"Bioboffin" wrote in message
...
McCready wrote:

Oh! I'm sure I'm a scientist / chemist.
The yanks always spell things "let's say" differently to us British.
It's Sulphate.

The following statement then, is rubbish?

"Ammonium sulfamate is colorless, odorless,

That would be "colourless" and "odourless", presumably?

English English is "preferred use" in England, especially when describing
terms where confusion at the point of purchase may lead to dangerous
consequences.
--
Brian
"Reality rarely lives up to TV, usually because reality has a smaller budget
and the opportunities for retakes are minimal."

In article , McCready
writes

"Bioboffin" wrote in message
...
McCready wrote:
"Jim Spriggs" wrote in

I have now purchased a specific ivy killer containing ammonium
sulphamate.

That's sulphate.


I wouldn't be so sure...

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...ium-sulfamate-
ext.html

Oh! I'm sure I'm a scientist / chemist.
The yanks always spell things "let's say" differently to us British. It's
Sulphate.

You can apply ammonium sulphate to ivy and all it will do is make it
grow better - it's used as a fertiliser.

If you want to kill it you need ammonium sulphamate. Different chemical,
different properties.

(You also mentioned sodium chlorate ... similarly, it's important not to
confuse that with sodium chloride)






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

In article ,
Brian Watson wrote:

English English is "preferred use" in England, especially when describing
terms where confusion at the point of purchase may lead to dangerous
consequences.

Only since Victorian times, when there was a dogmatic attempt to define
a single correct form of English. Those of us who are happy reading
earlier forms can understand most USA usages (Ebonics and New York
Yiddish dialects definitely excepted). The converse is not true,
because modern USA English is a much simplified set of dialects.

I agree that, where serious practicalities are important, being lax
about such things is inadvisable. That is, after all, why this group
drops into Latin when we need to identify particular species :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Chris Hanson wrote:
Bioboffin Wrote:
McCready wrote:-
"Jim Spriggs" lid wrote in-

I have now purchased a specific ivy killer containing ammonium
sulphamate.-

That's sulphate.-


I wouldn't be so sure...

http://tinyurl.com/59ybl

John.


Wow, that is one good read. From Cornell University? Thanks John.
Chris

You're welcome. ;-)

If you like that, I have several more....

(You've been warned!)

John.

Brian Watson wrote:
"Bioboffin" wrote in message
...
McCready wrote:

Oh! I'm sure I'm a scientist / chemist.
The yanks always spell things "let's say" differently to us British.
It's Sulphate.

The following statement then, is rubbish?

"Ammonium sulfamate is colorless, odorless,

That would be "colourless" and "odourless", presumably?

As this was an American web site, I guess that is understandable.


English English is "preferred use" in England, especially when
describing terms where confusion at the point of purchase may lead to
dangerous consequences.

Getting back to the original issue, if you take a look at this web site:

http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/ammonium_sulfamate.html

you'll see that the use of an 'f' rather than 'ph' is now the "preferred"
ISO spelling.

Let's hope that that will not extend to the spelling of odour and colour!

John.

In article ,
"Bioboffin" writes:
|
| Getting back to the original issue, if you take a look at this web site:
|
| http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/ammonium_sulfamate.html
|
| you'll see that the use of an 'f' rather than 'ph' is now the "preferred"
| ISO spelling.
|
| Let's hope that that will not extend to the spelling of odour and colour!

That's touf on ISO, even if they were to try to be consistent and
adopt fosferus. English is defined by its users.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Bioboffin
writes


http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...mmonium-sulfam
ate-ext.html

John.




I wish I hadn't followed that link now!
The idea that rabbits get this stuff dripped into their eyes just so we
can spray a weed or two, safely , is all a bit much...................

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Bioboffin
writes


http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...mmonium-sulfam
ate-ext.html


I wish I hadn't followed that link now!
The idea that rabbits get this stuff dripped into their eyes just so
we can spray a weed or two, safely , is all a bit
much...................

All new commercial chemicals have to be tested on animals by law. The ones
which we use, are those which are the least nasty. (The others never get to
be sold).

It may also be worth noting that ivy is one of the more useful 'weeds' from
the point of view of encouraging wildlife (insects and birds). Perhaps you
should feel equally depressed that the same stuff which proved not to be too
horrible when tested on rabbits, is extremely horrible when used on ivy.

Back to the original point. Large areas of our garden -especially under
trees are covered with ivy growing on the ground. How can I discourage it
and replace it with woodland plants?
Use of ammonium sulphamate and other weedkillers is not really an option
over the large area.
"Jim Spriggs" wrote in message
id...
McCready wrote:

"Jim Spriggs" wrote in
message
lid...

I have now purchased a specific ivy killer containing ammonium
sulphamate.

That's sulphate.

Oh no it isn't!

And Sodium Chlorate is even better.

I've used this on stumps wide enough to drill holes in to put the sodium
chlorate into, but the ivy stumps aren't that wide.

Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Bioboffin
writes

All new commercial chemicals have to be tested on animals by law.
The ones which we use, are those which are the least nasty. (The
others never get to be sold).

It may also be worth noting that ivy is one of the more useful
'weeds' from the point of view of encouraging wildlife (insects and
birds). Perhaps you should feel equally depressed that the same
stuff which proved not to be too horrible when tested on rabbits, is
extremely horrible when used on ivy.


Yes I realise that, it might just be me having a sensitive moment!.
Sometimes the implications of things suddenly hit you.

Janet, it is kind of you to reply to my somewhat rantish post.

You are quite right - the reality of life (as we live it) can be unpleasant.

John.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Watson wrote:

English English is "preferred use" in England, especially when describing
terms where confusion at the point of purchase may lead to dangerous
consequences.

Only since Victorian times, when there was a dogmatic attempt to define
a single correct form of English.

As "now" is when we're discussing this, "now" is when I'm getting
particular.
--
Brian
"Anyway, if you have been, thanks for listening."

Bioboffin wrote:
Chris Hanson wrote:
Bioboffin Wrote:
McCready wrote:-
"Jim Spriggs" lid wrote in-

I have now purchased a specific ivy killer containing ammonium
sulphamate.-

That's sulphate.-


I wouldn't be so sure...

http://tinyurl.com/59ybl

John.


Wow, that is one good read. From Cornell University? Thanks John.
Chris

You're welcome. ;-)

If you like that, I have several more....

(You've been warned!)

I suppose it's worth mentioning that the URL links to a site which
expects the chemical to be used, among other things, on American
_poison ivy_, not real ivy. It'll still kill real ivy, of course; but
it's possible to justify far more brutal measures for poison ivy than
we might think necessary for poor old _hedera_.

I think some energetic hand-treatment and conceivably some glyphosate
if really necessary would normally be enough.

--
Mike.

wrote:


I suppose it's worth mentioning that the URL links to a site which
expects the chemical to be used, among other things, on American
_poison ivy_, not real ivy. It'll still kill real ivy, of course; but
it's possible to justify far more brutal measures for poison ivy than
we might think necessary for poor old _hedera_.

I think some energetic hand-treatment and conceivably some glyphosate
if really necessary would normally be enough.

As glyphosate is absorbed through the leaves, and older ivy leaves have a
thickish waxy cuticle, they are unlikely to be affected. Younger leaves
could be treated with glyphosate, but as you say, hand removal (possibly
followed by glyphosate on the regrowth) would be most effective.

There is a good treatment of the subject he

http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profiles0702/ivy.asp

John.