I have just planted dandelions, purslane, millet, wild lettuce in my garden beds to improve the soil. Weeds bring up many minerals that the veggies don't. I am not sure where the hate of weeds ever came from. Weeds improve the soil. I noticed in a bed when mulch was thin, and the grass came up through it, the English peas did better than in areas with thick (weedless) mulch, so now I encourage my weeds. The peas were more productive, and healthier. I have a notil garden, so I guess that is why. Constant tillage promotes weeds. Nature is trying to fix what we broke. Nature abhors bare ground. The more bare ground you have, the more weeds you will have. The more you til the worse your "so called" weed problem will be. When I needed to plant into a bed covered in weeds, I weed wacked it. I am sure it was faster and easier than chemicals or pulling. This was only to allow sun to hit the newly planted seeds and to provide mulch for the hungry soil life. Mostly I did this, to install a trellis for my cowpeas. I hate digging to insert the poles, but this is a one time thing (until the poles rot), so soil life should not be too angry with me. I was not interested in "killing" the weeds, just making them shorter. I use soil plugs in the mulch so I do not have to pull the mulch back to sow seeds. Seeds will not sprout where plants already exists thicky, which is the main reason I thick we got the idea weeds are bad. Just cut back the weeds where you plant the seed and and area around the spot to allow sun to hit it. Pulling weeds or crops is a no no for me. The roots aerate the soil, and provide food for the soil life after they die. Rootless soil get compacted easily and is very bad for soil life. When alive, any sort of roots are teaming with life to help your garden. Gardeners should get more in tune with nature (and the way God made earth's garden) and promote life not death, by killing weeds, pests, fungus, earthworms and other soil life. When killing is focused on, the work load increases. If soil life is killed by gardening practices that do not respect soil life, you will have to use fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and more water. Pests only are attracted to sick plants. Weeds only show up where they are needed. Feed the soil, not the plants. I planted cowpeas directly in the sod. It performed better than the mulched bed. The American Indians only weeded right around the freshly sown corn seeds, to help it to sprout and to let it get sunlight, but when the corn got taller they did not waste time on such silliness. I think that weeding came into vogue from places with extremely short and cold summers, like england. I guess the theory is, that bare soil is warmer. Everywhere else weeding is really not necessary. I think to emulate nature is the easiest way to garden. Here is some info on nature's way. The Weeds as Indicators Of Soil Conditions The Weeds Friends or Foe? The Using Weeds as Indicators of Turf Management and Environmental Conditions Soil Indicator Weeds Soil What Weeds Can Tell You About Your Garden Soil Controlling weeds and pests Soil Healthy Naturally Weed Power - Weeds and What they Mean If you are at battle with your weeds and like everything to look neat and tidy, then the newspaper and mulch thing works great. I had no weeds when I have used that technique. Mulch is hard to come by here in July and August in Texas, unless I plan to waste water by watering the yard to get the grass to grow in the heat of summer. That is how I decided to go with the flow and use nature's way to keep the soil cooler and moisture in by allowing weeds to get tall. The longer the weed's roots, the farther down water will penetrate.

