For those of you folks in this fine industry who may have ever happened to come across some mulch bags (not that you would have ever dealt with hundreds and hundreds) that seemed to have some uncanny variation that just doesn’t seem to be a fluke:

-Ask to have a field investigator from the weights and measures bureau in your state to come out and do an inspection (they work for you.)
-Its very simple to create a 2 cubic foot box that measures 9 inches by 16 inches by 24 inches. Mark every 1.5 inches down the 24 inch side. These are the 5% gradations. Anything under the 5% line is illegal. Only one in twelve bags is allowed to be less than 5% short. (Make sure you make allowances for the width of plywood- i.e., if 3/4 inch, add 1.5 inches to each dimension such that the "inside" of each box side measures the original dimensions I cited. Also, if the box is actually taller than 24 inches, but you clearly mark the 24 inch line it will be easier to manage getting the bag in the box.)

Reports from North Carolina State University have shown an average within the industry be 25-33% short. Personally, I recently purchased 10 random bags from any given retailer and 60% were illegally short.

I am sure that there is no need to be alarmed. Most businesses in this country are honest and compliant. However, it never hurts to be an educated consumer. If you have any questions, concerns, or experiences you would like to share, please feel free to contact me.

Yours in benevolence, Lynnae Dehoff.

Hold the press- the 5% lines to mark down the 24" side of the box are 1.2 inches. You can also use a level to gauge whether or not the mulch line is laying relatively even.

1.5, 1.2 inches.... those are slight differences anyway. If you happened to come across something like a 2 cubic foot bag of mulch that only contained 1.5 cubic inches,it would fall 6.0 inches short of the 24 inch mark. That’s also an example of a bag that is 25% short.

This is an instance in which the enforcement of weights and measures standards is appropriate and relevant to consumers’ rights to know how much of a product they’re buying.

However, on the other side of the ledger, the current craze perpetrated by the federal government (and selectively enforced by some states and not by others) that requires our industry to re-size and/or re-label plants and pots from their customary "industry standard" sizes to actual English/metric volumes or top/bottom diameter and depth measurements is a bit much.

Does a consumer who is considering buying a blooming or foliage plant really care whether it’s in a 3.8"x3.2"x3.75" pot or a shorthand-notation "4-inch" pot? And is it relevant to the quality of the plant to compare such pot sizes, or is it the appearance of the plant that motivates the purchase? I’d gladly pay for a beautiful, full, healthy plant advertised in a 10" pot (even if it measures only 9.8"x9.25"x9") than a scraggly one in a meticulously size-labeled container (e.g., 2.9 gallon). What’s up with that? Are we so obsessed with "consumer protection" that we can’t see the forest for the trees?

I did read recently on the website of a potting media producer that their standard procedure for ensuring compliance with the weights and measures standards for their industry involves routinely overfilling each bag, so that in 99% of cases, you would be getting MORE than what you are paying for...such is the high-wire act that industries are compelled to put on in order to avoid that knock on the door from Uncle. Guess who pays in the long run? Now you’re catching on.

Clem

You know Clem, government is a funny thing. I remember the trials and tribulations of the pot industry very well and the truth is these things become an issue when someone makes it an issue. In this case regarding the mulch shortage, I sent in 13 bags of "2 cubic foot mulch", 10 of which were from 6 common chain stores. 11 of the 13 bags were illegally short, sometimes as much as 25%.

More disturbing is the unregulated practice of grinding up cca treated scrap wood into mulch (this makes toxic mulch laden with aresenic and chromium.) This is primarily a problem in South Florida, although I heard it occurs in other states as well. I think it absolutely absurd that technically, the use of cca treated wood as mulch is illegal under FIFRA, but it is not enforced! And to think we interiorscapers tremble every time we spray a little alcohol on a mealy bug. What a joke.

Interiorscapers likely don’t come across this mulch, but if you are also a landscaper or retailer you may want to do some investigating. Its like anything else in life- know your supplier, and cheaper is not better. Also, if you have been following this issue in the news, red mulch is not the only source. Some "cypress colored" (its not even cypress) is also arsenic laden. Not all dyed mulches are dirty. Dyed mulch is very popular in general, but its always those few rotten apples that cause problems for everybody.