not ease of care. I believe this should be one of the major considerations
when choosing plants to use in the garden. I think I would be labeled by the
person on the gardening show.
My short list of plants that should not be sold in my area (Cincinnati):
Norway Maple
Honeysuckle (bush or vine)
Butterfly Bush
Purple Loostrife
Wintercreeper
I do not think this is unreasonable, but I have heard much stonger arguments
about planting any plant that is not native to the area planted in. This
seems a little extreme, and is possibly where the "racist" label came from???
In article <4k9jj1$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Claudia H Moore
Can anyone tell me if K-Mart's house brand of Miracle Gro and Miracid
works just as well as the real stuff? The chemicals are identical for
the most part.
Please send replies to my email address, I'll be out of town for about a
week. Thanks.
Claudia Moore
cmo...@selway.umt.edu
Brian Lo
Yes, they are the same along with Wal-Mart house brand.
I prefer Schultz-Instant chemical fertilizer line.
Tomato Plus 18-19-30, Rose Plus 19-19-24, Bloom Plus 10-60-10,
Plant Food Plus 20-30-20 and Lawn Plus 30-20-20
Claudia H Moore (cmo...@selway.umt.edu) wrote:
:
: Can anyone tell me if K-Mart's house brand of Miracle Gro and Miracid
:
--
****************************
* dra...@csulb.edu *
* Brian Lo *
****************************
Lisa Dent-couturier
: earth has this topic gotten into? Native plants are used because they
: are easier to handle and with little or no attention once established.
: This whole arian thing was barbaric when it was going on in the days of
: Hitler, and now the arian movement is regarded by most to be a bunch of
: mental patients who STILL want racial purity. Let's get on with the
: discussions and fighting and argueing about gardening!
: Victoria*
Well said! Let's stop wasting bandwith on this absurd topic. The reason
we should make more of an attempt to use native plants is not due to some
form of "racism", give me a break. It is because, in addition to the
comments above, native plants:
1. Are more environmentally friendly (do not require inputs of pesticides
and herbicides to flourish) since they have evolved and adapted to local
conditions.
2. Will attract far more numbers and species of birds and
other wildlife to your yard (which are under extreme pressure from habitat
loss, pollution and a variety of other ills).
3. Provide many other benefits which I don't have time to elaborate on
now, but which you can look up in any "Wildlife Gardening" book.
Andrew Couturier
Naturalist and Wildlife Gardener
P.S. Anyone want to start an intelligent discussion about gardening with
native plants? e.g. good combinations, details on how you've transformed
your yard, etc.
:
>Purple Loostrife
This plant is one which can take over an area, rendering the land
useless for wildlife and depletes the soil. The plant serves no
purpose, doesnt provide food for wildlife, doesnt attract beneficials,
and is a heavy feeder. Not to mention it takes over an area wherever
it is planted. I dont know what that has to do with being a 'eco
racist' but in my opinion that is one of the most ridiculous titles I
ever heard. I know this is the gardening newsgroup, but the politics
of a statement like that mimics the condition of the way dogmatic
leaders operate in this country. For all the people here who take the
time to read this, I have to say, there will be those who are
bamboozled by the chemical companies who tell you and me their
chemicals do not injure the earth, the animals, the organisms, the
soils, the water, etc...Well, believe it if you must, but I have to
tell you, they are lying to you, much like the tobacco companies stood
up and told Congress, "Nicotine is NOT addictive." If we can get
results with non-invasive chemicals, why not use them first? Why do I
have to go to the garden club meeting to hear a speaker tell the women
he uses diazinon as a preventative measure? Why are nursery staff
people telling me to use toxic chemicals in my home for fungus gnats
instead of recommending Gnatrol or Neem? There is a whole mentality in
this country which is extroidinarily irresponsible. Dont people here
like to see toads and birds in their yards? Isnt it facinating to put
up a bat house and watch them emerge at night to devour insects? Isnt
it wonderful to watch carniverous birds eat insects off the plants and
raise their babies in the houses we provide. Doesnt anyone take the
time to actually enjoy nature on our small plots? Well, if you do
enjoy those things, the use of chemicals and plants which are not
native to the area require a lot of extra water, (which, by the way, is
not endless and endless). Why go through the effort of entirely
changing out the soil for the sake of growing azaela's in alkaline
soils? Why not just plant things which thrive in high pH conditions?
