Please send On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 11:00 PM <pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: > Send pbs mailing list submissions to > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > pbs-owner@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of pbs digest..." > > > List-Post:<mailto:pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > List-Archive:<http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Incinerating Weeds (Judy Glattstein) > 2. Bx (Chad Cox) > 3. Re: Bx (Robin Hansen) > 4. Re: Herbicides (Tim Eck) > 5. Re: Herbicides (Jim McKenney) > 6. Re: Herbicides (Kelly Irvin) > 7. Re: Herbicides (Peter Taggart) > 8. Re: Herbicides (James SHIELDS) > 9. Re: Herbicides (Cody H) > 10. Re: Herbicides (James SHIELDS) > 11. Re: Herbicides (Mike Rummerfield) > 12. Re: Incinerating Weeds (linny@cruzio.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 09:25:31 -0500 > From: Judy Glattstein <jgglatt@gmail.com> > To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > Subject: [pbs] Incinerating Weeds > Message-ID: <a00ec85a-ee7e-4ab0-7011-7e6e61d8b498@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I have a Flaming Dragon propane weed torch. Back in 2018 I wrote an > entry for my web site on coping with weeds, see here: > > http://bellewood-gardens.com/2018/… > As has been mentioned it it good for weeds growing in gravel, in > crevices, and similar sites. > > Another useful method was when I had WWOOFers - world wide opportunity > on organic farms. You provide room and board for a week or so, they > provide several hours / day of work. They could weed, safely, if I > provided samples of what was wanted to be removed. As an aside - we > would also go visit gardens, an apiary, the autumn fleece and fiber > event, whatever, depending on their interests. Usually very nice young > adults. I stopped because the interest seems to be trending more towards > AirB&B on a beach on Maui > > At one point I also had the BelleWood Gardens Gardening School. Limit to > 6 students at a time, first we'd talk then apply as a practicum. And > yes, weeding was a popular topic. Sort of Tom Sawyer-ish. And they paid > for the classes. > > Now it is just me. It is disposing of weeds that can be a secondary > problem. My neighbors sheep do eat multiflora rose shoots, really like > garlic mustard (which I eat too, but there are more sheep than what I > can eat). > > If I ever win the lottery (which is unlikely since I do not buy chances) > I'd fund research not on a deer repellent but a deer attractant. Spray > it on the weeds and let Bambi and family things clean up. > > Judy in New Jersey on Imbolc, mid-point between winter solstice and > spring equinox, where Galanthus nivalis 'Atksinii' and Helleborus x > ericsmithii are in bloom > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:34:31 -0800 > From: Chad Cox <clcox@ucdavis.edu> > To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > Subject: [pbs] Bx > Message-ID: <E8488D5C-1A6A-43F5-B5C9-A17F5148158D@ucdavis.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Is there any word on when we might ?round up? Another BX?? I for one have > material to donate whenever the time comes. > > Chad in Elverta > > Sent from my iPhone > Chad L. Cox, Ph.D. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 07:08:59 -0800 > From: "Robin Hansen" <robin@hansennursery.com> > To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Bx > Message-ID: <000301d5d9da$b36caf40$1a460dc0$@hansennursery.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, Chad, > > ""Is there any word on when we might ?round up? Another BX?? I for one > have material to donate whenever the time comes."" > > The PBS Board is working on finding a new BX Director. I would expect > we'll have a new director and new policies in place by the end of > February. The Bulb and Seed Exchange is such an important part of PBS that > the Board is working on policies that will provide continuity regardless of > who the director is. At the same time, we want to make sure that anyone(s) > who is in that position is not overwhelmed and overworked. > > Expect to see a few changes, probably some designated times for donations, > and expect some changes in applying for seeds and bulbs to make the process > as fair to everyone as possible. I know there have been complaints about > not enough time to get in a request, so that will be extended. > > I will try to give an update by mid-February so that members will have > some idea of what to expect. Don't hesitate to contact me or other board > members directly if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > Robin Hansen > President, PBS > robin@hansennursery.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:25:21 -0500 > From: Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > < > CA+ur5ibc_Vk8XHbRC+E4TB_+HWXyx3tvicXjDFXOAVUeS2iG1g@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation is > in order. As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the > bills). This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". Things > were much different at that time and many institutions have been created > since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined by > the current administration. > I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very > closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat > rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American > chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half of > the last century. I have personally been involved in traditional backcross > breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to confer > blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American > chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers. Nearly two > decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and > insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels. With the input and > education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to a > different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand > trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides. As it turns > out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than those > from traditional breeding. > Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is > mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to express > their enlightenment and assuage their guilt. I will believe corporations > are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming will > feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for > conventional farming. > Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social policy > on population control. But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for > trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like herbicide > resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration > resistant crops and other genetically engineered products. People are > clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world has > seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural > environment with their food crops, whether organic or not. And yes, > survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their part > to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a very > ineffectual protest. This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large. > Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet as > a whole allow people to choose their answers from "like-minded-individuals" > - the ultimate confirmation bias. Whether you believe organic gardening > will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is flat, > you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face > new ideas. Some political pundits have even suggested that social media > has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech are > no longer sufficient for a democracy. > My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its > structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor. > Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of > peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it). > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia. A verdict is often made > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to > separate causation from correlation in determining liability. For this > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury. > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain > inconclusive. This has been the case with glyphosate. > Tim > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net> > wrote: > > > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say! > > > > Sarah > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > ?Jo&Greg, > > > Thank you for your response and support. It means so much to me. > > > > > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to > that > > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory > toward > > > any individual. Perhaps this is a mistake). I thought I could > possibly > > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet any > > > longer. > > > > > > I'm not a scientist. I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired) > and > > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet. > > > > > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of their > > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this > > issue > > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance of > > > that!). It all seems so overwhelming. > > > > > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response > > have > > > both come from Canadians. > > > Yay Canada! > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > Mike > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Mike-- > > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could. > > >> Jo Canning > > >> Vancouver Island > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of > Mike > > >> Rummerfield > > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM > > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > > >> > > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is > > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts from > > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all the > > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded individuals", > > and > > >> industry sponsored and published papers. It only takes a cursory > > search to > > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of herbicides, > > and > > >> glyphosate in particular. You could start with non Hodgkins > > lymphoma/Mayo > > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with non > > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup; Agent > > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans; lawsuits won in court resulting in Monsanto > > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil > > particles, > > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate; > > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I > > suppose > > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on > > >> and..................... > > >> > > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that > they > > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup (most organic compounds > > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name > hydrocarbon). > > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion > over, > > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards > > >> regarding food production and the environment. Though they share the > > word > > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously > > >> intertwined. > > >> > > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is > so > > >> safe and useful". What is this statement based on? Is glyphosate > > useful? > > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides). Is it effective at > > >> killing some weeds? Yes. Is it convenient and easy to use? Yes, > very. > > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above). "There are approximately 280 million > > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in > > agricultural > > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019" This is *per year*. > > >> Follow the money. > > >> > > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not > make > > >> it safe. > > >> > > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in > > matters > > >> of life. > > >> > > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is > > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not. It is whether glyphosate is > > safe > > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for other > > >> living things, including us. > > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are difficult > to > > >> control. Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge. In my area, two of > > them > > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are others. > > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you > quickly > > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess. There are other strategies to > > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate, > > though > > >> they may be less convenient and easy. > > >> > > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term convenience > > and > > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life. > > >> > > >> Most sincerely, > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> pbs mailing list > > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pbs mailing list > > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pbs mailing list > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:53:59 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jim McKenney <jamesamckenney@verizon.net> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: <958113003.448070.1580666039106@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Thanks for another great read, Tim.? > Jim McKenney > On Sunday, February 2, 2020, 12:25:42 PM EST, Tim Eck < > timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation > is > in order.? As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the > bills).? This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".? Things > were much different at that time and many institutions have been created > since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined by > the current administration. > I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very > closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat > rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American > chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half of > the last century.? I have personally been involved in traditional backcross > breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to confer > blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American > chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers.? Nearly two > decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and > insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels.? With the input and > education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to a > different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand > trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.? As it turns > out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than those > from traditional breeding. > Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is > mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to express > their enlightenment and assuage their guilt.? I will believe corporations > are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming will > feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for > conventional farming. > Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social policy > on population control.? But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for > trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like herbicide > resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration > resistant crops and other genetically engineered products.? People are > clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world has > seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural > environment with their food crops, whether organic or not.? And yes, > survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their part > to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a very > ineffectual protest.? This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large. > Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet as > a whole allow people to choose their answers from "like-minded-individuals" > - the ultimate confirmation bias.? Whether you believe organic gardening > will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is flat, > you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face > new ideas.? Some political pundits have even suggested that social media > has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech are > no longer sufficient for a democracy. > My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its > structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor. > Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of > peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it). > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia.? A verdict is often made > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to > separate causation from correlation in determining liability.? For this > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury. > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain > inconclusive.? This has been the case with glyphosate. > Tim > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net> > wrote: > > > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say! > > > > Sarah > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > ?Jo&Greg, > > > Thank you for your response and support.? It means so much to me. > > > > > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to > that > > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory > toward > > > any individual.? Perhaps this is a mistake).? I thought I could > possibly > > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet any > > > longer. > > > > > > I'm not a scientist.? I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired) > and > > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet. > > > > > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of their > > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this > > issue > > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance of > > > that!).? It all seems so overwhelming. > > > > > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response > > have > > > both come from Canadians. > > > Yay Canada! > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > Mike > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Mike-- > > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could. > > >> Jo Canning > > >> Vancouver Island > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of > Mike > > >> Rummerfield > > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM > > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > > >> > > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is > > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts from > > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all the > > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded individuals", > > and > > >> industry sponsored and published papers.? It only takes a cursory > > search to > > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of herbicides, > > and > > >> glyphosate in particular.? You could start with non Hodgkins > > lymphoma/Mayo > > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with non > > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup;? Agent > > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans;? lawsuits won in court resulting in Monsanto > > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil > > particles, > > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate; > > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I > > suppose > > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on > > >> and..................... > > >> > > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that > they > > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup? (most organic compounds > > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name > hydrocarbon). > > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion > over, > > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards > > >> regarding food production and the environment.? Though they share the > > word > > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously > > >> intertwined. > > >> > > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is > so > > >> safe and useful".? What is this statement based on?? Is glyphosate > > useful? > > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides).? Is it effective at > > >> killing some weeds?? Yes.? Is it convenient and easy to use?? Yes, > very. > > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above).? "There are approximately 280 million > > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in > > agricultural > > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019"? This is *per year*. > > >> Follow the money. > > >> > > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not > make > > >> it safe. > > >> > > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in > > matters > > >> of life. > > >> > > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is > > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not.? It is whether glyphosate is > > safe > > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for other > > >> living things, including us. > > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are difficult > to > > >> control.? Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge.? In my area, two of > > them > > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are others. > > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you > quickly > > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess.? There are other strategies to > > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate, > > though > > >> they may be less convenient and easy. > > >> > > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term convenience > > and > > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life. > > >> > > >> Most sincerely, > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> pbs mailing list > > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pbs mailing list > > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pbs mailing list > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:29:33 -0600 > From: Kelly Irvin <kellso@irvincentral.com> > To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: <101a8a26-3f90-a5e9-a37f-c446bb2c383f@irvincentral.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > truth > > -- > Mr. Kelly M. Irvin > 10850 Hodge Ln > Gravette, AR 72736 > USA > > Home Phone: 479-787-9958 > > USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 6a/b > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kelly.m.irvin > > On 2/2/20 11:25 AM, Tim Eck wrote: > > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are > > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia. A verdict is often made > > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to > > separate causation from correlation in determining liability. For this > > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded > > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury. > > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come > > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain > > inconclusive. This has been the case with glyphosate. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:45:46 +0000 > From: Peter Taggart <petersirises@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > < > CAELwaKiQmuk+v_UCXfX-5-Vn+ojFSFb0Si6gNmnzePGj31fEvA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I remember a history teachers comment on my essay, when I hadn't done > enough home work to make the essay the requisite length.... but spun it out > anyway that I could.... > > My Fathers garden, built and planted over circa 50 years, contained about > 12000 species of plants. Built on approximately three acres, It is one of > the most bio diverse sites in Scotland. For most of its existence it was > built and maintained by one person, with one helper, though the > individuals changed with time. Chemicals were kept to a minimum during > periods when my father, or I ran it. It was always apparent when chemicals > had been used in an area. There would be a disproportionate number of > problems. Plants would recover more slowly from damage, others would die > out inexplicably. Fauna would become unbalanced, leading to infestations- > rust, canker, caterpillars, weeds, aphids, slugs. Chemicals such > as glyphosate are certainly useful to me as a gardener, but with minimal > use. I have seen symptoms on annual weeds years after applying it to > perennial weeds in the same site, though unknown to me the brand may have > had other poisons in it. > > I am aware that I cannot know all the effects that my actions will have on > plants, bacteria, bryophytes, mites, nematodes, insects, mycorrhiza and > other inhabitants of the soil and its surface. Most of them I will have > never seen or heard of. These organisms interact to create the growing > environment in which I garden, so it well behoves me to be cautious with > potent chemicals. When I do apply glyphosate, it is as a weak solution, and > repeated, and I rarely spray. I drip it onto the leaves of the plant I am > attacking, or run the leaves through the wetted fingers of a gloved hand, > very effective for rhizomatous grasses in the roots of other plants. I keep > about ten acres of garden for myself, and clients, I rarely use a pint of > glyphosate solution in a year. > Peter (UK) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 14:48:16 -0500 > From: James SHIELDS <jshields46074@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > < > CAPSFtJC1NATyxMhnu7bYLQSPrF11eyOnJ2krgzLOxkq88thRYQ@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Tim, > > I stand with you and back your remarks 100% > > Jim Shields > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:25 PM Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation > is > > in order. As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple > > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the > > bills). ..... > > <http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…> > > > > > -- > James E. Shields jshields46074@gmail.com > P.O. Box 92 jshields@indy.net > Westfield, IN 46074 > U.S.A. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:36:24 -0800 > From: Cody H <plantboy@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > <CAAgPc_6Mz=WjFO2TetbL3E1AEGsHEDePhtTifq43xusoKzz= > uQ@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Thanks Tim for your reasonable response. > > On the topic of discussion in general, I would like to remind everyone that > reasonable, respectful discussion is valuable. It allows people to share > ideas, and we can all learn from each other?s different perspectives and > knowledge. There is no topic in existence for which it is true to say that > any single person knows everything there is to know about it. I like the > PBS list because for the most part, reasonable and respectful discussion > has been the norm here for the past few years during which I have followed > the list. > > On the topic of ecological sustainability, there are many things which > frequently go unmentioned. For instance, the ecological and social costs to > developing nations of producing goods at competitive rates and prices for > demanding first world markets, or the costs of shipping those products > thousands of miles to reach those markets. There are very high ecological > costs to manufacturing a huge number of products that we in rich developed > countries take for granted (cars, appliances, electronics, materials for > the home, furniture, clothing, paper products, etc.). > > I cannot nor would I try to claim that I have a made a set of superior > choices to anyone else in this or any other group, but I do try to make > responsible choices to the extent I see reasonable. That involves > attempting to buy mostly local produce, buying organic products as much as > I can afford to, happily paying more for things from distant countries if > they have a ?fair trade? or similar proclamation, putting in effort to > recycle as many products as I can, trying to contribute as little as > possible to companies with wantonly consumerist policies I don?t agree > with, using as few harsh agricultural chemicals as I can get away with to > keep my plants alive, etc. However, that doesn?t stop me from taking > airline flights to distant places for fun, or eating meat, or bananas and > mangos, etc. from thousands of miles away, or using products involving > petroleum (e.g. nearly any kind of plastic), or going out to restaurants, > or driving my car, or having dogs as pets, or sometimes *not* buying > organic products, etc. > > I?m always interested in learning new information about the environmental > impacts of things I might or do use, in case there might be an opportunity > for me to make some kind of change for the better. So, I?m interested to > know what the rest of you knowledgeable and diverse people know about > things like glyphosate, and I like hearing about other people?s approaches > to dealing with common problems we all deal with such as nasty weeds. But > I?m interested in the truth, which I have come to accept is in most cases > complicated, and I have to say that arguments of the form ?you should > believe me that X is [horrible/amazing] and if you don?t believe me then > you?re just bad/immoral/confused/ignorant/part of the problem, etc.? are > neither convincing nor helpful. Reasonable, respectful discussion involving > verifiable information and logical arguments based on facts, is helpful. > > Furthermore, I don?t believe anyone in this list is in a position to claim > unequivocal ecological superiority in terms of their life choices. I would > be willing to admit I am wrong about this if anyone can honestly claim they > consume only renewable, ecologically sustainable, local products sourced > from people paid a living wage, who *also* consume such sustainable > products sourced from people who meet all the same requirements, etc. all > the way back up the supply chain. If you don?t fit those criteria, please > keep in mind that: > > 1) nobody is perfect (including you) > > 2) just participating in modern society means you are also contributing to > the decline of nature > > 3) if you want to make an actual impact on the world, it?s much more > effective to address opportunities in your own life than it is to rant > about other people not living up to your standards, and > > 4) if you want to convince other people to see your point of view, you need > to treat them respectfully and be willing to listen to theirs as well. > > I hope that we can continue to have productive discussions about topics > like the ecological trade offs of herbicide use, because being able to > effectively share knowledge about these kinds of topics is a necessary step > on the path to anything resembling real ecological sustainability. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:48:34 -0500 > From: James SHIELDS <jshields46074@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > <CAPSFtJBFBigoDBXKgGz9Y+u=fZ= > nx52W1Z_W21Z4K1VmB5ASrg@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Tim Eck > Jan 24, 2020, 6:37 PM (9 days ago) > "Can anybody suggest a good pre-emergent herbicide that is safe to use on > amaryllids? ..." > > To address the original question, I have in the distant past (30 - 40 years > ago) grown Crinum, Hymenocallis, and Ismene on a annual basis, planting the > bulbs outdoors in early summer and digging them up again in early autumn. > Some years I used pre-emergent herbicides of various sorts on the beds once > planted, other years I did not. These bulbs were all planted totally below > the surface, and they pulled themselves deeper during the growing season. > As far as I can now recall, I never noticed any effects of the > pre-emergents on the plants. Some years they nearly completely prevented > grasses and weeds, other years less so. > > I also sometimes used them on beds of young daylily seedlings. These > seedlings were started indoors under lights during winter and transplanted > outdoors into their semi-permanent beds in early summer. After planting > outdoors, the pre-emergents were applied, at the lower range of possible > dosages, and at least partially suppressed grasses and weeds without > killing the daylily seedlings. I no longer have any detailed notes on > materials used, dosages, or procedures used. > > Jim > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 14:59:40 -0800 > From: Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > Message-ID: > < > CACvUPLcNqoWyhVprzyNzQ4hOfT17NTAK8yDkVPVxbo_ESE97ZQ@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Note: you can totally skip this email if you're not interested in this > subject. > > I'm not sure we are so very far apart in our perspectives - we are not in > opposition - we are all in this together. I agree with most of the body of > your post. Neither academia nor agriculture, per se, can be held solely > responsible for the direction of our society. We would truly be lost > without them. PersonalIy, I place a *very* high value on Science and > Academia. For all the good they do, it is when we place unquestioned trust > in those institutions, and the money behind them, that we can get into > trouble. This is a complex, complicated, many-tiered subject and we > certainly won't solve the problems here. But we *can* address our own > perspectives, outlooks, hopes, and actions for a way of life that sustains > our Earth and all that lives upon it. I think we're often still living > under the promising sounding moniker, "A Better Life through Science", in > the hope that science will solve all of our problems. Science has provided > innumerable, invaluable solutions, and for that I am thankful, but it is > also in a constant dance to solve the problems it produces in trying to > solve the original problem it was addressing originally. > > I'm certainly not against progress, nor afraid to "face new ideas". That > would be counterproductive and naive. Not all of us are inextricably tied > into social media. I, for one, am by choice not on social media, unless > you include email, and the PBS mailing list as being in the social media > milieu in a major way. I'm not on Facebook, nor Instagram, nor.......... > I do my own independent reading and research. Of course, we are all > influenced by the information we take in, no matter the source. > > You say, "I will believe organic farming will feed the world when the > grocery store prices are lower than for conventional farming." > - If that is the only basis for making a decision then I think we need to > ask ourselves, what are the actual and true costs (and, yes, benefits) of > any system that we are knowingly and willing to pay for? Do we poison > ourselves into oblivion in order to feed ourselves with the food we've > poisoned on the way into our future? "Organic gardening" is not the > solution, but it is a very hopeful and practical beginning, and a part of > the solution. I think that it is when 'organic' *agriculture* evolves and > accommodates to become the predominant 'conventional' agriculture practice, > whatever that may mean, that there will be the possibility of continuation > of life as we know it and need it. At one point conventional agriculture > *was* organic agriculture. When you kill off the beneficials and intact > systems, you inherit their work. > At this point, something that I think is important