Just where does the legendary Gene Basler stand on the organic-chemical spectrum? Seeing as how I work for "one o' them evil 'chemical' companies", I guess I ought to clear the air a bit, so that my clients, prospective clients and Green Industry colleagues might have a better understanding of how I approach every property, every landscape, and indeed every plant. In this article I intend to clarify what I mean when I myself use the term "organic", the key role organic matter plays in my diagnoses and prescriptive regimes, and why I consider the term's use in common Green Industry parlance is less than ingenuous, and in many cases, downright deceptive.
First of all, the notion of an organic-chemical spectrum, wherein "organic" resides way over on the left and "chemical" on the right, is as absurd as the widely-held misconception that there is any substantial difference between Democrat and Republican in Twenty-First Century politics. According to this linear model, anyone whose garden, household, dietary habits and energy sources aren't 100% organic is somehow morally compromised and out of synch with Momma Gaea.
Second, the idea that anyone who goes to the local bureaucracy to obtain a license to apply pesticides must surely be bought and paid for by Dow Chemical and Monsanto, is just as absurd. For my part, no pesticide manufacturer has ever approached me with offers of coke and back-room massages in exchange for peddling their poisons.
Third, many companies, within the Green Industry and without, play fast and loose with terms such as "organic" and "sustainable", as though they were really just marketing gimmicks, without really understanding what they mean for the average residential or commercial landscape, much less for the individual plant.
Trees and landscape plants actually ask very little of the people whose job it is to care for them. Provide a healthy growing medium in which to grow and thrive, and they will reward you with vigorous growth and very few problems. What do I mean by healthy growing medium? By healthy growing medium I mean rich soil, high in organic content, porosity, internal drainage, and containing a vibrant soil biology. Once this fundamental first step has been accomplished, then the tree or landscape plant will better withstand the countless stresses that the urban and suburban setting impose upon them, and the need to intervene with pesticides and fungicides will be virtually reduced to nil.
Therefore, my position on "organics" is that soil needs lots of organic content, not just residing on the surface in the form of a layer of mulch, or poured into the soil in the form of a tea, but incorporated into the soil to as great a depth as is practical (in another post I intend to address the exhortation on the part of the good folks at Urban Harvest not to till or otherwise disturb the soil--a philosophy I agree with, with important exceptions).
So, put another way, organic matter plays the central role in the remedial and preventive courses of action that I routinely prescribe for people's plants. But it's important to realize that by the time I or one of my arborists is called out to inspect a tree, it is usually in an advanced state of decline. The objective in stabilizing a tree that's heading South, is to arrest leaf loss and root loss by as many means at our disposal as possible. This means (dare I ustter it?) that we may have to kill some bugs.
If I have a headache, I may take an aspirin to get some immediate relief. But if I really want to stop the headache, I have to address the imbalance in my life--stress, diet, rest, exercise--of which the headache is merely a symptom. This applies to sick trees as well. Look at the typical residential or commercial property that I visit (my YouTube videos provide examples of both). You will find that not every homeowner or property manager is willing to rip up the driveway or parking lot, eliminate the turf grass from every square inch of the tree's root zone (which can extend well beyond the drip line in most cases), apply compost, install a permanent mulch bed, cut off the irrigation, and cease any and all human activity that could cause soil compaction. And even if we were to succeed in retrofitting the ailing tree with the ideal cultural correction, we'd still have damaging and defoliating pathogens, insects and mites to contend with.
On that note, I regard the practice of keeping trees permanently under-the-weather and dependent on arboriceutical intervention to be nothing more than horticultural Muchausen-by-proxy Syndrome.
This is not to say that I espouse the philosophy (held to one extent or another by anyone who believes in the existence of the State), that the end justifies the means. Quite the contrary: this is why I believe in using the least toxic, least harmful control available. And I'm not just talking about avoiding leaching into the water supply or protecting kids and pets. I want to avoid harm to beneficial insects, mites, fungi, bacteria--to wit, all the elements of a landscape's ecosystem, both above and below ground.
See, the science of pest and disease management has come a long way, as has our understanding of plant nutrition. It's been nearly 30 years since the company I work for abandoned the use of most harsh general pesticides, such as malathion, diazinon, Sevin, and Orthene. Why nuke 'em all, when nowadays you can target the pest without harming beneficials?
Now for a little calling-out of some of my brethren in the Green Industry.
I don't like being sold a bill of goods. I don't like the FDA telling me what's best for me and my family. I don't like hormones and antibiotics being sneaked into my food, and I don't like deceptive use of language. So when it comes to pest and plant disease management--as well as gardening, agriculture, diet, medicine, air, water and energy--what's most important to me is to ask whether one's practices cause unintended harm, harm to beneficial soil biology, non-pest insects and arachnids, non-pest plants, wildlife, pets, kids, people.
I have long held that the terms "organic" and "chemical" are used disingenuously by so many garden show hosts, landscape architects, professors and other trendsetters in the Green Industry. The "organic" movement has frankly gotten out of hand, having in large part piggy-backed itself onto the more fascist/authoritarian aspects of the environmental movement as a whole.
I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the dictionary definition of "organic", which is any compound that contains carbon. If we dig down to the meaning of the original Greek word, organikos, which pertains to organs of the body, we learn how the term found its way into modern parlance. Early scientists thought that anything containing carbon came from a plant or an animal. Later, scientists discovered that numerous compounds containing carbon could be synthesized, putting that old notion to rest. But the notion that all things related to agriculture and horticulture should only come from plants or animals, persists. What most Green Industry professionals mean when they use the term "organic" is "free from chemical pesticides or fertilizers", which begs the question: What is "chemical"?
Everything is chemical, in a manner of speaking. Every component of the physical world is composed of elements on the Periodic Table. The real question is whether the method you employ to solve plant problems such as nutrient deficiencies, diseases and pests, is harmful to people, pets, wildlife, or beneficial insects.
Many methods touted by radio show hosts as "organic" might better be described as "homeopathic". One example is aspartame. I have heard self-described "100% Organic" garden show hosts say that it's a great way to get rid of sugar ants in the kitchen. Well that may be--I've never tried it--but organic it surely ain't.
I'm more concerned with toxicity. I want to avail myself of the research in suppressing diseases and pests without harming non-target organisms. For instance, on any given spring day, we might find whitefly pupal casings, box elder bugs and genista caterpillars, all of which can really damage the plant. But at the same time, the plant might be covered with ladybugs, assassin bugs, and even praying mantis. The typical tree guy or landscaper will apply a general insecticide, which will upset the balance in unintended ways.
So, in summary, take radical ("radical" means pertaining to the root, by the way, and I'm using it in its most literal etymological sense, here) steps to promote healthy soil, and with time--and not as much time as conventional horticultural wisdom would have one believe--pests and diseases will become less and less of a problem in your landscape.
Please feel free to leave a comment or send an email. If you're looking for a TCIA Accredited Houston Tree Service or Certified Arborist, call the company I've worked for since 2002, Bartlett Tree Experts, at 713-692-6371. This is my personal blog--it is not affiliated with Bartlett Tree Experts.
No comments:
Post a Comment