The only reason I have heard not to spray later is to avoid too many antibiotic sprays and thus the possibility of resistance to antibiotics developing (which has in fact occurred in several places already). Spinosad has a limit on # of sprays for this reason. In the latest Fruit Grower I was reading about how all the roundup spraying has caused roundup resistant weeds to develop. Scott

dave_donhoff: "You can't lay this at the feet of the financial industry... the industry doesn't have the power to corrupt the natural constraints, to eliminate levels of competition, or to subsidize/lubricate one area of operation or another. ONLY governments have that capability." I disagree. The industry IS the power. This country is ruled by money and the ability to make billions...those who control that ability, control us....AND the gov't. While Wall St. was indeed enabled and abetted by lack of gov't oversight, regs, etc....they continue to hold the nation hostage by manipulating the market to drop anytime anyone even breathes the word "regulation". Case in point..the Dow rallied on the news of a bailout; as soon as noise was made about building in restrictions, oversight, etc...the Dow dropped. Message? Bail us out, but don't even THINK about trying to prevent us from doing this again as soon as we mange to cook up our next ponzi scheme. The entire finance system has been purposely and systematically engineered to operate covertly and in such a convoluted and often incomprehensible manner, with Gov't enabling and abetting the system...that most of the dirty deeds that generate millions or billions never come to light...or if so, it's too late..such as now. The bottom line is that "Wall St." has lost its credibility as the "experts" who are those best suited to choose their own SOP's. While I am hardly a fan of government regulation...I can't really see any other way to at least try to prevent them from screwing with everyone again at some point in the not too distant future....and most important, to instill some basic level of confidence in the system. Gov't regulates just about EVERY other profession much more stringently than this one...the SEC is pretty much a jokeÂand look what has happened. In addition, in respect to finance, the whole system is currently set up to foster and HUGELY reward fraud, deception and abuse...allowing penalty free activity that if you or I did the same, we would be charged with a crime. Case in point...CEO OÂNeal, formerly of Merrill Lynch, who presided over the company while all of these shenanigans were going on. He is either a moron ÂÂor a thief. Either wayÂhe ran off with millionsÂ....so far scott free...leaving us ALL holding the bagÂ.and he was THE key player in the ultimate demise of Merrill. I don't profess to know how to do it...but the double standard MUST stop. People and entities who know that they have little or no accountability should hardly be trusted with the finances that are the keystone to a healthy economy. Either that...or just give everyone a free pass on fraud and call it a day. Here is an interesting Op/Ed piece that is IMO, entirely on point: ******************************************************* Commentary: Blame boards of directors for financial mess Story Highlights Nell Minow: Wall Street directors ultimately to blame for financial crisis Boards approved huge pay unrelated to long-term performance, she says Executives reaped enormous sums while shareholders suffered, Minow says Minow: Shareholders should be allowed to vote on pay packages By Nell Minow Special to CNN Editor's Note: Nell Minow is editor and chair of The Corporate Library, an independent research company specializing in corporate governance. Minow was named one of the 20 most influential people in corporate governance by Directorship magazine in 2007 and "the queen of good corporate governance" by BusinessWeek Online in 2003. She has written more than 200 articles and co-written three books. Since 1995, Minow has also written "Movie Mom," an online parents' guide to "media, culture and values." Nell Minow says it's great when executives make a lot of money but only if they really earn it. As big Wall Street firms topple like dominoes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Failure this broad and deep takes a village, and regulators, lawyers, compensation consultants, auditors, executives, shareholders, and the press all played a part. But the people who are most responsible for the massive meltdowns of these institutions are the boards of directors. Their sole responsibility is to act as fiduciaries for the shareholders in managing risk. They not only failed to perform this task but indeed, in their approval of outrageous pay plans with perverse incentives, they all but guaranteed the current disaster. I am a capitalist. I love it when executives earn boatloads of money. But it infuriates me when they get it without earning it. If the executives' compensation is tied to the volume of business rather than the quality of business, we should expect dealmakers to be more attentive to the number of transactions than the value they create. This is the basis for much of the sub-prime mess, whose collateral damage is taking down the biggest firms on Wall Street. At Merrill Lynch, former CEO Stanley O'Neal received total compensation of more than $91 million for 2006, according to The Corporate Library's calculations. He was given that package based on performance numbers that came out before nearly $23 billion in write-downs by the company. O'Neal received more than $160 million in stock and retirement benefits while shareholders lost more than 41 percent of their investment value over the year. Three executives brought in to Merrill less than a year ago will share a $200 million payment as they turn over the company to Bank of America in a last-minute deal to help it survive. American International Group (AIG) replaced CEO Martin Sullivan after the company posted losses for two consecutive quarters totaling $13 billion. Sullivan's contract entitled him to about $68 million. His replacement, a board member who served as CEO for three months before the company was taken over by the government, will get as much as $7 million. The boards of directors approved pay that was completely disconnected to performance. This, after all, is the world of the ultimate oxymoron: the "guaranteed bonus." So we should not be surprised that executives took the money and ran. Fewer than 13 percent of public companies have claw-back policies requiring executives to return bonuses based on inflated numbers. All of the incentives are for them to inflate the numbers, take the money, and run. And that is why companies whose names used to be synonymous with stability and trustworthiness will live on through history and business school case studies as discredited, greedy and corrupt. The people who insisted that government regulation interfered with the perfect efficiency of the markets are now getting bailed out by taxpayers with some walloping welfare checks. I just hope that this time the government does a better job of protecting itself than it did with its bail-out of Chrysler almost 30 years ago and this time insists on a piece of the upside rather than a fixed repayment. If the government is going to run a business, it has to act like a business and make sure its interests are aligned with the executives. Despite the post-Enron adoption of the most extensive protections since the New Deal, a survey released this week by Kroll and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that corporate fraud rose 22 percent since last year. The option back-dating and sub-prime messes show that even the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley reform law and expanded enforcement and oversight cannot eliminate the severest threats to our markets and our economy. This proves that there are limits to structural solutions. Ultimately, markets are smarter and more efficient than regulation. What the government needs to do now is insist on removing obstacles to the efficient operation of market oversight. Shareholders must be able to replace directors who make bad decisions and they should have a non-binding "say on pay" vote on executive compensation as they do in the UK and several other countries. Our current system of executive compensation does not tie pay to performance, it does not provide an effective incentive to create long-term shareholder value, and it does not meet any possible market test. Executive compensation must be looked at as any other asset allocation. The return on investment for the expenditures on CEO pay is by any measure inadequate. Some have argued that the amounts at issue are so small in proportion to the assets being managed that they do not have any material impact. On the contrary, the CEO compensation in America's public companies is a leading indicator of serious problems -- and one reason my firm has consistently given most financial services companies "high-risk" ratings. And it is more than a symptom of the pervasive problem that is toppling our most respected financial services companies. It is a perversion of the market that imposes enormous and growing costs on America's working families -- as shareholders, customers, employees, and members of the community. These outrageous pay packages juxtaposed with losses in share value and jobs diminishes our credibility and increases our cost of capital. In today's global economy this is an expense we clearly can no longer afford.

I've used F&B paints extensively for the past six years. I've been so pleased with the results that I don't use any other brand except for exterior painting. Cabinets in my last reno were redone in Dauphin and Stony ground Eggshell, which holds up beautifully. Eggshell is equally tough on the bead board in our back hallway in Pavilion Gray. It's luminous but not shiny. My house was painted 6 years ago and looks fresh. Their Estate Emulsion (matte/flat) is like no other because it has a velvety texture and excellent hiding qualities which means it can slightly improve the look of a wall. I also used the Modern Emulsion on kitchen & bath walls in combination with Eggshell on the cabinets and Estate on adjacent walls. The differences are very subtle and the finishes work well together. F&B paints typically have 8 to 16 colorants whereas BM and others typically use 3-4. This accounts for the undertones and subtlety but also the color shift. Their paint is not mixed in stores -- colors are produced in their factory. People do say the colors look the same when they color match. If so, go for it. They don't look the same to me. U ntil recently, they were marketing to designers. If you have some color training it's much easier to use. The number of colorants also is what makes the whites so complex. F&B paint holds up for a long time -- no fading or peeling (problems I had with other brands). The Estate will burnish however. There is no odor during and after painting. If that resulted from the change in formula, I'm all for it. It dries quickly. My painter loves it. Unlike mtn, I don't care what the contractor thinks about it but some will fight you on using it unless they are buying it and getting the commission. The free color card is a good starter but those colors aren't accurate. To really work effectively with this paint, the fan deck is a must or you can spend a fortune on sample pots. I've seen F&B colors in a friend's house in suburban Washington, D.C. and tried to use the same ones in my house -- they looked completely different. Geography and natural light also play a role in how the colors appear. It's been fun and amazing to visit other F&B users! In general, their blues go very green and yellows are quite aggressive. Their super dark colors are amazing on walls. The website will give some guidance in which whites work with which color families but keep in mind those recommendations are based on the latitude in Great Britain. Also, in general, the farther south in the US you go, the lighter the colors appear. Something strong in Mass can look washed out in Texas. So color recommendations are best qualified by location. Not that this matters but after we painted our apartment in F&B we put it up for sale. Several neighbors called and asked to come see it because they had heard about the gorgeous paint job. Here is a link that might be useful: F&B kitchen

Loneranger, Scott stopped using it AFTER he got rid of the varieties that caused the infection. That's why he no longer needs it. If you don't want to use agrimycin, then don't use it. After you've gotten the infection under control, removing the guilty varieties is part of the program to keep it from coming back. That's what Scott has done. You've asked for advice and people have given it to you. Either follow it or come up with your own program. I'm done.