Starting a new veg plot.

Hi,
I'm just starting a veg patch which is about 5m square in the corner of the garden, but I'm not sure what to do with the turf I've cut.
Shall I skip it or rotavate it into the area I've taken it from along with well rotted manure from the dung heap?
Many thanks,
TT
--
Timmy T


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

Can you just turn it upside-down and plant over it? (I assume you don't have bermudagrass over there)
If I ever start a new garden plot from turf again, I plant to spray it one time with glyphosate (Roundup or equivalent), mow it short when the grass starts to die, and then disturb the soil as little as possible when I plant. Mulch heavily at least the first year to keep the weeds from taking over, and let the earthworms do all the hard work turning the soil. That first year I probably won't be able to direct sow anything; just use transplants.
Tilling new ground among other things wakes up dormant weed seeds in the soil.
-Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php
ISIS Report 19/05/10
Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil Don Huber, recently retired from Purdue University, and co-author G.S. Johal, at Purdues Dept of Botany and Plant Pathology, stated in a paper published in the October 2009 issue of European Journal of Agronomy that the widespread **use of glyphosate** in the US can significantly increase the severity of various plants diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.
Further, **glyphosate** stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens such as Fusarium, and can have serious consequences for sustainable production of a wide range of susceptible crops. They warn that Ignoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious.
--

Round Up is toxic to humans and the environment.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny, I sprayed glyphosphate onto a section of yard near my back fence, to kill all of the grass. The soil is rich there, so I was able to plant without disturbing the soil much, other than adding some composted cow manure to the bottom of the holes, and then adding straw later on to conserve moisture.
Tomatoes are probably the most susceptible to damage from glyphosphate, yet mine are doing great there now. By using glyphosphate, I was able to minimize soil preparation, soil erosion, and backbreaking work. In truth, I wouldn't have a nice tomato garden without the roundup, and the local steam would probably have become choked with silt from erosion runoff, killing off some endangered species. Way to go, glyphosphate!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like it's time to have a nice big plate of tomatoes, mozzarella, and some basil. Eat hardy ;O)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Health_effects> Health effects
Toxicity
Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of roundup in animals[13] [14]. These reports have proposed that the teratogenics are caused by impaired retinoicacid signaling[15]. A 2011 report by Earth Open Source asserts that the roundup active ingredient - glyphosate - has caused birth defects in laboratory animal tests[16]. News reports have supposed that regulators have been aware of these studies since 1980[17].
The United States Environmental Protection Agency? (EPA) considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic or teratogenic effects.[18] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these conditions.[18]
A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".[19] The 2000 review has been criticized because it reviewed mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone, not as a mixture as in Roundup, and for only one or two years.[20] It didn't review toxicity studies of Roundup treatments (as a mixture) in rats or rabbits that last more than 22 days[20] and its potential as an endocrine disruptor was not assessed with a Roundup mixture at all.[20] A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro, even at low concentrations. The effects were not proportional to the main active ingredient concentrations (glyphosate), but dependent on the nature of the adjuvants used in the Roundup formulation.[21]
Deliberate ingestion of Roundup herbicide in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms following ingestion.[22] There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one).Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[12]
Glyphosate is toxic to human skin cells, through causing oxidative damage; antioxidants such as Vitamin C and E were found to provide some protection to such damage, leading the authors of the study to recommend that these chemicals be added to formulations including glyphosate.[23] Severe skin burns are very rare.[12]
Endocrine disruptor
A 2000 in vitro study on mouse MA-10 cells concluded that Roundup inhibited progesterone production by disrupting StAR protein expression.[24] Further studies demonstrated this was not caused by glyphosate but to surfactants used as inactive ingredients in Roundup formulations.[25]
A 2005 in vitro study on human placental JEG3 cells concluded that the glyphosate disruption of aromatase is facilitated by adjuvants of the Roundup formulation.[9][26]
A 2009 in vitro experiment with glyphosate formulations on human liver HepG2 cells has observed endocrine disruption at sub-agricultural doses, where a Roundup formulation showed to be the most active formulation. The effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration.[27]
A 2009 study on rats has found that Roundup is a potent endocrine disruptor causing disturbances in the reproductive development when the exposure was performed during the puberty period.[28]
[edit] Genetic damage
A 1998 study on mice concluded that Roundup is able to cause genetic damage. The authors concluded that the damage was "not related to the active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide mixture".[29]
A 2005 study raised concerns over the effects of Roundup in transcription.[30]
A 2009 study on mice has found that a single intraperitoneal injection of Roundup in concentration of 25mg/kg caused chromosomal aberrations and induction of micronuclei.[31]
A 2009 in vitro experiment with glyphosate formulations on human liver cells has observed DNA damages at sub-agricultural doses, where a Roundup formulation showed to be the most active formulation. The effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration.[27]
Ecologic effects
A 2000 review of the toxicological data on Roundup concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed nontarget organisms". It also concluded that there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow water.[32]
Toxicity A 2009 study has concluded that while physiological pH decreases glyphosate uptake in animal cells, Roundup formulation contains surfactants that increase membrane permeability allowing cellular uptake at physiological pH.[8]
Aquatic effects
Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to Roundup than terrestrial organisms.[32] Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[11]
The EU classifies Roundup as R51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.[33] Although Roundup is not registered for aquatic uses[34] and studies of its effects on amphibians indicate it is toxic to them,[35] scientists have found that it may wind up in small wetlands where tadpoles live, due to inadvertent spraying during its application. A recent study found that even at concentrations one-third of the maximum concentrations expected in nature, Roundup still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles raised in outdoor tanks.[36]
A 2010 study has found that long-term exposition to environmental relevant concentrations of a Roundup formulation causes metabolic disruption in he fish leporinus obtusidens.[37]
Environmental degradation and effects
When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[11] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[38] Glyphosphate has been shown to increase the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight in fields that have been treated with glyphosphate.[39] A 2009 study using a RoundUp formulation has concluded that absorption into plants delays subsequent soil-degradation, and can increase glyphosate persistence in soil from two to six times.[40]
In soils, half lives vary from as little as 3 days at a site in Texas, to as much as 141 days at a site in Iowa.[41] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid was shown to persist up to 2 years in Swedish forest soils.[42]
A recent study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from glyphosate use.[43] One study has shown an effect on growth and survival of earthworms.[44] The results of this study are in conflict with other data, and have been criticized on methodological grounds.[32] In other studies, nitrogen fixing bacteria have been impaired, and also crop plant susceptibility to disease has been increased.[39][45][46][47][48][49][50]
False advertising and scientific fraud
False advertising In 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general.[51] Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and "practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish.[52]
Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case in France in 2001 for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use; glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed by the European Union as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms". In January 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising.[53] The result was confirmed in 2009.[54]
Scientific fraud
On two occasions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[55][56][57] In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[58][59][60] In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $50,000, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.[41][61][62] Craven laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto.
Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also said that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities.[63]
yum yum!
--
- 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 would question the initial assumptions of any study done by a group called "Earth Open Source". Most likely, they simply decided that they wanted to see certain results, then did what they could in the study to try to make them happen.

