In article , Malcolm
writes

In article , Martin
writes

In the case of seeds the results are meaningless. The history of the seeds is
also important.

So what do you know about the history of the seeds that you buy?



Personally I rather like just testing the one packet idea particularly
if they choose a test packet from a "high and quick turnover" supplier.
After all the odds being what they normally are I know exactly who will
get the rubbish packet of seeds .....................

Janet

What I really resent is the wrong seeds or plants. You can replace duds
almost straight away but growing something like a red ace potential for
a year and then finding out it's pink is not so easy to forgive
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On 29/9/07 23:08, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:55:35 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 29/9/07 22:17, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:17:03 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Martin
writes

In the case of seeds the results are meaningless. The history of the seeds
is
also important.

So what do you know about the history of the seeds that you buy?

I know where and how I bought them, how long I had them before I used them.

The question is what did Which? who claim to be experts in testing know or
care?

I think there's a bit of confusion about what Which were doing. They were
being you or me or anyone buying seeds. If anyone buys seeds off the shelf
today for sowing in two week's time, they do NOT know how those seeds have
been kept, how old they are, how fresh they are etc. Nor do you if you buy
off the shelf.
Which sent the seeds to a lab which treated all seeds in the same way, which
is probably the only way in which they differed from the average gardener in
Hampshire who will not be doing the same as his counterpart in Scotland. It
was the only way to get a fair result, also. YOU might know more about your
seeds than many do, especially beginners. And given that sales of vegetable
seeds have risen very considerably in the last few years, perhaps it's
appropriate for beginners to have some guidance.

Surely what the readers want to know is whether Which?'s results are typical
of
what the readers will experience doing the same. This sort of testing doesn't
provide an answer, unless you really believe that all Unwins seeds are poor?
If
not then what is the point of such testing?

If they bought seeds off the same shelves - or the virtual shelves -
available to the ordinary gardener, then the results were typical, surely?
The point of the testing is simply to do the testing. I would think Which
considers that to be their only brief. After that consumers can make up
their own minds as to whether to buy seeds from x, y or z, or whether to mix
them up from a, b and c. What the test has shown is that people buying
seeds from 15 different sources may well find that the seed is dead and
then, if they have a poor germination rate they're better informed to make a
fuss about it with the seedsmen.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

In message , Martin
wrote



Watney's Red Barrel bitter experience?

There wasn't any bitterness in red-barrel.

http://www.amac.f2s.com/barrel/index.htm

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On 30/9/07 09:26, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:23:25 +0100, Sacha
wrote:


If they bought seeds off the same shelves - or the virtual shelves -
available to the ordinary gardener, then the results were typical, surely?

No, because as somebody said earlier, some places look after their seeds
better
than others. It's important that the places where Which bought the seeds is
also
identified.

I don't think anyone disputes that. But I don't think it's correct to
suggest that the study is meaningless if only one packet of seeds per
producer was tested, because that is what most consumers would buy. The
test wasn't for the trade which buys thousands of seeds but for the consumer
who buys one or two.


The point of the testing is simply to do the testing. I would think Which
considers that to be their only brief. After that consumers can make up
their own minds as to whether to buy seeds from x, y or z, or whether to mix
them up from a, b and c. What the test has shown is that people buying
seeds from 15 different sources may well find that the seed is dead and
then, if they have a poor germination rate they're better informed to make a
fuss about it with the seedsmen.

What it showed is that there is a problem with delphinium seed especially as
last year we had packet of dead delphinium seeds from Plants of Distinction,
one
that Which? rated high.

I made up my mind to cancel my Which? subscription after more than 30 years, I
still have a subscription to the Dutch CA. Guess why? :-)

It showed a problem with a lot more than Delphinium seeds. They tested veg.
too and various other flowering plants.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

In message , Sacha
writes
On 29/9/07 23:08, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:55:35 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 29/9/07 22:17, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:17:03 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Martin
writes

In the case of seeds the results are meaningless. The history of
the seeds
is
also important.

So what do you know about the history of the seeds that you buy?

I know where and how I bought them, how long I had them before I used them.

The question is what did Which? who claim to be experts in testing know or
care?

I think there's a bit of confusion about what Which were doing. They were
being you or me or anyone buying seeds. If anyone buys seeds off the shelf
today for sowing in two week's time, they do NOT know how those seeds have
been kept, how old they are, how fresh they are etc. Nor do you if you buy
off the shelf.
Which sent the seeds to a lab which treated all seeds in the same way, which
is probably the only way in which they differed from the average gardener in
Hampshire who will not be doing the same as his counterpart in Scotland. It
was the only way to get a fair result, also. YOU might know more about your
seeds than many do, especially beginners. And given that sales of vegetable
seeds have risen very considerably in the last few years, perhaps it's
appropriate for beginners to have some guidance.

Surely what the readers want to know is whether Which?'s results are typical
of
what the readers will experience doing the same. This sort of testing doesn't
provide an answer, unless you really believe that all Unwins seeds are poor?
If
not then what is the point of such testing?

If they bought seeds off the same shelves - or the virtual shelves -
available to the ordinary gardener, then the results were typical, surely?
The point of the testing is simply to do the testing. I would think Which
considers that to be their only brief. After that consumers can make up
their own minds as to whether to buy seeds from x, y or z, or whether to mix
them up from a, b and c. What the test has shown is that people buying
seeds from 15 different sources may well find that the seed is dead and
then, if they have a poor germination rate they're better informed to make a
fuss about it with the seedsmen.

One question about the viability of seed bought in retail outlets would
be whether the variation is due to the seed merchant, or to the retail
outlets.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:31:22 +0100, Sacha

wrote:


If somebody bought one plant from your husband that died, would that
correctly
reflect the quality of all his plants?


We bought a pot plant from a nursery which died quite quickly and when my
wife took it out of the pot to investigate ....... vine weavel.

Never been back there again and that was about 3 years ago

Mike



--
www.rneba.org.uk for the latest pictures of the very first reunion and
Inaugural General Meeting. Nothing less than a fantastic success.
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk to find your ex-Greenie mess mates
www.iowtours.com for all ex-Service Reunions. More being added regularly
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

On 30/9/07 09:50, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:31:22 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 30/9/07 09:26, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:23:25 +0100, Sacha
wrote:


If they bought seeds off the same shelves - or the virtual shelves -
available to the ordinary gardener, then the results were typical, surely?

No, because as somebody said earlier, some places look after their seeds
better
than others. It's important that the places where Which bought the seeds is
also
identified.

I don't think anyone disputes that. But I don't think it's correct to
suggest that the study is meaningless if only one packet of seeds per
producer was tested, because that is what most consumers would buy.

If somebody bought one plant from your husband that died, would that correctly
reflect the quality of all his plants?

That's apples and oranges. Far more to the point to say that if my husband
bought 20 plants from someone and 17 of them died *that* would reflect the
quality of our supplier. We do watch what comes in and how it does and that
brings us back to the fact that the public need to know who is supplying the
seedsmen from whom they buy their packets of seeds.

We bought 57 beech hedge plants from a Dutch supplier of which only 3 weren't
dead. We bought 10 beech hedge plants from another supplier of which only one
died. If we had bought only one from each supplier we might have reached
totally
different conclusions about the quality of both their plants.

The sample size has to be big enough to be significant. It's basic statistics.
An organisation like Which? should be aware of this.

I just can't agree with this, even though I do see what you're saying.
Which was acting for the consumer and in doing so, did what the consumer
would do.

The
test wasn't for the trade which buys thousands of seeds but for the consumer
who buys one or two.

Not quite, the test was for millions of readers who buy one or two each.

But each buys as an individual.



The point of the testing is simply to do the testing. I would think Which
considers that to be their only brief. After that consumers can make up
their own minds as to whether to buy seeds from x, y or z, or whether to
mix
them up from a, b and c. What the test has shown is that people buying
seeds from 15 different sources may well find that the seed is dead and
then, if they have a poor germination rate they're better informed to make
a
fuss about it with the seedsmen.

What it showed is that there is a problem with delphinium seed especially as
last year we had packet of dead delphinium seeds from Plants of Distinction,
one
that Which? rated high.

I made up my mind to cancel my Which? subscription after more than 30 years,
I
still have a subscription to the Dutch CA. Guess why? :-)

It showed a problem with a lot more than Delphinium seeds. They tested veg.
too and various other flowering plants.

I go by what was in the pdf file that you provided the link to.

So as you see it was a test based on the sort of average veg and flowers
people would normally buy.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 30/9/07 10:03, in article , "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
snip

If they bought seeds off the same shelves - or the virtual shelves -
available to the ordinary gardener, then the results were typical, surely?
The point of the testing is simply to do the testing. I would think Which
considers that to be their only brief. After that consumers can make up
their own minds as to whether to buy seeds from x, y or z, or whether to mix
them up from a, b and c. What the test has shown is that people buying
seeds from 15 different sources may well find that the seed is dead and
then, if they have a poor germination rate they're better informed to make a
fuss about it with the seedsmen.

One question about the viability of seed bought in retail outlets would
be whether the variation is due to the seed merchant, or to the retail
outlets.

That's why several of us are saying it would be useful to know if the
various seedsmen are supplied by the same source. We're waiting to see what
turns up in the trade press and of course, whether the various seedsmen have
any comments to make in the national media.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

In article , Martin
writes

Goodness that's a name from the past isn't it?

When I worked part time as a mere slip of a thing in Brighton Top Rank,
Red Barrel was for the young-go-ahead's and Worthington E for the
'sophisticated over 21s

On the other hand some people drank "light and bitter" or even "black
and tans"..................

Those were the days :-)


Indeed they were, I even remember Tartan beer, sold to what must now be
lager, er, lovers
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In message , Janet Tweedy
wrote

Indeed they were, I even remember Tartan beer

Tart an' gassy

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In article , Alan
writes
In message , Janet Tweedy
wrote

Indeed they were, I even remember Tartan beer

Tart an' gassy


Sounds like a modern day "ladette"

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Alan
writes
In message , Martin
wrote



Watney's Red Barrel bitter experience?

There wasn't any bitterness in red-barrel.

http://www.amac.f2s.com/barrel/index.htm


I seem to recall that at the time, "Don't take the **** out of Red
Barrel - there'll be nothing left" was the phrase of choice

--
regards andyw