"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote
in
message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these
words:

By the way, if you used "organic" means other than the highly
ineffectual ladybirds to control aphids, you are also killing
off
your ladybirds. They will simply die of hunger if there are
no
insects around for them.

Is there research that shows they don't simply fly away to
find aphids
elsewhere?

Janet.


Last year I had hundreds of ladybirds living on a patch of
Euphorbias. A
month later they had all flown away and the neighbouring plum tree
was
swarming with aphids - so a fat load of good they were.

I've used no insecticides in the garden in the 3 years I've been
here, and
the fruit trees are being eaten alive! In the past two years, all
the
leaves had been sucked dry and had fallen off well before autumn.
The
"natural balance" obviously doesn't occur at a point compatitble
with what
I
want from the garden, so I'm beginning to think that spraying may
be
required to give my trees a chance!

Bob


Heresy!! repeat the holy mantra 'if I do not spray, then by magic
nature's
predators will control all pests' until you are cured.

You have to wonder why they ever invented sprays in the first place,
surely
prior to their existence there was no need for them?

That is it, in a nutshell.

Franz

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Bob" contains these words:


Last year I had hundreds of ladybirds living on a patch of
Euphorbias. A
month later they had all flown away and the neighbouring plum tree
was
swarming with aphids - so a fat load of good they were.

I've used no insecticides in the garden in the 3 years I've been
here, and
the fruit trees are being eaten alive! In the past two years, all
the
leaves had been sucked dry and had fallen off well before autumn.
The
"natural balance" obviously doesn't occur at a point compatitble
with what I
want from the garden, so I'm beginning to think that spraying may
be
required to give my trees a chance!

Birds eat a LOT more aphids than ladybirds, I recommend that you
encourage more birds to attend to your fruit trees, by hanging
peanut
and seed feeders in the trees to show them where the free food is.

I spend huge amounts of money throughout the year maintaining the
birds in my garden. I have large more or less resident population
blue tits, great tits, coal tits chaffinches and sparrows.
I also have an aphid problem.
I will start spraying this afternoon.

Using this method I've seen birds clear huge seasonal
aphid-hatches on
fir and viburnum, ib the space of a day or two.

Franz

On 5/6/04 2:18 AM, in article ,
"Vicky" wrote:


I've used no insecticides in the garden in the 3 years I've been here, and
the fruit trees are being eaten alive! In the past two years, all the
leaves had been sucked dry and had fallen off well before autumn. The
"natural balance" obviously doesn't occur at a point compatitble with what
I
want from the garden, so I'm beginning to think that spraying may be
required to give my trees a chance!

Bob

I've been busily making my first batch of nettle manure as per the
instructions on the website. It claims there that this can act to deter
pests. Is this actually true? Has anyone succesfully used it like this?
My sweetpeas are already covered in aphids and I only put them out at the
weekend.

Vicky


Weak plants attract harmful insects... Try making the plants stronger
with fertilizer.
In the mean time to kill aphids douse the plants with soapy water (dish
soap). This cuts off the air to the aphids and they will die. Once dead, of
course, they cannot move so it will appear that they are still there. Look
closely and you will find most are dead. Should you see live ones douse with
soapy water again.
Gary
Fort Langley BC
Canada

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

These "natural" ways of controlling the local
balance of nature are mostly hyped up codswallop.

You're talking nonsense again Franz...you did say you wanted to be
reminded when it happens :-)

Janet.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these words:

These "natural" ways of controlling the local
balance of nature are mostly hyped up codswallop.

You're talking nonsense again Franz...you did say you wanted to be
reminded when it happens :-)

Janet, I may have exaggerated a little for the sake of the effect, as
is my wont, but I do believe that the principle of what I said is
correct. The real point is that the balance desired by a gardener is
only rarely the balance nature would achieve if left to itself. I,
too, was once a keen young supporter of organic methods. After many
years of "good practice", the penny dropped: In spite of me doing my
best to nurture the friendly insects and the birds, my garden usually
suffered worse from pest infestations than those of friends who
gardened the traditional way, namely, to poison the unwanted
freebooters.

Franz

In spite of me doing my
best to nurture the friendly insects and the birds, my garden usually
suffered worse from pest infestations than those of friends who
gardened the traditional way, namely, to poison the unwanted
freebooters.

I suspect my garden does - or it would do if I persisted in growing, for
example, hostas. But what I am also finding is my garden is steadily
increasing in wildlife, which I count as a real bonus. I enjoy watching
rather than interfering, and I get a lot more pleasure out of my garden
now than when I was remembering the cycle of adding fertiliser and
remembering to spray against nasties.

I suppose I also have at the back of my mind that I am gardening purely
recreationally and not for food production, so and so I have a greater
responsibility to avoid harm, and whether the case against "chemicals"
is proven or not, I don't think anyone is saying that I am actively
harming the environment by not using pesticides.


--
Kay Easton

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

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In spite of me doing my
best to nurture the friendly insects and the birds, my garden
usually
suffered worse from pest infestations than those of friends who
gardened the traditional way, namely, to poison the unwanted
freebooters.

I suspect my garden does - or it would do if I persisted in growing,
for
example, hostas.

You are speaking of one of the very few plants which both I and my
wife like.

But what I am also finding is my garden is steadily
increasing in wildlife, which I count as a real bonus. I enjoy
watching
rather than interfering, and I get a lot more pleasure out of my
garden
now than when I was remembering the cycle of adding fertiliser and
remembering to spray against nasties.

I suppose I also have at the back of my mind that I am gardening
purely
recreationally and not for food production, so and so I have a
greater
responsibility to avoid harm, and whether the case against
"chemicals"
is proven or not, I don't think anyone is saying that I am actively
harming the environment by not using pesticides.

That is actually all very true.
(But I will never be obstinate and protect my best loved plants by
whatever methods actually work)

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In spite of me doing my
best to nurture the friendly insects and the birds, my garden
usually
suffered worse from pest infestations than those of friends who
gardened the traditional way, namely, to poison the unwanted
freebooters.

I suspect my garden does - or it would do if I persisted in
growing,
for
example, hostas.

You are speaking of one of the very few plants which both I and my
wife like.

But what I am also finding is my garden is steadily
increasing in wildlife, which I count as a real bonus. I enjoy
watching
rather than interfering, and I get a lot more pleasure out of my
garden
now than when I was remembering the cycle of adding fertiliser and
remembering to spray against nasties.

I suppose I also have at the back of my mind that I am gardening
purely
recreationally and not for food production, so and so I have a
greater
responsibility to avoid harm, and whether the case against
"chemicals"
is proven or not, I don't think anyone is saying that I am
actively
harming the environment by not using pesticides.

That is actually all very true.
(But I will never be obstinate and protect my best loved plants by
whatever methods actually work)

Oh dear, how does one atone for a flop like omitting "theless" after
"never"?

Franz

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

(But I will never be obstinate and protect my best loved plants by
whatever methods actually work)

Oh dear, how does one atone for a flop like omitting "theless" after
"never"?

I just supposed the "n" of never was superfluous :-)

Janet

On 5/7/04 9:42 PM, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these words:

These "natural" ways of controlling the local
balance of nature are mostly hyped up codswallop.

You're talking nonsense again Franz...you did say you wanted to be
reminded when it happens :-)

Janet, I may have exaggerated a little for the sake of the effect, as
is my wont, but I do believe that the principle of what I said is
correct. The real point is that the balance desired by a gardener is
only rarely the balance nature would achieve if left to itself. I,
too, was once a keen young supporter of organic methods. After many
years of "good practice", the penny dropped: In spite of me doing my
best to nurture the friendly insects and the birds, my garden usually
suffered worse from pest infestations than those of friends who
gardened the traditional way, namely, to poison the unwanted
freebooters.

