Received my 4 bags today of 80 Quarts total, which will just about fill one EarthTainer. This is an absolutely beautiful mix. Reminds me of sleeping on a Goose-down pillow. Surprisingly (or maybe not so) the listing of Ingredients is EXACTLY the same as Pro-Mix BX: While the percentages of each are not specified, it does resemble the BX formulation of 82.5% Sphagnum Peat Moss, 12.5% Perlite, and 5% Vermiculite. As an effort to get 2 trials out of this $43 worth of mix, I used the "stock" mix in the right half of the 'Tainer, and did a blend of the Gardener's Supply Mix, Bark Fines, and Perlite in a 4:2:1 ratio (on the left): I have a bale of Pro-Mix BX on order, so hopefully soon, I will be able to add several more trial combo mixes into the fray.... Raybo

"These conversations are interesting, but I would love to see studies more when people try to make a point." Drew, I can appreciate that. I like concrete evidence too. However, for me it just takes too much time to footnote everything. I try to make it clear when I'm speaking opinion vs. fact. That's not to say my facts are always right, but I believe my facts to be correct to the best of my current knowledge. For example, I mentioned Jersey cows have higher butterfat content in their milk than Holsteins. My only source is my wife. She works with milk testing and pricing. Farmer's are paid a premium for milk with higher butterfat, so I think she would be accurate on that fact. I could try to Google all the statements I assert as facts, as a check, but it would take more time than I am willing to give for a causal internet conversation. My statements regarding swine are generally general knowledge known to those who have been in the industry for several years. "The reason dairy cattle are most revealing is because organic restrictions against antibiotics affect every stage in the life cycle of dairy cattle. And, in fact, there's a negative correlation between farms that use antibiotics and the health/longevity of the cows in those herds." Cousin, Assuming this is a conclusive fact, again this is probably related to the system. Organic livestock farmers would probably have a larger percentage of low tech systems (i.e. pasture). I understand you are saying antibiotics enables housing systems/practices which in which there is higher turnover, but my point about the system was in response to your point that cows are bred to be more antibiotic dependent, a conclusion I don't hold. Antibiotics perpetuating a certain system which produces higher turnover is a different issue. Regarding that issue, it is conjecture on your part and mine whether a ban on antibiotics would result in a substantial change in livestock housing systems. Personally, I don't think it would have much impact. Modern facilities are so much more cost efficient and higher turnover a minimal cost, I don't think it would make a difference. Again, my experience is with swine but in this regard the facilities are similar enough to make that reasonable conclusion (concrete, climate controlled buildings, with higher density populations). My old farming partner now raises pigs on contract for a large commodity company (Still a good friend, talked with him yesterday.) He's told me before, the company he now contracts with has gotten onto him for not having a high enough replacement rate. They want higher turnover. I think if the company announced tomorrow they were going antibiotic free, it wouldn't change anything but increase death loss and turnover. It would increase costs, but not enough to change housing paradigms. "The treatment for milk fever isn't an antibiotic, by the way." I didn't know that. As I said, I'm more familiar with pigs. It's been a long time since I've even set foot on a dairy farm. All this time I thought you were trying to claim milk fever was a result of antibiotic selection pressure. An honest mistake really since the word "parallel" is synonymous with likeness, match, duplicate, etc.,which have broad definitions. Since that's the case, I think for the discussion, it's fair to point out you haven't given any examples of animals being bred to be more antibiotic dependent. It's all conjecture at this point. We've spent a lot of time discussing something for which there is no proof. I understand it can happen in theory, but just as you've proposed a theory why it could happen, I've proposed a theory why it's unlikely (i.e. "livestock in confinement operations are exposed to more pathogens (as people are in cities, vs rural sparsely populated people) putting selection pressure the other way.") " In other words, slaughter weight is pretty much constant over the milking life of a dairy cow." When I made the statement, " Dairy cows start out at 800 lbs. and mature to 1500.", it was not from personal experience of dairy cattle. I simply got the information off a seemly respectable Website. I can't find the Website now, but found a couple from which the same conclusion can be drawn. This Website http://www.holsteinusa.com/holstein_breed/breedhistory.html says, "Holstein heifers can be bred at 13 months of age, when they weigh about 800 pounds." This EPA fact sheet http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/printdairy.html#life says, "They usually calve, or give birth, at about 24 months of age. However, they do not reach mature size until at least 4 years of age." According to the EPA, dairy cattle do continue to gain weight once in production, as do pigs. Either way my point is replacement cost isn't that significant in the scheme of things. Higher replacement rates are driven by the model not antibiotics. If anything I think antibiotics reduce turnover (via lower death loss) not increase it. "And if they exercise more and eat healthier because they don't want to rely on antibiotics (and doctors, etc., etc.) isn't that the point?" An important distinction is that's it's not an "either/or". Your arguments imply it is. I think the best of both worlds is to exercise more, eat healthier and use antibiotics when you're sick. Applying this to dairy cows, if the goal is to reduce turnover (which I suspect isn't a primary concern for most dairy herds, but this is simply conjecture on my part based on my experience in the swine industry) then you use low density pasture systems and antibiotics. Even setting aside the valid concerns that H'man expressed, if antibiotics enable unhealthy lifestyles, in either case the result of real world antibiotic use is poorer health, right?" You will never get me to agree to that. Real world antibiotic use has not only significantly added to our lifespans and reduced suffering, but also increased health, if only based on the few diseases I listed above. Leprosy causes fairly poor health until it kills you. Severe bacterial infections, even if they are cured, can cause long term health consequences (brain damage, hearing loss, paralysis, organ damage, loss of limbs). Antibiotics have practically eradicated some of the more terrible diseases, as a collective people it's easy to forget what life was like before penicillin. I think it's also easy for Americans to miss because we have enough wealth to pay for antibiotic treatment when we get sick. In poor countries, like Bangladesh, which can't afford antibiotics, I strongly suspect, not only are infant and general mortality rates higher (in part due to antibiotics) but even poorer health could be attributed in part due to lack of antibiotic medicine. I have no studies to demonstrate this at my fingertips, so this is conjecture on my part. Regarding animals, I think your real beef (pun intended) is with modern livestock systems. You say antibiotics facilitate the use of these systems. I maintain from my arguments mentioned above, there would be little difference in the systems if antibiotics were completely banned. People using pasture systems would continue to do so, as would people using confinement. I don't think the antibiotic issue would create enough economic pressure to drive it one way or another, but I do think there would be more death and sickness without antibiotics in both systems. Personally, I've seen some pretty sick/suffering animals and can't imagine not treating them, and simply waiting to see if they come out of it on their own.

Hi All, I need some Meyer lemon assistance. I received a dwarf tree in the spring from QVC thru mycitrustree(dot) com. I had some beautiful blossoms in the summer and now have 2 lemons about 3 inches and 3 1/2 long. It was kept outside and watered as needed in addition to Mother Nature. I live in NJ and it was about to dip into the 40's one night so I brought it into my basement two weeks ago. I watered it before I brought it in and it got a soaking rain too. It's in a pot with drain access and it still moist. It has also now begun to bud on all end branch A LOT. My original question is some random leaves are turning yellow. They are not dry or curling and have no pests. The leaf veins are also not turning white. I am a nervous first time fruit tree mother. I did not give any fertilizer since I received it in the spring. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much! Barbara-Ann

You didn't answer the question about fertilizing. Two things taken from your pictures... 1 is the flowers seem to be all white, lacking the familiar purple of Meyers; that indicates the tree is young and those all white flowers rarely produce fruits. #2, your tree looks very healthy, leading to the second possiblity; if you give a Meyer too much Nitrogen when it is blooming, it will drop the flowers and make more leaves.