On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:55:11 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

Herbicides are therefore included in the term "pesticide".

Not according to the Oxford Dictionary.

Then the score becomes 14 - 1 in favour of regarding a herbicide as a
pesticide. The 14 come from horticultural and scientific atricles and
the 1 from the OED. The OED is not very reliable about scientific
definitions. It has seriously incorrect entries for "proton",
"electron", "neutron" and "meson", just for starters.

Franz


Franz 1 OED 0 :-)


--
Martin

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:14:40 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
On 19/7/04 9:37, in article
, "Howard
Neil"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:

On 18/7/04 8:44 pm, in article
, "Howard
Neil"
wrote:


BAC wrote:


Sorry about that - I use the term 'pesticides' to include
herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, etc. I don't think I'm alone in
that,
but
apologise for any confusion. In this context, I meant
weedkiller,
specifically one not fatal to lawn grass.

You are correct in your use of the term "pesticide". It is a
general
term that includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.
Weed
killer
is a herbicide which then means that it is a pesticide.


You may use it in that way but nobody else I know does so.
Herbicide is not
pesticide. We do not use pesticides on this nursery but very
occasionally
we use herbicides. As we use biological controls in the
greenhouses, the
difference is very marked and it would be sloppy to encourage
people to use
'pesticides' when one might mean 'herbicides', IMO.

If you have a nursery, I am very surprised at your lack of
knowledge.
Have a look at the definition of herbicide given he-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744

And I am not at all surprised at your rudeness - unfortunately.
Pesticides
kill pests, herbicides kill vegetation. It doesn't take some
government
mandarin who wouldn't recognise a pair of wellingtons if they
bit
him, to
tell anyone that.
Tell a new gardener that a herbicide is a pesticide and he will
make
a very
poor choice when shopping for his requirements.

No. You are unfortunately quite wrong. It is not your
prerogative to
redefine technical terms which have a prior definition.
I have now found 9 separate references, originating in the UK and
in
the USA, including Encyclopedia
Brittanica and Wikipedia in which herbicides are defined as
pesticides, and none, except you, which claim the opposite.

Franz

OED

Franz has my copy :-(

Hard luck. {:-))
And, once again, thanks.

OD of current English has an "etc." in it's definition of pesticide.

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

In urg, recreational gardening terms are used.

Sometimes some urglers use wrong terms. We are discussing an instance
of that.

My father, on his allotment in the 1930s, used to infuse fag ends in one
of his empty Golden Virginia tobacco tins. He used it on greenfly and
anything else that moved. He called it 'jollop'. Was I being misled?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
Wrong again Franz. I agree with and support Sacha in this matter.

Did you actually read what I had to say?
If so, you are welcome to turn a blind eye to the evidence and be as
wrong as you please.

Thanks Franz, that will make a very nice change! :-)
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , BAC
writes

Cars, buses, taxes, trains, and trams are all different, and are customarily
used to meet different needs, but they are all passenger vehicles - even
when they are not actually carrying passengers. Similarly, poisons intended
to kill organisms for pest control purposes are all pesticides, even though
the nature of the pests may be very different. And, fortunately, it is not
mandatory to use a pesticide just because one encounters a 'pest' :-)

Does that mean that a spam filter is a pesticide?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Franz Heymann wrote:
"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Howard Neil writes

I quote from the Pesticides Safety Directorate's glossary (url as

above):-

Herbicide
A pesticide used to control unwanted vegetation (weed killer).


That is Govt. agri-speak.


No. Since my last post on the issue, I have found 14 references to
the effect that a herbicide is a pesticide, and none to the contrary.

This is not just a UK government definition. Countries all over the
world consider that a herbicide is a pesticide. Here are just a few to
add to your list of 14.

Here is the American definition:-

A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for:

* preventing,
* destroying,
* repelling, or
* mitigating any pest.

Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term
pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other
substances used to control pests.

Under United States law, a pesticide is also any substance or mixture of
substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/

There is another definition in New South Wales

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envirom/pestwhtr.htm

And another from British Columbia

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/pestciddefn.htm

And from Malaysia



--
Howard Neil

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

In urg, recreational gardening terms are used.

