I think a more accurate way to put is it is smart to reduce the use of energy-intensive products, which are the themselves sometimes made up of relatively scarce resources. Limestone is massively plentiful on the planet, but it has to be mined, crushed, and hauled. That is massively energy-intensive (though not nearly so as cement). The cost of a 50lb bag of lime for me is about $6, even on an island, which doesn't come close to reflecting accurately the environmental impact. As NC points out, the people who most need it can't possibly get it. I have a thread over at SMC about more sustainable options. A different example is borate, which exists in large deposits, and of course also requires a lot of energy to retrieve and move, but is only needed by the gardener in very small amounts. For a trifling environmental cost a big advantage can be gained by the food-producer.

The end of the dormant period - late winter - is the recommended time to prune most trees. It is easier to see the structure and make informed pruning choices when the tree is out of leaf and it leaves wounds exposed for minimal periods before new growth and the sealing process begins. One can remove more structure during dormancy than in the growing season without causing unnecessary stress on the plant. This timing also reduces the chances of the spread of various disease pathogens that are more prevalent in spring and summer as well as insect pests, which all tend to be dormant at this time as well. Bleeding is typically more of a concern for the pruner than it is for the prunee :-)) If really a concern, one can wait to prune tress that produce copious sap in late spring or early summer but the amount you are able to remove should not exceed 1/4 of the live foliage.

Oh, are we going to take pictures of our daylily beds as soon as scapes appear this year? Sounds like a good idea. I am ready for things to start happening but I am afraid its going to be awhile till the scapes appear. I put in some early bloomers last fall so I hope maybe to get some scapes showing on them soon.

Hello, I found this old thread (almost a pun in this case) quite interesting. I have more clothing than I need, but that is mainly because I keep almost all of my old clothes in perpetuity. I have 'nice clothes' I almost never wear, from when I had a corporate job, but every now and then I wear them. Yesterday I wore something nice to attend a friend's baby's baptism. If clothes don't fit now, well, I am optimistic that they will fit again sometime. For a long time I kept some old pants I had loved (purple jeans and blue jeans, each colorful, stretchy and not denim) that I decided I would really get rid of since they hadn't fit me in years. Then I lived in Ecuador for a year (out of 2 suitcases of clothes) and lost weight and they fit me again (briefly.) So now I think I am justified in keeping them a few more years just in case. :-) Freecycle helps me, as when I see a person near my size really needs clothes I try to find them a bag of mine that I don't need. But I also get free clothing on freecycle a lot. I have gotten clothing from one sister a lot, I give her some sometimes (as we reverse who is gaining or losing weight) but she complains because what she gives me is almost always nicer than what I give her. Then there is a third sister that we both give clothes to, she never gives any away. Once her washer broke and she said she could go 3 months without having to wash any clothes except underwear! I think the reason that homesteaders and organic gardeners and home canners and bakers mostly don't make clothing is just that the clothing most of us could make ourselves wouldn't be very good/comfy. Whereas the organic vegies and the homemade bread and jam way exceed the quality of ordinary grocery store items. Clothing from stores is just way better than what I could make myself, I can hardly patch my jeans. One thing Marie said I must take exception to: "The idea was that someone was trying to draw attention to themselves by wearing really worn out garments. It was a way to control family members, too, in some cases. The threadbare person would try to get sympathy for him or herself." I and my hubby both tend to wear really worn out things, where the material is thin or has holes, whatever. We get fond of certain things and wear them over and over until they are totally shot. I don't stop wearing favorite shirts until they are so worn out they rip down the back and are unrepairable. It is always cotton comfy shirts in a color or pattern I liked a lot, and I just won't stop wearing them until I absolutely have to. I used to date a guy who had holes in his clothes, really ratty underwear, and so on. He also had a weird short haircut. I initially mistook him for a punk (back in the mid-80s.) Turned out he was just excessively thrifty and paid no attention to his appearance. So although I imagine some people could wear worn out clothing to make some sort of statement, some of us are really just that thrifty or lazy or attached to a particular garment. As for shoes, I have short wide feet with high arches. I always had to wear shoes longer than my feet to get them to fit comfortably in the toe area. In college I wore a friend's shoes and was amazed how nice it was to have shoes already busted out a little. I soon got used shoes from a lot of people, in particular a friend who was a serious runner. She ran about 10 miles a day, so after a few months would need good new running shoes. But they were great for walking around for YEARS more. And fit better and were more comfy since already broken in. So I am lucky that old shoes are better for me than new. My other solution these days is to buy boys shoes, somehow boys get to have wider feet than women. I get almost all garments free and used, so that is about as sustainable as one can get. Marcia