Franz


Hi Franz
Yes, Franz...if I'm going to kill the little bugs (the SOB's) myself I'd
like a lot of noise....something that goes along with my anger and
frustration?
Dynamite! Yes, dynamite! That will kill the little *******s....oh it
felt so good saying that...*******s!
Well, as far as the dynamite goes...well I don't use it. It creates a
big hole that I have to fill in later. More work that I don't need.
The worst part about using dynamite, besides the hole, is that it won't
solve the problem.
Hang onto your good practice. It will be worth it, eventually. It does
take time and there are some frustrations along the way. Nothing worthwhile
happens easily or overnight.
You say your friends have had better success than you in growing stuff?
Are we talking flowers? Vegetables? Trees?
What are you growing?
Are the plants you want to grow needing sun/shade? Do they need
nitrogen/phosphates/potashes or other minerals-trace? Just what minerals do
they require?
Drainage? Do they have good drainage? Do they have bad drainage? Who
knows what they need. I don't. Do you? If you know, and if it is a
vegetable, I may be able to relate. If it is a flower(s), maybe someone else
can relate. Either way I will do my best to help. I want you to 'beat your
friends"....the Jones's! Keeping up with them has always been a problem for
many of us until...
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

On 5/5/04 12:31 PM, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"gary davis" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/04 2:55 PM, in article ,
"Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
...

"flower faerie" wrote in message
...
Hello

I have lots of ant hills appearing all over my lawn. I prefer
not
to
mow the lawn too short but want to try and get the ants to live
somewhere else like in the flower borders. Also I dont want to
put down
ant powder.

any ideas?

ff

We have found that Talcum Powder does the trick. It's not totally
chemical
free but I guess it's much less damaging than other powders
suggested here!

Talcum powder, like any solid, liquid or gas is a chemical. What
on
earth is all this paranoia about "chemicals"?
As far as I know, talcum is just finely divided Mg3 (OH)2 Si4 O10.

The other powders which have been suggested here were Vim and
Ajax. I
may be wrong, but I think both of them are just powdered chalk.

Franz


Hi Franz
I think the resistance to 'chemicals' is the side affects of
using
certain chemicals. Chemicals that kill aphids, for example, also
kill the
predatory insects such as lady bugs and the worms in the ground. It
is this
kind of 'chemical' that we do not want to use because of those
harmful side
affects.
I don't think that talcum powder falls into the 'bad chemical'
category. Talcum, then, is not the kind of chemical that we are
trying to
avoid.

Hello Gary,
I realise what is behind the paranoia.

Paranoia is a word that does not relate to what I am thinking. I don't think
that what I and many others are talking about is paranoia. We are concerned
about the use of 'stuff' that kills indiscriminately. It kills the good and
the bad bug...from the human point of view. There is no bad bug to a bird or
to the predator insects we fortunately have.

What I don't like is the way folk are overreacting to the use of chemicals
in the garden.

You don't like the way folks are overreacting to the use of chemicals in the
garden? Why? Do you generate an income from the sale of those chemicals? And
who says we are over reacting? I am not over reacting...I just believe the
use of those chemicals has a vast impact to the life span of important
insects, worms (that work 24-7) and the ground water that we all drink.
Overreacting? I don't think so.

I grant you that there are chemicals whose overall benefit is dubious,

A chemical, any chemical, has an over all dubious benefit. Every chemical
that enters into the lives of insects has a questionable benefit. Usually
none! And worse...

but it is quite unnecessary

Wrong, it is very necessary to make people, all of them, aware of this
problem. Some will understand and some will need more information. It is
necessary!

to lump everything except manure and compost together as "chemicals" and
therefore to be avoided.

Manure and compost can be as bad as any chemical. It depends upon just what
is put in the compost bin. There have been tests done and what was found in
countries that spread human waste on their fields is that the worms change
the human waste into harmless organic material. Material that plants can
utilize and grow. What happens in our compost bins is a different
matter...we must eliminate anything that could kill the worms. The worms do
so much...even while we sleep.

By the way, if you used "organic" means other than the highly
ineffectual ladybirds to control aphids, you are also killing off
your ladybirds. They will simply die of hunger if there are no
insects around for them.

I read what you wrote here several times and it really is jubberish. Are you
sure you are not a politician...they talk like that. I will simple reply to
your last statement which was "They will simply die of hunger if there are
no insects around for them."

