Orchid Talk 2006 mailing list messages

2006 Archived Messages

Click on the week you require.
To return to the main Archive index, click the button at the bottom of the page.
Links to all the Photos and other images accompanying the list messages can be found on the Images page.

From: Barbara Larimer
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Propogation of species
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:10

John, The wild ghost orchid plants must enjoy the benefits of the
proliferation. They grow in a swamp that is a conservation area and fairly
rigorously patroled. As I recall, someone quietly boosted some seeds and in
due time they were available as plants. Besides, who will spend $100,000 on
a plant when you can buy a flask of 50 on EBay for $150?? It doesn't seem
that saving an orchid species is EVER a reason to stop development or
encroachment. (Well, ok here's ONE case where it seems to be working that
way http://www.channel3000.com/news/9948713/detail.html). Certainly the
reverse arguement, "Since we are saving the orchid, we can obliterate the
habitat" is absurd. I take your point that the real issue should be the
habitat. But then you see we are drawn again into the endless political and
ecological vs commercial interest debate. AT LEAST let's save the orchids.
The bigger debate will rage on long after the species are lost forever.

What would be so impossible of having a revolving list of say 12 or 20
nurseries at a time, located around the world, who would agree to grow
plants from the endangered species seeds? They could apply for
certification and would make it to the top of the list by some stratified
random sampling procedure. Thus controlling for any one or two growers
benefitting from the sale of the plants. The seeds would be distributed to
the dozen or 20 growers at the top of the list and voila!

From: Gordon Walker
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: phytosanitary certification
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:10

Heightened enforcement of existing regulations
affects orchid flask imports
An external audit of enforcement procedures by USDA/APHIS (US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) has resulted in the edict that orchid plants in flask also require phytosanitary certification. I inquired about the background on this and got the following reply from Bud Petit de Mange of USDA:
"The way the regulation 319.37 is written, a phytosanitary certificate is required for all restricted articles. By the definition, seedlings and plantlets in flasks are restricted articles and, therefore, phytosanitary certificates are an import requirement for them. A regulation change is needed in order to exempt a restricted article from phytosanitary certification. A little more than two weeks ago, I made a request to our agency's Import and Interstate Services branch and asked that they propose such a change. They are currently developing a work plan for a proposed revision to 319.37 and stated that they will include a proposal to exempt from phytosanitary certification plant materials of generally admissible species if they are imported on agar and/or liquid media within sterile containers (flasks). In that same proposal, they will propose changes regarding the current requirement for translucent, transparent media. Unfortunately, making changes to Federal regulations is a long, time-consuming process. Many take one and one-half years, or more, from the time they are first proposed until they published as Final Rules, which officially incorporates the change into the regulation.
Bud Petit de Mange
CITES and Plant Inspection Station Coordinator
Port Operations "
In other words, sterile flasks of orchid seedlings or meristems now require a phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin. Unfortunately, because this enforcement change was the result of an external audit, no leeway exists as with the recent opaque media imbroglio. However, as these two regulation changes march through the process,
both will require your encouragement. We suggest you write to:
Dr. Richard L. Dunkle
USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Jamie Whitten Building
14th and Independence Ave., S.W.
Room 301-E
Washington, DC 20250

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Propogation of species
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:40

Hi Barbara,
As I said, I think your views are constructive notwithstanding my wondering if the rescued plants have done anything for conservation. I have to say, though, that I get irritated by the perpetual aggression towards CITES when it is a system designed to try to protect what, clearly, the 'orchid community' had failed to do.

Of course, CITES is flawed (name me a piece of legislation that is perfect) but I suspect it won't be improved by perpetual grousing about inconvenience to those (unwittingly all of us) who failed to conserve what what we claim to be passionate about.

Personally, I'd far prefer the inconveniences of not being able to buy what I'd like from wherever I'd like and having an organisation trying to conserve than the converse. Of course, the ideal would be a perfect CITES and a responsible orchid industry with no rogues. In short I'm with you − if not so wised up on the species in question.
John

John, The wild ghost orchid plants must enjoy the benefits of the proliferation. They grow in a swamp that is a conservation area and fairly rigorously patroled. As I recall, someone quietly boosted some seeds and in due time they were available as plants. Besides, who will spend $100,000 on a plant when you can buy a flask of 50 on EBay for $150?? It doesn't seem that saving an orchid species is EVER a reason to stop development or encroachment. (Well, ok here's ONE case where it seems to be working that way http://www.channel3000.com/news/9948713/detail.html). Certainly the reverse arguement, "Since we are saving the orchid, we can obliterate the habitat" is absurd. I take your point that the real issue should be the habitat. But then you see we are drawn again into the endless political and ecological vs commercial interest debate. AT LEAST let's save the orchids. The bigger debate will rage on long after the species are lost forever.

What would be so impossible of having a revolving list of say 12 or 20 nurseries at a time, located around the world, who would agree to grow plants from the endangered species seeds? They could apply for certification and would make it to the top of the list by some stratified random sampling procedure. Thus controlling for any one or two growers benefitting from the sale of the plants. The seeds would be distributed to the dozen or 20 growers at the top of the list and voila!

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Woodlice.
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:30

Can anyone suggest something to get rid of, or at least keep woodlice at bay. Hopefully any suggested item that is available can be purchased from a Garden Centre etc.

If any of you can really say that what you recommend works well then I will be very pleased.

From: Ron Newstead
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Cites
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:30

Happily, Dennis, In South America where I spent many happy years, "En
principio" was almost always followed by 'but of course...' leading to the
let-out!

I agree that Cites as a base idea and document is a good and required
principle, but like all principles, if carried to the extreme, end up
ridiculous. My observation was that Phrag besseae was discovered before
Cites and was , in it's time, more fabulous than Phrag. kovachi. Seedlings
were on sale in three years and the wild plant can be seen in Ecuador
growing by the roadside.

If P. kovaghi had been immediately had pods harvested and given, under some
form of agreement, to major American, European or Asian laboratory the
pressure would have been reduced on this plant. It would not have stopped
the fanatics but most people would have been satisfied.

I used to work with all nationalities and the one expression I hated was
''en principe''. When principals come through the door common sense goes out
the window.

From: Ron Bower
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Woodlice.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:15

Rocky,
Look at Broxtow Borough Council Website (Google) and follow their advice which is as good as you will get. In a green house and in particular a Orchid house you will not totally irradiate them but keep the house clean, coat the floor with a suitable insecticide and fill the cracks and crevices. Any air bricks ect should be covered with insect proof mesh and the outside area kept clear of rotting vegetation such as leaves.The warmth of the greenhouse certainly does attract them.
When I was in the trade as a grower we used to have them nibbling seedlings but I personally have not had damage to Orchids that I would defiantly identify as caused by woodlice. Good luck.
Ronbow.

From: Tina Stagg
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Woodlice
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:05

I buy a powder containing bendiocarb at any garden centre. It is usually called woodlice killer.

It comes in a puffer pack − just put some under each pot. One dose lasts for about six months. If you move a pot to a different place, don't forget to do it because the wretched things lie in wait.

Don't tell my granddaughter that you are killing woodlice − she has been fascinated by them since she was a toddler and plans to make the study of them her life's work!

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Cites
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:40

Those making and implanting the regulations do not − I suspect „ ›have it
in“ for orchid growers, and hardly know what orchids are . They are -
firstly ( in the case of UK and Europe „ a set of bureaucrats in some
department at Brussels, who are making regulations about a hundred different
things „ the shape of bananas one day, movement of horned cattle under the
age of 18 months the next day , plants under CITES the next day and so on.
They work on the basis of advice from lawyers as to what the Treaty obliges,
and from botanists ( or whatever)_ as to what they would like. The whole
establishment comes to bear on these things, all doing what they think is
›for the best“ without „ in some people‹s view „ knowing what they are
doing. Then their set of material comes to UK, and the Ministry does the
same sort of thing. Hundreds of people have some input , I doubt if 1 in 10
could tell you whether they were looking at a tulip or a cymbidium . Mostly
they are in committees.

I think most if not all sensible orchid hobbyists would whole heartedly
agree with what you say Dennis but of course those that make and implement
the CITES regulations are not allowed to use common sense.
You must always remember that many of those making and applying regulations
have a vested interest for there own purpose.
Gordon.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: CITES.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:20

I recently had a chat with a Dutch commercial grower and he said that if people only knew some of the stories about 'Kew'.

And of course he was in complete agreement about what I call 'The wall' which separates us hobbyists and the commercial guys.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Cites
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:45

Those making and implanting the regulations do not − I suspect „
'have it
in' for orchid growers, and hardly know what orchids are . . .

From: Tina Stagg
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Woodlice
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:05

If you live with the sea at the bottom of the garden, as I do, woodlice are a fact of life and you learn to live with them.

The powder I use is effective wet − it has to be if the plants are to be watered − and it does keep the things away from the staging and out of the pots.

I don't use any other chemical at all now except, of course, for inorganic feed.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Woodlice
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:45

Hi Tina and all of you that responded to my quest to help prevent Woodlice from nibbling root ends.

Stagg.......unfamiliar surname, any family ties from the Southampton area, as my brother went to school with a 'Stag'.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Orchids of Cyprus and Crete.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:45

From: jan
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Very doof reading.
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:00

John Stanley wrote:
> Hi Roger, Dennis but really everyone of us!
>
> CITES is flawed . . agreed.
>
> However, while in broad sympathy with a lot of what you have to say and being equally impressed with the website and links you cite, there is one small flaw in your arguments 'knocking' CITES. . at least as far as wild regeneration is concerned...

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Calcium nitrate
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:10

From: LEONARD HANDLEY
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Calcium nitrate
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:55

Geoffrey Hands wrote:
Any suggestions for a source of this , I usually buy 1kg or 2kg at a time ?
Geoff

From: Ron Newstead
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: email address
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:55

Happily, my friend, Jordan Steele, introduced me to Google mail so please,
until further notice, send emails to me at:-

From: Andy Mckeown
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Somerset and Wiltshire Orchid Socirety Show
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:35

Just a reminder that the
Somerset and Wiltshire Orchid Society Show will be held on Sat 28th October at The Guildhall, Fore Street, Chard Somerset from 10.30 to 4.00.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Somerset and Wiltshire Orchid Socirety Show
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:00

I should have liked to do that Andy , but have tickets for theatre in London
, that day.

Another time maybe − and let me know the date when fixed so that I can put
it in my diary.

MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE	MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE
January	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	February	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-29
March	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	April	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
May	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	June	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
July	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	August	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
September	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	October	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
November	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	December	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31

2006 Archived Messages

8—14 October

Archive Index