There's two meanings of "organic" being intermingled and confusing the issues, I think, harmonyp. Whether or not something is grown "organically" (a cultural movement based on sometimes questionable premises, in this ecologist's opinion) has nothing to do with whether or not it is an organic form of nitrogen (i.e., nitrogen as part of a large organic molecule that breaks apart slowly into plant-usable forms of nitrogen). Nitrate and ammonium, which are inorganic, ionic compounds, are considered the plant-usable forms of nitrogen, although this view is being modified as more and more evidence piles up for plants sometimes using organic forms of nitrogen directly. As opposed to nitrogen in large organic molecules, the inorganic forms of nitrogen, provided en masse by synthetic/manufactured fertilizers, are highly mobile in the environment. If they aren't taken up immediately by the plant, they readily move into waterways or the atmosphere where the excess becomes a problem. So, probability of over-application is the main issue, first-order, not the form of nitrogen. Don't use excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers and it's not a problem. Over-application of synthetic fertilizer by rose gardeners would be less than a pittance, anyway; it's large-scale use of excessive amounts of synthetics in big agriculture that is of concern (plus concomitant doubling of "in-play" nitrogen in ecosystems due to the need to feed exponentially-growing human populations, but THAT problem is second-order and beyond...). My preference for alfalfa lies in it being an organic molecule form that makes nitrogen slowly available over a long period of time, having other benefits for the soil, and posing less potential for application of excessive amounts. It is cheap, easy to obtain and use, and my roses look fine to me. I am too lazy and busy to keep track of multiple applications and timing required for synthetic fertilizers over the growing season. So, win-win on a number of fronts; who could complain? As a consultant in restoration ecology, I'm actually a big fan of Roundup. It's an important tool-of-the-trade, though usually considered only after non-chemical means are considered and rejected.

Waaay back, when I was a kid, Mom always made the salad dressing. I think she used Miracle Whip or a MW like 'salad dressing' product. She would thin the MW with milk, add a bit of sugar, a bit of vinegar & some black pepper. This was an all-purpose dressing used for cole slaw and combination lettuce salads. One of my favorite treats way going to Grandma's in the summer when she would serve fresh home grown tomatoes sliced with a small dollop of Miracle Whip. I suspect this of something similar is what is referred to as 'Country Dressing'. I'm not sure what commercial salad dressings were available since we never used them. I suspect a limited selection like probably French and Thousand Island. I remember when Green Goddess was intro'd and when French Onion dip came on the scene. Another thing I remember from helping to compose the grocery list was that when we needed mayonnaise, that went on the list as 'mayo'. When we needed the Miracle Whip stuff, it went on the list as 'salad dressing'. Mom always bought a Miracle Whip equivalent...Griffin's as I recall was the regional brand she bought generally. I grew up mostly in Oklahoma but Mom was from Missouri, the Ozarks area. She had lived in southern California as a kid, one of the Depression era migration. And we lived in Colorado & northern California for a time as well. I remember that we were living in CA when I first encountered French Onion Dip, the orig. version made with sour cream & Lipton's dry soup mix. Probably all these different exposures had some influence in how Mom cooked. Awfully long winded response & not sure that it's much help albeit a nice little stroll down Memory Lane at least, for moi!

"I assume azdoctor has reviewed your lab results? Unless someone is willing to go the extra mile and explain their rationale, I'd just ignore them. Maybe he thinks lawns don't need any chemical other than nitrogen, but we'll never know unless he decides it is worth his time to explain his understanding of healthy soil chemistry." Sorry - I did not explain myself very well. I based my recommendations on the soil test provided. It was not a blanket statement. Grasses, like all other plants require N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cl, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Zn. The soil test indicated that most of these did not require adjustment, hence my recommendation. There is a sliver of truth to some of the comments regarding BCSR and soil structure. We use exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) to evaluate the impact of sodium on soil structure. Alternatively, we can use the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) a ratio of the chemical activities of sodium to calcium plus magnesium. These are routinely used, and are not nutrient based (sodium is not a plant nutrient). These are most important in high CEC, clayey soils. Structure is less important in sandy soils. Somewhere I posted some articles that describe results of tests comparing BCSR and SLAN. Science is not a belief system. It is a method of evaluating facts. Read up on the facts and then make a conclusion - NOT A BELIEF.

Hi all The pot was one of many suckers I potted up two springs ago. That particular one went as a wedding gift to my cousin. It's also a good example of the bare structure of the rose. I have not actually seen this particular rose growing in any of the many gardens around town, though I have by no means conducted a thorough search. (other examinations have come up with a very lovely rambler I would like to get a cutting from, as well as some antique pallida iris I wouldn't mind getting some rhizomes from, but I digress) The website I found which led to my initial identification was actually a Finnish website, which I had to translate, but which I believe was about someone discussing The Nordic Rose/Mustianruusu. They had some great pictures, and some of them could practically have been taken from my very plant- I instantly recognized the buds, sepals, and its very annoying habit of producing far more buds then ever manage to open, year after year, regardless of care. A habit I have not managed to get my plant to break either. There are always about 1/8 of the buds which yellow and die. Initially I thought there was a nutrition or insect problem, but no. It's just a very typical issue for this rose. Or at least in Europe, and according to this Finnish source it was. I will see if I can find the site, google translate is far from perfect, but it was very interesting. I try very hard to avoid like the plague the Banshee/Minette discussion, as it is very confusing, and nothing is very settled amongst the many possibilities which are out there. I am happy enough to say my rose is definitely of the Mustialanruusu type, and leave it at that :)