I just dont get it sometimes. Then there are the names people call
environmentalists. "Environmental Wacko" is a title Ruch Limbaugh
gives to Greenpeace and The Sierra Club members. I am a member of
those organizations and I will continue to do whatever it takes to
protect our Earth. I will NOT have children because there are way too
many people on the land as it is. I dont dump chemicals down the sink
which will end up in our water. Hey, do what you want, but if you have
children who are going to have children, you are participating in a
practice which will lower the quality of their lives in the longrun.
Call me what you will, I DO have toads and bats and birds and worms and
micro organisms in my soil. I do take the time to thoroughly enjoy
nature in my yard. I am not a member of the zero defect club. I
tollerate some damage to my plants. It balances out and in the long
run, my plants will be healthier than those grown with toxic chemicals.
If you need proof, I feel sorry for you. This is common sense. Poison
is poison. What more proof do you need? I dont get it.
Victoria*
Paul Liu
>Jeffrey K. Bounds (jkbo...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: Here's an unpleasant discussion I would have as soon avoided, but it
>: keeps coming up, so I'm throwing in my $US0.02. The people being
>: referred to as "eco-racists" (a preposterous term, IMHO, but there it
>: is) are (in this thread, at least) people urging use of native North
>: American plants in North America. Surely I am not the only one so
>: uncomfortable with the use of this term as it has been flung about in
>: this thread.
>
"Eco-Racism" Hmmm...I've always heard it being used to describe a
practice of pushing toxic waste/other environmentally harmful substances
on "oppressed peoples" (here in the U.S. they are usually: Afro-Americans,
Latino(a)s, Asians, or the lower classes of any ethnicity). For example,
they might decide to put an oil refinery in the poor part of a city (inhabited
by oppressed peoples) rather than in the upper class area.Thus "Eco-Racism".
I could be wrong as I've never heard anyone really give a straight definition
of it but that's the way I've heard it used.
Jeffrey K. Bounds seems to be describing people who push--rudely--the use
of ONLY native plants in the landscape. There are good ecological
reasons why one might want to use native plants (adapted to climate/
no need for irrigation/easy to get/attract wildlife...) but I suspect
people who force this onto others are practicing "Eco-Elitism" (hey!
maybe I've just coined a term!!).
Anyway, just my $.02 worth.
Paul
pau...@uclink.berkeley.edu
N Blechman
On Apr 11, 1996 01:23:52 in article <Re: "eco-racism" They change the
>"Eco-Racism" Hmmm...I've always heard it being used to describe a practice of
>pushing toxic waste/other environmentally harmful substances on "oppressed
>peoples" (here in the U.S. they are usually: Afro-Americans, Latino(a)s,
>Asians, or the lower classes of any ethnicity). For example, they might decide
>to put an oil refinery in the poor part of a city (inhabited by oppressed
>peoples) rather than in the upper class area.Thus "Eco-Racism".
>I could be wrong as I've never heard anyone really give a straight definition
>of it but that's the way I've heard it used.
That was my understanding, too.
>
>Jeffrey K. Bounds seems to be describing people who push--rudely--the use of
>ONLY native plants in the landscape.
(....)
but I suspect people who force this
>onto others are practicing "Eco-Elitism" (hey! maybe I've just coined a
>term!!).
Much less loaded - and more apropos. Good one, Paul
Nancy....who gardens in N.Y.C.
hjs...@usa1.com
I agree with the spirit of what you have to say. There are just some
specifics that I disagree with. I have never heard a chemical company
tell people that their stuff isn't bad for them. There are warning
labels all over their products, and they are specific in describing
the proper useage of their products, so it will do the least possible
harm. I don't use these products, but they're not exactly saying
"Safe Enough To Eat For Dinner".
The concept of "eco-racism ", as it is being used in this newsgroup is
just dumb, plain dumb.
Rush Limbaugh is a complete idiot.
Purple Loostrife is not a good thing to have around.
But there is a big difference between using a) chemical fertilizers
and b) chemical pesticides and herbicides. Don't lump them together.
Harold
Francis Groeters
> Here's an unpleasant discussion I would have as soon avoided, but it
> keeps coming up, so I'm throwing in my $US0.02. The people being
> referred to as "eco-racists" (a preposterous term, IMHO, but there it
> is) are (in this thread, at least) people urging use of native North
> American plants in North America. Surely I am not the only one so
> uncomfortable with the use of this term as it has been flung about in
> this thread.>
>
> With apologies to anyone who, like me, finds the use of such terms as
> "eco-racism" inappropriate and offensive in what should be a reasoned
> discussion of real issues for concerned gardeners. I take my
> gardening seriously, but I think racism and anything that sounds like
> it are in a completely different league in terms of seriousness, and
> are a bit out-of-place in a group like this one.
Look, let's just excise the human racism issue from this debate. Someone,
who has disappeared into the depths of cyberspace, brought up this apples
vs. oranges comparison involving native plants and human racism and I made
the mistake of responding with a snide, critical comment, rather than
simply letting the matter pass. To make matters worse I defended the use
of the term "eco-racism" in my response to a follow-up because of the
common use of the term "race" in ecology and evolution. Clearly the term
racism is restricted in its definition to humans, and we shouldn't use any
composite of this word to refer to a gardening preference for one group of
species over another. I apologize for my temporary defense of the term.
Eventually (within the same post), I suggested use of the term speciesism
to refer to such a preference, but that hasn't seemed to help matters any.
As I hope was clear from my previous posts, I advocate use of native
plants in gardening in preference to aliens. So according to the original
poster and instigator of this mess I would come under the very "r-word"
category that we should simply try to stop using in reference to this
debate. I think I may have created a bit of confusion by appearing to
defend both sides of an issue at the same time. And now we get this
follow-up on Nazis and native plants - all pretty much out of control.
Let's just drop the racism issue, and, instead, let's focus on the plants
and gardening, and the ecological issues involved.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
Shawn Hicks
pau...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Paul Liu) wrote:
>Jeffrey K. Bounds seems to be describing people who push--rudely--the use
>of ONLY native plants in the landscape. There are good ecological
>reasons why one might want to use native plants (adapted to climate/
>no need for irrigation/easy to get/attract wildlife...) but I suspect
>people who force this onto others are practicing "Eco-Elitism" (hey!
>maybe I've just coined a term!!).
>
And those people who try to grow European gardens in hot, arid, high PH
environments are practicing "Eco-Escapism."
Maybe my newsfeed is lacking, but I've not seen one person call for
native-only landscaping. I've heard people talk about responsibility,
choices, and balance. I'm always amazed at people who cannot make
the logical connection between their back yard and the ecosystem they
live in. Is it so hard to give up a few plants because they'd do
harm to the local ecosystem?
Here's a real challenge to gardeners, one that should be fun, too. Design
a landscape that has everything you enjoy--the color, the texture, the
sounds--and do it in a way that compliments the local ecosystem. Find
ways to incorporate native perennials into your yard. Use imported plants
that can't "go native" and compete outside your yard. Go hiking in the
wilderness near your home and find plants you would like to grow, or maybe
a scene you'd like to replicate.
But above all, have fun! :)
Carol Brandt
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu (Francis Groeters) writes:
> Let's just drop the racism issue, and, instead, let's focus on the plants
> and gardening, and the ecological issues involved.
Amen brother!
The whole idea of promoting "native plants" is to introduce gardeners
to a palette of plants that are adapted to their local conditions. For
example: gardeners in New Mexico insist on trying to grow azaleas and
bluegrass lawns, plants that are not adapted to our desert environment
with basic soils. Not only are they wasting their money on plants that
grow miserabley (and often die), but our precious water resources are
dwindling. Most home owners aren't aware of the amount of colorful,
well-adapted plants that are available to them. Native plants need more
publicity!
Carol in Albuquerque
Dennis Yonke
promoted in the landscape as potentially the only way many of them will
be saved from extinction.
As a long-term resident of a once beautiful area which has now been
decimated by suburban sprawl, which is so-called "progress," I am
disgusted at the rate at which native vegetation is being destroyed so
that people can have their new homes landscaped with the same old alien
yews, junipers, arborvitaes, crabapples, norway maples, etc.
