Miracle gro

Page 1 of 2  
Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, sorry to be thick but Im learning!
--
chablonski


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
chablonski wrote:

not likely to be needed. many garden veggies will put on more foliage but not much more actual produce to make it worth it. if this is a new garden plot the soil is probably ok anyways.
look into rotation planting, green manures, composting, mulching and learn which of your garden plants are heavy feeders and need to be followed by other soil recharging plants like beans/peas.
please read up on gardening using organic methods as much as possible. it will save you a lot of later trouble and decrease the likelyhood that you will poison yourself, others or the the environment...
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity despite the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, he's already in my KF, Fran. I only see his posts when someone else quotes him, and I usually ignore them. I wouldn't have responded except that it was a new poster, and Gunny was recommending using the same agricultural approach that has already so damaged the environment. I'm about as main stream in organic gardening la Rodale as one can get. I try to grow soil, and let the soil grow the plants in an environment free from man-made chemicals. However, Gunny's recommendation that the OP get their garden soil tested was sound, but with proper nurturing, and treatment most any soil will become good gardening soil.
Thanks for the address for SBS <http://www.sbs.com.au/ The variety of news broadcasts in Australia makes me feel down right provincial.
SBS has Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish, Greek, French, German, Hindi, Arabic, Russian, Italian, and Turkish news broadcasts, wow.
The best news we get here is from Democracy Now, the BBC, and the "Journal" from Deutsche Welle. (Did you know that NATO was supporting the backers of the deposed King Idris, who was installed on the Libyan throne by the Brits? That's about one sixth of the Libyan population. Operation Independence for Libya [OIL]. We've been scammed again!
Meanwhile back at the "cultural corner" of the garden, maybe the Montalbano programs were "touched up" to be less objectionable to a potential buyer (43 episodes at $10 AU/episode, or at Amazon $12 USian/episode). It didn't seem right that Australians would be prudes, after all, we got both the criminals, AND the Calvinistic, Puritan, Taliban style, wacko fundamentalists. The main character in the TV's Montalbano is kinda a "hunk" type of persona, in a Sicilian working class setting. No gentrification here. It's all grit, and in need of repairs. Although a French friend of mine once told me that he liked seeing the "father stone" underneath the missing plaster on buildings. Lovey-poo, my wife, has read some of Andrea Camilleri's Montalbano books, and she was somewhat disappointed with the Salvo Montalbano character, because in the books he is more of a Georges Simenon's Maigret type. A 50 something, overweight cop, with a penchant for good wine, and food. That reminds me, I haven't had breakfast yet;O)
Ciao.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

And that is still a sound policy IMO. Their posts soon give them away as trolls who feel needy for attention.

But if you don't speak those languages, there's rather limited value to the mainstream in having them. I'm sure it's advantageous to the ethnic groups who speak those langusage, but my French isn't even up coping with the speed of the French news.
I do like the films though and the less mainstream sports. The Tour de France is on ATM and that is of course well worth watching. It's playing merry hell with our sleep patterns given that it concludes around 3 am - I haven't yet managed to watch one stage through to the line - maybe by the end of the 3 weeks if I build up to it.

I have no idea what they may have done, but as I said, there is lots of raunchy stuff to be seen on that channel.

I used to enjoy Maigret.
Ask Lovey-poo if she's read any of Donna Leon's books. The cop hero is well worth getting to know - set in Venice so stylish in location, urbane in persona, well written and with corruption lurking like something nasty in the woodshed. (Apologies for mixing Cold Comfort allusions with vaporetto fumes)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

French is spoken about 30% to 50% faster than English, but to be fair, TF 1, 2, and 3 speak more slowly and use simpler words in reporting the news (l'actualit) than than other programs do.
The Journal (Deutsche Welle) is in English, and in languages that I don't speak, I can usually make out the location where video was taken, and a picture is worth a thousand words. Then again, in the "Romance" languages, there are the occasional words that come through, loud and clear, which helps with tuning my ear. Spanish, French, and Italian have many words that mean and sound the same, but are spelt differently. Then there are those damn false cognates.

We'er 9 hours different from France, here on the "Left" (west) coast. Late dinner here is about the same time as early "petit djeuner" there.

Hadn't heard of Donna Leon, but we appear to be the minority. There are 98 holds for "Drawing Conclusions", her latest. I ordered the one with no holds, "Through a Glass Darkly".
Do you have a favorite?
Thanks.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haven't read them all, but those I have read have all been good. I do have a soft spot though for 'Death at La Fenice' because it's the first of the series, it was the first of hers I'd read, and it was just so refreshing to find a writer who can write well and who can tell a ripping yarn even when producing light fiction. I like Janet Evanovich, but although she tells a ripping yarn, her writing is poor (and her editors are obviously not up to their jobs - eg. she writes about 'couple things' when a 'couple of things' is what is meant).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

'Death at La Fenice': a Commissario Guido Brunetti mystery. Hmmm. Written 2004, and there are still 2 holds on it. Must be good. This usenet is pretty damn good. I got what I wanted, and it was even in the wrong group.

bientt
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lame, really lame
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FarmI wrote:

for humor value alone, it was worth reading the rant about blindly selling something when the replies that said to read up on things, to use organic materials/mulches (which often are freely available), etc.
yeah, that's blindly selling something compared to going out and buying Miracle Gro, Osmacote and $15 soil tests. all things that gardeners didn't need for thousands of years...
gotta laugh,
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow birdie! I had you pegged at no more than a day over 800 years old. You old Shamanistas are amazing, but ya gotta get out more and see how the real world has developed since you was a young girl. No one going to go back to get you folks left behind, so keep up. "Nothing is... because everything is becoming"
Your objection here (or the pretense) appears to be cost? Is that correct? You do not see the value in a soil test or buying fertilizer when you can get it free, Is that your argument? You do not appear to be pulling a billy trying to use faux google references to falsely "imply" Miracle GroG kills soil. We all know that is a grossly exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't change science and really, emperical data is so much more accurate than your ilk's taste test method.
As for being free everything has a cost.
Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!
Joining in the laughter!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote: ...

the real world development i see is to a large part: ignorant, greedy, poisonous or destructive to many creatures.
you'd like me to keep up with that?
there is some hope yet, but it is a long ways to go.

my objection is that the OP stated they were a new gardener. which means very likely that they were using a new space. any long time gardener knows that new soil is often just fine for the first season and needs no additional nutrients added to it. short of obvious signs of deficit (the OP stated none) why add fertilizer? because we've been raised with cereal in the box and milk out of the bottle doesn't mean that nutritional value comes from boxes and bottles.
so instead of saying "yeah, go ahead dump dilute liquid fertilizers on your garden it won't hurt a thing." i recommended the OP do some reading and learn about what they are doing before adding anything to the soil, and i pointed them towards organic methods because they have less chance of being a runoff pollutant problem and a better chance of actually nurturing the soil organisms and maintaining or improving nutrients in the soil and thus the produce grown therein.
is that clear?
you were the one who came up with the "selling something" language and i had to laugh because you were the seller of more products than i.

i do not see the value in getting a soil test if there are no signs of deficit.
instead recommending the OP get some books on gardening and reading up on soil will give them much more for their future efforts than what they can get by dumping gunk out of a bottle.
there are many good descriptions of both fertile soil (and how to evaluate the soil condition) and various deficits. no tests other than observation are needed. relying upon a soil test to tell what the soil is doing is like using butt probe to tell what the brain is doing.

no i do not have to imply that at all if i tell the OP to not dump it at all then i've helped them avoid the problems it can cause.

if by emperical data you mean millions of acres of destroyed top soil then you've got all the evidence you need from dumping "Nute salts" (whatever those are).

i dunno how much more burning i'll be doing, but talking about the carbon cycle from the rotting of organic materials in the compost pile (or buried in the ground) and comparing that to what happens to the carbon when you make charcoal and the various soil nutrition aspects of that is probably a much more scientific process than telling someone "ok, dump that on the soil".
but whatever.

yuk yuk.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Welcome, to Gunny's world, songbird. No facts, no references, but lots of pronouncements and innuendo. Enjoy it, if you can.
Gunny enjoys arguments. In part he tries to do this by starting as many arguments as possible, and as you nail him down on one, he will ignore it, and attack a different argument (personal experience). Now, you may feel like some light hearted bantering, but, trust me, he will take it as a personal challenge to crush you. Personally, I think he is a "tweaker", but that is an unsubstantiated opinion.

