In message , Mike Lyle
writes
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.
Eh? What inaccuracy have I used?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Kay
writes
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.

Trouble is what you said wasn't very precise.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , BAC
writes

"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.


I think he actually wants to dictate where everyone's line is drawn. As
far as I am concerned, the only studies I have ever seen on the subject
of excess nutrients in waterways have laid the blame firmly at the door
of agriculture. If someone can produce evidence to the contrary or scale
the level of damage due to *excess* use in domestic gardening I may
change my position. Until then I will continue to use modest amounts of
fertiliser and weedkillers on the area of grass in front of my house to
maintain it as I like it.

Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a
lawn.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

hugh wrote:


Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a lawn.

Really? Why then did you advise the OP "To get rid of clover use a
liquid lawn weed killer such as Verdone"

Weed killer is a pesticide.


--
Howard Neil

"Kay" wrote in message
...
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.

It seemed to me you had been implying you did not consider use of pesticides
and chemical fertilisers for frivolous purposes was justifiable. If that is
not the case, I stand corrected.


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.

LOL. I hope what I wrote served its purpose.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , BAC
writes

"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.


I think he actually wants to dictate where everyone's line is drawn. As
far as I am concerned, the only studies I have ever seen on the subject
of excess nutrients in waterways have laid the blame firmly at the door
of agriculture. If someone can produce evidence to the contrary or scale
the level of damage due to *excess* use in domestic gardening I may
change my position. Until then I will continue to use modest amounts of
fertiliser and weedkillers on the area of grass in front of my house to
maintain it as I like it.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and responsible to me. It's your garden, and you
have the right to make up your own mind about what you want to grow there
and how you should maintain it. Even 'conservation' organisations like the
Woodland Trust make judicious use of weedkiller in their woodlands.


Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a
lawn.

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.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"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!

Sorry, no end of careful reading allows me to make sense of that paragraph,
and I have already been told off today for trying to read between the lines.
Besides, if you have been reading the thread throughout, it should be
obvious what I was driving at.


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_.

I have made no suggestions about my actions. I was trying to ascertain
whether Kay's views about the close relationship between gardens and the
environment and her expressed concern about the possible effects of
gardening on the environment led her to limit species in her garden to
native plants alone, and presumably, to advise others not to plant non
native species, too.


But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising.

Why should it worry you that I put quotation marks round 'damaging'? One
person's 'damage' can be another person's 'improvement' or a third person's
'modification'. Further, damage may be significant, or insignificant. It's a
very subjective term. I put quotes round 'damaging' to denote I was
'borrrowing' it from Kay, for the purposes of the discussion. Nothing
sinister in that, I hope.

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!


Unexplained? The original subject of this thread was 'clover in lawn'. As
for Sophism, any fallacies detected will have been used unintentionally. And
one can't be an accidental Sophist, surely?

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.

--
Howard Neil

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.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"BAC" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
snip

OK, I'll stop trying to read between the lines, too. Kay was
expressing a cautious view, and I took your response as pretending
her view was an extreme one. This manoeuvre is not unknown on Usenet.

I thought you suspected me of employing 'Tu Quoque', the well known
sub-fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi which can be used to justify almost
anything. Not intentionally.


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_.

I have made no suggestions about my actions. I was trying to ascertain
whether Kay's views about the close relationship between gardens and the
environment and her expressed concern about the possible effects of
gardening on the environment led her to limit species in her garden to
native plants alone, and presumably, to advise others not to plant non
native species, too.

The tone suggested to me -- reading fatally between the lines -- that
you might think normal caution about invasive foreign plants was as
unreasonable as a total objection to chemicals. I made the error of
taking a straight question to be a rhetorical one. But the context of
my error was that somebody appeared to be objecting to Kay's entirely
conventional and uncontroversial cautionary attitude to chemical use
in the garden; such a context would have made the error a reasonable
one.

Indeed. I think that the original objection was to what the objector clearly
perceived as 'preaching', as opposed to the advice requested.



But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising.

Why should it worry you that I put quotation marks round 'damaging'? One
person's 'damage' can be another person's 'improvement' or a third
person's
'modification'. Further, damage may be significant, or insignificant.
It's a
very subjective term. I put quotes round 'damaging' to denote I was
'borrrowing' it from Kay, for the purposes of the discussion. Nothing
sinister in that, I hope.

No, not necessarily sinister. But you didn't put quotes round other
words you used which Kay had also used. It was, therefore, reasonable
to assume that you were making an intentional distinction between
'damaging' and other words by using 'scare quotes'. This assumption is
now reinforced by your mentioning that you were 'borrowing it...for
the purposes of discussion'.

And actually, 'damage' isn't a subjective term in this context (though
some people will use it subjectively).

It may be splitting hairs, but I disagree - 'damage' *is* a subjective term
in this context. Most definitions of damage centre around harm to the value
or utility of whatever is damaged, or loss of something preferred.
Obviously, all judgement calls. For example, I might think that felling a
mature Turkey Oak because it is non-native is 'damage', because I think it
is a magnificent specimen, whereas others might think it isn't damage,
because it clears the way for a 'native' replacement they consider
preferable, on biodiversity grounds. Either opinion is 'right' depending on
one's POV. Similarly, many people like the current heather clad appearance
of the 'deer forest', which is maintained by a high level of grazing,
whereas other people consider it to be badly damaged.

It's often quite easy to
estimate, even to measure, the ecological impact of an environmental
change, including species-invasion. For a crude example, we have
Rhodo. ponticum in Snowdonia. (I wish I could remember the fascinating
case of strains of primrose on a Scottish island for a subtle example:
something to do with a fortnight's difference in flowering time and
its effect on invertebrate reproduction. I'm sure you know plenty of
examples, though.)

Yes, it can be straightforward to record changes, however, the question of
whether or not the changes constitute 'damage' is a matter of opinion which
depends on what the person or organisation concerned considers to be the
preferred state. Claiming that a change constitutes 'damage' because quite a
few people think it does could be another of those fallacies (band-wagon)
you warned about :-)

snip

I'm sorry this is so long; and I'm sorry if I've misread the white
strips on the screen. snip

No need to apologise, on either count. It's refreshing to discuss something
with someone who does not resort to abuse :-)

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


LOL. I hope what I wrote served its purpose.

Which was?

To teach me something I didn't know? - No
To make me reconsider my values? - Do you *really* think that I leap on
to passing bandwagons without giving some consideration to my stance?
To tell me my opinions are unwelcome in urg? - well, you are just one
urgler, and you are entitled to state your views
To say that no-one should comment on one undesirable practice unless
they make sure their life is clear of all others? - it's a philosophy,
but I can't see that bodes well for the future of the world.
To take a cheap side swipe at me? - well, that's not something I would
have associated with you ...



None of the above. The purpose was twofold. First, to elicit responses
leading to a better understanding of what you and others of similar opinion
were driving at (and why), and secondly to suggest why it is not perhaps
surprising if such advice fosters resentment in some quarters. I'm sorry if
you were stung by my remarks, that was not my intention.

In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

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


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

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


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

But it was by the OP, who wanted rid of it?

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you
have
a read of:-

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


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for
controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active
substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in
many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover
is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

Organic gardening is not the be-all and end-all of gardening, and
clover is not the only plant which is a pest under certain
circumstances. Alchemilla mollis is a pest in my garden, as is moss.
There are gardens in which Japanese Knotweed is a pest.
Please read my other posts on the definition of the term "pesticide".

Franz