to keep in mind is that > some of the pesticides, and/or their derivatives, in use today were > developed during World War 2 as nerve agents with the intention and use to > kill human beings during the war. It was a developed product looking for a > new market after the war. [Follow the money] We are using these products > on the food we eat. > For disclosure - I don't know the genesis of herbicides, but, consider > Agent Orange in this context. > > Yes, things change over time. Hopefully we will find our way, a direction, > that leads to a healthy planet on which we all depend for our very lives. > And it starts with us - in this case, are we willing to continue to use a > product in our lives, namely glyphosate, that has so many downsides? I > will admit that glyphosate is very seductive in its ease of use. It is our > decision. All of our lives, and everything we hold dear could be in > jeopardy if we don't place responsible controls on our actions. > > Also, I agree that population growth beyond the ability of the Earth to > sustainably provide for that population is *the* root cause of many of the > problems we face today. You can only take so much out of a system before > it collapses. We need to ask ourselves, what is true, sustainable growth > and progress? What, or what are we not, willing to accept or to sacrifice > for that progress to occur? > > Thank you, Peter, for you insights. Your experience bears out my own. > > And thank you, Cody, for your practical and reasoned post. For what it's > worth, if I understand you correctly, I am in agreement. We each are > searching for or own way to navigate through the travails and triumphs of > life in the best way we can. > > In the end, it's our decisions and actions that determine our future; do > our policies and actions destroy life or promote life. We, as a continuing > society and the environment that supports it, will live with the results, > good or bad. > > Before I end, I want to put in a plug for Nature. It has its own intrinsic > value irrespective of humans. Its wisdom is far, far beyond ours. > > Mike > (No minds were seriously harmed in the formulation of this post, [but mine > is seriously exhausted]). > (The opinions expressed herein are those of the author. They do not purport > to reflect the opinions or views of the PBS or its members:) > Any lack of coherency is also my doing - or undoing. > Now, if I can just find my way off this pulpit. Where was I? Oh yes, -- > geophytes. > > > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 9:25 AM Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation > is > > in order. As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple > > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the > > bills). This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". Things > > were much different at that time and many institutions have been created > > since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined > by > > the current administration. > > I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very > > closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat > > rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American > > chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half > of > > the last century. I have personally been involved in traditional > backcross > > breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to > confer > > blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American > > chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers. Nearly > two > > decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and > > insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels. With the input and > > education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to > a > > different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand > > trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides. As it > turns > > out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than > those > > from traditional breeding. > > Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is > > mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to > express > > their enlightenment and assuage their guilt. I will believe corporations > > are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming > will > > feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for > > conventional farming. > > Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social > policy > > on population control. But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for > > trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like > herbicide > > resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration > > resistant crops and other genetically engineered products. People are > > clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world > has > > seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural > > environment with their food crops, whether organic or not. And yes, > > survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their > part > > to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a > very > > ineffectual protest. This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large. > > Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet > as > > a whole allow people to choose their answers from > "like-minded-individuals" > > - the ultimate confirmation bias. Whether you believe organic gardening > > will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is > flat, > > you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face > > new ideas. Some political pundits have even suggested that social media > > has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech > are > > no longer sufficient for a democracy. > > My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its > > structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor. > > Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of > > peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it). > > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are > > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia. A verdict is often made > > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to > > separate causation from correlation in determining liability. For this > > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded > > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury. > > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come > > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain > > inconclusive. This has been the case with glyphosate. > > Tim > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say! > > > > > > Sarah > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ?Jo&Greg, > > > > Thank you for your response and support. It means so much to me. > > > > > > > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to > > that > > > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory > > toward > > > > any individual. Perhaps this is a mistake). I thought I could > > possibly > > > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet > any > > > > longer. > > > > > > > > I'm not a scientist. I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired) > > and > > > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet. > > > > > > > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of > their > > > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this > > > issue > > > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance > of > > > > that!). It all seems so overwhelming. > > > > > > > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response > > > have > > > > both come from Canadians. > > > > Yay Canada! > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > Mike > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Mike-- > > > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could. > > > >> Jo Canning > > > >> Vancouver Island > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of > > Mike > > > >> Rummerfield > > > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM > > > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > > > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides > > > >> > > > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is > > > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts > from > > > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all > the > > > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded > individuals", > > > and > > > >> industry sponsored and published papers. It only takes a cursory > > > search to > > > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of > herbicides, > > > and > > > >> glyphosate in particular. You could start with non Hodgkins > > > lymphoma/Mayo > > > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with > non > > > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup; Agent > > > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans; lawsuits won in court resulting in > Monsanto > > > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil > > > particles, > > > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate; > > > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I > > > suppose > > > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on > > > >> and..................... > > > >> > > > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that > > they > > > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup (most organic compounds > > > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name > > hydrocarbon). > > > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion > > over, > > > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards > > > >> regarding food production and the environment. Though they share > the > > > word > > > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously > > > >> intertwined. > > > >> > > > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is > > so > > > >> safe and useful". What is this statement based on? Is glyphosate > > > useful? > > > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides). Is it effective > at > > > >> killing some weeds? Yes. Is it convenient and easy to use? Yes, > > very. > > > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above). "There are approximately 280 million > > > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in > > > agricultural > > > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019" This is *per year*. > > > >> Follow the money. > > > >> > > > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not > > make > > > >> it safe. > > > >> > > > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in > > > matters > > > >> of life. > > > >> > > > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is > > > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not. It is whether glyphosate > is > > > safe > > > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for > other > > > >> living things, including us. > > > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are > difficult > > to > > > >> control. Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge. In my area, two > of > > > them > > > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are > others. > > > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you > > quickly > > > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess. There are other strategies to > > > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate, > > > though > > > >> they may be less convenient and easy. > > > >> > > > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term > convenience > > > and > > > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life. > > > >> > > > >> Most sincerely, > > > >> Mike > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> pbs mailing list > > > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > pbs mailing list > > > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pbs mailing list > > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pbs mailing list > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:50:13 -0800 > From: linny@cruzio.com > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Incinerating Weeds > Message-ID: <597d0b8d46e81ddcbb7ff81fd6302e6f@cruzio.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi, Judy, > > I would send this to you individually, but I don't think I've got a > list of member's email addresses. Just wanted to say I'll be > celebrating Imbolc tonight with my Moon sisters. Shall we call you in? > > Lin > > On 2020-02-02 06:25, Judy Glattstein wrote: > > > I have a Flaming Dragon propane weed torch. Back in 2018 I wrote an > entry for my web site on coping with weeds, see here: > http://bellewood-gardens.com/2018/… > As has been mentioned it it good for weeds growing in gravel, in crevices, > and similar sites. > > > > Another useful method was when I had WWOOFers - world wide opportunity > on organic farms. You provide room and board for a week or so, they provide > several hours / day of work. They could weed, safely, if I provided samples > of what was wanted to be removed. As an aside - we would also go visit > gardens, an apiary, the autumn fleece and fiber event, whatever, depending > on their interests. Usually very nice young adults. I stopped because the > interest seems to be trending more towards AirB&B on a beach on Maui > > > > At one point I also had the BelleWood Gardens Gardening School. Limit to > 6 students at a time, first we'd talk then apply as a practicum. And yes, > weeding was a popular topic. Sort of Tom Sawyer-ish. And they paid for the > classes. > > > > Now it is just me. It is disposing of weeds that can be a secondary > problem. My neighbors sheep do eat multiflora rose shoots, really like > garlic mustard (which I eat too, but there are more sheep than what I can > eat). > > > > If I ever win the lottery (which is unlikely since I do not buy chances) > I'd fund research not on a deer repellent but a deer attractant. Spray it > on the weeds and let Bambi and family things clean up. > > > > Judy in New Jersey on Imbolc, mid-point between winter solstice and > spring equinox, where Galanthus nivalis 'Atksinii' and Helleborus x > ericsmithii are in bloom > > _______________________________________________ > > pbs mailing list > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > > ------------------------------ > > End of pbs Digest, Vol 36, Issue 3 > ********************************** > _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…