Natural Lawn Care

Natural Lawn Care

Lawns do more than make your yard look good.
Lawns absorb water, which helps reduce storm runoff and improve water quality. Lawns also have a significant cooling effect, provide oxygen, trap dust and dirt, promote healthful micro-organisms, prevent erosion and filter rainwater contaminants.

Lawn care, however, has come at a high cost to the environment. According to the U.S. National Wildlife Federation:
# 30% of water used on the East Coast goes to watering lawns; 60% on the West Coast.
# 18% of municipal solid waste is composed of yard waste.
# The average suburban lawn received 10 times as much chemical pesticide per acre as farmland.
# Over 70 million tons of fertilizers and pesticides are applied to residential lawns and gardens annually. (Read Healthy lawns, healthy lungs)
# Per hour of operation, a gas lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
Where pesticides are used, 60 - 90% of earthworms are killed. Earthworms are important for soil health.
Much of the environmental cost associated with lawn care can be avoided.

Healthy Lawn Basics

The only way to reduce a dependence on chemical fertilizers is to develop a healthy lawn, which is naturally resistant to weeds, insects and diseases. If you need to fertilize your lawn more than once a year, consider these ways of improving the natural health of your lawn:

1. Improve the Soil
The first step is to test the soil's pH - it should read between 6.5 and 7.0, which is slightly acidic. Soil that is too acidic will need a sprinkling of lime; sulfur can be added to soil which is not acidic enough. You can buy a pH tester (see below, this page) for $40 - $60. Another solution is to have your soil tested professionally; first call your extension office - they often provide soil testing as a free service.
Lawns grow best in loamy soils that have a mix of clay, silt and sand. Too much clay in the soil mix, or heavy use, can compact the soil and prevent air and nutrient flow. Compacted soil may need aeration, a process of lifting small plugs of turf to create air spaces in the soil. For best results, rent an aerator or hire a lawn service to do the job - this will remove "finger size" plugs which improves aeration. Aeration is best done before top dressing and fertilizing.
Organic matter, such as compost and grass clippings, will benefit any type of soil; it lightens soil which is heavy in clay, and it builds humus in sandy soils, which helps retain water and nutrients.

2. Choose a Locally Adapted Grass
Grasses vary in the type of climate they prefer, the amount of water and nutrients required, shade tolerance and the degree of wear they can withstand. Ask your local garden center to recommend grass which is best adapted to your area.

To read the full article: http://eartheasy.com/grow_lawn_care.htm

The Modern Lawn Contributes to Climate Change

The Modern Lawn Contributes to Climate Change by Heather Havey, M.A.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026254.html

(NaturalNews) Americans love to have a healthy and beautiful yard. They have adopted and accepted a concept of beauty known as the "lawn." Many people believe that an expanse of short-trimmed grass-covered land is the most desirable look to have in one`s yard. This may include an occasional shrub or tree to add uniqueness and "diversity." Home-owners can help combat climate change by considering more diverse options for their own yards.

Yards can support green living and biological diversity, or yards can support climate change

In this time of global climate change, humans must consider the effects of all choices on the Earth. One`s yard offers an important opportunity to make a difference as an individual. So let`s ask the question: "Does my yard promote biological diversity as well as healthy water and soil and air?" Upon first consideration it may seem like everything is just fine. The reality is, however, that most people may not know the true, long-lasting effects of choices that have long been accepted as safe or healthy.

Climate change is real and is getting worse

Climate change has led to such phenomena as:
* a hotter and drier planet
* loss of forests, trees, plants, animals, and ground covers
* depletion of soil health and minerals from using chemicals, over-farming, and mowing
* loss of usable fresh water from both pollution and over-consumption
* drying out of the soil layers as water tables lower and rain patterns change
* loss of biological diversity including birds, bees, worms, insects, and much more
* mass extinction of many of Earth`s species - forever
* storm patterns and fires increasing in number and intensity

Some prevalent causes of climate change include:
* unsustainable production processes
* unsustainable and inhumane agricultural practices
* unconscious and wasteful consumption habits
* unchecked use of and dependence on fossil fuels
* unquestioned use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides
* unquestioned use of chemical cleansers and other chemicals
* rapid and rampant deforestation (including in individual`s lawns and developing neighborhoods)

Each individual impacts the overall world balance. Every individual choice tips the balance in favor of Earth health or Earth destruction. This includes diet, transportation, use of resources, recycling, and so on. A big factor on this list also is one`s yard.

The "lawn" as we know it is unsustainable and harmful

An expanse of lawn can be lovely. However, its maintenance encourages pollutive practices:
* weekly mowing
* periodic chemical application of pesticides or fertilizers
* regular watering
* removal of trees or shrubs that may hinder ability to mow

Also, the lawn has long-term effects that encourage climate change and global warming. The lawn:
* dries out the topsoil layers, which also dries out the grass
* does not hold in water or coolness well
* space taken by grass prevents trees, shrubs, flowers, fruits and vegetables that would hold in moisture, re-mineralize the soil, and support birds, bees, and other life
* prevents sufficient biological diversity because there is no habitat for life to live in
* kills biological diversity because chemicals are designed to kill, and they do not know when to stop killing.

The overall effect of this is the transformation of Earth from a lush, diverse, abundant ground cover that protects and sustains us into a dried-out, burned-out, chemically-maintained, wildlife-killing wasteland. This look is currently seen as desirable and "beautiful." This "lawn" concept is promoting a hot, burned-out, poisoned world that lacks biological diversity.

Lawn is only one concept of beauty; there are many others that are lovelier and more sustainable.

There are incredible, beautiful alternatives to the modern "lawn."

One possibility is to fill one`s yard with trees, shrubs, flowers, plants, and trees. Choose local and native species that thrive in the conditions of the area. This will limit the need for maintenance or watering. Chemicals are unnecessary if plants are chosen well. A diverse yard like this will encourage many more birds, butterflies, bees, and other beneficial insects and animals.

