In message , Alan Gould
writes
In article , PA
writes
I was also going for a "organic" approach, would glyphosate contradicted
that?
Glyphosate or any of its derivatives are not acceptable for use in
organic food production. Commercial growers are banned from using it.
Recreational growers can do as they wish, but the resulting crops are
not recognised as organic grown.

Organic(TM) produce is primarily a marketing scheme to separate the
worried well and others with an irrational fear of "chemicals" from more
of their cash for substantially the same product.

Using glyphosate is probably the most effective way to clear couch grass
(or any other form of grass). Grasses are exquisitely sensitive to it.
You don't need much applied accurately to have a big effect. The dead
plant material will rot down in place. Minimum inputs is a very
reasonable strategy to adopt in your own garden - I don't use any
pesticides on food crops. But using glyphosate to keep weeds down is
fair game.

Best value for money is to zap the stuff with glyphosate and then torch
it when tinder dry. It will take out all the overgrown brushwood and
shallow rooted bramble as well. Be sure to make fire breaks around the
edges!

And glyphosate is remarkable benign to birds and mammals considering how
deadly it is to green plants. In commercial formulations the wetting
agent (powerful detergent) is far more dangerous than the active
ingredient.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote in message ...
In message , Alan Gould
writes
In article , PA
writes
I was also going for a "organic" approach, would glyphosate contradicted
that?
Glyphosate or any of its derivatives are not acceptable for use in
organic food production. Commercial growers are banned from using it.
Recreational growers can do as they wish, but the resulting crops are
not recognised as organic grown.

Organic(TM) produce is primarily a marketing scheme to separate the
worried well and others with an irrational fear of "chemicals" from more
of their cash for substantially the same product.


You are completely wrong about this. I have no irrational fear of
chemicals.
I would support organics because the opposite idea intensive
agrigulture is causing sever habitat and the loss of much of our
native wildlife.

No irrational fear just a rational response to a problem.

Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve

On 5 Aug 2003 04:05:21 -0700, (Neil Jones)
wrote:

Organic(TM) produce is primarily a marketing scheme to separate the
worried well and others with an irrational fear of "chemicals" from more
of their cash for substantially the same product.


You are completely wrong about this. I have no irrational fear of
chemicals.
I would support organics because the opposite idea intensive
agrigulture is causing sever habitat and the loss of much of our
native wildlife.

No irrational fear just a rational response to a problem.

Get real! There are ways of operating that you would not call organic,
but are not your perception of 'intensive agriculture' either. There
are farmers getting awards for conservation who use chemicals
responsibly.

Just because you choose so-called organic products for your own
reasons, does not mean that Martin is 'completely wrong'. People
choose to buy what they do for all sorts of reasons, and the
supermarkets latch onto whatever the latest fad or fear is to keep
their profits up.

However, this is going very OT for gardening, so I suggest if you want
an informed discussion on the subject you post it to
uk.business.agriculture.

Regards, VivienB