The message .com
from "La puce" contains these words:


Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

The material you quoted says that plants (which have *already* reached
flowering size) may take two to three years to *resume* flowering after
being planted out. That is nowhere near saying that the plants flower in
2 or 3 years *from seed*.

It said 'may take two to three years to establish' not resume
flowering.

Wrong.

Here's the material you quoted:,

"In brief it says:- Young plants are usually in bud or flower when
planted but may then take two to three years to establish BEFORE
RESUMING FLOWERING".

Janet.

Sacha wrote:
No, I did not write the para below. Please do not attribute things to me
that I did not write.

No I did write this. An error, I admit - it was late.

Well, I thought it because I was told it. Why the sudden sarcasm Sacha
when your earlier post said you didn't 'criticised'.

Criticise? To say that you are giving bad information and then trying to
teach your grandmother to suck eggs is criticism? Well, perhaps it is.
Perhaps it's common sense, too.

You're mad.

You know, I think this has been explained to you as well as it can be. If
you really want to start an argument about 'from seed' or 'young', enjoy
yourself.

(snip)

Why don't you just leave it then. If you don't know, just say so.

I suggest that you do a little more listening and learning and less "I'm
doing an RHS course". Up to you, of course. But from experience, I can tell
you that you will get from urg precisely what you put in. Bit like
gardening, really.

This is sadly the third time you mention this. You really ought to
surpress your jealousy. I am learning, and in here it's fantastic. But
so far I haven't learnt anything from you.

"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sacha wrote:
No, I did not write the para below. Please do not attribute things to me
that I did not write.

No I did write this. An error, I admit - it was late.

Well, I thought it because I was told it. Why the sudden sarcasm Sacha
when your earlier post said you didn't 'criticised'.

Criticise? To say that you are giving bad information and then trying to
teach your grandmother to suck eggs is criticism? Well, perhaps it is.
Perhaps it's common sense, too.

You're mad.

You know, I think this has been explained to you as well as it can be. If
you really want to start an argument about 'from seed' or 'young', enjoy
yourself.

(snip)

Why don't you just leave it then. If you don't know, just say so.

I suggest that you do a little more listening and learning and less "I'm
doing an RHS course". Up to you, of course. But from experience, I can
tell
you that you will get from urg precisely what you put in. Bit like
gardening, really.

This is sadly the third time you mention this. You really ought to
surpress your jealousy. I am learning, and in here it's fantastic. But
so far I haven't learnt anything from you.


Grow up children....H

Dave Poole wrote:

(Potash encourages flower production)

Only in as much as it ensures that nutrients essential to the
*continued* development of flowering primordia (already initiated) are
made available. It does *not* stimulate the formation of flowers and
will not turn a non-flowering plant into a flowering one. Nor does it
make immature plants flower.

Ok. Ta. Understood.

It doesn't 'help' photosynthesis at low light levels, it is vital for
production of ATP which provides the energy for the formation of
carbohydrates *at any light level*. It cannot and does not
compensate for insufficient light. BTW using sufficient potash to
counteract soil alkalinity will burn roots and cause massive
deficiencies in magnesium and calcium.

We're talking about a rhodo here. What do you mean by 'sufficient'
potash? And, if you don't mind me asking, are you a teacher? Where do
you get all these information? From experience? Because you explain so
much better than anything I am being told )

Its not whether the soil contains enough micro nutrients, but whether
they are available to the plant.
(snip)

I don't understand. This means the same - if there's the availability
of the nutrients in the soil then they *will* and *must* be available
to the plant?

Too much iron does not cause 'chlorosis', it mimics the scorched leaf
edges seen in potassium and phosphorus-deficient plants and is an
exceedingly rare condition, usually only seen where there are
iron-rich springs coming to the surface.

Interesting. The adaptability of these plants are more difficult than I
first thought. I didn't know them being so complex.

Well, Sacha is quoting from her husband who I know to be one of the
most knowledgeable growers in the business. In horticulture,
experience counts over academia every time. I would happily stack his
views up against those of an RHS or any other tutor for that matter.

I have heard this before too. But I'm also hearing so many
contradicting 'facts' being 'the gospel' and whatnot. So put yourself
in my shoes. Also I might not always put my questions right, nor my
answers. But I would never EVER advise on something I'm not 100% sure.
In the above case, I was mislead in beleiving that potash would be the
most common nutrient to top dress any acid loving plant for flower
production. It is, but as you explained there's more to it.

And I speak not only as a horticultural practitioner, but as a former
teacher in horticulture to Level 3 - including the RHS certificate!

I knew it! I feel so priviledge. I'm so so grateful for all your
patience and contribution. Please help. I need this exam and my sole
rhodo is doing fine in its pot )

The subject of plant nutrition and the part played by macro & micro
nutrients is immensely complex and its fullest ramifications are not
entirely understood even now. To get a more complete picture, you
need to be studying this at degree level and then you will start to
understand how intricate the interaction of all plant nutrients, soil
conditions, temperature, moisture levels and light really are. And we
haven't even touched upon what happens at molecular level - thank
goodness!

I don't think I need it to this level!! But I keep running into
contradicting advise. I am now interested in phenology because this
will give me *my* answers. I've started recording but it's taking so
much time. I can't wait to be a retired woman - without kids, without
work, without pets, without pta ...

I could be totally wrong, but you appear to have been grasped by an
enthusiasm for the importance of the role played by potassium, which
is understandable to an extent because it is indeed very important.
(snip)

This enthusiasm was refering to rhodo and azaleas only and not all
plants.

Potash is not the 'food' of flowers in itself, it is a quality
facilitator.
Potash does not initiate flower production in juvenile plants.
Potash requirements by Rhododendrons are lower than conventional
'crop' plants.
Potash does not alleviate iron-deficient chlorosis.
Potash cannot be used to amend soil pH
Iron induced 'chlorosis' does not exist.
Rhododendrons 'in the ground' do not flower in the 2nd. or 3rd. year
from seed.

You are wonderful ) Thank you.

On 9/11/05 10:02, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:


Sacha wrote:
No, I did not write the para below. Please do not attribute things to me
that I did not write.

No I did write this. An error, I admit - it was late.

snip
This is sadly the third time you mention this. You really ought to
surpress your jealousy. I am learning, and in here it's fantastic. But
so far I haven't learnt anything from you.

Possibly because I know a lost cause when I see one.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote:
This is sadly the third time you mention this. You really ought to
surpress your jealousy. I am learning, and in here it's fantastic. But
so far I haven't learnt anything from you.

Possibly because I know a lost cause when I see one.

I'd rather think it's because you probably only carry cream teas around
and mop after your husband.

Dave Poole wrote:
You'll forgive me if I make this my last contribution to this thread,
I feel that certain aspects are becoming far too personal and comments
being made are both unwarranted and unfounded.

I understand and I apologise. But as you can see it's not me. I just
wish she'd stop. I haven' t replied to her and Janet last posts. In
fact I won't reply to any from now on. I simply don't have the time.
But please let me apologise for this nonsense.

Thanks for your post. I'll make sure I remember not to 'profligate' too
much )

On 9/11/05 11:35, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:


Sacha wrote:
This is sadly the third time you mention this. You really ought to
surpress your jealousy. I am learning, and in here it's fantastic. But
so far I haven't learnt anything from you.

Possibly because I know a lost cause when I see one.

I'd rather think it's because you probably only carry cream teas around
and mop after your husband.

I wondered when you'd descend to that level. Didn't take long, did it? Now
we see you for what you are. Well done.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)