I started using buckwheat on my rows for a few years, where the row wasn't being used, or at the end of the summer into winter. I have been pleased with how it softens the soil after breaking down, and I mix it with the top layers in the Spring. And I usually leave some part of it go to seed to pick for the following year. Buckwheat doesn't add to the nitrogen values, so I'm trying alfalfa this year in some rows. As for the clover, I plant the red clover next to the buckwheat in the rows where I want more nitrogen available. As I said, you would want to turn these plants before getting seeds, or they'll come back like weeds in the future.

Mindy: Aphids are normally annoying but not plant killers. Depending on the situation. When I first start to notice aphids on my roses I either squish them or if there are tons of them it is time to get out the hose and blast them off with water. This summer I'm washing my roses a couple of times a week with water to help me keep any powdery mildew, worms and spider mites at bay also. You should be able to control an infestation of aphids easily with water and a little consistency. There is the option of using a spray like Safer Insecicide but in my opinion that should be a last resort. As you may be aware aphids are a favorite treat of ladybugs and once they show up they will have a major feast on any offending bugs you don't get rid of with the above steps. Hope this helps. Kate

I'm new, so I apologize for my ignorance, lol I just learned in a college class of mine, about the role of drugs and chemicals in our society, how they came to be, and generally(with my pre-existing knowledge) how they are used today and may be used in the future. I am trying to find a qualitative answer to a question I asked myself and my professor once I learned this information... If drugs and external chemicals have consequences, both bad and good, and were invented(or used once discovered) for temporary enhancement of _ What are some substances, whether in chemical form or otherwise that I or most people can intake periodically, and fit the following criteria?: 1. They Create positive enhancement of life by enhancing some sense(e.g. More energy, less pain, sexual performance, better hearing, better taste, everything else in the book) 2. Does not overwhelm natural homeostasis, and does not have chronic or substantial long term side effects.(e.g. cancer, diseases, loss of senses, loss of brain matter, etc) i.e. What foods, and drugs can we intake that will not be detrimental in the the future, whether used in moderation or daily? Keep in mind, i'm not talking about short-term side effects, because in the end...they end; you don't have to deal with them weeks, months, years down the road, so they can be dealt with in a much better way than long-term effects. I know that alcohol is an effective poison but for example, the hangover you feel after consumption of alcohol the next day is something i'm not worried about. The cardiovascular disease, CNS damage, and liver complications years later are things I am worried about. An example answer to my question might be, the Glycoprotein called Miraculin or "the miracle fruit"(i.e. Synsepalum dulcificum) people today are raving about, that causes sour food to taste sweet. I'm assuming this harmless fruit and chemical, if taken weekly or monthly would probably not have any crazy long term effects, though I might even wrong about that. Perhaps, even if the taste fibres were damaged long term, everything would taste better forever! haha. Anyway, I really appreciate any helpful information any of you can give me!!! Effects i'm truly interested in learning about are enhanced energy, and perhaps sensory changes as alternatives to caffeine(energy drinks), and alcohol for "life enhancers". I often lack energy throughout the day even though I workout every so often and have a decent diet(oatmeal, sandwiches, meat with vegetable dinners). I also drink alcohol every couple months and to be honest, i'm in my early twenties and it's fun :/ The thought of stopping is somewhat painful, though doa

chisue, insurance companies don't make money strictly off policy premiums. AIG's current headline news is a perfect example of this. When I worked at CIGNA (formerly Connecticut General, then they bought INA and changed their name), each of their 5 separate divisions was given an annual profit margin target to hit. This was called a "zero margin plus xx%". Note this was not a sales number, it was a "quick and dirty" percentage of how much revenue minus division expenses they made annually. My boss (one of the regional VPs with a shot at the division presidency) got interested in exactly where this target number came from. He learned that what CIGNA called "zero margin" was actually a base 15% profit margin. CIGNA could earn 15% off its money, through investments and such things as real estate development (for instance they bankrolled Foster City, a landfill development in the SF Bay Area that was considered risky at the time, but is now a desirable mixed-use suburb, selling it after a few years for a hefty profit), without ever writing another insurance policy. Therefore, their divisions had to earn OVER that 15% profit margin, to be worth expending corporate funds for. This is why insurance companies go in and out of market niches - they tend to keep a fairly conservative eye on what their profit margins are on each line of business. When people are discussing the stock market, the majority of money in it is institutional. Insurance companies are a very large part of that. They are even better than banks at leveraging their money. We used to make jokes about actuaries, but insurance companies realistically suvive on the number-crunching abilities of their actuaries. Like developers in a software company, they are what actually drives the financial corporate engines.