For the person who was enquiring about adding microrhiza when
planting, this was featured on "A year at Kew" tonight. A rare tree
was being planted, and microrhiza was added to the planting hole.
David Attenborough was doing the official "planting" bit. He sounded
very breathless; not too healthy at all.

Pam in Bristol

In article ,
Pam Moore wrote:
For the person who was enquiring about adding microrhiza when
planting, this was featured on "A year at Kew" tonight. A rare tree
was being planted, and microrhiza was added to the planting hole.
David Attenborough was doing the official "planting" bit. He sounded
very breathless; not too healthy at all.

Just because Kew can do something doesn't mean us oiks can. I know
a bit about this area, and it is just a waste of time and money for
amateurs. Mycorrhiza (sic) are SERIOUSLY soil, host and climate
dependent, in general, and the methods of transmission are poorly
understood. Most terrestrial orchids are obligate mycorrhizal
hosts, but UK woody plants are facultative ones, and will grow
perfectly well in reasonable soils without them. They need them
only in poor soils. Yew has none; birch has dozens; in many cases,
it is not always known whether associations are mycorrhizal or
parasitic, or whether plants ever form mycorrhizal associations.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Just because Kew can do something doesn't mean us oiks can. I know
a bit about this area, and it is just a waste of time and money for
amateurs. Mycorrhiza (sic) are SERIOUSLY soil, host and climate
dependent, in general, and the methods of transmission are poorly
understood. Most terrestrial orchids are obligate mycorrhizal
hosts, but UK woody plants are facultative ones, and will grow
perfectly well in reasonable soils without them. They need them
only in poor soils. Yew has none; birch has dozens; in many cases,
it is not always known whether associations are mycorrhizal or
parasitic, or whether plants ever form mycorrhizal associations.

http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/fores...corrhizas.html

According to the link above, which I had passed on to the enquirer of
mycorrhiza, it is a natural process for all plants when making roots.
Some have less than others - hence the need to use it. I find it better
than the man made hormonal powder we are told to use, which I don't. On
a big scale nursery, it is indeed a grand leap towards using organic
ways but as you say, for the amateurs and non commercial gardeners
amongst us, it is a waste of time and money.

In article .com,
"La puce" writes:
|
| http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/fores...corrhizas.html
|
| According to the link above, which I had passed on to the enquirer of
| mycorrhiza, it is a natural process for all plants when making roots.
| Some have less than others - hence the need to use it. ...

Er, no. It doesn't say that at all. It says essentially what I
said. Not all plants have mycorrhiza, and many/most don't need
them in suitable soils.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Er, no. It doesn't say that at all. It says essentially what I
said. Not all plants have mycorrhiza, and many/most don't need
them in suitable soils.

I thought it was an occurence in any plant, it is a fungi after all,
with different patterns in distribution throughout the year so that
sometimes you can see it and sometimes you can't, which doesn't mean
it's not there. I thought it wasn't a matter of 'needing' it as such,
but increasing the amount of it so that the plant would benefit from it
to form more roots.

In article .com,
"La puce" writes:
|
| Er, no. It doesn't say that at all. It says essentially what I
| said. Not all plants have mycorrhiza, and many/most don't need
| them in suitable soils.
|
| I thought it was an occurence in any plant, it is a fungi after all,
| with different patterns in distribution throughout the year so that
| sometimes you can see it and sometimes you can't, which doesn't mean
| it's not there. I thought it wasn't a matter of 'needing' it as such,
| but increasing the amount of it so that the plant would benefit from it
| to form more roots.

It isn't a single fungus, but a common ecological mode of many
fungi. It is believed that, just as most woody plants can grow
with or without mycorrhiza, some mycorrhizal fungi can grow in
other modes.

Your last sentence is correct, and is why many plants rely on
mycorrhiza in poor soils, but not in rich ones.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
It isn't a single fungus, but a common ecological mode of many
fungi. It is believed that, just as most woody plants can grow
with or without mycorrhiza, some mycorrhizal fungi can grow in
other modes.
Your last sentence is correct, and is why many plants rely on
mycorrhiza in poor soils, but not in rich ones.

Understood. To go back to the first post, do you think it is wise to
let it out commercially, in that case to someone who just want to grow
better roses? It reminds me of the increasingly depletion of our peat
bogs and the unsustainability of it.

In article .com,
"La puce" writes:
|
| Understood. To go back to the first post, do you think it is wise to
| let it out commercially, in that case to someone who just want to grow
| better roses? It reminds me of the increasingly depletion of our peat
| bogs and the unsustainability of it.

It isn't exactly in limited supply :-)

Seriously, there is no real difference between mycorrhiza and
yeast; if the conditions are right, both will replicate madly;
if they are wrong, both will die off; and you can get as much
new material from thriving communities as you want.

It's primarily a damn-fool idea, a.k.a. a way of extracting
money from fools, as the appropriate selection of mycorrhiza
and techniques for getting it established are very tricky, and
not likely to work when done by amateurs (including professional
horticulturists).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
It isn't exactly in limited supply :-)
Seriously, there is no real difference between mycorrhiza and
yeast; if the conditions are right, both will replicate madly;
if they are wrong, both will die off; and you can get as much
new material from thriving communities as you want.
It's primarily a damn-fool idea, a.k.a. a way of extracting
money from fools, as the appropriate selection of mycorrhiza
and techniques for getting it established are very tricky, and
not likely to work when done by amateurs (including professional
horticulturists).

Arrgh ... It gets me mad when some fashion takes hold of people and
they all go mad on it, just like the recent totally sold out star
aniseed, supposedly a cure against the chicken flu. It's been lovely
talking to you.

[quote=

Seriously, there is no real difference between mycorrhiza and
yeast; if the conditions are right, both will replicate madly;
if they are wrong, both will die off; and you can get as much
new material from thriving communities as you want.

It's primarily a damn-fool idea, a.k.a. a way of extracting
money from fools, as the appropriate selection of mycorrhiza
and techniques for getting it established are very tricky, and
not likely to work when done by amateurs (including professional
horticulturists).

QUOTE]

och well. gone and done and bought it now. who knows, may be a brilliant buy. This winter is tipped to be a bitter one so anything that claims to get plants well rooted quicker sounds like it's worth a go. I'm considering a test and control area but am tempted just do all the plants as if i can see a difference between the two groups and the test group is better, i'll be scunnered. kerry

La puce wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
It isn't exactly in limited supply :-)
Seriously, there is no real difference between mycorrhiza and
yeast; if the conditions are right, both will replicate madly;
if they are wrong, both will die off; and you can get as much
new material from thriving communities as you want.
It's primarily a damn-fool idea, a.k.a. a way of extracting
money from fools, as the appropriate selection of mycorrhiza
and techniques for getting it established are very tricky, and
not likely to work when done by amateurs (including professional
horticulturists).

Arrgh ... It gets me mad when some fashion takes hold of people and
they all go mad on it, just like the recent totally sold out star
aniseed, supposedly a cure against the chicken flu. It's been lovely
talking to you.

Really - I must check out the daily 'comics' more often. I have a large
jar of star aniseed in the cupboard. 2 or 3 in a veggie stir-fry are
excellent! Now I won't get bird 'flu either - not that I've got the
right wings for that, either :-))
--
Larry Stoter

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article .com,
"La puce" writes:
|
| Understood. To go back to the first post, do you think it is wise to
| let it out commercially, in that case to someone who just want to grow
| better roses? It reminds me of the increasingly depletion of our peat
| bogs and the unsustainability of it.

It isn't exactly in limited supply :-)

Depends which peat you are talking about - there's plenty in Scotland
but that's tends to be protected or difficult to get at. Of course, I'm
sure there is a commercial case for striping hundreds of square miles of
the highlands of peat and that many gardeners wouldn't bat an eyelid, as
long as they could pot-on their seedlings, etc.

There are probably 1000's of square miles in Siberia but even the most
addicted of peat users would probably choke on the price.

British lowland peat bogs are an increasingly small area and
increasingly rare. If the peatacholics were using Siberian peat, I
probably wouldn't object. What I object to is the decimation of Britsh
lowland peat bogs, which their specialised flaura and fauna.

Seriously, there is no real difference between mycorrhiza and
yeast; if the conditions are right, both will replicate madly;
if they are wrong, both will die off; and you can get as much
new material from thriving communities as you want.

It's primarily a damn-fool idea, a.k.a. a way of extracting
money from fools, as the appropriate selection of mycorrhiza
and techniques for getting it established are very tricky, and
not likely to work when done by amateurs (including professional
horticulturists).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


--
Larry Stoter

In article k,
Larry Stoter wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article .com,
"La puce" writes:
|
| Understood. To go back to the first post, do you think it is wise to
| let it out commercially, in that case to someone who just want to grow
| better roses? It reminds me of the increasingly depletion of our peat
| bogs and the unsustainability of it.

It isn't exactly in limited supply :-)

Depends which peat you are talking about - there's plenty in Scotland
but that's tends to be protected or difficult to get at. ...

It was mycorrhiza we were talking about, not peat. I implied that it
is UNLIKE peat in that respect!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article k,
Larry Stoter wrote:

Depends which peat you are talking about - there's plenty in Scotland
but that's tends to be protected or difficult to get at. ...

It was mycorrhiza we were talking about, not peat. I implied that it
is UNLIKE peat in that respect!

Off course it was Nick. OY! Larry! It wasn't peat we were talking
about! Keep up at the back! Those Welsh men, honestly ...

La puce wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article k,
Larry Stoter wrote:

Depends which peat you are talking about - there's plenty in Scotland
but that's tends to be protected or difficult to get at. ...

It was mycorrhiza we were talking about, not peat. I implied that it
is UNLIKE peat in that respect!

Off course it was Nick. OY! Larry! It wasn't peat we were talking
about! Keep up at the back! Those Welsh men, honestly ...

Sorry for misunderstanding what was meant and I'm glad that we can all
agree that the current useage of peat by commercial and amateur
gardeners is unsustainable and will lead, fairly soon, to the
destruction of most of Britains lowland peat bogs.

And then the peataholics will have to pay for Siberian peat :-))
--
Larry Stoter