Organics and more

For some fun browsing, just follow this link to directories of organic farms all over the world and the internships they’re offering to frankly stronger folks than I.  Also, more tolerant of hardship, but they’re an adventurous bunch of aspiring farmers and if I were just out of college I might just join them. 

Then I simply HAD to write Find a Gardening Blog Near You.  

And Organic Gardener hired their second feature writer, known in the blog world as Commonweeder but in real life as Massachusetts gardenwriter Pat Leuchtman.  So far, Pat’s taught me about Growing Raspberries and Growing Organic Herbs.

{ 0 comments }

I’m thoroughly convinced of the need for good composting instruction for homeowners because on all the green or gardening Yahoo groups I subscribe to there’s no END to the questions about it.  That’s why I surveyed people’s experiences with composting and compiled it all in one place on  the DC Urban Gardener website.

So I was browsing the podcasts on my MP3 player and stumbled upon Emma Cooper talking about getting her Master Composter training and certification over in Oxfordshire, England and I’m instantly SOLD on the program.  Here’s my article about it on Organic Gardener.com.

Photo credit.

{ 4 comments }

This is the first installment of a new feature here - reporting the latest teachings of Paul James on "Gardening by the Yard," then discussing same and soliciting reader feedback.  Why?  Because he teaches my kind of gardening - sustainable, organic, all-around ecofriendly and always gardening-loving.  I’ll just be reporting the highlights, though, because not every topic he covers is of interest to me or this site. 

PAUL HEARTS FUNGI

To bring back to life a neighbor’s ailing tree, Paul drills holes all around it, then stuffs them full of compost that’s been injected with mycorrhizal fungi.  Never shy to go out on a limb, Paul proclaims: "I’m convinced that Mycorrhizal fungi represent the future of gardening.  They dramatically increases the roots’ ability to take up nutrients and fight disease."  Their use leads to "improved growth, longer life, less need for fertilizer, and healthier plants"  And he says using synthetic fertilizers is "treating your plant as though it’s some kind of botanical junkie."  Contrasted with "the natural way" with these amazing fungi.   I usually use a slightly different analogy when steering people away from synthetic fertilizers, calling them simply "steroids".   Fair?  How would you describe their effect on soils and the plants in them?

Here’s more about these fungi from the New York Botanical Garden, and the photo comes from that page.

LAWN

In a wide-ranging segment about turfgrasses, we learn that the warm season ones that Paul grows in Tulsa spread aggressively (the "I" word does spring to mind) and need to be contained somehow.  This got me wondering about the cool season grasses that are grown here in Maryland.  They do spread, but would we call them aggressive? 

I swear, half of gardening is getting our plants to grow and the other half is working even harder to control all that growth. 

Paul recommends giving lawns an inch of water once or twice every week, which seems like a lot to me.  Is that because the warm weather grasses will die without it?  I’ve always let me fescue go dormant and it’s always come back in the fall, so I don’t understand suggestions like these.  Is it because the average viewer is just not ready to embrace brown grass?

As to feeding lawns, he recommends organic fertilizers - Paul’s been pushing organics for decades - in early spring and late fall.  He says one test showed that doing that for one year reduced the crabgrass population by 75 percent.  Good one!  It’s why everyone’s telling us that the best way to deal with weeds is to have a nice thick lawn that’ll out-compete them.  But it sure runs directly counter to the romantic belief that everything’s best in our landscapes when we leave it alone, not even add fertilizer to our unsustainable turfgrasses, and just let the whole garden "do its thing."  Well, I’m one former hippie who’ll never forget the body odor that naturally results from that particular philosophy, as good as it may feel.   Bottom line: if you don’t want your "lawn" to be increasingly splotchy and weed-dominated, feed it!   Select almost any combination of  grass clippings, clover, corn gluten meal, compost or any other organic fertilizer - your choice - as long as it’s getting sufficient nitrogen to keep it thriving.

{ 5 comments }

[Second of two Takoma Voice columns revealing what Jeff Gillman has to say in his The Truth about Organic Gardening, with some commentary.]

One look at the product shelves of local nurseries or even at Home Depot will tell you that green is in.  We’re in the midst of a media blitz in service of "green" garden chemicals - and that’s a good thing.  I think.  At least they’ve noticed that we care, but is "green" always good?  Caveat emptor, indeed, and the more we know about these products, the better.  So last month I covered the weed-and-feed advice in Jeff Gillman’s much-talked-about new book, The Truth about Organic Gardening, because it’s environmental information that’s science-based, not slave to any marketing labels.  This month let’s tackle the products with the potential to do the most harm - pesticides.

Preventing insect problems

First, I like Gillman’s philosophy and follow this myself: "One of my favorite ways to deal with pests is by ignoring them and concentrating on getting plants to grow as vigorously as possible."  And I’ll add: choosing the right ones.  Organics aren’t very effective at killing insects, anyway, so it’s best to focus on prevention.  He assures us that most plants can deal with the loss of about a third of their leaf area to insect damage, no problem.  And hey, don’t we want to provide for wildlife anyway?  Nature-loving gardeners these days understand how the plants they grow can contribute to wildlife, especially those songbirds we all love so much.  So more and more of us don’t mind feeding the insects that will feed the birds, as long as our plants can survive the meal.

Killing insects

There are some seriously destructive critters out there, like Japanese beetles, and if they’re in such numbers as to threaten the survival of a plant or make it look butt-ugly (to you), the first tactic is to pick them by hand and bag them or dunk them in soapy water.  Or try a good hard spray with the hose to wash them off.  Traps for Japanese beetles don’t stand up well in tests, though; they end up attracting even more insects, resulting in more damage than if they weren’t used at all. 

Beneficial insects, like ladybugs, eat the insects that damage our plants and you can buy 1,500 of them for about $20 online.  The bad news is that they usually disperse as soon as they’re released.  So the best way to have beneficial insects in your garden is to grow plants that attract them, and avoid the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, to which they’re very vulnerable.  And if you do want to try introducing some, Gillman calls the lacewing a "little-known and underutilized predator" that’s a good choice for controlling aphids, mites, and other small soft-bodied insects.  Unlike ladybugs, they’ll stay in your garden and eat the destructive insects there.  Nematodes,  little worms that eat insects from the inside out, are effective at killing Japanese beetles and can last in the soil for years, providing long-term control.  Sometimes people with Japanese-beetle-plagued plants try to kill them with a bacterial disease called milky spore, but Gillman says it fails more often than it works, with beetles developing resistance to them over time.  They’re most effective when applied to a larger area than just one yard. 
[click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

Of COURSE I know Scotts isn’t paying the Washington Post (right?) but one little item in yesterday’s Source Section did boggle the mind. 

The offending text is here, under "How  Do I Not Screw Up?" In what was otherwise a fine little piece about what plants to grow in pots, reporter Dan Zak wrote: "All plants need sunlight and water, but they also need plant food.  Basic Miracle-Gro or a comparable product will do the trick."  Dan, Dan, Dan.  Please scroll down to the previous post here and read the section about fertilizers, or consult any environmentally responsible gardening authority in the world.   And here’s a handy compilation of articles about overfertilization.

Moving on, here’s the nice part: a gallery of 4 pots planted up for different purposes.  My favorites are of coure the one by Ed Bruske - number 2, for edibles, and number 4 by Kathy Jentz, the "Tough to Kill" design. 

{ 2 comments }

Jeff Gillman knows all about the hot controversies within the gardening world in this era of eco-consciousness and has this complaint: "Everyone seems to want to pass judgment." As a professor of horticulture at the University of Minnesota, he’s concerned that most gardening information is written by people who follow a particular school of thought and are "unable to see beyond their biases." So he wrote The Truth about Organic Gardening (Timber Press) to help gardeners "see beyond dogma" about organic versus synthetic gardening products, one of the primary areas of disagreement and confusion.  I say amen to that. 

Soil Enrichment and Fertilization

So let’s examine some common myths about fertilizers.  First there’s the notion that nutrients in synthetic fertilizers are different from the ones in organic fertilizers, or that synthetic fertilizers are "chemicals" and organics are not.  Not so - they’re all chemicals.  Organic ones are slower to break down and take effect, so they last longer.  They also require a larger quantity to be used and therefore cost more for the same quantity of nutrients.  Synthetics are quick and cheap and concentrated, which accounts for their popularity. 

Another common belief is that synthetic fertilizers are made from petrochemicals, but Gillman says that’s rarely the case.  Synthetics do use a lot of power in their production, but that’s usually natural gas. 

And here’s a surprise: organic fertilizers can be brought to the market through the decidedly unsustainable practice of mining.  For example, rock phosphate is mined in Florida and North Carolina and those mines do considerable damage to the land there.  (Potassium used in synthetic fertilizers is mined in the Western states, with similar deleterious effects.)  So Gillman recommends using nonmined organic fertilizers that reuse nutrients from other living sources - fertilizers like compost, bonemeal, blood meal, seaweed extracts, alfalfa meal, and fish emulsions.

Another myth about organic fertilizers is that they don’t leach into our groundwater the way synthetics do, and Gillman disagrees, saying they’re just as likely to leach into our groundwater "if they’re used in the over-aggressive way that most people fertilize their lawns." 

In working with homeowners as a gardening coach I’ve noticed the widespread assumption that everything in the garden needs regular applications of fertilizer.  Gillman knows better, though, explaining that we should focus instead on making soils more fertile so they’ll support healthy plants, and that means not just the usual N-P-K in most packaged fertilizers but also the right pH, bacteria, fungi, and organic matter.  And the best source of all of that is good old compost.  So for vegetable gardens he recommends tilling into the soil a half-inch of composted manure; just make sure the compost has been cured long enough, especially if it’s manure (otherwise it can contain high levels of human pathogens). 

But how about the rest of our plants, like shrubs, trees, and perennials?  Gillman told me in an email that they don’t even need compost, just a good organic mulch every year.  That’s been my own practice for decades and my plants seem happy enough.  Even roses will bloom without "rose food" but if you want maximum floral performance he suggests two applications of alfalfa meal per season around your roses.  One clear exception to the mulch-only rule for ornamentals is plants in pots because their nutrients are leached out by the frequent watering they need.  Gillman’s favorite fertilizers for pots are fish emulsion and the ones based on seaweed.  And of course you’re using a good potting soil, right?    

Now the plant that homeowners ask gardening experts about more than all the others is turfgrass, so I nagged Gillman for some advice about lawns.  He couldn’t resist first blaming the corporate members of Overfertilizers Anonymous for creating a national addiction to bright green monocultures of perfect lawns.  (To a real gardener, lawn care isn’t even gardening at all and I’ll be doing my best to eviscerate this national obsession in a column coming soon.)  And the answer is that Gillman’s favorite fertilizer for lawns is - surprise - corn gluten, commonly used to prevent weeds.  It’s a twofer!  And a nice segue to weeds.

Weed Control

As a group, organic herbicides are relatively safe, especially the most common one - corn gluten meal.  It’s simply part of the corn plant and is so safe it’s even found in cat food.  It works by creating a barrier between the soil and weed seeds, and Gillman calls it "extremely effective" at doing that. (Don’t be discouraged by less than perfect results the first year; it’ll be more effective in subsequent years.)  At the same time, it’s a 10-0-0 fertilizer and applied in the recommended quantity, it provides all the nitrogen your lawn needs, especially if you also leave the clippings on the lawn.  But get this - it takes 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet to do the job and that’s a lot.  It also needs to be applied at the right time to prevent the weeds - while the forsythias are blooming. Then wait at least 6 weeks before applying any grass seed, since its germination will be prevented, too, not just the crabgrass. 

Now once weeds have germinated, your options start to dwindle.  Flame-throwing them to a crisp works, though not as well as synthetic herbicides, and the method itself has its obvious dangers. Garlic and clove oils will kill the tops of weeds but not the roots (so why bother?) Undiluted vinegar will burn up the top portions of weeds but again rarely kill the roots.  Frying weeds under black plastic, a processed called solarization, works but also kills all sorts of beneficial microorganisms in your soil, so Gillman’s not a fan.

The bottom line about weed removal is:  Use your hands.  Hand-weeding is not just organic but very effective, and free.  Do it once a week or so and you’ll stay on top of them.  But the key to weed control is in prevention and that means using mulch, "without a doubt the best method of weed control" and the best choice for gardeners - as opposed to farmers trying to make a living. 

For anyone needing a larger-scale solution, Gillman concedes that synthetic weed controls are cheaper and more effective, and for guidance in choosing among them he suggests using the EIQ.  That stands for Environmental Impact Quotient and it’s a good measure of any product’s relative dangers to humans and the environment, from a low of 10 to a high of 100.  Unfortunately EIQs aren’t on pesticide labels but they can be found on the Web via Google, using that term and the name of a product.

Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is often used to kill weeds in preparation for planting and Gillman regards it as "relatively safe" for humans and the environment.  You may be surprised, as I was, that its EIQ is only 15.3.  (Compared to, say, organic horticultural oil with its EIQ of 27.5 - because it can hurt plants and beneficial insects.)  While acknowledging that some  regard Glyphosate as too dangerous to recommend, he questions the studies that that judgment is based on.  There’s no doubt that frogs are harmed by it, though, so it can’t be used around water.  (Actually they’re harmed by the inactive ingredients in Roundup -  soaps and oils - but unfortunately, the EPA doesn’t require those inert substances to even be identified on packaging.)

The most common weedkiller for lawn is 2,4-D, with an EIQ of 15 to 20.  Here Gillman takes issue with that relatively low number because it’s been shown in highly credible studies to cause cancers.  Scotts Weed n Seed is the biggest source of 2,4-D and Gillman calls their recommended three to five applications of it each year "absolutely nuts."  In his view, having a dandelion-free lawn is simply not worth the potential danger of using 2,4-D up to five times a year, and I couldn’t agree more.  Besides, dandelions are good for pollinators and where would we be without pollinators?  Let’s hope we don’t find out.

Coming soon - my review of organic insecticides and treatments for plant disease.

{ 4 comments }

Responses to GardenRant reviews of The Truth about Organic Gardening revealed very different attitudes toward Round-up - not just from our commenters but even between Elizabeth and myself.  Most of us agree it SHOULD be avoided but then there are situations where we ask:  "What’s the better alternative?" and no answer is forthcoming.

In the "It Could Be Worse" Camp

Here’s what Jeff Gillman has to say about Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the top-selling herbicide in the world, Roundup (made by the company we all love to hate - Monsanto).

After declaring that hand-weeding is always the best choice for the gardener and assuring readers that he’s NOT be a fan of synthetic herbicides,  Gillman writes that "Glyphosphate and glufosinate ammonium are probably the safest herbicides to use when preparing ground for planting because of their ability to kill most weeds while maintaining a short life in the soil."  They’re "relatively safe for humans and the environment if they’re used in accordance with their labeled instructions," though under "some easily conceivable misapplication scenarios, Roundup could have deleterious effects on the environment," especially to frogs, and that’s mainly because of the inactive ingredients (soaps and oils) that the glyphosate is mixed with.

Gillman goes on to explain the new rating system called the Environmental Impact Quotient (which assesses risk to farm workers, home consumers, and the environment) and urges their inclusion on all labels.  Here’s what surprised me:  The EIQ of Roundup is only 15.3 (on a scale of 1 to 100), compared to, say, organic horticultural oil, which has an EIQ of 27.5 because it can hurt beneficial insects and plants.

To Prepare for a Meadow

The earth-huggers at the American Horticultural Society first tried creating a meadow organically but ultimately prepared the site by using Roundup.  The road to Roundup included first  applying for permission from the county to do a controlled burn, a request that was turned down.  Next, they tried preparing the meadow by tilling, but that only unearthed decades of pokeweed seeds.  Finally, they used Roundup under carefully monitored conditions - no chance of rain, etc. 

Gilman notes the exact same problem with tilling, adding that it also can cause erosion and make the ground susceptible to compaction. "So why not apply glyphosate and allow the weeds you’ve killed to work as mulch?"  But others disagree and suggest instead that that black plastic is the best way to clear land of vegetation.  Ah, but that method kills all the beneficial critters in the soil, though only for one season, I suppose (they’ll return with the application of organic matter).  I remember hearing soil food web guru Jeff Lowenfels (author of Teaming with Microbes) declare his hatred for plastic because it destroys the soil-food web but wonder what he’d recommend instead.  Roundup? 

To Remove Invasive Plants

Another Roundup-related controversy arises from its widespread use to remove invasive plants.  But even in the service of that universally accepted good cause, its use is criticized.  Faith Campbell of the Nature Conservancy, for one, gets slammed for using it in the removal of invasive plants, despite her standing as a "rabid environmentalist" (and I SURE wish I remembered where I saw that characterization).

To Remove Hard-to-Get-To Plants

Cass Turnbull recommends it when you can’t dig something out - maybe because it’s in a rockery or has its roots entwined in a plant you don’t want to kill.  She keeps small bottle of paste+brush containing Roundup in her pruning bag when she works.

Yours Truly

I confess to a lack of purity in many things, including my adherence to strict organic practices.  So when I discovered poison ivy coming up from beneath layers of other groundcovers, I squirted its leaves with the systematic herbicide that does the job.  I think I’ve finally tackled the poison ivy population on my property but this season I plan to go after another hard-to-get menace - the creeping euonymus at the base of my big ole white oak.   If there’s some other way of getting rid of it without endangering the tree and the other plants it’s entwined with, I’d love to hear it.

How Roundup Works

According to sources I trust, it does NOT poison the soil.  It’s a systemic, which means it moves from the leaves you’ve just sprayed throughout that one plant and kills it.   Nearby plants are not affected unless your aim is really bad, or it’s a windy day - and just DON’T DO THAT. 

More Don’ts

Also don’t get it anywhere near water, because it IS toxic to aquatic critters.  And using it regularly to kill routine weeds?  Ugh.  Why not prevent weeds and when they grow despite your best mulching, just use a little muscle? 

There’s a good summary of what’s known (and hated) about Roundup and its maker here on Wikipedia.

{ 24 comments }

Thanks to everyone who contributed their real-life stories to this Round-up about Rain Barrels.  Most of those comments can be found on this post at GardenRant.

Why all the interest in rain barrels?

• They reduce the load on our municipal water supplies.
• They save (a little) on our water bills, though not enough to justify using them on the basis of cost alone.  In one test a rain barrel saved about 1,300 gallons over the summer, and one user told me he’d saved $35 over the course of the summer.
• If your roof is slate or metal, the collected water will be naturally soft, chlorine-free rainwater and excellent for plants of all types.  Water falling from asphalt roofs is too polluted to use on foodstuffs or TO DRINK.  (There’s more below on the question of polluted water falling from our roofs.)
• They reduce or eliminate runoff of stormwater into our watershed, which means less downstream pollution and sedimentation.  Even here in the East where we’ve been having prolonged droughts, global weirding has also brought more severe downpours, so the runoff problem is just getting worse.

[click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }