On 2010-12-09 08:26:55 +0000, Jeff Layman said:

On 08/12/2010 18:22, Sacha wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:20:00 +0000, Jeff Layman said:

On 08/12/2010 09:03, Derek wrote:
Monty Don is returning to the helm of Gardeners' World, almost three
years after a stroke forced him to leave the show.

The 55-year-old will replace Toby Buckland, who was informed by BBC
bosses yesterday that his contract will not be renewed. Buckland was
said to be "devastated" by the decision.

Alys Fowler, another Gardeners' World regular, is also leaving the
programme, the BBC announced. Carol Klein and Joe Swift will return
for the new series alongside Rachel de Thame.

I guess Toby Buckland wasn't "politically correct" enough. On rare
occasions he actually mentioned use of chemicals! Probably made the
organic-biased BBC producers apoplectic....

None of that with Monty Don. The C-word will be banished!

I hope not. Everything has its place and not everyone either can, or
wants to, garden in a one-size fits all fashion.

I do agree. But if you read Don's gardening articles in Saturday's
Daily Mail Magazine, his mantra is "Chemicals should not be used".
That's it - no argument. And that is why I prefer Buckland to Don;
he's a lot more open minded.

Agreed. The BBC should not provide a platform for anyone's organic
mantra -- and if they are chasing viewing figures, they won't: organic
gardening is practised by around 10% of all gardeners in this country.
Monty Don should be doing nothing to change that.

His relative popularity (he never came close to AT or GH in viewing
numbers) is nothing to do with his organic mantra. What he has is a
firm grip on the proceedings, a good presentational style and an
excellent voice. What he lacks is horticultural qualifications --
hopefully he will make fewer howlers next time around than he did in
his last stint -- and balance.

I wish the amiable, well qualified and perfectly balanced Mr Buckland well.

In article , Jeff Layman
writes
I do agree. But if you read Don's gardening articles in Saturday's
Daily Mail Magazine, his mantra is "Chemicals should not be used".
That's it - no argument. And that is why I prefer Buckland to Don;
he's a lot more open minded.


I do so agree! If you were to move into and (god forbid) inherit a plot
full of horsetail or ground elder or Japanese knotweed it's not much
good trying to be philosophical and trying to 'work with it' or abandon
weed killer for ever,
Just as dangerous as using a lot I could have said - i mean look what
happens when people let Rhododendrons go wild or other stuff, they then
become a blinking source of infection to our native plants/
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Jeff Layman wrote:

I do agree. But if you read Don's gardening articles in Saturday's Daily
Mail Magazine, his mantra is "Chemicals should not be used". That's it -
no argument. And that is why I prefer Buckland to Don; he's a lot more
open minded.

The late Geoff Hamilton held the same viewpoint, yet I don't recall
anyone accusing him of narrow-mindedness at any time.. For the average
size garden you do not need to use chemicals. If you are growing
certain crops eg, strawberries, on a sizeable plot of land, well maybe.

Spider wrote:
[...]

I believe that the "30min construction" slot was created to give we
gardeners a taste of that longed-for "cheap build-it slot" that Geoff
Hamilton always did so well and somehow made relevant. It's a shame
it misfired.

They could bring in the wonderful Rico Daniels, the Salvager from Quest
(47 on my Freeview). He's a hoot. He'd make a clever flower container
out of truck axles, telegraph poles, and a discarded field gun. But I
doubt if he's much of a gardener...


I am sorry they're shortening the programme, though. With so many
different specialities and diversifications within gardening, a longer
programme would make more sense ... or perhaps these specialities
could make extra programmes. I won't hold my breath though.

I still can't rid myself of the impression that TV people don't like
gardening, and don't /really/ believe that anybody else does. I wonder
if they should forget the basic channels and send it over to BBC4, where
they could do a full-length serious job.

--
Mike.

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:35:17 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:


I still can't rid myself of the impression that TV people don't like
gardening, and don't /really/ believe that anybody else does. I
wonder if they should forget the basic channels and send it over to
BBC4, where they could do a full-length serious job.

Believe it or not there are parts of UK that still don't have
Freeview.

Oh, sorry: not trying to be exclusive! What with that and a digital
system that only works properly if it isn't raining*, we could be in for
a thinnish time. At my daughter's the TV picture and sound fall to bits
when a bus goes past: is that really the future?

*Marconi Che? Incompetenza incredibile! For thees I am worka my
geniosi digiti agli ossi? Porca Madonna! I Inglesi son totalmente
bonkersi! /Marconi [Basta! -Ed.]

--
Mike.

On 09/12/2010 20:50, Frank Booth Snr wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

I do agree. But if you read Don's gardening articles in Saturday's Daily
Mail Magazine, his mantra is "Chemicals should not be used". That's it -
no argument. And that is why I prefer Buckland to Don; he's a lot more
open minded.

The late Geoff Hamilton held the same viewpoint, yet I don't recall
anyone accusing him of narrow-mindedness at any time.. For the average
size garden you do not need to use chemicals. If you are growing certain
crops eg, strawberries, on a sizeable plot of land, well maybe.

I'm afraid that's idealistic. It doesn't matter whether you have one
plant or a million. if you get something nasty which doesn't respond to
conservative treatment, then you try something more powerful. And that
is especially true if the plant in question is rare, or maybe has
sentimental value.

Around 4 years ago i spotted Brighamia insignis in a local nursery. It
was not cheap, but looked interesting. It grew well, and is now nearly
3 times its original height. But every autumn it appears to get red
spider mite, or something like it, as the leaves turn mottled and dried
up, and there were webs around them.

At first I tried spraying it with water and keeping it in a damp
atmosphere inside a plastic bag (it's on an inside windowsill). That
didn't help - it continued to slowly lose all its leaves. It started to
grow new leaves, and those soon became mottled and dry, too.
Unfortunately at the time there were no effective chemicals available to
the amateur to treat red spider mite, so I resigned myself to watching
the plant slowly die.

A couple of weeks later I was browsing through the insecticides in a
local garden centre and was amazed to find something called Axoris,
containing a chemical "abamectine" effective against red spider mite.
Within 2 weeks of spraying the plant with that, new leaves appeared and
remained healthy. Now I spray as soon as the mottling appears, and
within a short time the plant is healthy again.

--

Jeff

Sacha wrote in :

On 2010-12-08 17:20:00 +0000, Jeff Layman
said:

On 08/12/2010 09:03, Derek wrote:
Monty Don is returning to the helm of Gardeners' World, almost three
years after a stroke forced him to leave the show.

The 55-year-old will replace Toby Buckland, who was informed by BBC
bosses yesterday that his contract will not be renewed. Buckland was
said to be "devastated" by the decision.

Alys Fowler, another Gardeners' World regular, is also leaving the
programme, the BBC announced. Carol Klein and Joe Swift will return
for the new series alongside Rachel de Thame.

I guess Toby Buckland wasn't "politically correct" enough. On rare
occasions he actually mentioned use of chemicals! Probably made the
organic-biased BBC producers apoplectic....

None of that with Monty Don. The C-word will be banished!

I hope not. Everything has its place and not everyone either can, or
wants to, garden in a one-size fits all fashion.

This is one of the many things I cant understand about gardening. Veg in
particular.

To get rid of black/green/whitefly for example it is common to use liquid
soap which is rife with chemicals, good or bad I dont know, but if that
does not work what are we to do? Abandon the infected plants, or use
something which works but makes you feel uneasy about its use?

I suppose it is down to what a person sees fit and is prepared to do to
make a successful "natural" or as "organic as possible" veg plot.?

Next growing season(spring 2011) I for one will use some chemicals if it
means that we can eat veg. without pests and diseases in our plants.

Baz

"Baz" wrote
To get rid of black/green/whitefly for example it is common to use liquid
soap which is rife with chemicals, good or bad I dont know, but if that
does not work what are we to do? Abandon the infected plants, or use
something which works but makes you feel uneasy about its use?

I suppose it is down to what a person sees fit and is prepared to do to
make a successful "natural" or as "organic as possible" veg plot.?

Next growing season(spring 2011) I for one will use some chemicals if it
means that we can eat veg. without pests and diseases in our plants.

We had a discussion/argument many year ago here with a knowledgeable and
committed organic gardener, who no longer frequents this Ng, and he said if
crops get ruined by pests, tough, throw them away and hope it's better next
season. I, however will use chemicals if it means the difference between
crops and no crops. That said, very little of our produce is sprayed,
nothing this season except Bordeaux Mixture on the toms.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

On 10/12/2010 17:56, Bob Hobden wrote:


"Baz" wrote
To get rid of black/green/whitefly for example it is common to use liquid
soap which is rife with chemicals, good or bad I dont know, but if that
does not work what are we to do? Abandon the infected plants, or use
something which works but makes you feel uneasy about its use?

I suppose it is down to what a person sees fit and is prepared to do to
make a successful "natural" or as "organic as possible" veg plot.?

Next growing season(spring 2011) I for one will use some chemicals if it
means that we can eat veg. without pests and diseases in our plants.

We had a discussion/argument many year ago here with a knowledgeable and
committed organic gardener, who no longer frequents this Ng, and he said
if crops get ruined by pests, tough, throw them away and hope it's
better next season.

So did he starve to death, or buy stuff which had been chemically
treated from his local supermarket to feed himself?

I, however will use chemicals if it means the
difference between crops and no crops. That said, very little of our
produce is sprayed, nothing this season except Bordeaux Mixture on the
toms.

Makes sense to me. Although I advocate use of chemicals, I don't drown
everything in sight with them. I just wish there were more choices
available for amateur use.

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman" wrote ...
Bob Hobden wrote:
"Baz" wrote
To get rid of black/green/whitefly for example it is common to use liquid
soap which is rife with chemicals, good or bad I dont know, but if that
does not work what are we to do? Abandon the infected plants, or use
something which works but makes you feel uneasy about its use?

I suppose it is down to what a person sees fit and is prepared to do to
make a successful "natural" or as "organic as possible" veg plot.?

Next growing season(spring 2011) I for one will use some chemicals if it
means that we can eat veg. without pests and diseases in our plants.

We had a discussion/argument many year ago here with a knowledgeable and
committed organic gardener, who no longer frequents this Ng, and he said
if crops get ruined by pests, tough, throw them away and hope it's
better next season.

So did he starve to death, or buy stuff which had been chemically
treated from his local supermarket to feed himself?

No idea, probably went without.

I, however will use chemicals if it means the
difference between crops and no crops. That said, very little of our
produce is sprayed, nothing this season except Bordeaux Mixture on the
toms.

Makes sense to me. Although I advocate use of chemicals, I don't drown
everything in sight with them. I just wish there were more choices
available for amateur use.

Now that is another problem, so many pests/diseases are now untreatable for
the amateur grower it is becoming a serious problem in itself. Yet the
Government say they are encouraging allotments and the growing of food by
citizens, the two things simply do not compute.
I have a book on pests and disease written in 1997 and most of the remedies
in it are now banned for our use despite not being considered dangerous,
just a case of too costly to test for amateur use, so no DEFRA number, so
can't be sold to the public.
If professionals can still use a chemical why not an amateur?

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

In message , Mike Lyle
wrote

Oh, sorry: not trying to be exclusive! What with that and a digital
system that only works properly if it isn't raining*, we could be in for
a thinnish time. At my daughter's the TV picture and sound fall to bits
when a bus goes past: is that really the future?

If the system is installed by cowboys that is what you get. A roof
mounted aerial of the correct grouping for the transmitter and a 100%
screen satellite quality cable goes a long way to reliable reception.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message ,
Janet writes

Mike did you know you can get free technical advice from the BBC on
signal quality and reception? As Alan says, a poor signal may be no more
than the wrong aerial, in the wrong position or pointed in the wrong
direction. In any case, signal strength in your area will be much better
when analogue is switched off .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/

Janet.

If it's difficult to get a solid TV signal it may be just a bad area.
I have a friend who only just gets the digital TV pictures, and when she
told me I pointed out that every house on her row has an aerial mounted
on a taller than usual pole.
I suppose satellite is the best solution.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Dec 11, 11:08*am, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:38:23 +0000, Gordon H





wrote:
In message ,
Janet writes

* Mike did you know you can get free technical advice from the BBC on
signal quality and reception? As Alan says, a poor signal may be no more
than the wrong aerial, in the wrong position or pointed in the wrong
direction. In any case, signal strength in your area will be much better
when analogue is switched off .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/

* *Janet.

If it's difficult to get a solid TV signal it may be just a bad area.
I have a friend who only just gets the digital TV pictures, and when she
told me I pointed out that every house on her row has an aerial mounted
on a taller than usual pole.
I suppose satellite is the best solution.

If there isn't a hill in the way.
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are aprox 3 miles from the main transmiter, have a new ariel and
still have problems, I'm told that it could be that the signal is to
strong, I'v now turned the ariel to one of the local booster masts and
it's better but still not a patch on what we had in the "Old days"
with analogue.
And remember that digital uses a lot more electricity.
David Hill

In message ,
Janet wrote
or, that your new aerial is too high-gain for such proximity to the
transmitter , overloading your receiver. A smaller weaker aerial might
be the answer.

Or an inline attenuator - 99p incl postage
http://www.beststuff.co.uk/coaxial_accessories.htm
6dB TV Attenuator.
9dB TV Attenuator.

The digital TV receiver electronics use more than analogue TV, but an
LCD display uses less than a cathode ray tube, so overall the power
usage is lower

The transmitter power is also much lower

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/12/2010 22:55, Bob Hobden wrote:
Now that is another problem, so many pests/diseases are now untreatable
for the amateur grower it is becoming a serious problem in itself. Yet
the Government say they are encouraging allotments and the growing of
food by citizens, the two things simply do not compute.
I have a book on pests and disease written in 1997 and most of the
remedies in it are now banned for our use despite not being considered
dangerous, just a case of too costly to test for amateur use, so no
DEFRA number, so can't be sold to the public.
If professionals can still use a chemical why not an amateur?

'elf&safety, no doubt...

--

Jeff