Sometimes some urglers use wrong terms. We are discussing an
instance
of that.

My father, on his allotment in the 1930s, used to infuse fag ends in
one
of his empty Golden Virginia tobacco tins. He used it on greenfly
and
anything else that moved. He called it 'jollop'. Was I being misled?

No. But your father would probably not have argued if someone had
mentioned to him that his jollop was a tobacco infusion.
{:-))

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
news
In article , BAC
writes

Cars, buses, taxes, trains, and trams are all different, and are
customarily
used to meet different needs, but they are all passenger vehicles -
even
when they are not actually carrying passengers. Similarly, poisons
intended
to kill organisms for pest control purposes are all pesticides,
even though
the nature of the pests may be very different. And, fortunately, it
is not
mandatory to use a pesticide just because one encounters a 'pest'
:-)

Does that mean that a spam filter is a pesticide?

Actually no, since it only blocks the emissions of the pest. It does
not actually kill him. {:-))

How about us all deciding that we have all have our mileage out of
this one?

Franz

In article , Douglas
writes
Sack immediately all the green-keepers of the Ancient Scottish golf courses
plus those 'wilderness' putting greens in
Georgia U.S,of A. Also the groundsmen who dug the hole at the penalty spot
and put our national Team out of the competition. (Don't blame that bloke
with the hideous tattoo across his neck , - he wuz robbed!)
They've All got it all wrong! (:^)

Perhaps they should have tried 4-leaved clover?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Kay wrote in message ...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
[...]
[Kay:] 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.
[...]
[Hugh:] 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.

No need to apologize: he can manage perfectly well without accurate data.

Mike.

hugh wrote:

In message ,
Howard Neil writes

hugh wrote:

In message ,
Howard Neil writes

Japmark wrote:

This year I have been overrun with clover in the lawn.



You are fortunate. The clover will fix nitrogen from the air and
save you from having to apply fertilizer.

The benefit to the grass is minimal.


That is not the experience of livestock farmers who deliberately sow
clover in their grass fields. See:-

They don't feed graze their livestock on lawns - at least not deliberately.

Maybe not but the effect of nitrogen fixing is the same. The point is
that it is more economical to buy and sow clover seed than fertilizer.

A lot depends on the desired effect of course but there seems to be an
automatic desire to remove clover from lawns with no consideration to
the benefits. It is as if there is a presumption that clover is bad for
a lawn.

I have clover both in my fields and in my lawn. I need to occasionally
add farmyard manure to the fields to help support livestock but I have
yet to add any fertilizer of any description to my lawn and the grass is
in excellent condition.

--
Howard Neil

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity
of
the countryside?


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for recreational
purposes could not be justified, for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.

"BAC" wrote in message t...
"Kay" wrote in message
...
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.

snip

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.

If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity of
the countryside?

Kay has spoken sensibly for herself; but it's my philosophy, too.
Isn't it impressive how far some athletic readers can jump from
'...suggesting...might be...suggesting that a pure xxx was not
necessarily to be desired'? Your middle name must be Tarzan!

Of _course_ I wouldn't plant alien species which I knew were likely to
establish themselves in numbers in the wild, or interbreed with native
species: I hope you aren't suggesting that _you would_.

But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising. And I don't quite know
what to expect from one who's prepared to drop that unexplained
'including most clovers' into the discussion, so I'm on my guard for
sophistry!

Mike.

In article , BAC
writes


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for recreational
purposes could not be justified,

I don't think I said that it could not be justified. I think I said it
was something I did not want to do.

for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.


I think you are assuming too much and not reading carefully enough.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:22:54 +0100, Howard Neil
wrote:


That is not the experience of livestock farmers who deliberately sow
clover in their grass fields. See:-


http://www.dpw.wageningen-ur.nl/biob/EDUCAT/msc302.htm

Shum mishtake? The motivation for spraying manure on fields in NL is
that just the pig industry produces enough crap to cover the whole of
the Netherlands in 3" of pig crap per annum.

Enjoy your bacon.
--
Martin