Perhaps the clearest delineation I come across between gardeners can be found in the variation between how eager growers are to accept anecdote over science; or said in reverse, how diligent growers are in determining whether something can or should be taken at face value. How much we learn or how much we actually know about plants and gardening isn't necessarily related directly to the effort we expend to learn, or even to the effort we expend to gain what passes for experience. Experience is only valuable if we are learning from our errors and changing patterns so we don't make the same errors a second, third, fourth ..... time; and being bitten continually by the error half of 'trial and error' is actually one of the slowest ways to learn. It's not experience that has learning value if we are doing the same thing over and over again without improvement. I think experience is extremely overrated unless it's being used to validate previously acquired knowledge. IOW, learning by error and then changing 'something' in the hope of making things better is far less efficient than learning something from a reliable source and using our practical experience to validate that knowledge, or in some cases refute it as impractical for our application. Limiting our opportunities to learn to only those sources that are in accord with our personal views may increase the enjoyment we get from the affirmations we seek, but learning from a source that is concerned to the greatest degree possible with disseminating information w/o bias, puts us on the fast track when it comes to acquiring valuable experience, penultimately, and user-friendly knowledge, ultimately. I think it's pretty easy to take the measure of a gardener, at least on these forums, by considering how his observations and statements are qualified. The casual gardener is more likely to make broad statements and assumptions with little in the way of qualification; while the more analytical gardener understands that everything isn't always black and white, and illustrates the analytical side by thinking through his offerings to see if it holds water as a broad statement in all cases or if it needs qualification. As an example - the casual gardener might say, or accept on its face, the idea that because Mg is a critical part of the photosynthetic process, and that because banana peels or Epsom salts contain Mg, that adding either to your soil can only be a good thing. The analytic gardener understands it's not that black & white & qualifies the statement by saying it can be a good thing if the soil is deficient of Mg because they are both sources of Mg. Or, he might note that in the case of the banana peel, if there is no Mg deficiency, the excess may be (in the tiniest of degrees) a potential limiting factor that could be offset in other ways because of the addition of the OM. I don't think that analytic gardeners are necessarily better gardeners, but I think they have the potential to be better gardeners because they want to know 'why'. I also think that ambition has a LOT to do with how successful a gardener is. The diligent casual gardener will probably fare much better at harvest than the lazy analyst, illustrating that gardening requires lots of water - most of it in the form of perspiration; and the best fertilizer is the gardener's shadow. Al

Hi! What type of book are you looking for in trade, I have a couple greenhouse books, and some herb gardening books. If you are interested in that type of book, let me know and I'll post names, isbn, etc. for you to review. Sandy Hays

Nothing beats hostas for the shade. I've planted them in late spring, summer and fall, though I've had the best luck transplanting when they are still dormant. Leave the leaves in tact for the winter, it helps winter-protect the crown. Brunnera 'Jack Frost' is a BEAUTIFUL pop in the shade. One of my favorites. I also like Astilbe - don't deadhead the flowers, you can choose from those with green or purplish foliage. I think 'Red Fanal' has the darker, glossy foliage, red blooms. 'Bridal Veil' is supposed to be the nicest of the white flowering..I think this one looks nice paired with white variegated hostas. I second Heucheras, I have purple foliage with my green hostas, a nice contrast. For something taller, Annabelle Hydrangea. Just cut them back 8 inches from the ground in early spring before new growth emerges. Don't fertilize much, if at all, the blooms will get too heavy and flop to the ground. The spent blooms add interest to a fall/winter garden - I leave them in tact. And, cut flowers during the summer months make for nice arrangements in a vase. Bleeding hearts bloom in the spring, and are good around Hostas, the foliage tends to die back in the summer, especially during droughts. Give it plenty of water after it's done blooming to prolong the dieback if you want. The nearby hostas will help cover the empty space of the bleeding hearts later in the season. Have fun!

Most people don't like the mud. Is mud control your primary interest or does it need to be green? The reason I ask is that shredded trees makes an excellent dog run base and you might be able to get that stuff for free in large quantities. This is about 2.5 yards dropped off by the company that is clearing trees for the local utility company. According to my calculator that amount would cover 135 feet at 6 inches deep, but it is covering about 100 square feet at 4 feet deep right in the picture. Anyway, this is great for dogs. It is soft enough on their feet and no mud gets through. Our local dog park uses bark about 15 inches deep. It also makes a soft landing spot in play grounds. When it decomposes down in a year, just cover it with more free bark.