Janet Tweedy wrote in news:iuiOCeDBuNp
:

In article ,
Victoria
Clare writes

If you have a shredder, shredded hedge clippings also make a good
mulch,
and can look very neat. I tend to stick a layer over my other mulches
so
people can see my efforts are deliberate!

After a while you get a nice thick buildup of rotted mulch (which the
plants like much better than my thin stony soil!)


Victoria don't you find that rotting clippings would take the nitrogen
from the soil? I always thought that it had to be well rotted or the
action of the decay locks up valuable minerals in the soil. On the
other
hand if it's on top of a layer of well rotted stuff perhaps it doesn't
matter?

I've not found this to be a problem to be honest. I usually bung on
some rabbit droppings or chicken manure pellets at the same time, which
presumably helps to compensate.

But, as an example, I have one area atm where I put about a foot of
shreddings on top of soil. They have compacted down a bit in the couple
of months since I applied them. I thought a foot of shreddings would be
enough to hold down the dandelions underneath, but they have grown right
through, and are now pushing up bigger and greener than ever before -
certainly not in the manner of weeds lacking in nitrogen!

Luckily they are very easy to weed out of the shreddings, as you can ust
push them out of the way and pull up the tap root.

I've planted an escallonia into the shreddings, with the bottom of the
rootball just under the original soil line. OK, they are not the most
delicate of plants, but this one clearly loves the location, and again
does not seem to be being 'held back'.

I haven't done this on a veg. patch, and am not sure it would work there
- but for shrubs and perennial beds it seems to work well.

Victoria

In article , Victoria
Clare writes
Janet Tweedy wrote in news:iuiOCeDBuNp
:

Victoria don't you find that rotting clippings would take the nitrogen
from the soil? I always thought that it had to be well rotted or the
action of the decay locks up valuable minerals in the soil. On the
other
hand if it's on top of a layer of well rotted stuff perhaps it doesn't
matter?

I've not found this to be a problem to be honest. I usually bung on
some rabbit droppings or chicken manure pellets at the same time, which
presumably helps to compensate.

But, as an example, I have one area atm where I put about a foot of
shreddings on top of soil. They have compacted down a bit in the couple
of months since I applied them. I thought a foot of shreddings would be
enough to hold down the dandelions underneath, but they have grown right
through, and are now pushing up bigger and greener than ever before -
certainly not in the manner of weeds lacking in nitrogen!

I'm wondering whether this is less of a problem than it used to be. My
reasoning is that for years we have been busy applying nitrogenous
fertilisers to agricultural and garden soil. The advice given by
Plantlife to anyone wanting to encourage wild plants is basically to
start by spending several years allowing the current vegetation to grow,
then cutting it down and removing it from the site, basically reducing
the nitrogen levels so the 'desirable' native plants can compete
successfully with the nitrogen-guzzlers.

We're also many of us battling with blanket weed in our ponds and
applying the same sort of techniques.

Have we reached the stage where for a lot of purposes lack of nitrogen
simply isn't a problem?

I haven't added anything to the garden for years, and may be working on
a slight loss as I take thorny trimmings to the council green tip rather
than shred them myself. Yet everything is flourishing and I certainly
have no signs of nitrogen deficiency.

Again, I have no idea how this works with veg - I don't have enough sun
- but as far as loganberries, rhubarb, apples and pears are concerned,
we get more than enough for our needs.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

Thats what I was thinking, but then they utilise mycorhizae (sp?) to do
it (in most cases AFAIK) so its indirect?
/
Jim

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses lived in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very, very
few".
{:-((
But that is only one (and probably not the major) mechanism by which
nitrogen fixing occurs.
Ultraviolet light in the upper atmosphere, lightning and free-living soil
organisms are, as far as I know, the major "fixers".
I admit to not knowing which of these process is responsible for what
fraction of the nitrogen harvested from the atmosphere

Franz

In article 1g3ulyx.nt0z1z32qfggN%00senetnospamtodayta@macunl imited.net
, Jim W writes
Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

Thats what I was thinking, but then they utilise mycorhizae (sp?) to do
it (in most cases AFAIK) so its indirect?

But in the context of the current discussion - legumes can wade in and
use the nitrogen whereas most other plants have to wait and hope it
becomes available. Like using fruit pickers as opposed to hoping the
fruit may fall off eventually.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses lived in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very, very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses lived
in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very,
very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

In comparison with how many species of plants in toto? Millions?

{:-))

Franz

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article 1g3ulyx.nt0z1z32qfggN%00senetnospamtodayta@macunl imited.net
, Jim W writes
Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

Thats what I was thinking, but then they utilise mycorhizae (sp?) to do
it (in most cases AFAIK) so its indirect?

But in the context of the current discussion - legumes can wade in and
use the nitrogen whereas most other plants have to wait and hope it
becomes available. Like using fruit pickers as opposed to hoping the
fruit may fall off eventually.

Nicely put.

Franz

Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses lived in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very, very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

Not to mention the others which aren't Leguminaceae, inc. Alders etc.

Anyway this is going WAY OT from the OP.


Jim

"Jim W" wrote in message
news:1g3v4t3.z42hb1m8otqqN%00senetnospamtodayta@ma cunlimited.net...
Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses
lived in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very,
very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

Not to mention the others which aren't Leguminaceae, inc. Alders etc.

Anyway this is going WAY OT from the OP.

Such thread drift is a common fate of interesting threads.

Franz

"Jim W" wrote in message
news:1g3v4t3.z42hb1m8otqqN%00senetnospamtodayta@ma cunlimited.net...
Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses
lived in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very,
very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

Not to mention the others which aren't Leguminaceae, inc. Alders etc.

Anyway this is going WAY OT from the OP.

Such thread drift is a common fate of interesting threads.

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses lived
in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very,
very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

In comparison with how many species of plants in toto? Millions?

About 250,000

Yes, I know. It surprised me too.

Both figures are from Heywood (ed): Flowering plants of the world.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes


There are very, very few plants (if any?) which can utilise
atmospheric
nitrogen directly.

Isn't that basically what nitrogen fixation (as in legumes and some
other plants) is about?

It is because I was aware of the fact that legumes and some grasses
lived
in
synmbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that I used the words "very,
very
few".

Ah, right. I can never think of Leguminaceae as 'very very few' since
there's 17,000 species!

In comparison with how many species of plants in toto? Millions?

About 250,000

Yes, I know. It surprised me too.

Both figures are from Heywood (ed): Flowering plants of the world.

Well I'll be damned.

Franz

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

The ABC turned up today as usual, K. My isp weeds out spammed adverts,
but evidently doesn't identify endless repetitions of the ABC as such.
Possibly yours does? Or your newsreader settings do?

The spam which, according to you, your ISP is weeding, is from your email.

Wrong. I was referring to usenet spam, as the context makes obvious.
Don't assume that anyone else here shares your ignorance and confusion.

Usenet is an entirely different internet activity.

Usenet is also full of spammed (multiply-posted) adverts and other
unwelcome material such as binaries posted to non-binary newsgroups,
which competent news-servers delete to save bandwidth and assist their
clients. My isp zetnet provides free, and operates, the excellent news
server I use called zimacs.

How did you manage to persuade your ISP to remove spam? A few days ago we
had a discussion in which some folk maintained that such an
arrangement was
illegal, since both sender and receiver were supposed to agree that
the ISP
may do a bit of cleaning up.

That discussion was about multiple EMAIL virus attack, not usenet spam.

Er, no. The discussion was about e-mail spam. There's no real argument
about virus attacks.

Zetnet is highly responsive to its clients and fosters good relations
and information between management and users via internal newsgroups.
When many zetnet users requested server-level blocking of the email
viral bombardment, there was a newsgroup discussion, then zetnet took
full legal advice before solving the problem PDQ.

And made an excellent job of it too - haven't seen a virus since. The
odd e-mail with nothing in (which I presume to have had an attached
virus).

Multiple crossposts in your killfile, Janet, can be zapped by typing
into the subject field (say) uk:rec:gardening:3 instead of
uk.rec.gardening, where 3 is one crosspost too many.

If you want to permit more in different groups you just type in the
lowest unacceptable number of crossposted groups.

HTH

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/