Not only does this appaling lack of biodiversity set the stage for
increased epidemics of disease, it also makes the environment extremely
monotonous to look at. Every last house in one new subdivision I know of
close to me has the exact same Austrian Pine and Marshall seedless ash
planted in the front yard, because evidently the developer got some sort
of a deal if he bought in bulk. This is extremely stupid. I can't wait
until the ash trees get a major infestation of scale some summer, and the
whole neighborhood, cars, sidewalks, siding, decks, turns sticky and
black from secreted honeydew and black sooty mold! Wait until those new
pine mites which are decimating pines in upstate New York get to Michigan
and kill all of the pine trees at once (it will happen, these mites, I
forget their exact name, are spreading westward at something like 35
miles a year).
Furthermore, most municipalities do not yet require planting of native
species, although some enlightened ones are doing so. Nor do many of
them yet permit natural landscapes such as meadows in suburban areas.
Apparently, one simply must have the same ugly bluegrass as everyone else.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against alien plants -- I believe that
anyone should have the right to grow any plant they wish, within reason
(not marjuana or coca leaves or that sort of thing, I'm NOT advocating
THAT). We cannot go the other way and get too obsesive and outlaw all
non-natives, either. But we should have laws to ensure that a
representative sampling of natives is preserved and incorporated into all
new developments, etc.
I can't begin to tell you how many subdivisions in my area are named for
the dominant plant or animal species which were completely destroyed to
make way for the new houses. Trillium Woods was chopped down, and the
trilliums bulldozed. The Oaks of ..... was once an oak forest, before
every last living thing was bulldozed. My favorite is one near me called
"The Preserve," which didn't preserve so much as a blade of grass except
in a wetlands area which the state would not allow them to fill in,
despite their repeated petitions requesting permission to do so.
I personally have rescued many natives from construction sites. I often
joke that I have the last stand of trilliums in my community, which is
becoming closer and closer to being literally true every day.
I encourage everyone to use as many natives as possible in their
plantings. Not only does it preserve the individual species, it also
preserves those species which rely upon it for food, shelter, etc., and
in turn it preserves those species higher up the food chain which rely on
them, and so on.
Just Spouting Off Again,
Dennis
S.E. Michigan
Francis Groeters
> By the way, I prefer native plants over non-indegionous (spelling?)
because of
> my concerns about a plant becoming invasive. This is my overwhelming
concern,
> not ease of care. I believe this should be one of the major considerations
> when choosing plants to use in the garden. I think I would be labeled by the
> person on the gardening show.
>
> My short list of plants that should not be sold in my area (Cincinnati):
>
> Norway Maple
> Honeysuckle (bush or vine)
> Butterfly Bush
> Purple Loostrife
> Wintercreeper
Generally agreed Mark, but let's be a little more precise about the
Honeysuckle: there are a number of _native_ honeysuckle species that are
perfectly good plants for the ecologically-conscious gardener. Avoid the
Japanese Honeysuckle and some other exotics because they are highly
invasive, but don't necessarily reject a plant just because it is a
Honeysuckle - find out which species it is first, it may be native.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
Mark W Stephens
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu (Francis Groeters) wrote:
>
>Generally agreed Mark, but let's be a little more precise about the
>Honeysuckle: there are a number of _native_ honeysuckle species that are
>perfectly good plants for the ecologically-conscious gardener.
Sorry Fran,
I should have stated the I was only concerned with the "exotic" honeysuckles.
The only North American Honeysuckle that I am aware of is the American Fly
Honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis).
Francis Groeters
> >Jeffrey K. Bounds seems to be describing people who push--rudely--the use of
> >ONLY native plants in the landscape.
> (....)
> but I suspect people who force this
> >onto others are practicing "Eco-Elitism" (hey! maybe I've just coined a
> >term!!).
>
> Much less loaded - and more apropos. Good one, Paul
>
> Nancy....who gardens in N.Y.C.
Not really. Historically, elitism was associated with bringing in European
plants for our gardens, in order to mimic the gardens of European elite.
Native plants weren't good enough for snobish, generally English-imitating
gardeners. Personally I have no problem with people planting exotics along
with natives. No need for absolute purity in your approach, and any step
in the direction of more natives in your garden is a step in the right
direction. But let's not label advocates of native plants "elitists" when
such a term would more appropriately be applied to imitators of European
gardens. In fact, let's just stop labelling people altogether. It serves
no useful purpose.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
:
writes:
>labels all over their products, and they are specific in describing
>the proper useage of their products, so it will do the least possible
>harm. I don't use these products, but they're not exactly saying
>"Safe Enough To Eat For Dinner".