Another option in addition is to grow food-bearing trees, shrubs, and plants in your yard. Combine flower beds with fruit trees and vegetable beds. Blueberry, raspberry, and blackberry bushes grow well in quite a few regions. Also in every region certain nut trees and fruit trees will grow well. Grape vines look lovely draped around a terraced porch. Many plants can even be grown in decorative pots. Pepper plants, for example, grow very well and produce many peppers. They look very lovely even inside your home.

A third way to help the Earth is to put bird houses and bathhouses among the trees. Feed birds organic birdseed. Grow sunflowers, which are lovely and produce many sunflower seeds for oneself and the birds.

Also buy eggs from a local farmer who raises them in a healthy and humane fashion. This choice ensures that one does not support animal torture or encourage development of new strains of bird flus, whose source have been linked in the past to inhumane mass farming practices.

Buy honey from local beekeepers. The bees suffer en masse from colony collapse disorder, which has been linked to both a mite and also the use of pesticides. All honeybees may soon go extinct if we do not protect them. Build a bee box and raise bees at home.

Collect food remains, mix them with soil and leaves and paper, let them decay, and spread these around the yard.

Other simple, helpful choices can include:
* plant trees every week
* plant every avocado, citrus, fruit, or nut seed from eaten foods
* give living gifts (plants and trees)
* become a guerrilla gardener (randomly plant flowers and trees in places, to help Earth and spread beauty).

What are the advantages of filling one`s yard with trees, plants, shrubs, bird houses, bathhouses, and bee boxes?

Some of many advantages include:
* Beauty
* Create protective habitat to protect dwindling bird, butterfly, bee, insect populations
* Promote wildlife diversity and survival
* Trees and plants hold in the moisture
* Trees and plants cool down the land
* Watering will be less needed
* Chemical applications will be unneeded
* Fertilizers will be unneeded
* Trees help soil to retain rain water as ground water, allowing it to linger longer in the soil for plants
* Cooling and moisturizing one`s own yard helps to counteract the devastating heating and drying of the Earth that is happening as we remove its groundcovers

Pesticides and herbicides are familiar but are not necessary

Do not trust chemicals. They were not used throughout history until the 20th century. They have an occasional beneficial need but for the most part they are simply unnecessary. Beyond this, they are very harmful. The famous bumper sticker says, "Pesticides are designed to kill, and they do not know when to stop killing."

Eat, farm, garden, and live organically.

One final choice that will greatly benefit Earth and one`s own health is the non-negotiable adoption of a natural, chemical-free lifestyle. Chemicals, again, are simply unnecessary. Nature provides everything that humans and animals need for health and well-being. Education and healthy choices are the keys.

Final thought

As our nation develops, our country is being covered by homes as well as shopping centers, business districts, and road systems. The world once was totally covered with trees, wild ground covers, and endless diverse forms of wildlife. People are removing nearly all of it through "development." The world humans are creating is the world that we see in all of our yards. At this moment, this means: very little diversity, nutrient-poor soil, no insects, virtually no habitat for birds or other animals, and an abundance of pesticide, herbicide, and chemical fertilizer. This does not provide us with oxygen, food, moist soils, moisture in the air, coolness from trees, biological diversity, health, or as much beauty. It leaves our Earth much hotter, drier, and exposed to potential further harm. There is very little room for sustainability, thriving of life on Earth, or a healthy future in what Americans currently prefer as "the perfect lawn."

The choice to transform the lawn into a vibrant, diverse, food-bearing, life-supporting garden is a choice that adds beauty, helps Earth, and helps each family. These choices honor the diversity, strength, and healing nature of Earth.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn
2. www.american-lawns.com/history/hist...
3. Taylor, Donald W. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY: 1948.
4. http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR%5Cgloba...

Heather Havey, M.A., is a naturalist, organic farmer, & yoga teacher. She is the author of many books, including Reflections for Radiant Living Volume 1, The Craving Book, and others. Her websites, found at www.peacethroughkindness.com, offer recipes, ecards, books/gifts, & diy/giy meant to inspire your peace, health, & joy. Since 1998, she has helped thousands of people around the world. She offers spiritual, nutrition, fitness, farming, or personal guidance. You can reach her at info@peacethroughkindness.com.
Heather Havey invites you: love Earth, grow your own food, heal the soil, and plant trees. Make your yard a wildlife habitat and organic garden rather than a mower-dependent, chemically-maintained lawn. The world is enhanced by your care and beauty.

5 Ways to Save Time and Money on Your Lawn

5 Ways to Save Time and Money on Your Lawn
Already tired of cutting the grass? These green tips can help.
Then consider a bird garden
by Jeff Yeager
May 12, 2009

http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/living-green/blogs/save-money/mow-the-lawn-green-460509
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/save-money/mow-the-lawn-green-460509?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist

I'm always struck when I travel outside the United States how rare it is to see large expanses of lawn in residential areas in most other countries. Americans are truly grass crazy. We're downright sod-o-maniacs, you might say.
grass

But our dandelion-free, putting green-perfect lawns are tough on the environment and tough on our wallets. Between the water they require, the pesticides and fertilizers, and pollutant spewing, four-cycle lawnmowers, our lawns really aren't as green as they look.

And with U.S. lawn care services now a $12 billion annual industry, our lawns are cutting a lot of the green out of our bank accounts as well. Basic lawn-care service averages about $120-$150 per month, which could easily be an expense of $1,000 a year or more depending on where you live and the length of the growing season.

Author Michael Pollan wrote, "A lawn is nature under totalitarian rule." Down with the dictator!, I say. Why not reduce the size of your lawn this summer -- or even eliminate it entirely -- and save money, time and the environment too?

To read the full article:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/living-green/blogs/save-money/mow-the-lawn-green-460509

10 Reasons Why Organic Can Feed The World

10 reasons why organic can feed the world
Ed Hamer & Mark Anslow 01/03/2008

source: http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1184

Can organic farming feed the world? Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow say yes, but we must farm and eat differently

1. Yield

Switching to organic farming would have different effects according to where in the world you live and how you currently farm.

Studies show that the less-industrialised world stands to benefit the most. In southern Brazil, maize and wheat yields doubled on farms that changed to green manures and nitrogenfixing leguminous vegetables instead of chemical fertilisers.¹ In Mexico, coffee-growers who chose to move to fully organic production methods saw increases of 50 per cent in the weight of beans they harvested. In fact, in an analysis of more than 286 organic conversions in 57 countries, the average yield increase was found to be an impressive 64 per cent.²

The situation is more complex in the industrialised world, where farms are large, intensive facilities, and opinions are divided on how organic yields would compare.

Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that, although yields on US farms that converted to organic initially dropped by between 10 and 15 per cent, they soon recovered, and the farms became more productive than their all-chemical counterparts.³ In the UK, however, a study by the Elm Farm Research Centre predicted that a national transition to all-organic farming would see cereal, rapeseed and sugar beet yields fall by between 30 and 60 per cent.⁴ Even the Soil Association admits that, on average in the UK, organic yields are 30 per cent lower than non-organic.

So can we hope to feed ourselves organically in the British Isles and Northern Europe? An analysis by former Ecologist editor Simon Fairlie in The Land journal suggests that we can, but only if we are prepared to rethink our diet and farming practices.⁵ In Fairlie’s scenario, each of the UK’s 60 million citizens could have organic cereals, potatoes, sugar, vegetables and fruit, fish, pork, chicken and beef, as well as wool and flax for clothes and biomass crops for heating. To achieve this we’d each have to cut down to around 230g of beef (½lb), compared to an average of 630g (1½lb) today, 252g of pork/bacon, 210g of chicken and just under 4kg (9lb) of dairy produce each week – considerably more than the country enjoyed in 1945. We would probably need to supplement our diet with homegrown vegetables, save our food scraps as livestock feed and reform the sewage system to use our waste as an organic fertiliser.

2. Energy

Currently, we use around 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food energy. In a fuel-scarce future, which experts think could arrive as early as 2012, such numbers simply won’t stack up. Studies by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs over the past three years have shown that, on average, organically grown crops use 25 per cent less energy than their chemical cousins. Certain crops achieve even better reductions,including organic leeks (58 per cent less energy) and broccoli (49 per cent less energy). When these savings are combined with stringent energy conservation and local distribution and consumption (such as organic box schemes), energy-use dwindles to a fraction of that needed for an intensive, centralised food system. A study by the University of Surrey shows that food from Tolhurst Organic Produce, a smallholding in Berkshire, which supplies 400 households with vegetable boxes, uses 90 per cent less energy than if non-organic produce had been delivered and bought in a supermarket.

Far from being simply ‘energy-lite’, however, organic farms have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy – or even to become energy exporters. The ‘Dream Farm’ model, first proposed by Mauritius-born agroscientist George Chan, sees farms feeding manure and waste from livestock and crops into biodigesters, which convert it into a methane-rich gas to be used for creating heat and electricity. The residue from these biodigesters is a crumbly, nutrient-rich fertiliser, which can be spread on soil to increase crop yields or further digested by algae and used as a fish or animal feed.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Despite organic farming’s low-energy methods, it is not in reducing demand for power that the techniques stand to make the biggest savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

The production of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is indispensable to conventional farming, produces vast quantities of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 320 times greater than that of CO₂. In fact, the production of one tonne of ammonium nitrate creates 6.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO_²e), and was responsible for around 10 per cent of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in 2003.⁶

The techniques used in organic agriculture to enhance soil fertility in turn encourage crops to develop deeper roots, which increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, locking up carbon underground and keeping it out of the atmosphere. The opposite happens in conventional farming: high quantities of artificially supplied nutrients encourage quick growth and shallow roots. A study published in 1995 in the journal Ecological Applications found that levels of carbon in the soils of organic farms in California were as much as 28 per cent higher as a result.⁷ And research by the Rodale Institute shows that if the US were to convert all its corn and soybean fields to organic methods, the amount of carbon that could be stored in the soil would equal 73 per cent of the country’s (would-be) Kyoto targets for CO_² reduction.⁸

Organic farming might also go some way towards salvaging the reputation of the cow, demonised in 2007 as a major source of methane at both ends of its digestive tract. There’s no doubt that this is a problem: estimates put global methane emissions from ruminant livestock at around 80 million tonnes a year,⁹ equivalent to around two billion tonnes of CO_²,¹⁰ or close to the annual CO_² output of Russia and the UK combined.¹¹ But by changing the pasturage on which animals graze to legumes such as clover or birdsfoot trefoil (often grown anyway by organic farmers to improve soil nitrogen content), scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research believe that methane emissions could be cut dramatically. Because the leguminous foliage is more digestible, bacteria in the cow’s gut are less able to turn the fodder into methane. Cows also seem naturally to prefer eating birdsfoot trefoil to ordinary grass.

4. Water use

Agriculture is officially the most thirsty industry on the planet, consuming a staggering 72 per cent of all global freshwater at a time when the UN says 80 per cent of our water supplies are being overexploited.^12,13

This hasn’t always been the case. Traditionally, agricultural crops were restricted to those areas best suited to their physiology, with drought-tolerant species grown in the tropics and water-demanding crops in temperate regions.¹⁴ Global trade throughout the second half of the last century led to a worldwide production of grains dominated by a handful of high-yielding cereal crops, notably wheat, maize and rice. These thirsty cereals – the ‘big three’ – now account for more than half of the world’s plant-based calories and 85 per cent of total grain production.¹⁵

Organic agriculture is different. Due to its emphasis on healthy soil structure, organic farming avoids many of the problems associated with compaction, erosion, salinisation and soil degradation, which are prevalent in intensive systems.¹⁶ Organic manures and green mulches are applied even before the crop is sown, leading to a process known as ‘mineralisation’ – literally the fixing of minerals in the soil. Mineralised organic matter, conspicuously absent from synthetic fertilisers, is one of the essential ingredients required physically and chemically to hold water on the land.

Organic management also uses crop rotations, undersowing and mixed cropping to provide the soil with near-continuous cover. By contrast, conventional farm soils may be left uncovered for extended periods prior to sowing, and again following the harvest, leaving essential organic matter fully exposed to erosion by rain, wind and sunlight. In the US, a 25-year Rodale Institute experiment on climatic extremes found that, due to improved soil structure, organic systems consistently achieve higher yields during periods both of drought and flooding.¹⁷

5. Localisation

The globalisation of our food supply, which gives us Peruvian apples in June and Spanish lettuces in February, has seen our food reduced to a commodity in an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Although year-round availability makes for good marketing in the eyes of the biggest retailers, the costs to the environment are immense.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the average meal in the UK travels 1,000 miles from plot to plate.¹⁸ In 2005, Defra released a comprehensive report on food miles in the UK, which valued the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport in Britain at £9 billion each year. In addition, food transport accounted for more than 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 25 per cent of all HGV journeys and 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2002 alone.¹⁹

The organic movement was born out of a commitment to provide local food for local people, and so it is logical that organic marketing encourages localisation through veg boxes, farm shops and stalls. Between 2005 and 2006, organic sales made through direct marketing outlets such as these increased by 53 per cent, from £95 to £146 million, more than double the sales growth experienced by the major supermarkets.²⁰ As we enter an age of unprecedented food insecurity, it is essential that our consumption reflects not only what is desirable, but also what is ultimately sustainable. While the ‘organic’ label itself may inevitably be hijacked, ‘organic and local’ represents a solution with which the global players can simply never compete.

6. Pesticides

It is a shocking testimony to the power of the agrochemical industry that in the 45 years since Rachel Carson published her pesticide warning Silent Spring, the number of commercially available synthetic pesticides has risen from 22 to more than 450.²¹

According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 20,000 accidental deaths worldwide each year from pesticide exposure and poisoning.²² More than 31 million kilograms of pesticide were applied to UK crops alone in 2005, 0.5 kilograms for every person in the country.²³ A spiralling dependence on pesticides throughout recent decades has resulted in a catalogue of repercussions, including pest resistance, disease susceptibility, loss of natural biological controls and reduced nutrient-cycling.²⁴

Organic farmers, on the other hand, believe that a healthy plant grown in a healthy soil will ultimately be more resistant to pest damage. Organic systems encourage a variety of natural methods to enhance soil and plant health, in turn reducing incidences of pests, weeds and disease.

First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher natural barrier to pests. Rotations or ‘break-crops’, which are central to organic production, also provide a physical obstacle to pest and disease lifecycles by removing crops from a given plot for extended periods.²⁵ Organic systems also rely heavily on a rich agro-ecosystem in which many agricultural pests can be controlled by their natural predators.

Inevitably, however, there are times when pestilence attacks are especially prolonged or virulent, and here permitted pesticides may be used. The use of organic pesticides is heavily regulated and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) requires specific criteria to be met before pesticide applications can be justified.²⁶

There are in fact only four active ingredients permitted for use on organic crops: copper fungicides, restricted largely to potatoes and occasionally orchards; sulphur, used to control additional elements of fungal diseases; Retenone, a naturally occurring plant extract, and soft soap, derived from potassium soap and used to control aphids. Herbicides are entirely prohibited.

7. Ecosystem impact

Farmland accounts for 70 per cent of UK land mass, making it the single most influential enterprise affecting our wildlife.²⁷ Incentives offered for intensification under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely responsible for negative ecosystem impacts over recent years. Since 1962, farmland bird numbers have declined by an average of 30 per cent. During the same period more than 192,000 kilometres of hedgerows have been removed, while 45 per cent of our ancient woodland has been converted to cropland.²⁸

By contrast, organic farms actively encourage biodiversity in order to maintain soil fertility and aid natural pest control. Mixed farming systems ensure that a diversity of food and nesting sites are available throughout the year, compared with conventional farms where autumn sow crops leave little winter vegetation available.²⁹

Organic production systems are designed to respect the balance observed in our natural ecosystems. It is widely accepted that controlling or suppressing one element of wildlife, even if it is a pest, will have unpredictable impacts on the rest of the food chain. Instead, organic producers regard a healthy ecosystem as essential to a healthy farm, rather than a barrier to production.

In 2005, a report by English Nature and the RSPB on the impacts of organic farming on biodiversity reviewed more than 70 independent studies of flora, invertebrates, birds and mammals within organic and conventional farming systems. It concluded that biodiversity is enhanced at every level of the food chain under organic management practices, from soil micro-biota right through to farmland birds and the largest mammals.³⁰

8. Nutritional benefits

While an all-organic farming system might mean we’d have to make do with slightly less food than we’re used to, research shows that we can rest assured it would be better for us.

In 2001, a study in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organic crops contained higher levels of 21 essential nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, including iron, magnesium, phosphorus and vitamin C. The organic crops also contained lower levels of nitrates, which can be toxic to the body.³¹

Other studies have found significantly higher levels of vitamins – as well as polyphenols and antioxidants – in organic fruit and veg, all of which are thought to play a role in cancer-prevention within the body.³²

Scientists have also been able to work out why organic farming produces more nutritious food. Avoiding chemical fertiliser reduces nitrates levels in the food; better quality soil increases the availability of trace minerals, and reduced levels of pesticides mean that the plants’ own immune systems grow stronger, producing higher levels ofantioxidants. Slower rates of growth also mean that organic food frequently contains higher levels of dry mass, meaning that fruit and vegetables are less pumped up with water and so contain more nutrients by weight than intensively grown crops do.³³

Milk from organically fed cows has been found to contain higher levels of nutrients in six separate studies, including omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, all of which can help prevent cancer. One experiment discovered that levels of omega-3 in organic milk were on average 68 per cent higher than in non-organic alternatives.³⁴

But as well as giving us more of what we do need, organic food can help to give us less of what we don’t. In 2000, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that organically produced food had ‘lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues’ than non-organic did.³⁵ Although organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to treat disease, the routine use of the drugs in animal feed – common on intensive livestock farms – is forbidden. This means a shift to organic livestock farming could help tackle problems such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

9. Seed-saving

Seeds are not simply a source of food; they are living testimony to more than 10,000 years of agricultural domestication. Tragically, however, they are a resource that has suffered unprecedented neglect. The UN FAO estimates that 75 per cent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost over the past 100 years.³⁶

Traditionally, farming communities have saved seeds year-on-year, both in order to save costs and to trade with their neighbours. As a result, seed varieties evolved in response to local climatic and seasonal conditions, leading to a wide variety of fruiting times, seed size, appearance and flavour. More importantly, this meant a constant updating process for the seed’s genetic resistance to changing climatic conditions, new pests and diseases.

By contrast, modern intensive agriculture depends on relatively few crops – only about 150 species are cultivated on any significant scale worldwide. This is the inheritance of the Green Revolution, which in the late 1950s perfected varieties Filial 1, or F1 seed technology, which produced hybrid seeds with specifically desirable genetic qualities.³⁷ These new high-yield seeds were widely adopted, but because the genetic makeup of hybrid F1 seeds becomes diluted following the first harvest, the manufacturers ensured that farmers return for more seed year on year.

With its emphasis on diversity, organic farming is somewhat cushioned from exploitation on this scale, but even Syngenta, the world’s third-largest biotech company, now offers organic seed lines. Although seedsaving is not a prerequisite for organic production, the holistic nature of organics lends itself well to conserving seed.

In support of this, the Heritage Seed Library, in Warwickshire, is a collection of more than 800 open-pollinated organic varieties, which have been carefully preserved by gardeners across the country. Although their seeds are not yet commercially available, the Library is at the forefront of addressing the alarming erosion of our agricultural diversity.

Seed-saving and the development of local varieties must become a key component of organic farming, giving crops the potential to evolve in response to what could be rapidly changing climatic conditions. This will help agriculture keeps pace with climate change in the field, rather than in the laboratory.

10. Job creation

There is no doubt British farming is currently in crisis. With an average of 37 farmers leaving the land every day, there are now more prisoners behind bars in the UK than there are farmers in the fields.³⁸

Although it has been slow, the decline in the rural labour force is a predictable consequence of the industrialisation of agriculture. A mere one per cent of the UK workforce is now employed in land-related enterprises, compared with 35 per cent at the turn of the last century.³⁹

The implications of this decline are serious. A skilled agricultural workforce will be essential in order to maintain food security in the coming transition towards a new model of post-fossil fuel farming. Many of these skills have already been eroded through mechanisation and a move towards more specialised and intensive production systems.

Organic farming is an exception to these trends. By its nature, organic production relies on labour-intensive management practices. Smaller, more diverse farming systems require a level of husbandry that is simply uneconomical at any other scale. Organic crops and livestock also demand specialist knowledge and regular monitoring in the absence of agrochemical controls.

According to a 2006 report by the University of Essex, organic farming in the UK provides 32 per cent more jobs per farm than comparable non-organic farms. Interestingly, the report also concluded that the higher employment observed could not be replicated in non-organic farming through initiatives such as local marketing. Instead, the majority (81 per cent) of total employment on organic farms was created by the organic production system itself. The report estimates that 93,000 new jobs would be created if all farming in the UK were to convert to organic.

Organic farming also accounts for more younger employees than any other sector in the industry. The average age of conventional UK farmers is now 56, yet organic farms increasingly attract a younger more enthusiastic workforce, people who view organics as the future of food production. It is for this next generation of farmers that Organic Futures, a campaign group set up by the Soil Association in 2007, is striving to provide a platform.

Ed Hamer is a freelance journalist

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter

References

¹ Andre Leu, ‘Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World’ in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2001

² Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440

³ Pretty, 1999, ‘The Living Land’.

⁴ Cited in Woodward, 2003. http://www.efrc.com/?i=articles.php&art_id=42&highlight=organic

⁵ Fairlie, 2007, ‘Can Britain Feed Itself?’, The Land, Winter 2007-8.

⁶ EEA data for EU-15, 2003, for nitric acid production cited by Soil Association

⁷ Drinkwater LE et al. ‘Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California’, Ecological Applications 1995, 5(4), 1098-1112.

⁸ http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

⁹ US EPA, 1998, ‘Ruminant Livestock and the Global Environment’

¹⁰ Using a multiplier factor of 24.5

¹¹ Russia annual CO2 emissions: 1,524,993,000 tonnes; UK annual CO2 emissions: 587,261,000 tonnes.

¹² Weis, T. (2007) The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming, Zed Books, London.

¹³ UNESCO (2006) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water Development Report 2006: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/index.shtml

¹⁴ Alteiri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder.

¹⁵ FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

¹⁶ Lampkin, N. (1990) Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.

¹⁷ Lim Li Ching (2005) Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes, web accesses: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php

¹⁸ FOE (2006) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_new_year_resolutions_08122006

¹⁹ Defra (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

²⁰ Soil Association (2006) Organic Market Report 2006, Executive Summary, Soil Association, Bristol.

²¹ Whitehead, R. (1999) UK Pesticide Guide, British Crop Protection Council, CABI Publishing, Cambridge.

²² World Health Organisation (1990) The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture, WHO, Geneva

²³ Pesticide Action Network UK (2007) Pesticides on a Plate, A consumer guide to pesticide issues in the food chain, PAN UK, London

²⁴ Sustain (2003) Myth and Reality, Organic vs. non-organic: the facts, Sustain, London.

²⁵ Francis, C. A. & Clegg, M. D. (1990) Crop Rotations in Sustainable Production Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Systems 107-122

²⁶ International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (1998) Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, IFOAM, Germany

²⁷ Soil Association (2006) How does organic farming benefit wildlife? Soil Association 2006.

²⁸ Spencer, J. & Kirby, K. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales, Biological Conservation 62, 77-93.

²⁹ IFOAM (2003) Organic Agriculture and Biodiversity information sheet, International Federation of Organic Agriculture and Management.

³⁰ Hole, A. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., Evans, A. D. (2005) Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.

³¹ Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 2001; 7 No. 2: 161–173

³² Soil Association, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aye3g

³³ Gundual Azeez, Policy Manager, Soil Association, Personal Communication 01/2008.

³⁴ Soil Association, 2007: http://tinyurl.com/3e3fby

³⁵ Food and Agriculture Organisation, Food Safety & Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Report of the 22nd regional conference for Europe, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.

³⁶ FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

³⁷ Shiva, V. & Gitanjali, B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, The Impact of globalisation, Sage Publications, London.

³⁸ Soil Association (2006) Organic Works Report: An investigation into employment on organic farms conducted by University of Essex 2005.

³⁹ ISEC (2002) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, Zed Books, London.

Advantages of Organic Farming

• If organic farming methods were practiced on all the planet’s food-growing land, it would be like taking more than 1.5 billion cars off the road.
• You can increase your antioxidant intake by 30 percent by choosing organic.
• The average child in America is exposed to five pesticides daily in their food and drinking water.
• The U.S. water system is regularly contaminated above safe limits immediately following chemical fertilizer applications to farm fields.
• Farms in developing countries that use organic techniques produce an average of 79% more than farms that don’t.

I got this in an email from the Organic Consumers Association.

