Picture Snob

February 25, 2011

A good article from the New York Times on GMOs

This is written by Mark Bittman for the NYT.

220px-Salmo_salar_GLERL_1.jpg

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.'s -- genetically modified organisms -- you're out of luck. They're not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can't contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.'s. Now, however, even that may not work.

In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon -- the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last -- may not be far behind.

It's unlikely that these products' potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don't want to "suggest or imply" that these foods are "different." (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that's another story.)

They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent -- it's called Europe -- is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9 percent G.M.O.'s must be labeled.

G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds' farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it's entirely possible that what's needed to feed the world's hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.)

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals -- their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.'s -- have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.) But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic; if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish ... it's not clear what will happen.

This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon -- a biotech company called AquaBounty -- whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, "Maybe they should watch 'Jurassic Park.' ")

Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a "new animal drug" which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say, fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of organic food and now even congressmen -- last week, a bill was introduced to ban G.E. salmon -- believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias towards the industry.

Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol corn, the products produced from it won't be organic. (On the one hand, U.S.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?)

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field -- self included -- understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.'s are unsafe, even more say they're less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent -- you don't see a poll number like that too often -- wants them labeled.

In the long run, genetic engineering may prove to be useful. Or not. The science is adolescent at best; not even its strongest advocates can guarantee that there aren't hidden dangers. So consumers are understandably cautious, and whether that's justified or paranoid, it would seem we have a right to know as much as Europeans do.

Even more than questionable approvals, it's the unwillingness to label these products as such -- even the G.E. salmon will be sold without distinction -- that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it?

A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.'s, and there's little reason to think more isn't on the way. It seems our "regulators" are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever.

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

February 22, 2011

Johnny's Seed Catalog is unique among seed companies

Johnny's catalog just came and is very impressive. The company is employee owned and was started in the 70's by a 22 year old with $500 savings. The employees own 30% of the company and should own 100% by 2015 which is unusual and commendable. Ownership-Image.jpg

The company originates in Maine and as one might guess, is geared toward cool weather growing. The lettuce section is the most extensive I've seen, ten pages of familar and rare varieties, but a special section on baby salad mixes and another on micro mix varieties which are vegetable seedlings harvested while small and used for salad and gourmet cooking. They sell ounces and up to 25 pounds of seeds so they are used by large growers as well as home gardeners.

Many vegetable sections come with a very helpful chart showing the variety and the days to harvest, the color, disease resistance and other attributes of seed. The corn section is small, only three pages, but they advertise a an innoculant which should help corn survive in less than ideal conditions. There is a good explanation of SE, SE+, and Synergistic varieties which helped me understand what those labels mean.

This Spring Treat corn is a "slightly sturdier plant and better eating quality than Kandy Kwik, which Spring Treat replaces. Good cool soil vigor."

2489.jpg

They have an extensive selection of herbs from Angelica to Wormwood, eighteen pages and about thirty pages of flowers which includes some wildflower mixes. The tools and supplies section ha a lot of season extender items. Agribon is featured as both a lightweight insect barrier and a heavy weight heavy freeze protection of down to 24 degrees F. They show plastic and biodegrable mulchers which I've never seen before. A white on black mulch keeps the soil cool and the black side down suppresses weeds. They sell a red plastic mulch developed by Penn State which suppresses weeds, keeps the soil warm and hastens the ripening of tomatoes. It's not recommended for hot weather states.

Lastly, they sell a range of harvesting knives and tools and are featuring a Tubtrug which is a flexible food grade plastic tub to use for harvesting or for mixing fertilizer.
9466.jpg
They come in three bright colors and can be left outside with no harm from frost or UV.

At Johnny's Seeds

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

February 10, 2011

More on the Monsanto victory for GE alfalfa

Monsanto's GE Alfalfa: Obama's Organic Betrayal

In last week's Bytes, we made the case that the Organic Elite had betrayed the organic community when they naively sat down to cut a deal for "coexistence" with the USDA, essentially giving up on confronting Monsanto where it matters: in the market (including Whole Foods Market), where unlabeled GMO and factory-farmed foods are routinely purchased by unwitting consumers. OCA chided Organic Inc. for abandoning grassroots "activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions" and internalizing the defeatist notion "that the battle against GMOs has been lost."

At nearly the very moment Bytes was broadcast to our members, news came that President Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack had betrayed the organic industry. As OCA expected, Vilsack, apparently on direct orders from the White House, abandoned the idea of "controlled deregulation" for something much more Monsanto-friendly. Monsanto's controversial RoundUp Ready alfalfa will likely be planted this spring and - like all of the biotech industry's GMOs - it remains untested, unregulated, unrestricted, and unlabeled. It seems that Obama has elected to joins the ranks of Monsanto Minions, just like Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr. before him.

The good news is that the organic industry is finally showing some anger and passion! In the wake of this betrayal foretold, the Organic Trade Association published an open letter condemning Vilsack's decision, signed by United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI), Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley, as well as a host of organic advocacy groups and individuals, including Michael Pollan. Here's the letter:

We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa!

The Organic Trade Association also finally criticized Obama directly:
"The hope ignited by electing a president that would represent the people, against special interests and business as usual in Washington, was sadly extinguished when your office chose sides. As quoted by Maureen Dowd in Sunday's New York Times, your chief advisor David Axelrod offered a parting pun to "plow forward" on genetically engineered alfalfa, before heading off to get you re-elected. The cynicism of biotech lobbyists has penetrated the inner most sanctum of your White House and I am deeply disappointed. ... Since GE it is not currently labeled or tracked in our food supply, it is impossible to conduct long-term studies on the link between GE and human health problems.

"I want to be able to choose whether the foods I eat contain genetically engineered ingredients. When it comes to GE crops in America, I will vote for choice both at the grocery store and at the polls in 2012."

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

February 4, 2011

Organic Consumer News--93% want GE food labeled

NPR has some interesting tidbits related to organic food news and genetically engineered food. Would you eat a genetically engineered salmon? Are you even sure what the difference is between the regular variety and one that's been tweaked to grow faster?

Don't feel bad if you're unsure. Only a quarter of Americans say they fully understand what genetically engineered food is all about, according to a survey of more then 3,000 people conducted for NPR by Thomson Reuters last month.

Press people a little further by asking them if genetically engineered foods are safe, and the uncertainty climbs higher. Only 21 percent of people are convinced the foods are safe. Most are unsure -- 64 percent. The remaining 15 percent think the foods aren't safe.

People who are a little older, make more money and have at least a college degree are most likely to think safety is not an issue for the foods, whose qualities have been altered by laboratory manipulation of DNA.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that a food should say on its label if it's from some genetically modified animal or plant -- 9 in 10 people surveyed said so.

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

February 3, 2011

Organic Comsumer Association takes on Monsanto continued...

The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
Straight to the Source

"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011

In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.

In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.

In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."

In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."

Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?

According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.

WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

February 2, 2011

Stonyfield Farm responds to Monsanto and OCA

stonyfield.png

Yesterday, we reported how the Organic Consumers Association was accusing what they called "the organic elite" of caving to Monsanto and facilitating the USDA's unrestricted approval of GMO alfalfa - a move that could seriously undermine the integrity of organic foods.

Today, Stonybrood Farm responds - and they say that on the contrary, they want everyone to stand firm - together - against Monsanto.

Let me first state the obvious - leaving aside the fact that USDA's own organic standards do not allow the use of genetically engineered crops, Stonyfield is absolutely and utterly opposed to the deregulation of GE crops.

We believe that these crops are resulting in significantly higher uses of toxic herbicides and water, creating a new generation of costly "super" weeds.


  • Pose severe and irreversible threats to biodiversity and seed stocks.

  • Do not live up to the superior yield claims of their patent holders.

  • Are unaffordable for small family farmers in the US and around the world.

  • We believe that organic farming methods are proving through objective, scientific validation to offer far better solutions.

  • We also believe that unrestricted deregulation of GE crops unfairly limits farmer and consumer choice.


And they take strong exception to the OFA's characterization of them as an "Organic Elite" that is betraying the needs of consumers.

Making matters worse, on the day of the decision, the Organic Consumers Association distributed an inaccurate, irresponsible and frankly appalling letter that attempted to pin the blame for the USDA's decision squarely on Stonyfield, Organic Valley and Whole Foods. OCA's letter is blatantly untrue and dangerously misleading, but also deeply divisive at a time when we all need to be focused on immediate actions necessary to stop this new policy from going into effect.

Stacked against us

Stonyfield's Gary Hirshberg sums up the past 6 years of this fight, and says that while it's hugely disappointing, considering how much firepower Big Ag threw at congress and the regulatory system, it's not surprising that it turned out this way.

