Re: Re: gardenwriters Digest, Vol 8, Issue 33

**"Stephen Lamphear" s*@comcast.net**

While we're on the topic, Jewish whining is "Kvetching".  Shalom

Stephen Lamphear
The Lazy Gardener
Published in papers throughout Western Washington state

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Ball" <jeffball@starband.net>
To: "Garden Writers -- GWL -- The Garden Writers Forum"
<gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: [GWL] Re: gardenwriters Digest, Vol 8, Issue 33

>
>
> -Darn, I take two days off from GWL and I miss one of the best dust ups I
> think we've had.  Yes Lon, when things get emotional, some restraint needs
> to be encouraged and thanks for that.  Being a very old timer I can be a
bit
> more sanquine when Peter cavetches, or Jeff L. speaks from the hip, or
Andy
> sneaks in with a clever shot.  Peter happens to be one of most
knowledgeable
> garden writers in the world, Jeff is definitely a leader in many ways in
our
> business, and Andy is a major spokesman for good in Long Island.  I love
it
> when things get a bit testy.  It means we are talking about something that
> is important to us; no matter which side of the discussion we wish to
take.
>
> In my days in politics I was always impressed when I could listen to a
> staunch democrat and a confirmed republican have a very intense and
> fascinating discussion for 30 minutes and never get angry once.
>
> So I would suggest that the peat moss discussion definitely belongs in
this
> side and not on the organic gardening side.  The discussion is about how
> professionals collect data, how we use that data with our own bias, and
how
> we influence our audience with that bias.  Bias is real and appropriate.
In
> a group of ten competent and experienced professional garden writers you
are
> very unlikely to get total agreement on any topic.  That is good and as it
> should be. The trick is to keep the professional discussion going without
> getting angry.
>
> I will be happy to end the peat moss thread though I think there is more
to
> discuss.  No one mentioned that the Canadians harvest only about .02
percent
> of the available harvestable peat moss each year; not an amount that
raises
> my worries about losing the resource whether serious gardeners use it or
> not.  What should be noted is that 15 years ago, when the first articles
> began appearing bemoaning the loss of an unrenewable resource (sphagnum
peat
> moss) the peat moss industry in Canada cared not a bit about fixing or
> repairing a peat bog after they had harvested out all the useable peat.
> Because of the pressures of environmentalists in Canada and because of a
> concern on the part of the industry that garden writers might turn against
> them, they have gotten their act together. The industry and the Canadian
> universities have been working hard to discover the techniques for
> rejuvenating a harvested bog.  In the next ten years, every peat bog
> harvested will have a complete renewal program established that will have
> that bog back into production within 50 to 100 years.  When the industry
is
> using only .02% of what is naturally available each year, then it is
fairly
> easy to see that in 50 years, the industry will be fully sustainable.  I
am
> very sure that garden writers as a group has had something to do with that
> major shift in focus by the Peat Moss Industry.
>
> The compost tea issue is a lovely target for garden writers.  Andy's
> question is perfect.  How do we know?  For those of you not familiar with
> all the politics that are flying around the northwestern part of the U.S.
> this is a very hot issue and there is considerable bad information
floating
> around out there. Elaine Inghram is making as many enemies as she is
making
> converts.  That is not bad, it just makes a very complex technical process
> even more difficult to tie down so an accurate and cogent newspaper column
> can be written.  Maybe garden writers as a group can have some influence
in
> clearing the fog and helping gardeners embrace a new tool that is indeed
> almost miraculous in its impact on plants.
>
> We will not all agree on any position taken on this list, but we can all
> work hard to at least be using a fairly uniform base of accurate data from
> which to come to our own biased conclusions.
>
> And by the way, there are a bunch of lurkers out there that for sure have
an
> opinion on some of this stuff that have not been voiced.  Come on lurkers,
> jump in.  Jeff Lowenfels is trainable; we are all just trying to get
better
> as professionals, and in my modest view, this list is one great way to do
> that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Ball
>
> _______________________________________________
> gardenwriters mailing list
> gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters
>
> GWL has searchable archives at:
> http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters
>
> Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
> at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos
>
> Post gardening questions/threads to
> "Organic-Gardening" <organic-gardening@lists.ibiblio.org>
>
> For GWL website and Wiki, go to
> http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
"Organic-Gardening" <organic-gardening@lists.ibiblio.org>

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters