Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Although all the wild garlic plant is edible (and none of the lily of the Valley) the bulb is described as 'disappointingly small' - normally the leaves only are harvested (cut with scissors) preserving the plant - ideally leaving a few leaves to sustain the plant and leaving the flowers to form seed. Uprooting in entirety as DF says (and I also believe) is illegal. Any wild foraging should be careful to ensure continuity of supply in future.

Melihoople Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dulwich woods usually has a lot. I don't if

> picking is allowed. I just like to identify.m



I thought there was a notice somewhere asking people not to pick the wild garlic in Dulwich Woods.


Have I imagined it?


You are hardly likely to pick lily of the valley by mistake! It doesn't smell of garlic :))

Huggers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have masses in my garden, it?s overwhelmed

> everything else and grows spring summer autumn


Back in the woods in Gower - we had masses of Bluebells and Wild Garlic and eventually some hybrid emerged that was blue garlic.


My mother swore this was true and it showed nature was going crazy. Nobody believed her :)

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huggers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have masses in my garden, it?s overwhelmed

> > everything else and grows spring summer autumn

>

> Back in the woods in Gower - we had masses of

> Bluebells and Wild Garlic and eventually some

> hybrid emerged that was blue garlic.

>

> My mother swore this was true and it showed nature

> was going crazy. Nobody believed her :)




I'm not surprised. That sounds highly unlikely to me :))

emjorealdavies Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have an abundance of three-cornered leek in my

> garden - not quite wild garlic but similar :) if

> anyone wants some feel free to PM and I'll give

> you a load!



That's a very kind offer, and I was all set to PM you, until I googed it (as I'd never heard of it) and found this:


An invasive species brought over to the UK from the Mediterranean, it is an offence under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act in England and Wales to plant or otherwise cause to grow this species in the wild.


So geting some leaves would be fine, but I'm not sure I'd want to plant it on my allotment :))

http://wildfeast.co.uk/tag/three-cornered-leek

Three cornered leeks grow in my garden, I eat the bulbs to keep them down. Just found this info on link above, how ants help the spread moving seeds and pickling seeds, might try that this year. I love the flowers.


Edited to say the ants don't pickle them, ha ha

Wild Garlic soup is lush and I can't wait for the season to start which is only just round about now. We always go through to Ighaham Mote where there is masses of the stuff, you can freeze it too. And obviously there's no need to uproot it, just pick away there's enough for everyone if you travel just outside the city.
Being a volunteer in Sydenham Hill Woods, we work very hard to keep them in shape. We maintain the paths, pick up litter, remove invasive species, survey the wildlife and many other tasks besides. We would ask that no-one picks wild garlic in these woods. Not only is it illegal but trampling causes permanent damage to the ecosystem there. This is especially so now the ground is sodden by the enormous amounts of rain we've had. There is a noticeable deterioration in the state of the main paths from the extra footfall resulting from the closure of Cox's Walk bridge. We are doing our best to address this but please do not exacerbate it by trampling over sensitive areas in search of wild garlic. Furthermore, the areas where is is found are also important for our native bluebells and trampling will cause serious damage to these as well. Please don't.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...