Thursday's decision and the long and hard fought battle leading up to it began in 2005 when the USDA deregulated GE alfalfa for the first time. Stonyfield actively supported the organic community's challenge to the deregulation and eventually the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Court ruled there could be no deregulation without the USDA making a full assessment of GE alfalfa's environmental impact and the court placed an injunction on planting of GE alfalfa.

Since then, Monsanto and big biotech have spent tens of millions lobbying in Washington and funding studies that support the use of GE alfalfa. These biotech giants have terrifyingly deep pockets. But despite their efforts, organic advocates were able to persuade the USDA that organic interests must also be considered. And so, for the first time, the USDA in recent months convened stakeholder groups of pro- and anti-biotech organizations including farm groups, manufacturers, industry associations and non-profits to try to reach a consensus on GE alfalfa. This was essentially an attempt to convene meetings between the Davids and Goliaths. Given the overwhelming firepower on the other side, and a decade's worth of biotech-funded "science", it was a bold and worthy attempt. Stonyfield, Whole Foods, Organic Valley, and the Organic Trade Association along with many other organic advocates including the Non-GMO Project, Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Organic Coalition, Beyond Pesticides, and the Center for Food Safety brought forward our arguments for a complete ban on GE alfalfa.

From the outset of these stakeholder discussions, it was clear that GE alfalfa had overwhelming political, legal, financial and regulatory support and thus the odds were severely stacked against any possibility of preventing some level of approval, just as has been the case with GE cotton, soy and corn. Keep in mind that, according to Food and Water Watch, biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Their lobby expenditures more than doubled during that time. In 2009 alone they spent $71 million. Last year they had more than 100 lobbying firms working for them, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.

In December, to no one's surprise, the USDA took a complete ban of GE alfalfa off the table as an option, leaving only two choices: complete deregulation or deregulation with some safeguards to protect organic farmers, which they called "co-existence." The choice we were faced with was to walk away and wait for the legal battle in the courts or stay at the table and fight for safeguards that would attempt to protect organic farmers and consumer choice, still maintaining the option for legal battle later. A smaller coalition of organic interests participated in the meetings with the clear caveat that any decision to deregulate GE alfalfa must include restrictions that protect organic farmers and consumers' choice. When faced with the overwhelming reality that GE alfalfa would be released despite our best efforts, we believed fighting for some safeguards to protect organic consumers and organic farmers was the best option.

We specifically advocated that any regulatory approval must ensure: (a) protection of seed purity - for organic farmers' use, and as insurance in case something "crops" up that causes a later reconsideration of the use of biotechnology; (b) organic farmers whose crops become contaminated by GE alfalfa must be compensated by the patent holders for their losses due to losing their organic certification; and (c) the USDA must oversee all testing and monitoring of GE crops to ensure compliance as part of its role in protecting all US agriculture. Needless to say, the biotech coalition was firmly opposed to all three caveats, but we remained united and fought hard for them.

Not once did Stonyfield consider buying what Monsanto was selling - nor will we ever. We have never wavered from our position in defending organic and opposing GE crops. Back in the 1990's we went head to head with Monsanto over synthetic growth hormones and we were the first US dairy to pay farmers not to use rBGH. We have been fighting them ever since, and will continue to do so. In the days since this very sad decision, we have convened multiple times with our fellow organic advocates and have already begun to plan and invest in our next wave of legal, lobbying and educational efforts.

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

January 29, 2011

An online organic gardening course is being offered!

1portrait.jpg

If you're interested in starting organic gardening or already are an expert, this course might be of interest to you. A friend of mine and a neighbor has started an online service which should be good.

Savor The Taste Of
A Garden Victory...

FREE On-Line Organic Gardening Course


Dave and his family have been growing their own food for 30 years on a remote homestead. He says, "Living on a beautiful river we are growing about 80 % of our food inlarge organic gardens. We raise a milk cow, some goats, a steer and some chickens. Living close to the earth and the seasonal cycles has given us a great appreciation for the food we eat and the need to grow our food in an earth friendly, animal friendly way.

