Organic or Chemical

Just wondering what the thoughts of you all are on the organic v chemical gardening argument.
I believe that using the sicence available to you is no bad thing, if used in moderation. It dose irk me a bit that the TV gardeners are in the main organic, and bang on about it all the time. I know the garden expert from Amature Garden mag and The Sun, Peter Seabrook, is not organic and I very much support his views. Yes a balance between both ideas would be my ideal.
Any opinions out there.

 

I'm afriad I fall on the organic side, myself. If I have to use chemicals (weedkillers, slug pullets etc) I do so sparingly, and if truth be told, I never really want to.. but they certainly have their place.

Mind you, having said that I have a problem with horsetail in my garden and I employed the chemical killers last year - didn't even touch them! The ones I spent time digging out (and I mean really digging out, not leaving any root) have all gone

 

I'm with Dave here - organic where practical - but it isn't always. On the whole I've found organic methods more effective - but not with slugs!!

 

I do not believe in being too rigid about anything, but I do believe in moderation and trying to live in harmony with nature as much as possible. So I almost never use chemicals.

 

I try to use as little chemicals as I can, preferring a more relaxed natural attitude. But I use them when the situation demands - roundup, rose clear and vine weevil killer.

 

Intresting, so far, I raise this topic as I honestly believe there is nothing wrong in using science, Yet and I saw it tonight on UK TV Gardening, that there is a tv mafia pushing us all towords organic. A blend of both is the way forword, but I look forword to the debate.

 

"Science" is now telling us that some of our activities may have given us short term gains but long term losses. Scientific knowledge is being constantly updated at an exponential rate.
The effects on the food chain of some chemicals have only recently become apparent. What we pour onto our plants and land ends up in some form or other in the plants and animals we eat or into the water we drink or seas we over-fish.

It all has to go somewhere in one form or another. And if it comes to eating tatties that have been treated with sulphuric acid and/or mercury or other chemicals or ones that haven't...

I'm no tree hugger DavieM, but I now use what you refer to as "science" as a very reluctant last resort.

"Science" does not = "Chemicals" It is the understanding of interactions.

 

I agree with Dave W. With a science background, I understand DavieM's point and I am an enthusiast of many things scientific. The problem is that we do not know enough about the side effects. Overuse of antibiotics has led to the development of resistant strains of bacteria. Overuse of energy is leading to global warming. Overuse of garden chemicals could have a serious downside - I do not know.

Mind you. Looking on the bright side, there is an argument that says don't worry. A recent program on global warming suggests that with the loss of the gulf stream warm water conveyor, which has already slowed sharply, within 50 years we may have the same climate as Moscow, and nobody will be gardening. So enjoy it now folks! :D

 

thanks a bunch, PeterS

 

Except, the point that overuse, of anything cannot in the long term be good, however, moderation and correct use of chemicals, like Fran mentions in a previous post, Slug Pellets Roundup etc, and Yes some spays, I don't think is the big bad thing the TV organic mafia would have us believe. I do except that in large scale use we may have to have much more supervised control. Also how many times have you heard the "experts" tell us don't do this !! Dont do that !! Is bad for you, only for some other "expert" to say the oposite a month later.
My point is a mix of organic meathods and when appropriate chemicals, is ok.