Re: OT: A new look at Zones (was: route of least pain)
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: OT: A new look at Zones (was: route of least pain)
- From: "* a* C* W* <c*@cache.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:28:30 -0600 (MDT)
Hi Everyone!
Rusty wants an apology from me for labeling Texas *USDA Good*, Marte
Halleck has skewered Bill Maryott for suggesting that Colorado and Utah
(which along with Wyoming are the states that can look down on all the
others) as *USDA Fair* - NOW I understand why the government uses
bureaucratic and impersonal numbers to designate the climatic Zones!
NEW IDEA! (for those who may still be reading). This one is thanks to
Walter Moores, who writes (9 June 97):
> Years ago on clear-channel WBAP, 820, in Ft. Worth on the
> newscasts, they used to give the status of the livestock market at the
> Live Stock Exchange on the North Side There were the categories listed
> in earlier posts here on Iris-L, but the radio reports always ended with
a
> a report on 'canners and cutters! Anyone want to accept that beef grade
> for their region?? Please don't push that grade off on me because I
> happened to remember it. But, in another arena, I will take 'fair to
> middling!'
Perhaps we could all equip ourselves with a set of rubber stamps and a pad
of purple ink and go out in the garden during bloom season and stamp the
leaves of the best iris *USDA Prime* and those of the pretty decent ones
*USDA Good* and those destined for the mulch pile *Cutters and Canners*.
Then there would be no mistakes when it came time to dig, divide, and
discard.
Last word from me on this subject - Promise!
Jeff Walters in northern Utah (USDA Zone 4, Sunset Zone 2)
cwalters@cache.net