I am so glad to have had the opportunity to raise my children on our homestead farm. They don't wonder where their food comes from and they sure can tell the difference in taste and quality of our home grown food compared to what we buy in the store when we are out visiting friends."

maryjames.jpg

If you're interested, you can click on the following link: Family Gardens, organic gardening, permaculture, garden supplies and e-books

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

January 27, 2011

Pesticide approval challenged in California

I'm quoting below in an article in the Atlantic Monthly online concerning a pesticide that has just been approved in California. You can classify this under the "it never ends" catagory. One pesticide is fased out while another makes its appearance and is even worst in consequences. A person really has to be up to date to avoid pesticides. Strawberries are delicious, yet the only safe kind are organic or homegrown.

Estabrook_Midas_1-18_post.jpg

The chemical in question is called methyl iodide (or iodomethane) and is marketed under the trade name MIDAS by Arysta LifeScience, a Tokyo-based firm that is the world's largest privately held agrichemical company. Methyl iodide is a fumigant that is injected into fields before planting to kill insects, microorganisms, fungi, weed seeds--virtually every living organism.

It's worth noting that when scientists want to create experimental cancer cells in the laboratory they use methyl iodide. Claiming that it can also kill the humans who handle it or are unfortunate enough to live in the vicinity of farms (PDF), a group of farm workers and environmental health organizations filed suit late last year to reverse California's Department of Pesticide Regulation's approval of methyl iodide's use.

"We are going to court to challenge the last-minute approval of this cancer-causing pesticide," said Paul Towers, director of Pesticide Watch Education Fund, a public health and environmental organization that is one of the plaintiffs. "The department did this despite the state's own Scientific Review Committee's unanimous warning that it was too toxic to be let out of the laboratory."

When people talk about getting rid of regulations, they forget that the government has the means to protect people from dangerous chemicals and that they should be allowed to do their job.

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

January 21, 2011

Grower's Supply--a catalog for every growing need

gs_building_blowout_sale-v4.gif

This catalog is put out by an Iowa company and it has a clearance sale on overstocks and closeouts going right now as well as a 10% discount on orders of $75 or more. They cater to large growers, featuring large fabric structures and solar engineered greenhouses. But they also show some excelent weed growth suppessant which allows air, water and nutrients to pass through to the plants. The smallest size is 3' by 100' foot role for $25.95.

They have wathershield canopies for outdoor picnics and bbqing, or for protection for your car. There are ready made clearview panels of PVC vinyl for closing in a porch or extending a living area. Fiberglass mesh netting for keep areas deer and bird free are advertised as well as the usual spaying and watering equipment. They have ventilating systems for greenhouses and solar and energy efficient lights and many options of hand trucks and carts.

If you are looking into setting yourself up with a large indoor growing system this is a great place to look. Call 1 800 476-9715 for a catalog or online at Grower's Supply

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (0) | social bookmarking

January 20, 2011

Spray-N-Grow: Garden products that are safe

sng-2011.jpg

I got this catalog for the first time this year. I'm always a little sceptical that every garden nurtrient can be supplied by spray products, but some of their offerings are very tempting. They say their Spray-N-Grow product is not a fertilizer or a hormone but a unique organic based micronutrient. An 8 oz. bottle is $11.95,

They advertise Bill's Perfect Fertilizer, 6-11-5. It blends hydrolyzed fish, calcium, sugar can extract, humus and seaweed. You can spray it on the leaves of the plant or pour it on the soil. Of course they also sell power sprayers as well as hand pump ones and they have a whole line of animal repellents. It's quite amazing to see a different repellent for moles, geese, squirrels, snakes rabbits and mice!

There is an interesting plant cage that is spiral and collapses for storage and a tomato round which is plastic circle six inches high to put around plants and fill with water to make sure the water soaks deeply into the soil. It's a little pricey at $8.95. I couldn't afford to buy it for my 20 tomatoe plants although I often have wanted just such a device.
There is a line of plant fungus and disease fighting products and calcium for eliminating blossom end rot on tomatoes. The compost pail looks interesting. It has a filter and is dishwasher safe.

It's an interesting catalog which you can order at 1.800.323.2363 or see online at Spray-n-grow

Marilyn Renaker at Permalink | Comments (1) | social bookmarking

Join the Mailing List Mailing List
Enter your Email

Subscribe - RSS

facebook_badge.jpg twitter_badge.jpg

Navigation

Visit our other properties at Blogpire.com!

Archives

EcoPire


Powered by
Movable Type 6.3.6
All items Copyright © 1999-2017 Blogpire Productions. Please read our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy