In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
In article , hugh
] writes

OK, the OP doesn't want a wildflower meadow. But the more we encourage a
style of gardening dependent on high levels of fertiliser, the more we
contribute to high levels of nutrient in our wild countryside and in our
waterways, which is damaging the diversity of our countryside.

I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
What high levels of fertiliser? So far this year, one dose in the spring
of fertiliser/moss killer/weed killer and that's it apart from 1/2 ton
of horticultural sharp sand. Oh yes and one squirt of spot weed killer
to remove a piece of clover which presumably had blown in from someone
else's weed patch.

Well, that's still more than I use ;-)

But hardly "high level", and not affecting the levels of nutrient in our
wild countryside and in our waterways as you alleged, so please withdraw
you comment.

Of course it affects it. Gardens and countryside are intermixed,
waterways go through both. Your personal use of fertiliser may not have
much effect, but I was talking about an overall philosophy of gardening
which regards regular fertiliser, pesticide and weedkiller use as a
necessity. If you read what I said, I was suggesting that a dislike of
this approach might be why people were suggesting that a pure grass lawn
was not necessarily to be desired. I did not in my original post comment
on your personal use of fertilisers.

The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.
Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"