well, we are almost to the max posts, so i wanted to update on my mature syngonium progress. i have 2 new leaves of 'mature form' AND also some variegation near veins - that's totally unexpected! so i have 5 leaves and 2 little 'horns' at the ends, just like other mature leaves. when i took the cutting, the last very young leaf got mangled in xfer , so i cut it off, but left the stalk (where the new leaf develops) - so the 1st leaf was def formed BEFORE i took the cutting. now the 2nd? i am not sure - may be it was already formed inside there too? so i'll have to wait for a few more to be sure. but so far i am happy - i fed it well, so new leaves are dark green, the older leaves are slowly decaying one by one. but that's normal. now the big question is - when do i trim the vine? i think i'll grow may be 10 leaves , so i can trim it and root again and then see what will come out. and then of course i am afraid that after the trim the young immature leaves start popping. but that will be end of summer, not sooner. so, the leaves on the left are new. they have a little hard time unfurling, so they some spots and tears. they are folded in a very interesting 'origami' fashion. next time i'll take pics as they unfold to show you.

I think the message as it applies here is that we shouldn't be afraid of using synthetics in lawn care just because they contain chemicals. Just because something has an "ingredient" with a funny looking name that may be hard to pronounce doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad or wouldn't be produced naturally. For example, organic fertilizers can cause chemical run off just like synthetic fertilizers. Somewhat off topic, someone asked me what I was feeding my dog because her fur was so shiny and smooth. This person couldn't believe when I told her that I feed her bagged, dry dog food from the pet store. "All those chemicals and artificial ingredients! It's just not natural!" This person fed her dog a raw diet, and I guess she was assuming that plopping a round of filet mignon into the food bowl was somehow more natural than dog food. To me, that's just as unnatural. (Her dog was also suffering from conditions that may or may not have been related to diet, including terrible fur quality and weak bone issues...) Giving a dog a T-bone is as unnatural as dropping countless pounds of soy meal in a lawn to feed it., just as broadcasting Scotts Lawnfood is equally unnatural to feeding your dog dry kibble. There is nothing natural about a lawn (or farming or gardening, for that matter). There was an entire hoopla about this years ago, which is why the word "organic" is used where "natural" used to be. Lawns do not exist in nature without human intervention. Stop mowing, feeding and weeding the lawn for a single season and you will see my point. In nature, success would be a single seed out of thousands germinating and surviving log enough to produce more seed. In the man made lawn, success is typically 85-90% germination at a minimum, with the constant upkeep to ensure proper care for many years, and the prevention of any grass plants from producing seed. At any rate, I was going for a lighthearted post with that image and not something of serious analysis.

Ethanol is "an alcohol product produced from corn, sorghum, potatoes, wheat, sugar cane, even biomass such as cornstalks and vegetable waste. When combined with gasoline, it increases octane levels while also promoting more complete fuel burning that reduces harmful tailpipe emissions such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.Biodiesel is "a domestic, renewable fuel for diesel engines derived from natural oils like soybean oil, and which meets the specifications of ASTM D 6751." Or, for those of you who want a more technical definition, it is "a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats. Also Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification "whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil.Both forms of biofuel have definite environmental advantages over petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel.Ethanol contains 35% oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more complete fuel combustion, thus reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and quickly biodegradable.Biodiesel, on the other hand, "is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. Looking forward for more interesting discussion on this.

This is complicated. Maybe we should just discuss brownie recipes. In lieu of that, let's just for now try to focus on two aspects of the question, food quality and conservation. Wasn't there someone who, early in the discussion, cited a large study published in Science magazine? I can't find that post now but the study is the most important one I am aware of. The full text can't be accessed at the Science web site without subscribing. It is available elsewhere on the web. The study sampled and compared wild and farmed salmon from many regions around the world. The level of PCBs and other dangerous substances was found to be "significantly" higher in farmed salmon. The word "significant", when used in this sort of document is understood to mean statistically significant, which is not the same as the every day usage. Statistical significance means that a difference between two samples can be proven mathematically at a certain criterion. It does not mean the difference is important. If I sprinkle 2 grains of salt on my order of fries and you sprinkle 4, the difference obviously is statistically significant. But is it important? Neither one is enough salt to affect the taste at all. Significant but not important. The study found, at some locations, levels of certain toxins at 10 or so parts per billion. At those levels, differences of say, 4 parts per billion would be significant. But important? FDA standards allow hundreds of times that concentration. But that is not the end of the controversy. Some, including the authors of the study, prefer the standards of the EPA over those of the FDA. EPA standards are much stricter. This is where science and politics collide. One might think that the "Food" and Drug Administration would take precedence over the "Environmental" Protection Administration in the matter of food safety. But that would be too simple. I have to observe that, although the importance to science of a "not statistically significant" finding is equal to, often greater than, one of "statistically significant". The importance in press releases is not. Everyone wants the results of their work to be "significant". Well, that is the health issue in a nutshell, a very small nutshell. The conservation issue is more difficult. Jim Here is a link that might be useful: Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon