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.

Most Weed N Feeds say in the instructions to keep kids and pets out of treated areas for the first 48 hours or so after application. This tells me they know that it can cause issues, but they don't seem to want to make a connection that if the Weed N Feed is 'long lasting' then the toxicity is 'long lasting' as well. I think the first 48 hours is more to allow any granules to fully settle below the level of the grass and thus 'less likely to be ingested', but as anyone who has a dog should know, 3 inches of growth will in no way hinder them from getting to something they can smell. This is why I don't treat the area (with fertilizer, weed control or anything) where I take my dogs to do their thing. They can wander around and do as they please without worrying about running into anything unnatural. Except my Sling-back chairs. My Springer gets so involved with sniffing things out of the grass she tends to ignore things she's about to run into, like said Sling-back. Or me.

I agree that there is no 1 way of growing tomatoes. I do what gives me the best tasting & largest maters and the most of them at the same time. I'm not saying my way is better than anybody else's. I was happy growing tomatoes that were decent size and fairly productive before I switched to my current methods, but then got to thinking, why not try to increase size & production and get the most from my limited space? So I changed my thinking and methods a bit and that worked the best for me, and haven't gone back. I've replaced, by method changes, 8oz fruits, maybe 15-20 per plant, with 12oz fruits, 40-50 per plant--not by changing the variety but by changing the methods. Even moreso, I've increased lbs per square yard by over 1200%, so I won't go back to the old ways. For those those that think a plant is different than a person, that is true, but both are living things that reproduce, and require nutrition to do so; what happen's when a pregnant mother doesn't eat during pregnancy? I think putting genetics aside, it will affect the size of the baby, just as I feel it would affect the size of tomatoes. Isn't this logical? I don't think I could have made the point any other way. Sometimes, you gotta think outside the box too. Oregon_veg, I wasn't knocking your methods or trying to be offensive or rude. You tried using a vehicle as a comparison, which may be worse than my example. You also said you do all your maintainance beforehand and not on the road... but said "Then it's gas and oil for the rest of the trip." Gas to a vehicle is FOOD. It wouldn't do a thing without it. Please see my original post, about 3 down from Trudi's pics, which was on topic. Four month old plants loaded with fruits and almost looking as nice as day #1 are not normal here. They would have been decimated by disease by now, at least here with all the humidity, or starved by now. And I'm not talking 4-5'' Aunt Gertie's Golds at the end of the season, but 6''. While I'm one of the biggest proponents of "Nitrogen for leaves and shoots. Phosphorus for roots and fruits" I think that there is more to learn about mid-season feedings--how they may affect production as well as plant longevity with indeterminate plants. Maybe I'm on to something.... maybe not... so DON'T try it! DON'T change your current methods! DON'T maximize your production! Notice I also didn't say the word Nitrogen... it would open up a whole 'nother debate regarding NPK #'s, so I'll leave it at just ''feedings'' though the last fertilizer I used here was 15-0-0 (calcium nitrate.) Maybe Fusion will post something on mid-season or season-long feeding, I think here or another forum he said something similar like many people don't fertilize long enough into the season or something. I guess in all 3 of my posts, I gave "just my opinion" however it came out or was interpretted. Mark

I fully endorse Sevin. I have found that my roses are happiest only when I use Sevin. My trees seem to take on a brilliant green glow with the use of Sevin. I feel that it's just the patriotic thing to do when I use Sevin. A product like Sevin needs no "scientific data" to prove its efficacy. It's just common sense that it works. For those that scoff at my endorsement, I would just like to say that it's my God given right to want the best for my roses. If you would prefer to tend to a garden of turmoil and watch your roses suffer as invasive terrorist terrorize your territory, that's all fine by me. I, on the other hand, use Sevin because it works. See, that right there is a satirical statement that one would make if one wanted to be a troll. The purpose of the commentary is clearly rhetorical and carries a slightly aggressive tone to enforce the message that I don't agree with previously stated commentary. Note the emphasis on "scientific data" to imply that scientific data is not an end-all when it comes to the basis of this argument. The point of this is to highlight what most people who frequent this site already know: 1.) The use or non use of chemicals is personal choice with equal consequences. Don't use chemicals and you have a full time job on your hands trying to address problems as they come. Do use chemicals and you eliminate beneficial insects as well as potentially affect the environment. 2.) 99% of the advice exchanged on this forum is anecdotal at best. This is not to say that none of the advice is valid. Unfortunately gardening science does not get the attention/funding that other higher demand areas get, leaving many to speculate on the best course to take in their gardens. There is a plethora of home spun advice that truly works and no one has an inkling of an idea on why it works. Eventually there will be empirical data to explain it all. For now we all take our chances and benefit from everyone's good will. 3.) Opinions are people's attempt at helping others see an angle that is possibly overlooked. No one, short of my previous example, purposefully puts out information with malice. Are some opinions more aligned with validity than others? Sure, but like that well intentioned fruit cake at Christmas, we accept it, smile, give thanks, and place it along side everything else we don't have use for in the trash. 4.) Data, specially scientific data, is a snap shot in time and space. We can all cite "evidence" where a well meaning scientist definitively concluded that one position on a claim was irrevocably true, only to have another, more in depth scientist debunk the previous claim. Look at the ever changing world of weightless and you'll note how true this is. This is not to say that everything is refutable. There are constants in our world, but the difficult questions rarely have simplistic answers. Be kind when you ask for evidence to support a claim. The data you suckle intelligence from could be a milk less teet, lol. Forgive my long winded words of fancy. I'm troubled sometimes with the lack of common respect that occurs between people of rivaling opinions and I feel I'd be in error if I didn't remind people what we already know. ;-)