Is there any gardening in the above paragraph? If it was me, I would have told you where you were wrong, and given references to support my position, but not Gunny. Here he mocks, characterizes (without substantiating the characterization), and patronizes you in order to pretend that he is your superior (also no evidence submitted).

Here Gunny questions your motives. Has anyone in this newsgroup, other than Gunny, ever questioned your motives before? More over, he is trying to put words in your mouth, to the effect that your objection to chemferts is based on cost.

Gunny again trying to put words in your mouth, attempting to bring a discussion to the level of an argument.

I'll take this one, songbird.
Gunny, give an example of a faux google reference that I have given, please, or continue to show yourself as an idiot.
Now, as far as implying that chemferts kill soil life, I don't imply, I quote experts.
Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid06815176&sr=1-1> (Available at a library near you.)
Chapter 1
What Is the Soil Food Web and Why Should Gardeners Care?
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off entire portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes in the soil. Since these microbes are at the very foundation of the soil food web nutrient system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start using it regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job, feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa are gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms, for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in soluble nitrogen fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders of organic material, their absence is a great loss. Without the activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil food web brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic," pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening becomes a lot more work than it needs to be. . .
Plants are in control
Most gardeners think of plants as only taking up nutrients through root systems and feeding the leaves. Few realize that a great deal of the energy that results from photosynthesis in the leaves is actually used by plants to produce chemicals they secrete through their roots. These secretions are known as exudates. A good analogy is perspiration, a human's exudate.
Root exudates are in the form of carbohydrates (including sugars) and proteins. Amazingly, their presence wakes up, attracts, and grows specific beneficial bacteria and fungi living in the soil that subsist on these exudates and the cellular material sloughed off as the plant's root tips grow. All this secretion of exudates and sloughing-off of cells takes place in the rhizosphere, a zone immediately around the roots, extending out about a tenth of an inch, or a couple of millimeters (1 millimeter = 1/25 inch). The rhizosphere, which can look like a jelly or jam under the electron microscope, contains a constantly changing mix of soil organisms, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa, and even larger organisms. All this life" competes for the exudates in the rhizosphere, or its water or mineral content.
At the bottom of the soil food web are bacteria and fungi, which are attracted to and consume plant root exudates. In turn, they attract and are eaten by bigger microbes, specifically nematodes and protozoa (remember the amoebae, paramecia, flagellates, and ciliates you should have studied in biology?), who eat bacteria and fungi (primarily for carbon) to fuel their metabolic functions. Anything they don't need is excreted as wastes, which plant roots are readily able to absorb as nutrients. How convenient that this production of plant nutrients takes place right in the rhizosphere, the site of root-nutrient absorption.
At the center of any viable soil food web are plants. Plants control the food web for their own benefit, an amazing fact that is too little understood and surely not appreciated by gardeners who are constantly interfering with Nature's system. Studies indicate that individual plants can control the numbers and the different kinds of fungi and bacteria attracted to the rhizosphere by the exudates they produce. During different times of the growing season, populations of rhizosphere bacteria and fungi wax and wane, depending on the nutrient needs of the plant and the exudates it produces.
Soil bacteria and fungi are like small bags of fertilizer, retaining in their bodies nitrogen and other nutrients they gain from root exudates and other organic matter (such as those sloughed-off root-tip cells). Carrying on the analogy, soil protozoa and nematodes act as fertilizer spreaders" by releasing , the nutrients locked up in the bacteria and fungi fertilizer bags." The nematodes and protozoa in the soil come along and eat the bacteria and fungi in the, rhizosphere. They digest what they need to survive and excrete excess carbon and other nutrients as waste.
Left to their own devices, then, plants produce exudates that attract fungi and bacteria (and, ultimately, nematodes and protozoa); their survival depends on the interplay between these microbes. It is a completely natural system, the very same one that has fueled plants since they evolved. Soil life provides the nutrients needed for plant life, and plants initiate and fuel the cycle by producing exudates. . .
. . . Soil life produces soil nutrients
When any member of a soil food web dies, it becomes fodder for other members of the community. The nutrients in these bodies are passed on to other members of the community. A larger predator may eat them alive, or they may be decayed after they die. One way or the other, fungi and bacteria get involved, be it decaying the organism directly or working on the dung of the successful eater. It makes no difference. Nutrients are preserved and eventually are retained in the bodies of even the smallest fungi and bacteria. When these are in the rhizosphere, they release nutrients in plant-available form when they, in turn, are consumed or die.