I really should take the high road. I should. I personally hate the company, but the product is useful. A perfect world it is not. Since everyone else seems averse to actually posting links I will do a few for those interested in the toxicology of Round Up. You will see wild claims but rarely in a scientific white paper by a credentialed professional in the matter. I personally fight for organics and sustainability. I purchase organic food when I can't grow enough of my own, I don't buy or eat feed lot beef etc. Here are some great links First I like Wiki- Sources are noted, and where they are not noted for statements you will seethe (citations needed) instead of the resource number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/03/roundup-is-safe.html "TOXICITY REVIEW Acute (Mammalian) Glyphosate has reported oral LD5Os of 4,320 and 5,600 mg/kg in male and female rats (15,4). The oral LD5Os of the two major glyphosate products Rodeo and Roundup are 5,000 and 5,400 mg/kg in the rat (15). A dermal LD5O of 7,940 mg/kg has been determined in rabbits (15,4). There are reports of mild dermal irritation in rabbits (6), moderate eye irritation in rabbits (7), and possible phototoxicity in humans (9). The product involved in the phototoxicity study was Tumbleweed marketed by Murphys Limited UK (9). Maibach (1986) investigated the irritant and the photo irritant responses in individuals exposed to Roundup (41% glyphosate, water, and surfactant); Pinesol liquid, Johnson Baby Shampoo, and Ivory Liquid dishwashing detergent. The conclusion drawn was that glyphosate has less irritant potential than the Pinesol or the Ivory dishwashing liquid (120). Metabolism Elimination of glyphosate is rapid and very little of the material is metabolized (6,106). Subchronic/Chronic Studies (Mammalian) In subchronic tests, glyphosate was administered in the diet to dogs and rats at 200, 600, and 2,000 ppm for 90 days. A variety of toxicological endpoints were evaluated with no significant abnormalities reported (15,10). In other subchronic tests, rats received 0, 1,000, 5,000, or 20,000 ppm (57, 286, 1143 mg/kg) in the diet for 3 months. The no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 20,000 ppm (1,143 mg/kg) (115). In the one year oral dog study, dogs received 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day. The no observable effect level (NOEL) was 500 mg/kg (116)." http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/glyphosa.htm The theme here is. Don't ingest it. (would you ingest fish fertilizer? I got food poisoning from it once as a kid because I didn't wash my hands after handling...not pleasant) Again Don't drink it, don't spray it in your eyes, don't Walk around barefoot while it is wet or spray it on your skin. The best method is in a pump up sprayer on a calm day to minimize drift. I adjust the nozzle for a course spray, not atomizing the fluid like I would for foliar feeding. This prevents drift and forces the fluid to go on the target and not into the air where you can breath it, get it into your eyes or on your skin or have unintentional drift. Care when applying is all that is needed. Once the treatment area is dry it is safe to enter and work around. My occupation is a Safety Professional. By reviewing the MSDS if I was to have an employee applying this material for me I would require long pants and shoes and Rubber or other light chemical resistant gloves and goggles while pouring or transferring it but not necessarily for the application.. The reason I would recommend this is that is the recommendation of the msds http://www.kellysolutions.com/erenewals/documentsubmit/KellyData%5CNC%5Cpesticide%5CMSDS%5C74530%5C74530-4%5C74530-4_GLYPHOSATE_41__11_30_2006_4_57_38_PM.pdf And the fully formulated MSDS http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-MSDS-Docs7017.htm Recognizing, controlling protecting from and eliminating hazards are what I do for a living. I would follow the manufacturers instructions and recommend anyone do the same. To put this into perspective you will be exposed to between 100 and 200 PPM of benzene the next time you fill your fuel tank at the self service pump. If you can smell gas, you are being exposed. The Occupational action level where mitigation is required is 1 PPM. A person can apply round up and not be exposed to any substances listed as hazardous with a Threshold limit value by the American council if industrial hygienist or a Permissible exposure limit by OSHA. Get this. Alaska fish fertilizer has phosphoric acid that does have a PEL and TLV. http://www.growercentral.com/UPLOADS/PDFS/alaska%20fish%20fertilizer%205-1-1%20msds%20(02-05).pdf EMERGENCY OVERVIEW: Potential Health Effects: Primary Entry Routes: Eyes, skin, ingestion. Target Organs: Eyes, skin, gastrointestinal tract. Acute Effects: Eye: May cause irritation, redness and/or burning. Skin: May cause irritation, redness and/or burning. Ingestion: May be harmful if swallowed. May cause abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea. Medical Conditions Aggravated by Long-Term Exposure: Persons with existing skin lesions should exercise caution when using or handling this product. Chronic Effects: Prolonged skin contact may cause dermatitis. I am not going to quit using Alaska Fish fertilizer either nor am I giving up fueling my vehicles. I would post opposing views but the first one I opened Had a Trojan horse so if you are going to be searching for counterpoints do not open The link from naturescountrystore.com!!! It's infected with a trojan horse.

I sent the link to some fellow Arizona gardeners and one replied that it isn't as important here to have mature compost... supposedly the desert makes things different? Here is what he said exactly: eh, i disagree, if you are putting the right things into your compost, ie, not cistrus in this climate, you can use non mature compost no problem in az, if you burry it under your soil, it will decompose quickly and helps growth! this is supposing of course you are not box gardening, which is less than ideal here anyway, ive also heard this can be good way to revitalize "bad soil" in less than a year.

I tend to think that many people believe they can "recycle" better than large corporations. IOW, just bury newspapers and cardboard boxes, turn it into compost and skip the middle man, since you are using it as decomposing material. You are saving energy, recycling, saving the landfills, and promoting an Organic garden with natural materials. I don't believe it for a second, now. As a teen I worked at a warehouse and we stacked broken down cardboard boxes outside the doors. After a rain, especially multiple rains this gooey slime would drip down the sides of the freight dock. It was nasty and sticky that never seemed to go away after the cardboard was picked up. Then years later using cardboard in my garden, thinking the way most do, I found cardboard two years later in the ground and even detected the gooey slime. That caused me to do some research and I found out that I was very far from Organic. I would have been more organic using Miracle-Gro. Here is what I found: Cardboard in cardboard boxes: Semi-Chem (semi-chemical fluting medium) is applied to stretch" the fibers, making it stronger and stiffer. Where the corrugated short fiber paper are usually used for peaks and valleys of each flute, then glued using starch adhesives. While these adhesives sound innocent enough since they are called, "starch adhesives" (usually shipped to the cardboard manufacturer as a powder) they are seldom made up of Tapioca dextrin, the adhesive used for postage stamps. They most likely will be incorporated with 5 to 15% resins, such as urea formaldehyde, and especially used for cartons where water resistance is helpful. Most dextrin combinations are heated upward of 600 degrees to create a stronger bonding agent. If the paper lacks the amount of wax necessary for good fluting, wax bars are introduced in the process. Newspaper ink: Since 2004, 95% of American newspaper ink is now soy based, as opposed to petroleum based. To make soy ink, soybean oil is slightly refined and then blended with pigment, resins, and waxes. Even though soybean oil is an edible vegetable oil, soy ink is not edible or 100% biodegradable because the pigments and other additives that are mixed with the oil are the same as those used in petroleum-based inks. However it does degrade four times as completely as standard petroleum inks. The fact that this newer ink has rave reviews how it can be "recycled" easier, doesn't mean it is safe for consumption. It only means the soy ink can be removed more easily than regular ink from recycled newspaper during the de-inking process. Maybe less of a concern, but still a concern is that 92% of soybean acreage in the US is planted with genetically-modified soybeans, which some believe can pose environmental and human health risks. I just don't think working so hard on my garden to get it right, I want to introduce consumer products into the soil if it's not necessary. The only motivation that I can see is that it makes you feel like you are recycling on the most basic level and saving a tiny bit of money. My cardboard and newspaper needs to go to a recycling plant or landfill and let dirt in my garden do the rest.