"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "La puce" contains these words:


Sacha wrote:

If, in terms of damage to the ecosystem you're thinking of harvesting
the
seaweed, as far as I know they way that's done now is simply to pick up
what's been washed up by the autumn storms. I don't *think* anyone
goes
down at very low water to cut it as they did once.

No. Farms are being created for this - in fact everywhere in Scotland.

Garbage. Yet again, you've cribbed web information you haven't got
the reading skills to comprehend, and hopelessly misrepresented what it
says. Here's the site you garbled:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/orange/sdsp-06.asp

It says, quote:

"The seaweed industry in Scotland has virtually collapsed in recent
years. Nevertheless seaweed remains one of Scotland's most abundant
plant resources, and has the potential to provide limited employment in
coastal areas. " (endquote)

Big business now because of it's 'organic' attraction.

Rubbish. The website says its a shrinking industry of small and
medium businesses (quote)

(the seaweed industry in Scotland) "It is unlikely ever to recover its
past stature, but there is considerable scope for the establishment of
small or medium-sized enterprises producing fertilisers and animal
feeds, as well as small-scale production of seaweed-based foods,
medicines and cosmetic products."

separate quote

"This industry in Scotland is far smaller than it was in the heyday of
potash and (subsequently) iodine production,32 and has recently suffered
severe setbacks, but nevertheless seaweed remains one of Scotland's most
significant wild plant resources. At present Scotland is a relatively
minor producer of seaweed in comparison with other European countries,
capturing only around 2% of the market" (end quote)



Sadly
Ascophyllum entensive harvesting in the Outer Hebrides show signs of
recovery only after 6 years. The culture also is thought to have a
significant effect on the ecosystems surrounding the farms, primarily
because of the increased detritus, cover and surface area that the
seaweeds provide when cultured en masse. The fact that many of the
seaweed farms are in sheltered fjords and inlets also means that
currents to remove the excess nutrients are weak, exacerbating the
problem. In addition, some of the artefacts of plantation schemes (such
as anchors for the growing nets) are slow to degrade and may remain in
the cultivation areas for many years.

That is absolutely outrageous plagiarism and misrepresentation. You
lifted that material straight from a website and pass it off as
something YOU wrote, or "know about". However, you also edited and
garbled it to mean the opposite of what the author wrote.

Here's just one example':

Puce misconstrued version: " Sadly
Ascophyllum entensive harvesting in the Outer Hebrides show signs of
recovery only after 6 years."

Here's what the author actually said;

" Sustainable harvesting

4.25 The seaweed species that has undergone the most in-depth harvesting
evaluations in the British Isles is Ascophylum nodosum. Tyler (1994)
examined the effects of Ascophyllum harvesting in the Outer Hebrides.
This limited study found almost complete recovery of the species and its
associated ecosystem within five to six years. However, if Ascophyllum
is cropped to approximately 20cm it should be harvestable again after 3
years. "

The culture also is thought to have a
significant effect on the ecosystems surrounding the farms, primarily
because of the increased detritus, cover and surface area that the
seaweeds provide when cultured en masse. The fact that many of the
seaweed farms are in sheltered fjords and inlets also means that
currents to remove the excess nutrients are weak, exacerbating the
problem. In addition, some of the artefacts of plantation schemes (such
as anchors for the growing nets) are slow to degrade and may remain in
the cultivation areas for many years.

You wrongly placed the above paragraph to look as if the author was
listing negative effects of what you call "Ascophyllum entensive
harvesting in the Outer Hebrides". He was not; you moved that
paragraph from a different context in a different section

To conclude, not only have you ignorantly misrepresented the facts
of Scottish seaweed businesses, you have also grossly misquoted a
website which you shamelessly plagiarised and did not even accredit as
your source.



Janet.


Good work janet.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com