Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

NEW PROTOCOL FOR SPECIES MIX TESTING IN RETAIL MULCH SAMPLES

Judd H. Michael, Charles D. Ray

Abstract


Many millions of bags of mulch are sold at retail in the United States each year. Most mulch products claim to be of a certain species, with cypress being perhaps the most widely marketed. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible for the average consumer to know with certainty whether a product is indeed the species listed on the packaging. Claims of misleading behavior by some producers raise the question of whether species mix should be more closely monitored. Regulators charged with ensuring fair competition and consumer welfare, however, do not have an accurate means to determine species content. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the species mix for 100% of the wood particles in a package of mulch because of the inability to identify species of the smallest particles, and the impracticality of 100% sampling in the intended use. We propose and develop a new method to allow analysts to estimate the percentage of a given species in samples of mulch, with a focus on cypress. This case study illustrates our methods and highlights the challenges in accurately determining species mix in the type of wood product. We purchased and tested 10 bags of cypress mulch obtained from six different states. Results indicate that one producer was filling some bags with only 50% cypress and others with no cypress. Consumers may therefore suffer as they receive a lower valued species, whereas honest competitors are also harmed. The wood science community could help regulators and consumers by developing a method by which small particles of wood could be positively identified as to species. Improved methods for species identification are relevant for a wide variety of purposes ranging from identifying consumer products to upholding the U.S. Lacey Act. 


Keywords


mulch, species mix, cypress, regulators

Full Text:

PDF

References


ANSI/ASAE S424 1 MAR1992 (R2017) (2017) Method of determining and expressing particle size of chopped forage materials by screening. American National Standards Institute, St. Joseph, MI.

Bowers LJ, Melhuish JH Jr. (1988) Silcon content in wood and bark of bald cypress compared to loblolly pine and southern red oak. Trans Ky Acad Sci 49(1-2):1-7.

Dormontt EE, Boner M, Braun B (2015) Forensic timber identification: It’s time to integrate disciplines to combat illegal logging. Biol Conserv 191:790-798.

Elser NC, Michael JH (2018) A strategic orientation toward entrepreneurship: Implications for pallet manufacturer performance. For Prod J 68(4):452-458.

Ewel KC, Davis HT, Smith JE (1989) Recovery of Florida cypress swamps from clearcutting. South. J. Appl. 13(3):123-126.

Falk B (1997) Wood recycling: Opportunities for the wood waste resource. For Prod J 47:6.

Gruda N (2008) The effect of wood fiber mulch on water retention, soil temperature and growth of vegetable plants. J Sustain Agric 32(4):629-643.

Hoadley RB (1990) Identifying wood: Accurate results with simple tools. Taunton Press, Newtown, CT. 234 pp.

Kagawa A, Leavitt SW (2010) Stable carbon isotopes of tree rings as a tool to pinpoint the geographic origin of timber. J Wood Sci 56(3):175-183.

Keegan CE, Blatner KA, Wichman DP (1999) Changing use patterns by major users of mill residue in the inland northwest. For Prod J 49(3):38-42.

Lammers BD, Buckmaster DR, Heinrichs AJ (1996) A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. J Dairy Sci 79:922-928.

Lowe AJ, Dormontt E, Bowie M, Degen B (2016) Oppor- tunities for improved transparency in the timber trade through scientific verification. BioScience 66(11): 990-998.

Lyon S, Bond B (2014) What is “urban wood waste”? For Prod J 64(5/6):166-170.

Murphy JA, Smith PM, Wiedenbeck J (2007) Wood residue utilization in Pennsylvania: 1988 vs. 2003. For Prod J 57(4):101-106.

Ray CD, Zuo X, Michael JH, Wiedenbeck J (2006) The lean index: Operation “lean” metrics for the wood products industry. Wood Fiber Sci 38(2):238-255.

Sharma A, Terrell E, Theegala CS (2017) Biomass gasification and physical analysis of plant biomass and agricultural waste products in Louisiana. Wood Fiber Sci 49(3):312-322.

Thomas RJ (1972) The ultrastructure of differentiating and mature bordered pit membranes from cypress. Wood Fiber Sci 2:87-94.

Wang J, Wu J, Armstrong JP (2010) An analysis of Ap- palachian hardwood products in the Chinese market. Wood Fiber Sci 42(1):71-80.

Wiedenhoeft AC, Baas P (2011) Wood science for promoting legal timber harvest. International Society of Wood Anatomists, Leiden, The Netherlands. 176 pp.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.