Pretty good, although I haven't really seen any benefit to the valve yet, but expect to use it later in the season as the weather cools. It's been a very warm and dry season so far, so there hasn't been any reason to limit water. Part of the reason I haven't seen any benefit to the valve yet is I changed my methods this year. I've been using my SWCs as just regular top-watered containers until the plants are well established, then adding the fertilizer strip, plastic mulch cover, and filling the reservoir when the plant starts to get big and/or I have to start watering frequently. The Sungold in the prototype unit large and productive, but the wicking did fail once during the extreme heat and I had to top water once to restart it. I built 3 of these, the last 2 use 8 wicks in the frame and those didn't have that problem. I need to add a couple of holes near the bottom of the fill tubes to make filling faster as there is too much back-pressure with just the valve as the only place for water to enter the reservoir. I'm also considering abandoning the Rubbermaid containers as I don't like how flexible they are, and it's getting hard to find the 14 gallon size I like to use for the bench. I also don't like the large aeration holes in the prototype and prefer to use fiberglass insect screen instead of landscape fabric. In fact I think I like using the 'dual tote' method of stacking a 14 gallon inside an 18 gallon instead of using a cut tote flipped for the soil bench. Using the PVC pipe frame for support of the cage works extremely well, and I use the method in all my 18 gallon tote SWCs. Here's a pic of a PVC frame that is just for soil bench and cage support: I haven't come to any firm conclusion about using wicks vs. wicking chamber, but I really like using the wicks in my bucket SWCs for convenience reasons. I've also been testing Engineeredgarden's method of using just one or 2 very small holes in the wicking chamber and find those containers are working fine. Also, my in ground tomato plants are doing better than their 18 gallon SWC counterparts, but growing conditions this year are ideal for in-ground, and the SWC tomatoes were both transplanted later and got less sunlight early on. I've been surprised how well the in ground tomatoes are doing water-wise in the extreme heat we've been having.

Sorry, but no -- he's wrong. Not thrips at all. That's a rove beetle. It's a beneficial insect. Well, it is when it's outdoors. In any case, it probably came along when the plant was sitting on the floor somewhere. Beyond that, thrips are very, very tiny. You would have been exceedingly lucky to get such a detailed image of a thrips with your camera. See here for various images http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=thrips&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g7g-m3 Note the characteristics of thrips, among them very slender wings with fringed edges. Here is a link that might be useful: google for thrips images

Define 'large infestation' ;-) Do you mean where the buds and the leaves are literally obscured by and dripping with aphids? If so, I've had infestations like that, and Ladybugs took care of the problem without flinching. Generally, folks don't overwinter a great number of plants, and so the problem is usually much more manageable. If Ladybugs are an option in your area, I really feel they are the best option. Just spray off the plants to mechanically remove the excess aphids, and then loose the Ladybugs. In my experience, one Ladybug will clear a medium-sized plant. When I overwintered more plants, I would simply move the Ladybugs from one plant to another. The Ladybug larva are even more adept and voracious at aphid control. When the Ladybugs have done their work, I move them to my Hoyas, which are even greater aphid magnets. Josh

Mary and Brandon, I have to agree with both of you. Mary, I can understand your love of gardening, and don't want to take the love out of it to make it science. I am a gardener too, but I used to be a scientist, but then I guess there's never a "used to be" - I always will be a scientist whether or not that's what I do for a living. When I was working at it I was a botanist and worked in several different labs, both at universities for scientists on faculty and at medical centers for doctors/medical school professors. I used to be the one doing those studies, and like Brandon, I firmly believe in them. The journals where my work was published are very careful and have other scientists review the papers before they are accepted for publication. I remember one time when I observed something and repeated the experiment over and over always with the same result- like you said, Mary, - seeing is believing. I spent mind-boggling hours and hours, days and days, on the microscope counting and measuring to get sufficient numbers to be able to run statistics on. We called in the professor who taught the university Biometry course (biometry = the science of using statistics in life sciences). She worked on the numbers for a couple of weeks then told us she couldn't back up our findings. There was some missing data we had no way of obtaining. We were so disappointed, and that study was never published. I suppose we could have bent the rules as Mary said she observed, but we were ethical and just kept of working trying to fill in the blanks so we could eventually report our findings. Yes, there are disreputable people who publish studies that are questionable. Some have actually "padded their data" and reported findings that were false. Some of those people have been caught too and have lost their jobs and reputations! I still believe what I observed is true, but nobody in the scientific community will ever hear about it because my boss and I had more integrity than the people Mary described. A few posts back I mentioned a guy in Memphis who did an experiment with coffee grounds in his garden. If I had said he did a study that included statistics, Mary, would you have believed what he observed? Scientists actually DO garden and get dirt under their nails and mud on their gloves.Alan Armitage and Michael Dirr (you are probably familiar with those names) established studies at the University of Georgia on garden plants. Those studies find varieties that are best suited for our Southeastern US hot, humid, climate. Please check the link below that describes that they started and how it effects our gardening. You have to believe those "studies". Your gardens probably include some of those plants Drs. Armitage and Dirr found to be ideal for us to grow. I know I check the The Gardens at UGA to learn about new plants that can be counted on to grow well for me because they're suited for out climate and the UGA studies prove it. Looking at the results of those studies saves me a lot of money and time too. Time I can be enjoying my garden instead of worrying about this and that plant that I never should have planted in the first place. I hope to still be digging in the dirt when I'm in my 80's and 90's. Maybe by then some scientist will have come up with a foolproof way to eradicate slugs from our gardens.