"Sulfur would be my second choice b'c it just isn't as effective." Carolyn, I have never heard this before--do you have a source? I always see sulfur listed as a primary control on various university sites. I always consider it first when I think of powdery mildew. Ray, I would not consider sulfur against septoria or early blight so if you are trying to prevent these diseases as well as powdery mildew you could use Daconil (unless you want to say you are growing organically). For the treatment of PM alone sulfur is considered an effective option. Follow label as per temperature restrictions. You would want to use other fungicides for other diseases but it is a good idea to alternate anyway. Here is a 1998 study by the Univ. of Conn. that evaluated 5 fungicides for controlling PM. Sulfur was considered superior over Daconil (Bravo) (chlorothalonil). ""We recently evaluated the efficacy of five fungicides for control of powdery mildew under field conditions in Windsor, CT. On 2 Jun, 1998, five plants of Celebrity tomato were transplanted per plot to each of 5 replicate field plots in 3 rows 5 ft apart with 2 ft between plants in each plot. Two additional untreated border rows were planted to act as a source of inoculum. Plants were staked and tied but not pruned or suckered. Tomato plots were left unsprayed or treated with either sulfur (Kumulus, 15 lb/A), benomyl (Benlate®, 12 oz/A), chlorothalonil (Bravo®, 1.5 lb/A), copper hydroxide (Kocide®, 2 lb/A), or azoxystrobin (Quadris®, 5.6 fl. oz/A) on 24 Jul, 7 Aug, 20 Aug, and 4 Sep. Plants were evaluated for percent foliage with powdery mildew on 10 Aug, 31 Aug, and 10 Sep. Ripening tomatoes were harvested from plots on 25 Aug, 3 Sep. 10 Sep, and 17 Sep. Data were analyzed by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis at P=0.05. Severe powdery mildew developed in the border plants and spread to the field plots (Table 1). Other foliar diseases, such as Septoria and Alternaria leaf spots, were low in incidence and not seen in the field plots or borders until late in the season. All fungicides evaluated resulted in less powdery mildew than developed in untreated control plots. Sulfur and Benlate® had superior efficacy early in the season, and Benlate® and Quadris® were superior at the late evaluation. Bravo® and Kocide® were intermediate in efficacy. While the trend was for lower yield in unsprayed plots, there were no significant differences in fruit yield as a result of the late season powdery mildew that developed in these experiments."" Here is another link that discusses the use of sulfur against PM (LT). http://utahpests.usu.edu/plantdiseases/files/uploads/PestMonitoring/tomato_powdery_mildew.pdf Ray, I would definately treat this early to try and stop its progression. Advanced cases are very hard to control no matter what you use. THis would be an opportunity to experiment with Serenade --using it preventatively on some of the plants that don't have it as it doesn't seem to be all that effective controlling existing disease. Sulfur , or whatever you choose on other plants. Then compare the results. Your plants are very close together so you will have to keep on your toes combatting this. Good luck.

sparklegirl - the wet marks on the ceilings were not there during the viewing of the home or the HI and they have been painted over? Sounds to me that the seller is attempting to cover it up, especially since it's been painted. Was this in the disclosure? You definitely need a lawyer pronto. DO NOT CLOSE on this house until this situation is rectified and there is a significant money held in escrow. Do not rely upon your realtor to advise you on this. Listen to logic. Get the lawyer to write a letter asking for a disclosure about the water on the ceilings. I also agree that the tree is a non-issue. Unless it is dangerous or could fall onto the house, I wouldn't bother with it. You could ask that money be set aside for its removal if you feel that it could pose a danger to the house. Since it was winter when you viewed the home, it is impossible to tell if the tree was dead at the time, so I think you should have the right to at least mention it. But it's a pick your battle kind of thing.... the water marks are most important. Logic - get yer mind outta the gutter! ;) terrig - thanks for the offer. We just found out that we're going to the Twin Cities now. *sigh* The joys of the federal govt!! lol

Appropriate pot size is determined by soil choice, not by current root or soil volume as compared to the volume of the pot one is bumping a plant up to. When using media that support no or very little perched water, there is no limit to how large a pot might be in comparison to existing pot size or root mass - you can pot a plug in a 10 gallon nursery can with no ill effects. When using media with excessive water retention, one must be very vigilant when it comes to increasing pot size to accommodate a root/soil mass that has become congested. For those that don't know, the term 'container capacity' refers to the volume of water retained in a container medium at the moment it has just stopped draining, subsequent to it having been watered to beyond saturation. It tells us how much water a medium holds against the force of gravity. How many holes there are in a pot has no bearing on how much water a medium retains at container capacity. If using identical pots and equal volumes of the same medium in those pots, the only difference being 1 pot has several large holes in the bottom and sides and the other 1 small hole in the bottom, the volume of water retained at container capacity will be the same in both pots at container capacity. A pot with many large holes will drain FASTER than a pot with a single small hole, but there is nothing significant to be gained when using the pot that drains to container capacity in 20 seconds vs the pot that takes 2 minutes. There might be a small difference in the amount of water that evaporates from the medium between waterings in pots that have multiple holes exposed to moving air, but that difference would be relatively inconsequential, based on the description. Al

It is not dirt. They look like dark water stains from roof leaks. Get an expert who can check for mold and also put a moisture meter on the stains to check for active roof leaks. The expert can lift the insulation and check the drywall ceiling. If you don’t see water stains on the interior ceilings and the roof sheathing is dry chances are they are from old roof leaks. Has the roof been replaced recently? Check google earth for historical photos, which may help, in addition to checking for city permits.