>
products (because they advertise on the show) will tell you these
chemicals break down fast and are harmless if used properly. NOT TRUE
AT ALL! Plain and simple. They are harmful and cause great damage to
wildlife.
>But there is a big difference between using a) chemical fertilizers
>and b) chemical pesticides and herbicides. Don't lump them together.
>
>Harold
The difference is: one is a poison which is directly labled so, and
chemical fertilizers is a poison inadvertantly. Pour on the chemical
fertilizers and you kill most of the micro and macro organisms in the
surrounding soil. Sure, it greens the plant up quickly, but at the
expense of soil health.
Victoria*
:
read it. Here in Texas, the usual 2 trees, 5 shrubs which are planted
are definately "trash trees and shrubs." For example, they planted a
silver maple here on my property when they built. This is a short
lived tree which has increasing disease and insect problems. Yes, it
grows quickly, but so does Chinese Pistache. Why oh why do they do
this to us? Futile. Waste. Laziness. MONEY! It all boils down to
money. Especially when someone yells at me about how expensive it is
to garden organically. They dont realize how is actually saves money
in the long run. I have to replace plants less often with an organic
landscape. Since they have been organically treating the Frito Lays
property here in Dallas, there is virtually no replacement plants used.
Oh well...I still love what you said. I guess we are econazi's! :)
Victoria*
Barry Brunett
>
Please don't overlook the Trumpet Honeysuckle, L. sempervirens, which is
a favorite of the ruby-throated hummer. They're a plant of the eastern
woods and edges, and have been nearly overwhelmed by L. japonica.
brb Cent. MD, somewhere around zones 6 and 7.
Allyn Weaks
> I should have stated the I was only concerned with the "exotic" honeysuckles.
>
> Honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis).
In the pacific northwest we have L. involucrata (var. involucrata and var.
ledebourii), L. caerulea, L. utahensis, L. conjugialis, L. ciliosa, L.
hispidula, and L. dioica. (From _Flora of the Pacific Northwest_,
Hitchcock & Cronquist.)
SKID Photography
writes:
Dear Fran,
We think that you *both* are right. But just because it *used to be*
elitist to plant exclusively 'Europeons', it does not mean that the fashion
of elitism has not changed.....therefore there *could* be a new 'Native
Eco-Elitism"......a point of view, we would agree with. These terms are
just *fashion* descriptions, used to annoy or 'zing' people on either side
of the argument. :- )
Bill & Harvey
zuffalig/SKID Zone 6 CT USA
"reality is local"
SKID Photography
To paraphrase you (with a little irony thrown in), regarding the factual
quality of your statement about the killing of macro/micro organisims by
using *any* chemical fertilizers:
We can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear
you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you, we can't hear you!
What else can we say? :-)
:
Photography) writes:
These terms are
>just *fashion* descriptions, used to annoy or 'zing' people on either
side
>of the argument. :- )
>
>zuffalig/SKID Zone 6 CT USA
>
>"reality is local"
Hey, King of Zing, I CANT HEAR YOU
Gfweb
applied?
If killed, how quickly do they come back? Since bacteria reproduce very
quickly, a 99% reduction in the little bugs might return to normal in as
little as a day.
This running argument needs more studied facts and less philosophical
posturing.
Tristan Hatton-Ellis
I don't know about artificial fertilizers actually killing microbes.
However, in order to have a thriving soil flora it is necessary to have a
reasonable amount of humus & other organic matter in the soil to which the
bacteria can attach (so they aren't washed away by rain. As the bacteria
break this down, nutrients are released for the plants. Also, the humus
etc. retains water yet maintains an open soil structure, thus optimizing
root growth. In any case, bacterial populations will only increase
exponentially if they are given the appropriate conditions in which to do
so (in fact, any animal/plant population will increase exponentially given
the opportunity, though of course long generation times in some species
mean that this can be a slow process)
Now, it is no doubt possible to provide all of this non-organically, using
something inert like perlite or vermiculite to open up the soil,
slow-release fertilizers to provide the necessary nutrients, and judicious
watering. But it's an awful lot of work!
What I am certain about is that in our heavy clay, a largely organic
approach makes a world of difference; the soil is really much better than
when we arrived, and the plants are happier too. However, it is important
not to be too literal about things; I am not sure that a liquid 'organic'
fertilizer is any better for the soil than an ordinary non-organic
treatment; for me, the difference is in the humus.
Tristan
Allyn Weaks
<Tristan.Ha...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> (in fact, any animal/plant population will increase exponentially given
> the opportunity, though of course long generation times in some species
> mean that this can be a slow process)
Like humans...though we're showing signs of filling up our petrie dish :-)
Francis Groeters
> What is the data that shows that fertilizer kills microbes when properly
> applied?
> If killed, how quickly do they come back? Since bacteria reproduce very
> quickly, a 99% reduction in the little bugs might return to normal in as
> little as a day.
>
> This running argument needs more studied facts and less philosophical
> posturing.
Agreed, but why don't you go and find out. Everyone complains that
opinions aren't backed up by citations to the literature, but then expect
"someone" to hand them the information on a silver platter. It's hard work
thoroughly reviewing the literature on a topic and putting it into a
coherent summary (I know, I'm a scientist and have to do this every time I
write a paper, and I've written about 20 so far - not on this topic,
however, so I don't have the "facts" to just hand you). Start off with an
Internet search, and since that will probably be fairly useless, go to a
library (local university or college if you have one in your area, or the
local public library) and start digging. Hook up with a librarian if you
don't know where to start. Then you'll be the expert, will have your
questions answered and you'll be able to tell us all about it rather than
waiting for the purveyor of all knowledge, whoever that may be, to answer
your question. Enjoy!
The Internet - the world's most mind-numbing invention since the television.
--
Fran Groeters
groe...@cricket.biol.sc.edu
SKID Photography
In article <groeters-260...@129.252.46.214>, Francis Groeters
writes:
Dear Fran,
We agree with your thinking; doing one's own research is a good thing,
however, the newsgroup *is* a good _starting_ point for gathering info on a
concern someone may have. It's also an excellent forum for the exchange of
ideas, advice, and anecdotal experience. (It's nice to be able to do
research from the comforts of one's humble abode :- ) In addition, there
are a lot of knowledgable people in the group who are happy to share
whatever information they have, much of it reliable, some of it less so,
which is where, if people feel the need, they should persue another avenue
of research, as you suggested.
Your comment about backing up opinions/statements is right on
target--clearly a hot issue lately. We think that the original poster of
the above questions was looking for those very citations, hence the "This
running argument needs more studied facts and less philosophical posturing"
statement. A bit of a dig perhaps? Oddly though, we have also seen people
in the newsgroup offer cited/referenced/substantiated information and still
be attacked, and not necessarily on the validity of the information, but on
a personal level--name calling is innappropriate (debate is good!), and
unhelpful in promoting the educational environment which *should* pervade
the group--careful reading is a necessity.
Anyway.....We recently have been doing quite a bit of follow-up research
(outside the internet) on some bits of information that were posted in the
newsgroup, which although cited with references, didn't sit right.
One example would be the use of epsom salts as a preventative measure
against Black Spot on roses. We posted that we had read this info, but
couldn't remember where, but we *did* read it. In response, we were told
(quite viciously) by a newsgroup member that we couldn't be more wrong,
misinformed or irresponsible in either the dispensing of the information or
application of same. This person said, in (angry) correction of our
information, that epsom salts were used to produce more flowers on roses.
So, we did some follow-up research on this new bit of advice, and found
that this is *NOT* correct. According to the experts at both The New York
Botanical Garden AND The Brooklyn Botanic Garden, epsom salts are sometimes
useful in the hastening of basal breaks and *maybe* a "greening-up" of the
foliage. Further, they gave a recommended rate of application as one
tablespoon per plant, per year, following pruning, which contradicts much
of the advice given on the very same subject here in the newsgroup. As a
humorous anecdote: The Botanic Gardens we called are getting a lot of
calls from people who have sick roses, which once diagnosed via the
treatment given to the plant, have been found to be suffering from
excessive applications of epsom salts as prescribed by none other than that
quintessential American homemaker, Martha Stewart! Hmmmmm, *not* a good
thing.
So, there are some thoughts. Any and all info should be taken with a grain
of (epsom) salt--if you question it, go research it, but it is okay to ask
for references from the authors of articles you're interested in.
Research is a good thing!