If there are no insects (aphids) around, the gardener does not have a
problem now does he/she? So long as we don't use any chemicals that kill the
predator...we will be ok in the long run. We are talking about the long run,
aren't we?

I actually have my doubts about the efficacy of ladybirds for
controlling aphids.

The quantity of ladybirds is always less than the quantity of aphids.
There are always a smaller quantity of predators than there are of plant
eating pests. Think foxes versus rabbits.

I have noticed that the years in which I have
large populations of ladybirds coincide with years in which I have
serious infestations of aphids.

Which came first? The ladybirds or the aphids? It has to be the
aphids...they multiplied and that attracted the ladybirds. There will always
be more food than predator. When the food is gone so will the predator.
Where does the predator go? Ask the birds...a gourmet meal they will tell
you.
I asked the birds "Well, a gourmet meal, what did it cost?" Cheap, is
always their response. I don't really understand how they can say that. How
can a gourmet meal be cheep? I guess only a bird will know the answer to
that.

Clearly the ladybirds are having a
whale of a time. But unfortunately those are also the years in which
there is most aphid damage in my garden, so when all is said and done,
the ladybirds were fighting a losing battle.

No, the ladybirds were doing just fine. Let them alone. It goes in cycles.
You have to give a little to get a little. The next year you will have so
many ladybirds that they will eat every aphid anywhere around. Even in your
neighbour's yard.


Have you ever stopped to
think how many ladybirds you would need in one garden to consume a
horde of a few million aphids before they breed?

It goes in cycles. You have to give a little to get a little. The next
year you will have so many ladybirds that they will eat every aphid anywhere
around. Even in your neighbour's yard. Am I repeating myself?

Remember the key-you have to give a little to get a little. Give a
little and get a little...now where I come from getting a little is a good
thing.
Happy gardening

Franz
Gary
Fort Langley BC
Canada

To email direct...Please remove yoursocks...

"gary davis" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/04 12:31 PM, in article
, "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"gary davis" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/04 2:55 PM, in article ,
"Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
...

"flower faerie" wrote in message
...
Hello

I have lots of ant hills appearing all over my lawn. I prefer
not
to
mow the lawn too short but want to try and get the ants to
live
somewhere else like in the flower borders. Also I dont want
to
put down
ant powder.

any ideas?

ff

We have found that Talcum Powder does the trick. It's not
totally
chemical
free but I guess it's much less damaging than other powders
suggested here!

Talcum powder, like any solid, liquid or gas is a chemical.
What
on
earth is all this paranoia about "chemicals"?
As far as I know, talcum is just finely divided Mg3 (OH)2 Si4
O10.

The other powders which have been suggested here were Vim and
Ajax. I
may be wrong, but I think both of them are just powdered chalk.

Franz


Hi Franz
I think the resistance to 'chemicals' is the side affects of
using
certain chemicals. Chemicals that kill aphids, for example, also
kill the
predatory insects such as lady bugs and the worms in the ground.
It
is this
kind of 'chemical' that we do not want to use because of those
harmful side
affects.
I don't think that talcum powder falls into the 'bad
chemical'
category. Talcum, then, is not the kind of chemical that we are
trying to
avoid.

Hello Gary,
I realise what is behind the paranoia.

Paranoia is a word that does not relate to what I am thinking. I
don't think
that what I and many others are talking about is paranoia. We are
concerned
about the use of 'stuff' that kills indiscriminately. It kills the
good and
the bad bug...from the human point of view. There is no bad bug to a
bird or
to the predator insects we fortunately have.

What I don't like is the way folk are overreacting to the use of
chemicals
in the garden.

You don't like the way folks are overreacting to the use of
chemicals in the
garden? Why? Do you generate an income from the sale of those
chemicals?

No.

And
who says we are over reacting?

I do.

I am not over reacting...I just believe the
use of those chemicals has a vast impact to the life span of
important
insects, worms (that work 24-7) and the ground water that we all
drink.
Overreacting? I don't think so.

Let's agree to differ.

I grant you that there are chemicals whose overall benefit is
dubious,

A chemical, any chemical, has an over all dubious benefit.

Then don't water your plants. Water is a chemical. And your
rainwater usually contains sulphuric acid, and sometimes ammonia, if
collected during a thunderstorm

Every chemical
that enters into the lives of insects has a questionable benefit.
Usually
none! And worse...

Rubbish.
Sugar
Salt
Bicarbonate of soda
Water
Calcium hydroxide
Ammonia
Pyrethrum

Would you like me to extend the list?

Please provide the proof of the correctness of what you are saying.

but it is quite unnecessary

What is it that is quite unnecessary? I think some context has been
lost due to surreptitious snipping.



Wrong, it is very necessary to make people, all of them, aware of
this
problem. Some will understand and some will need more information.
It is
necessary!

to lump everything except manure and compost together as
"chemicals" and
therefore to be avoided.

Manure and compost can be as bad as any chemical. It depends upon
just what
is put in the compost bin. There have been tests done and what was
found in
countries that spread human waste on their fields is that the worms
change
the human waste into harmless organic material.

And other experiments have indicated that a number of deleterious
organisms and chemicals remain in the composted faeces.

Material that plants can
utilize and grow. What happens in our compost bins is a different
matter...we must eliminate anything that could kill the worms. The
worms do
so much...even while we sleep.

Yes. Obviously.

By the way, if you used "organic" means other than the highly
ineffectual ladybirds to control aphids, you are also killing off
your ladybirds. They will simply die of hunger if there are no
insects around for them.

I read what you wrote here several times and it really is jubberish.
Are you
sure you are not a politician...they talk like that.

I am a scientist and I don't fall for old wives' tales.

I will simple reply to
your last statement which was "They will simply die of hunger if
there are
no insects around for them."

If there are no insects (aphids) around, the gardener does not have
a
problem now does he/she? So long as we don't use any chemicals that
kill the
predator...we will be ok in the long run. We are talking about the
long run,
aren't we?

I suggest you famimiarise yourself with the realities of the
predator/prey relationships.

I actually have my doubts about the efficacy of ladybirds for
controlling aphids.

The quantity of ladybirds is always less than the quantity of
aphids.
There are always a smaller quantity of predators than there are of
plant
eating pests. Think foxes versus rabbits.

Yes. I have slved the foxes vs rabbits equations. They have chaotic
solutions.

I have noticed that the years in which I have
large populations of ladybirds coincide with years in which I have
serious infestations of aphids.

Which came first? The ladybirds or the aphids?

You would have given a better reply if you had read to the end of the
point I was making before starting to type.

It has to be the
aphids...they multiplied and that attracted the ladybirds. There
will always
be more food than predator. When the food is gone so will the
predator.
Where does the predator go? Ask the birds...a gourmet meal they will
tell
you.
I asked the birds "Well, a gourmet meal, what did it cost?"
Cheap, is
always their response. I don't really understand how they can say
that. How
can a gourmet meal be cheep? I guess only a bird will know the
answer to
that.

Clearly the ladybirds are having a
whale of a time. But unfortunately those are also the years in
which
there is most aphid damage in my garden, so when all is said and
done,
the ladybirds were fighting a losing battle.

No, the ladybirds were doing just fine. Let them alone. It goes in
cycles.

That is quite precisely where you are wrong. The ladybird vs aphids
equations have chaotic solutions.

You have to give a little to get a little. The next year you will
have so
many ladybirds that they will eat every aphid anywhere around. Even
in your
neighbour's yard.


Have you ever stopped to
think how many ladybirds you would need in one garden to consume a
horde of a few million aphids before they breed?

It goes in cycles.

That is an old wives' tale. It is chaotic, in the mathematical sense
of the word.

You have to give a little to get a little. The next
year you will have so many ladybirds that they will eat every aphid
anywhere
around. Even in your neighbour's yard. Am I repeating myself?

I am afraid so. Quite a few times now.

Remember the key-you have to give a little to get a little. Give
a
little and get a little...now where I come from getting a little is
a good
thing.
Happy gardening

Franz