Without this system, most important nutrients would drain from soil. Instead, they are retained in the bodies of soil life. Here is the gardener's truth: when you apply a chemical fertilizer, a tiny bit hits the rhizosphere, where it is absorbed, but most of it continues to drain through soil until it hits the water table. Not so with the nutrients locked up inside soil organisms, a state known as immobilization; these nutrients are eventually released as wastes, or mineralized. And when the plants themselves die and are allowed to decay, the nutrients they retained are again immobilized in the fungi and bacteria that consume them.
The nutrient supply in the soil is influenced by soil life in other ways. For example, worms pull organic matter into the soil, where it is shredded by beetles and the larvae of other insects, opening it up for fungal and bacterial decay. This worm activity provides yet more nutrients for the soil community.
Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture (Paperback) by Toby Hemenway <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid71266976&sr=1-1> (Available at a library near you.)
A chemical view of humus, studded with negatively charged oxygen atoms. Positively charged nutrients such as ammonium, potassium, copper, magnesium, calcium, and zinc are adsorbed to the humus. These nutrients can be pulled off the humus and used by plants and microbes.
p.78 ammonium (a nitrogen compound), copper, zinc, manganese, and many others. Under the right conditions (in soil with a pH near 7, that is, neither too acid nor too alkaline), humus can pick up and store enormous quantities of positively charged nutrients.
How do these nutrients move from the humus to plants? Plant roots, as noted, secrete very mild acids which break the bonds that hold the nutrients onto the humus. The nutrients from humus are washed into the soil moisture, creating a rich soup. Bathed in this nutritious broth, the plants can absorb as much calcium, ammonium, or other nutrient as they need. There's evidence to suggest that when plants have supped long enough, they stop the flow of acid to avoid depleting the humus.
That's the direct method plants use to pull nutrients from humus. Just as common in healthy soil is an indirect route, in which microbes are the middlemen. This type of plant feeding involves an exchange. Roots secrete sugars and vitamins that are ideal food for beneficial bacteria and fungi. These microbes thrive in huge numbers close to roots and even attach to them, lapping up the plant-made food and bathing in the film of moisture that surrounds the roots. In return, the microbes produce acids and enzymes that release the humus-bound nutrients and share this food with the plants.
Microbes also excrete food for plants in their waste. One more big plus for plants is that many of the fungi and other microbes secrete antibiotics that protect the plants from disease. All of these mutual exchanges create a truly symbiotic relationship. Many plants have become dependent on particular species of microbial partners and grow poorly without them. Even when the plant-microbe partnership isn't this specific, plants often grow much faster when microbes are present than they do in a sterile or microbe-depleted environment.
p.79 Conventional wisdom has it that plant root are the main imbibers of soil minerals and that plants can only absorb these minerals (fertilizers) if they are in a water-soluble form, but neither premise is true. Roots occupy only a tiny fraction of the soil, so most soil mineralsand most chemical fertilizersnever make direct contact with roots. Unless these isolated, lonely minerals are snapped up by humus or soil organisms, they leach away. It's the humus and the life in the soil that keep the earth fertile by holding on to nutrients that would otherwise wash out of the soil into streams, lakes, and eventually the ocean.
Agricultural chemists have missed the boat with their soluble fertilizers; they're doing things the hard way by using an engineering approach rather than an ecological one. Yes, plants are quite capable of absorbing the water-soluble minerals in chemical fertilizer. But plants often use only 10 percent of the fertilizer that's applied and rarely more than 50 percent. The rest washes into the groundwater, which is why so many wells in our farmlands are polluted with toxic levels of nitrates.
Applying fertilizer the way nature doestied to organic matteruses far less fertilizer and also saves the energy consumed in producing, shipping and applying it. It also supports a broad assortment of soil life, which widens the base of our living pyramid and enhances rather than reduces biodiversity. In addition, plants get a balanced diet instead of being force-fed and are healthier. It's well documented that plants grown on soil rich in organic matter are more disease- and insect-resistant than plants in carbon-poor soil.
In short, a properly tuned ecological garden rarely needs soluble fertilizers because plants and soil animals can knock nutrients loose from humus and organic debris (or clay, another nutrient storage source) using secretions of mild acid and enzymes. Most of the nutrients in healthy soil are "insoluble yet available," in the words of soil scientist William Albrecht. These nutrients, bound to organic matter or cycling among fast-living microbes,won't' wash out of the soil yet can be gently coaxed loose or traded for sugar secretions by roots. And the plants take up only what they need. This turns out to be very little, since plants are 85 percent water, and much of the rest is carbon from the air. A fat half-pound tomato, for example, only draws about 50 milligrams of phosphorus and 500 milligrams of potassium from the soil. That's easy to replace in a humus-rich garden that uses mulches, composts, and nutrient-accumulating plants.
--

Lab tests may tell you where you are starting, but a properly maintained
garden will take you where you want to go.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
enough of his BS qutoa for the entire month:
Hhey Dr Google, I don't want ya to waste this really good rant ya got going on but Really the answer is still yes, it is ok to use>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And still the answer is YES
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Score one for the Shamanista songbird.
State of the World 2011: Innovations That Nourish the Planet: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (Paperback - Jan 2011) <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 3529/ref=sr_1_33?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid10168545&sr=1-33> (At a library near you, until they close)
p 8 If seeds represent the short-term payoff option, the truly long-term investment with big returns is investing in the soil and water that nourish crops. In Mali and other parts of the African Sahel, soils are severely damaged from overgrazing and drought, but the use of green manure and cover crops can dramatically improve soil fertility without the use of expensive fertilizers. . . . [Roland] Bunch notes that subsidizing chemical fertilizers, which some African nations are doing heavily (by up to 75 percent in Malawi, for example), has generally not been a good long-term strategy and actu- ally reduces farmers' incentive to invest in more agroecological approaches to nourishing soils. When the fertilizer subsidies end, pro- ductivity will drop to virtually nothing. Instead, Bunch maintains that green manure/cover crops are the only sustainable solution to Africa's soil fertility crisis.12
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wow, your deep!
gotta say it still amazes me that you can tell all that for a internet reading. Psychic card reading and all that that black magic is amazing.
Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science.
http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/setting-the-record-straight-on-biochar-again /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote: ...

reads like a lightweight blog post but it fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere.
frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should always educate themself.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Ad hominem" is Gunny's middle name. Is English your second language? YOU'RE not very good at it. What is this pseudo science of which you speak, or do you even know?
Your fascination with "escape from nature" hydroponics seems to have blinded you to the eco-system in which your organism lives, just as surely as your lack of attention must be responsible for your not recognizing that songbird is of the feminine persuasion.

You are far too generous, songbird, to refer to this blog as lightweight. Obviously Gunny isn't literate, or he would have noticed that the article claims bio-char is good. The only real question posed in it is how good.
Then the article wanders-off looking for a straw man to bash, and comes up with the red herring of the "emission-free" biomass stove, which should appeal to Gunny, because it is a no-brainer. What isn't addressed is the fact that whatever emissions a biomass stove makes is small in comparison to the amount of carbon sequestered in the char. That the char from a millennia ago can still be found in the Amazon region (where decomposition rates for organic materials is very high) seems to have completely escaped Gunny's fallible powers of observation in his egregiously weak, partisan attack on "organic" farming/gardening (which is the motivating force behind most of his posts).
Lastly, the article that Gunny presents rails against the exploitation of "cap and trade" in carbon credits. Beyond this exploitation is the question of why these CO2 pollution credits are given freely, instead of being sold, to polluters. That money could be used for off-sets, instead of just lining polluters pockets.

Hopefully, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by Elizabeth Warren will help (until corporations co-opt it), but the first line of defense always needs to be self-defense. Caveat emptor.

--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.