Should all horticulturists be qualified - College Assignment

Hello all
This is my first post on the site and would like to ask you all for your opinion on the following topic:

' Should all horticulturists be qualified and checked (i.e for insurances) before being allowed to trade & should all horticulturists belong to a trade body like the APL (association of professional landscapers ) .'

Such organisations regulate their members to ensure they have sufficient qualifications, references and experiences so should all trading horticulturists belong to such organisations ?

By horticulturists I mean anybody working within the whole industry ranging from nurseries to estate managers through to landscapers

If possible i would like you to give your personal opinion on the topic, or briefly put whether your in favour or not. this will really help me in my ASSIGNMENT.

thanks again
Luke

 

Liability insurance is something everyone should have, yes.

But i'm dead against everything being stitched up by guilds/trade associations/freemasons etc.

Apart from my own private studies and experience i've got no formal qualifications in Horticulture, but i'd be very competent in taking on, managing and working an entire estate.

 

Oh, welcome to Gardeners Corner & bon chance with the assignment btw

 

Not quite sure what you are asking?
Is the question, I cannot sell plants without a qualification in horticulture?
If so, then I dont agree.

 

Have to agree with pete, if I can grow and sell my plants, even if I don't have a qualification, I should be allowed to do so. At least with plants, you can see what you are getting and how it has been treated. Caveat Emptor, as they say.

Welcome to Gardeners Corner, you will like it here.

 

The APL (I think!) is the Association of Professional Landscapers. If I wanted some landscaping doing and I was going to pay somebody to do it then yes I would expect them to hold a relevant qualification and have insurance.

As a consumer it would give me greater confidence in their ability to do a good job and the fact they had insurance increases this level of confidence. However experience in doing the job and a good track record counts for a lot. Qualifications and experience are a good combination.

 

I ticked 'Yes' because you didn't define 'qualified'.

An important question is this. If I do a distance learning course to NVQ level 1 in hortcultural science, would the resulting certificate mean I was 'qualified'? Would I be more qualified than my grandad was, who ran away from home at 14, worked as a farm hand before doing time in the army for the war, before coming home and looking after gardens right up until the weeks before his death when he was too frail to continue? If I sent up a monthly direct debit for £3 a month to RHS (I don't even know if you can - not looked), would I then be a member of a professional body?

As far as horticulture goes (and many other things), experience is often a greater qualification than any piece of paper, and if I was going to pay someone to do my garden, I'd want to know that they could do it. If they presented me with a certificate from City & Guilds, I'd not be filled with confidence. If they showed me a load of photos and testimonials of successful past projects, but lacked so much in formal education that they could barely spell their own name, I'd probably still choose that one as more qualified

 

Qualifications are no guarantee of competence or good workmanship.

I've been employed in horticulture all my working life (some 37 years now) and I've come across plenty of self-employed people, with little in the way of formal qualifications, running good little businesses, who are producing quality work for satisfied customers.

I've also met people with reams of qualifications, up to and including degree level, who I wouldn't let loose anywhere near my garden.

Recommendations from satisfied customers and good references, backed up by hard evidence would carry far more weight with me.

 

I could show you loads of pictures C1, but that dont mean I did them.
We are on shaky ground here.
Some form of formal qualification should be considered when applying for a job, I guess its NVQs these days, (not very qualified), but there needs to be some kind of standard.

Recommendation is the best qualification but you are hardly likely to have that when starting out, so I agree some qualifications are needed, but as you get older and more experienced they mean less and your track record means more.

 

I would'nt let and unqualified electrician work on the electrics in my house and I wouldn't let an unqualified plumber work on the plumbing. I don't see the horticultural trades as being any different and they should belong to a trade body. There's far too many cowboys about.

 

Me neither.

This is where I think the question is a little ambiguous, it asks should ALL, Horticulturists have qualifications.

I say no as stated above, if I can grow a plant that someone likes and it is healthy and well cared for, and they want to pay me for it, then why not? I am not offering to landscape their garden or anything like that, I am just offering a pretty flower that they like.

Maybe a simplistic view, agreed, have to reiterate though, when buying any service or goods, you should do your homework, and be prepared to pay for the 'particular' service you want.

 

The thing with formal qualifications is that anyone can say they have any. Nobody ever checks. I have numerous good bits of paper. I list them on my CV, but I've never been asked to show them.

 

Hi Luke, welcome to GC

I see your query and see a number of questions:-

1) Should all horticulturists be qualified?
2) Should all horticulturists be checked (for insurance?) before being permitted to trade?
3) Should all horticulturists belong to a trade body?

I think you need to be a little clearer on *your* definition of a "horticulturist" in this context?

For example, I quite liked this quote:

Now, as you are posting on a "gardening" forum, the responses you will receive will be given from a "gardener's" perspective (as opposed to a commercial horticulturist perspective, or from a scientific/research context: although there are members here who would also fit that criteria ) and that bias must be taken into consideration, when recording and presenting any results garnered here, in your assignment.

However, I think you are basing your assignment on the professional horticulturist argument? I'm not convinced you will find the answers you seek from a generic gardening forum.

Which perspective do you actually want? For example, of the common gardener "horticulturist", or that of the scientific/research based "horticulturist", or, that of the commercial "horticulturist"?

By defining what *you* mean by a "horticulturist" you will get a far clearer answer to your question/s

I do wish you well with your assignment. I would simply suggest that the question/s (as they are presented) are too broad, too open to interpretation and will be very difficult to accurately collate/analyse and report on. By defining/condensing your question/s and focus, I think you have a wonderful assignment that you could really get to the nub of things with

Best of British!