"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

I gave you the name of the formal association for organic gardening,
if you choose not to delve further that's your business.

I had hoped it might not be necessary to say it yet again, but here goes:
I possess a considerable amount of the literature of the Soil
Association.
I have read it all avidly. I have studied their website. It is all very
interesting to read, but nowhere did I find a definition of what the
actual
formal definition of "organic gardening" is, except perhaps "To follow
the
rules laid out by the Soil Association". That is *not* a scientific
definition.

Perhaps you should drop them an email and ask them to answer your
specific question, I'm sure they'll be only too pleased to oblige.

I have done so. They did not tell me anything I did not know before. Their
reply did not include a scientific definition of the term "organic
gardening".



I would have thought that if anything was organic, coal was. Now do
you
understand my problem?

No, I don't.
Not all coal is 'coal'. Your bog-standard lump of house coal, straight
out of the ground, is coal. The stuff that's been formed into neat
little ovals may well contain additives that enhance or retard its
speed of burn.

That might or might not be true. I suspect that it contains only a
cement
to allow the dust to hang together.
But if you are unhappy, please feel free to replace the word "Phurnacite"
by
the word coal and reread the whole thread.

As it happens, Phurnacite ( at least the modern version of it )
contains no additives or cements at all - so the only issue of concern
would be the concentration of residues in the ash.

In spite of the fact that the plastic yields only gases in its
combustion
product, and therfore leaves no residue in the solid ash?

In other words it doesn't matter what you chuck into the atmosphere.
That kind of negates the principle a bit, don't you think?

Please don't put words into my mouth. It is a technique which is
guaranteed
to fail.
It was the *coke* which you said wouild magically be rendered
"inorganic".

Ah Franz....I was trying to put thoughts into your mind - is that too
a technique guaranteed to fail?

Of course the *atmosphere* will be given a burden of possibly harmful
gases.

OK, so can you now see a correlation forming here?

No. I was referring to the ash which has now magically become
"not-organic"

Let's take a pile of coal and set it burning.
If left alone is would produce a pile of ashes which would be
considered fit for organic use.


If, however, you tossed a plastic bottle on the fire, you'd render the
ashes unsuitable for organic use. This is because the coal ashes would
be contaminated with the residues of the burnt plastic ( complete
conversion requires a high temperature, controlled burn ).

It might and it might not.

Assuming you could supply that, the emissions of the gas produced
would mean that in order to attain your pile of ash you would still
have unnecessarily contaminated the atmosphere.

That is not disputed.

Maybe that's why the concept of organic gardening seems to evade you -
it's more than picking packets off a shelf, you have to think a bit
further down the line.

I know reasonably well how to conduct an organic gardening programme. I
know that I have to follow the rules as laid down by the Soil Association.
What I don't know is how to deal with a problem not alrady coped with by the
pronouncements of the Soil Association, since they do not give a suitable
definition to guide me. Do I have to run to the guru each time I have a
problem? What if the guru is less than perfect one some sbtle point? Ifa
definition had existed, I might have solved such a problem for myself (if I
were an organic gardener).

Franz

"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC), Franz Heymann wrote:

Yes. I am intensely concerned with learning about the correct
definitions
of things and processes, your sarcarm notwithstanding.

In that case, you are doomed to disappoint as far as defining
"organic gardening" is concerned.

Maybe it would be helpful to approach the matter from another
perspective entirely. The methods of organic garden partly arose
in reaction to the excesses of the 1950's, when the slogan
"Better living through chemistry" wasn't a sour joke. The advent
of synthetic insecticides -- DDT the most famous -- meant that it
was practical to have a garden free of insect damage. It was
common advice that the entire garden be sprayed from stem to
stern twice a week to keep the insects at bay.

I know that there are good and bad chemicals.
One finds out which are which by experimentation.

Organic gardening was also a reaction to the overuse of synthetic
fertilizers. Such fertilizers -- introduced by Justus Liebig in
the mid 1800's, I believe -- meant that growers no longer had to
grow green fertilizer crops, use manure, and so on.

Yes. I know that. Why not just wducate gardeners about the proper use of
fertilisers?
I presume you are aware that there is also such a concept as overuse of
organic fertilisers.

Both of these "chemical" or "non-organic" practices had
downsides. Insects became resistant to the insecticides (as did
fungi to the f-cides), and the chlorinated hydrocarbon

That's life.

insecticides such as DDT turned out to have serious effects on
birds.

Yes. You mentioned this higher up.

Likewise, ending the use of manure and green manures led
ot an impoverishment of the microbial flora of the soil, and
changes in soil texture and characteristics.

I am not disputing that.

Moreover, fertilizer
applied in excess of plant needs caused algal blooms in rivers
and lakes.

As does the overuse of farmyard manure. The problem here is not with
organic versus not-organic, but with *misuse* of whatever.

I personally consider hardcore organic gardening an over-reaction
and often fuelled by ignorance of basic scientific findings

We are in total agreement here.


As a
lazy gardener, I can't be bothered to get out the sprayer unless
something serious goes wrong, but if some serious *does* go
wrong, I will not hesitate to use an insecticide, if that is an
appropriate solution.

In the same vein, I have no hesitation in using glyphosphate on
blackberries, couch grass, and other weeds very difficult to
control.

Likewise, if one's soil is impoverished in the major nutrients,
there's nothing like bagged fertilizer to relieve the deficit and
get things growing well again. But at the same time, I am a great
believer in mulches of leaves, compost, etc on flower beds.

So perhaps you can define organic gardening in terms of what it
isn't, rather than what it is.

There seems to be no difference between our attitudes to gardening, except
that I am, if anything, even lazier than you. I often just leave the weeds
in position and wait for wintertime to kill them off (temporarily)

{:-))

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


For sure, I'm well aware that nature has its own arsenal of nasties -
but that's the whole point, it's nature. The biggest killer of all by
far is life itself. Got anything I can put on that?
And bunging yet more chemicals onto an already carcinogenic vegetable
does what, exactly?

It depends on the chemical.

'Nuff said!
Not today, thanks.

But as a rough and ready rule, not much as far
as eating it is concerned. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the pesticide
typically adds to the lettuce's "badness" only slightly in comparison
with
its inherent "badness", both of which are in any case pretty well
negligible
in practice.

Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?

Yes, that is correct in the sense that there is very little of the chemical
present.
The point is that after treatment with a typical "medication", there is even
less of the "medicine" left.
The predominant effect, even though still negligible, is from the carcinogen
inherently in the lettuce.

Just enough, say, to use as the basis for a specious argument?

You appear not to have grasped the point. Tant pis. I am tired of
hammering it.

Academic really - I grow my own lettuces for the opiates

Which is perhaps the best reason I've yet seen not to compound the
problem by adding yet more chemicals or otherwise monkeying about with
nature.

But you are adding more chemicals. You (the metaphorical "you") add
those
which the afficionados have pronounced to be on the side of the angels.

Horse shit.
And lots of it ( plenty of flies, not too many angels ).

Your attempts at humour escape me.

And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise
you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or
tomatoes
to choose from.

As opposed to dead birds/fish etc etc etc..

I fear you appear to have run out of steam.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



Which is in every respect identical to the potash with which the heathens
like me feed their plants.

See? You're an organic gardener...and you didn't even know it!

It is possible that I know the mantra of organic gardening better than you
do. What bothers me is how to proceed from mantra to definitions which can
be used to help making decisions in the case of situations not envisaged in
the voluminous writings on the subject.

Here, have a badge and a slightly cloudy pint. The beard is optional.

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

yeuch.. Laphroig tastes Iodine with cough medicine

O

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:01:21 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


Perhaps you should drop them an email and ask them to answer your
specific question, I'm sure they'll be only too pleased to oblige.

I have done so. They did not tell me anything I did not know before. Their
reply did not include a scientific definition of the term "organic
gardening".

Why not offer to write one for them?


If, however, you tossed a plastic bottle on the fire, you'd render the
ashes unsuitable for organic use. This is because the coal ashes would
be contaminated with the residues of the burnt plastic ( complete
conversion requires a high temperature, controlled burn ).

It might and it might not.

That doesn't sound very scientific.

Assuming you could supply that, the emissions of the gas produced
would mean that in order to attain your pile of ash you would still
have unnecessarily contaminated the atmosphere.

That is not disputed.

Good, so even a scant understanding of the principles of organic
gardening would tell you that the ash could no longer be considered
suitable for use in that context.

Maybe that's why the concept of organic gardening seems to evade you -
it's more than picking packets off a shelf, you have to think a bit
further down the line.

I know reasonably well how to conduct an organic gardening programme. I
know that I have to follow the rules as laid down by the Soil Association.
What I don't know is how to deal with a problem not alrady coped with by the
pronouncements of the Soil Association, since they do not give a suitable
definition to guide me. Do I have to run to the guru each time I have a
problem? What if the guru is less than perfect one some sbtle point? Ifa
definition had existed, I might have solved such a problem for myself (if I
were an organic gardener).

That's the nature of a philosophy - not everything in life can be
summarised by a scientific principle.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?

Yes, that is correct in the sense that there is very little of the chemical
present.
The point is that after treatment with a typical "medication", there is even
less of the "medicine" left.

There's even less if you don't use any 'medication' ( whatever that
may be? ) in the first place.

The predominant effect, even though still negligible, is from the carcinogen
inherently in the lettuce.

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?

Horse shit.
And lots of it ( plenty of flies, not too many angels ).

Your attempts at humour escape me.

No suprises there.

And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise
you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or
tomatoes
to choose from.

As opposed to dead birds/fish etc etc etc..

I fear you appear to have run out of steam.

But not wildlife.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:20:14 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



Which is in every respect identical to the potash with which the heathens
like me feed their plants.

See? You're an organic gardener...and you didn't even know it!

It is possible that I know the mantra of organic gardening better than you
do. What bothers me is how to proceed from mantra to definitions which can
be used to help making decisions in the case of situations not envisaged in
the voluminous writings on the subject.

Then how come you couldn't grasp the plastic bottle analogy?

Here, have a badge and a slightly cloudy pint. The beard is optional.

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

Never got on with Laphroig - the 'yob' of malts.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I have said in another contribution that this discussion is getting
precisely nowhere and that I am bowing out of this thread.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I have indicated three times now that this conversation is getting nowhere
and that I am calling it a day.

Franz

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

yeuch.. Laphroig tastes Iodine with cough medicine

You need to learn how to appreciate it. There is no whisky to touch it.
{:-))

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
:
: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [snip]
:
: I have said in another contribution that this discussion is getting
: precisely nowhere and that I am bowing out of this thread.
:
: Franz
:
How come you always bow out of the ones you start, Franz?

K

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:07:24 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Ophelia" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

yeuch.. Laphroig tastes Iodine with cough medicine

You need to learn how to appreciate it. There is no whisky to touch it.

I am sure Ophelia will pass on any unwanted Laphroig Xmas gifts to you
Franz :-)
--
Martin

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:16:03 -0000, "K" wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
:
: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [snip]
:
: I have said in another contribution that this discussion is getting
: precisely nowhere and that I am bowing out of this thread.
:
: Franz
:
How come you always bow out of the ones you start, Franz?

Exactly what do you want him to do? It seems to me that Franz can't
win.
--
Martin

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message

I prefer Laphroig or Lagavulin. Here goes. {:-))

yeuch.. Laphroig tastes Iodine with cough medicine

You need to learn how to appreciate it. There is no whisky to touch it.
{:-))

I will leave it to you medear) We prefer Dalwhinnie

O in the home of Scotch whisky