Organic farming combats global warming -- big time

source: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_3

Data from the Rodale Institute’s long-running comparison of organic and conventional cropping systems confirms that organic methods are far more effective at removing the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and fixing it as beneficial organic matter in the soil. By Laura Sayre
A progressive partnership: (from left to right) Secretary McGinty, PA Department of Environmental Protection; Secretary Wolff, PA Department of Agriculture; and Anthony Rodale, Chairman, the Rodale Institute Organic Farming -vs- CO2 Fast Facts If only 10,000 medium sized farms in the U.S. converted to organic production, they would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road, or reducing car miles driven by 14.62 billion miles. Converting the U.S.’s 160 million corn and soybean acres to organic production would sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73 percent of the Kyoto targets for CO2 reduction in the U.S. U.S. agriculture as currently practiced emits a total of 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2 annually into the atmosphere. Converting all U.S. cropland to organic would not only wipe out agriculture's massive emission problem. By eliminating energy-costly chemical fertilizers, it would actually give us a net increase in soil carbon of 734 billion pounds. About this series: As some of you may know, the Rodale Institute, which publishes The New Farm, is home to the longest running field trials in the country comparing organic and conventional systems of farming called the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST). The data from that 23 years of research is a real treasure trove of insight into the economic, ecological and agronomic benefits of organic farming. In addition to the long-running FST, we have a variety of other research in progress at The Institute. David Douds has been studying soil fungi here at The Institute’s research farm for 15 years. (Go to Cultivating diversity underground for better yields above for more on David's research.) We’re engaged in no-till research, weed research, compost tea research, composting research, water quality research, and much more. Until now, much of the light we’re generating here on our research farm has been hidden under the proverbial barrel, but we’re taking off the barrel and busting it up for firewood. We’re going let the light of the amazing research being done here shine on farmers, consumers and environmental activities. Over the next year we’ll be running a series of stories, about one a month, on the significance of our research ... and its practical applications. That includes a few stories on equipment construction—a front-mounted roller for no-till, and a compost turner converted from a junked 18-wheeler. So sit tight, and be prepared to be amazed. Enjoy, Chris Hill Executive Editor		The Rodale Institute announces a partnership with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Agriculture to explore ways these findings can benefit farmers and the environment. One possibility: carbon credits could be in your agricultural future. SLIDESHOW: From Greenhouse to Green Fields Organic ag takes a swing at the greenhouse effect and wins OCTOBER 10, 2003: Kutztown, PA Discussions of global warming in the popular press seldom fail to note its potentially disastrous consequences for agriculture as we know it: more extreme and unpredictable weather, coastal flooding, even the loss of pollen viability for some crop species at higher temperatures all threaten to push the usual unpredictability of farming into the realm of the completely unworkable. But while these threats are indeed grave--and many farmers believe they are witnessing such effects already--researchers at the Rodale Institute have been looking at the problem from the other direction: what impact do agricultural practices have on global warming? On October 10, the Rodale Institute (TRI), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP), and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) signed a memorandum of understanding designed to help answer that question. Twenty-three years of ongoing research at The Rodale Institute Experimental Farm already provides strong evidence that organic farming helps combat global warming by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and incorporating it into the soil, whereas conventional farming exacerbates the greenhouse effect by producing a net release of carbon into the atmosphere. The key lies in the handling of organic matter (OM): because soil organic matter is primarily carbon, increases in soil OM levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops. Now, in a unique new partnership, PDEP, PDA and The Rodale Institute are interested in working together to see how organic farming practices can be used to help Pennsylvania--and the world--curb greenhouse gases. In recent months, TRI Research Manager Paul Hepperly and President John Haberern have drafted a White Paper summarizing TRI's research findings and their relevance to global climate change. The formal agreement, signed last Friday, will provide a platform for further research into the environmental and economic benefits of organic and sustainable farming. By coordinating with PDEP and PDA, Haberern explains, "we can undertake a systematic review of all the existing data on this issue, and examine how the process could be accelerated." What they learn could be used in reclaiming strip-mined areas of Pennsylvania or in processing waste materials, as well as in improving the state's farming practices. As a regional leader in the agricultural management community and a global leader in sustainable agriculture, TRI also hopes to play an active role within the Northeast Greenhouse Gas Region recently designated by the US Department of Energy. What we know already: Over 23 years, there’s been a 15 to 28% increase in soil carbon in organic systems, with virtually no increase in non-organic systems. The data demonstrating that organic farming practices can reduce atmospheric carbon levels come from TRI's longest-running field study, the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST). Launched in 1981, the FST is a 12-acre, side-by-side experiment comparing three agricultural management systems: one conventional, one legume-based organic, and one manure-based organic. In 23 years of continuous recordkeeping, the FST's two organic systems have shown an increase in soil carbon of 15-28%, while the conventional system has shown no statistically significant increase. For the organic systems that translates into more than 1000 lbs of captured C (or about 3670 lbs of CO2) per acre-foot per year—and that’s not even counting the reductions in CO2 emissions represented by the organic systems' lower energetic requirements. A comparative analysis of FST energy inputs, conducted by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University, found that organic farming systems use just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy required to synthesize nitrogen fertilizer. "Results like these are a bright spot within the otherwise dreary picture of global climate change research," notes Daniel Desmond, Director of the Office of Pollution Control at PDEP. Organic farmers "are the only group or philosophy that looks at carbon as a resource rather than carbon as a waste product." So just how much carbon dioxide can organic farming take out of the air each year? Think of it in terms of the equivalent # of cars that would be taken off the road each year by farmers converting to organic production. Organic farms sequester as much as 3,670 pounds of carbon per acre-foot each year. A typical passenger car, according to the EPA, emits 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year (traveling an average of 12,500 miles per year). Here's how many cars farms can take off the road by transitioning to organic: AND, if all 160 million acres of conventinal corn and soybeans in the U.S. were converted to organic production, that could translate to: 58.7 million cars off the road! (25% of the national total) That's 733,750,000,000 car miles not driven...or 116,666,666 round trips from New York City to Los Angeles not taken! FINALLY, if all 431 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic: 158,177,000 cars would be taken off the road (over half of the national total) 1.98 trillion car miles not driven. Global climate change and the carbon cycle While a handful of political conservatives continue to dispute the seriousness of global warming and the necessity for a concerted international effort to mitigate its effects, the vast majority of scientists have concluded that global climate change is a reality: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels--the major factor in the greenhouse effect--are now twice as high as they were during the last Ice Age, have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm in the last two centuries alone, and are now increasing at a rate of 1.3 ppm per year. Consumption of remaining fossil fuel reserves would boost CO2 by a factor of four to eight. Other greenhouses gases, including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have also proliferated and would take decades to stabilize even if emissions were magically cut tomorrow. Global mean surface temperatures have climbed 0.6ºC since the 1850s and are expected to rise 1.5 - 5.0ºC by 2100. Paleoclimatic evidence indicates that the 1990s were the warmest decade since the year 1000. In their efforts to understand and to address the effects of global warming, scientists are developing an increasingly sophisticated picture of the global carbon cycle. Total carbon storage provided by different parts of the global system--terrestrial vegetation, the surface ocean, the deep ocean--have been quantified, as have the annual fluxes of carbon among them. CO2 emissions from human and animal activities now stand at about 8.9 billion U.S. tons per year, while net atmospheric CO2 accumulation is 3.5 billion US tons. In other words, 40% of annual human-induced carbon emissions contribute to build-up, while the remaining 60% are absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial plants. Reforestation not enough to handle rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Farmlands are a better carbon “sink.” Proposals to expand natural carbon sinks as a partial remedy for global warming initially focused on reforestation. Changes in land use, including the loss of forests to tillage and grazing, were known to be a major contributor to the greenhouse effect--as recently as the 1970s, total accumulated C emissions from land-use change exceeded total emissions from the burning of fossil fuels--and it was thought that escalating fossil fuel consumption could be balanced by vast forests breathing in all that CO2. Data like those emerging from the Farming Systems Trial, however, are revising that image: It may be that the soil itself makes more of a difference than what's growing in it. On a global scale, soils hold more than twice as much carbon (an estimated 1.74 trillion U.S. tons) as does terrestrial vegetation (672 billion U.S. tons), and practices like reduced tillage, the use of cover crops, and incorporation of crop residues can dramatically alter the C storage of arable lands. How to get from a net loss of soil carbon to a net gain in one easy step! Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University’s specialist in analyzing energy expenditure in agricultural systems, calculates that U.S. agriculture currently emits about 925 billion pounds of carbon dioxide each year from crop and livestock production. So, what would happen if all those U.S. acres converted to organic production? "Agriculture and forestry are a very potent sink--they will make the emissions problem easier to get a handle on," explains Haberern. "Especially if you do the agriculture right. If you practice conventional agriculture, then any low to non-existent C gain you get will have to have subtracted from it the C emissions created by conventional agricultural methods. With organic farming it can be pure gain. Using bio-diesel [for tractor power], you don't need to use any fossil fuels at all." Organic farming for carbon capture is also compatible with other environmental and social goals such as reducing erosion, minimizing impact on native ecosystems, and improving farmer livelihoods. Compared to forests, moreover, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire. Although it is well established that sustainable and organic farming methods sequester atmospheric carbon, researchers have yet to flesh out the precise mechanisms by which this takes place. In the FST, soil carbon levels increased more in the manure-based organic system than in the legume-based organic system, presumably because of the incorporation of manures, but the study also showed that soil carbon depends on more than just total C additions to the system--cropping system diversity or carbon-to-nitrogen ratios of inputs may have an effect. "We believe that the differences in decay rates [of soil organic matter] have a lot to do with it," says Hepperly, since "soluble nitrogen fertilizer accelerates decomposition" in the conventional system. On the other hand, the work of another Rodale research collaborator, Dr. David Douds of the Agricultural Research Service, suggests that healthy mycorrhizal fungi populations in the organic systems slow down the decomposition of organic matter. (Visit Cultivating diversity underground for better yields above for more on Douds' mycorrhizal research.) All of these factors lead Hepperly to conclude that "it's crucial to look at the biological nature of the soil carbon system," rather than just to consider it as a geochemical process. Should organic farmers get 'carbon credits'? A further goal of the partnership between the Rodale Institute, the PA Department of Agriculture and the PA Department of Environmental Protection is to explore policy mechanisms by which farmers and landowners could quantify the carbon sequestered on their properties and receive a payment from the state or federal government for ecosystem services provided, or even participate in emerging 'carbon-trading' markets around the world. Although the development of carbon-trading markets in the US was put on hold by the Bush administration's decision, in 2001, to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol (citing projected deleterious effects on the struggling US economy), such markets are rapidly expanding in the European Union and elsewhere. (See, for example, co2e.com, a greenhouse gas brokerage firm based in London.) "The Kyoto Protocol [the 1997 global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases] talks about agriculture and forestry as carbon sinks, but fails to distinguish between the different effects of different types of agriculture," notes Daniel Desmond of the PA Department of Environmental Protection. In fact, the whole business of credit for carbon-sequestration activities under the Kyoto accord is problematic, because of the lack in 1997 of good carbon inventory data that could be factored into the nation-by-nation emissions-reduction targets. Nevertheless, although sequestration in agricultural soils can vary by climate and by soil type, multiplying 3,670 pounds of captured CO2 per acre across the 160 million acres planted to corn and soybeans in the US yields a potential CO2 capture on the order of 293 million tons per year, or as much as three-quarters of the reductions required if the US were to adhere to its Kyoto targets. (Total U.S. cropland is 431 million acres.) Organic farming -vs- the Kyoto targets In 1997 the U.S. agreed to reduce 1990 levels of CO2 by seven percent. So here's a question: How far would converting U.S. cropland to organic take us toward satisfying those Kyoto goals? Let's do the math: Converting 160 million acres of corn and soyean to organic results in 293 million tons of CO2 stored in soil Kyoto target: 400 million ton reduction in CO2 Percentage of Kyoto goal that would be satisfied by converting to organic: 73 PERCENT! NOTE: This doesn't even take into consideration the drastically reduced energy expenditure and CO2 emissions of organic farming compared with using chemical fertilizers. Thinking globally, the British Royal Society has estimated potential CO2 sequestration on the world's 2.5 billion acres of agricultural soils at 6.1 to 10.1 billion U.S. tons per year for the next 50 years. Another estimate puts the total amount of CO2 that could be captured in developing countries at 1.7 billion U.S. tons over the next decade. In short, carbon sequestration via adoption of organic agriculture could have a substantial impact on global warming. Still, carbon sequestration by organic farming, like carbon capture through reforestation, is a short-term or 'bridge' solution, a way of buying time for more fundamental changes. Ultimately, global climate change can only be fully addressed through rationalization of energy policies, reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and improvements in emissions-control technologies. Among the possible short- to medium-term solutions, however, organic farming has a lot going for it. "There are a number of 'Star Wars'-like solutions being proposed" for carbon and carbon dioxide capture, observes Hepperly, including pumping CO2 deep into the ocean or underground--in July of this year the US Department of Energy announced that drilling had begun on a 10,000-ft 'well' to funnel CO2 deep beneath West Virginia. Compared to expensive, experimental, high-technology projects like these, global transitioning to organic farming looks cheap and easy. "It's a no-brainer," Hepperly concludes. "Organic farming is not a technological fix, not an untried experiment that could have its own unforeseen consequences." Instead, it's a step toward solving global warming that brings with it a wealth of other environmental benefits.

Why Organic Lawn Care is the Right Choice

source: www.eco-gardeners.com

I recently came across an excellent study conducted by Environment & Human Health, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting public education concerning the relationships between the environment and human health.

“Risks from Lawn Care Pesticides” is a comprehensive study full of interesting and useful information and definitely worth the read. Topics include health and ecological effects of pesticides and they also include lists of specific products and ingredients that are highly toxic and harmful to children, pets and the water supply.

Some interesting findings include:
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that “homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops.”
• Pesticides are intentionally toxic substances. Some chemicals commonly used on lawns and gardens have been associated with birth defects, mutations, adverse reproductive effects, and cancer in laboratory animals.
• Children, infants, and fetuses may be especially vulnerable to the health effects of pesticides before the age of five, when their cells are normally reproducing most rapidly.
• EPA has tested only nine of 750 registered pesticides for their effects on the developing nervous system; six of the nine tested were more harmful to young animals than adults.
• The U.S. Geological Survey found that 96 percent of all fish analyzed in major rivers and streams contained residues of one or more pesticides at detectable levels.
• Pesticides have been identified as a potential cause of amphibian declines and deformities and have been implicated as one of the reasons that wild and managed pollinators are disappearing at alarming rates.
• Homeowners may unknowingly contaminate their own well water by using pesticides on their lawns.

To read the complete study go to http://www.ehhi.org/reports/lcpesticides/lawnpest_full.pdf

THG’s line of natural lawn care products are 100% organic grain and vegetable based. Safe for children and pets with uncompromising performance. To learn more about our Happy Naturals Lawn Care click here.

For our “Organic Lawn Care Calendar” visit our educational web site www.eco-gardeners.com