Yep, applying various chemicals directly to a human embryo will do that. Peanut butter and jelly probably will, too. However, in real life they are a bit less likely to come into direct contact with a human embryo, don't you think?

Wow, I'm sure there is a whole list of various products, not meant for human consumption, that would cause discomfort or death if we ate them. How about that box of roofing nails out in the garage?
Now I know I'm just being a bit hard on you. Obviously it would be safer if we didn't use any pesticides. However, that isn't going to happen, and there are times that crops would completely fail without them. I'm just saying that I question the impartiality of any studies out there, because the studies are often funded by groups that are wanting to bolster a certain, pre-determined point of view. The environmental groups want to prove that things are dangerous, while the companies that make the products want to prove that they are not. It's not good science. I try to see both sides of the issue, because most of my relatives are farmers, but I also have a BS in Environmental Studies.
I'm not ready to go organic, and probably never will. However, I do try to only use insecticides, fungicides and such after I have verified a problem that is spreading. Several times I've waited too long and lost most of a crop. Even so, I'm not comfortable with spraying "just in case". I figure that my "spraying as necessary" approach probably only uses 10% of the chemicals that most of the fruits and vegetables at the store have on them. Plus, I know which chemicals were used, and they tend to be those that don't hang around as long.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Aris A, Leblanc S.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

No one said that you weren't stupid.
--
- 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

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

You don't need tertiary studies to have BS.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

True, but I did enjoy it. It got me wondering if there was such a thing as a Fundie Republican Uni
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FarmI wrote:

In the US sure, they vary from fairly respectable (except where subject matter clashes with Fundieness) to worthless degree mills. In Oz no. But give the Mad Monk a turn in office and you never know.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ohioguy wrote:

i have no idea how credible many of these cites are. you're welcome to post some actual knowledge on the subject instead of slander.

heh, i always thought such studies as pretty far fetched too, but if you want to use them as a basis of comparison or to test mutagenisis then they at least say "this substance is worse than that other one". which is useful to know even if the likelyhood of direct contact is low.
i think the most useful studies are those that get into the liver metabolic pathways and other organs of the body that might accumulate or filter the substance in question. i notice not many cite mentions actual accumulation in the body or how the liver or other organs processes glyphosate.

a good source of iron.

it happens here all the time (no pesticides). in this case glyphosate isn't a pesticide anyways it is a herbicide.

unlikely to be true. many pests when left alone will not kill the host plant completely. they will chew some leaves and then spin a cocoon and then pupate and go on to the next generation like many other critters.
this season i have several examples of pests doing some damage, but not "complete failure" level damage. i've left them alone and most of the plants have easily outgrown the damage.

i wouldn't say that from what you write here.

there are few plantings i've done and lost "most" and as of yet i've not lost "everything" not ever. interplanting, mixed beds, paying attention and getting at some troubles when first noticed goes a long ways towards avoiding later losses.

i'm glad. it seems that much of what people do when they put in lawns and gardens is try to outdo the neighbors on how many pounds of fertilizers and poisons they can shove at the problems and how much water they can pollute.
i don't have much good to say about the commercial farmers here either. the number of times they spray on a windy day when not much reaches the ground/weeds is sad. the way they plow right up to the edge of the ditches or burn and trench through ditches or don't leave any kind of erosion control or cover crops for the winter is like saying they don't even care about actually building fertile topsoil. instead they pump fertilizers and chemicals at the problems. all those chemicals run off too in some form or another.
i don't know how you can think any of this current chemical infusion madness is sustainable or good for the long term.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> it happens here all the time (no pesticides). >in this case glyphosate isn't a pesticide anyways >it is a herbicide.
There are many different kinds of pesticides. Herbicides kill plants. Fungicides kill fungus. Insecticides kill insects. There are also rodenticides, biocides and others. Anyway, these are all pesticides.
> this season i have several examples of pests doing >some damage, but not "complete failure" level damage. >i've left them alone and most of the plants have easily >outgrown the damage.
I have previously had a fungus get so out of control that it completely wiped out my gourds. This was despite applying garden sulphur to the leaves. I have also had other vine crops utterly destroyed by squash vine borer. This last one is very aggravating, because you can even have large fruits on the vine, and be expecting a harvest when it happens.
> i'm glad. it seems that much of >what people do when they put in lawns >and gardens is try to outdo the neighbors
I never use fertilizer or anything on my lawn. What's the point? You just have to mow more often, and it kills off fireflies and diversity. Why pay for something you don't need, just to force yourself to spend more time mowing and buying more gasoline, which pollutes the air further? Anyway, I have more clover and variety out in the yard than just about anybody else nearby. The 'Trugreen' trucks like to target our house as one of the lone standouts in the neighborhood when they go around trying to drum up business. I know it probably sounds strange, but I'll put chemicals on my food way before I'll spray it all around the yard. My plants have to look like they're dying or something, though, and I do tend to try to manually pick off the offending critters first, if possible.
The only way I'm interested in "outdoing" the neighbors is perhaps by installing a cistern to capture some of the rainwater to water plants with, or maybe in converting more of my lawn into a productive garden. If we had enough room, I would also have a small wetland area in the back. This year I planted some garden crops out in the front yard, around the mailbox. (kohlrabi and kale) I may expand this slowly. I would like almost my whole front yard to be a garden, but I'm a bit worried about how the neighbors in this area would react to something that unusual. We are fairly new to the place, and I'm already putting out an urban chicken coop in the back yard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ohioguy wrote:

ah, ok, i see what you mean. i wouldn't use pesticide in place of herbicide as i generally don't consider many weeds to be pests (just a few).

yeah, these humid midwest summers can be hell on the dry loving plants.

sure, that would suck. we have had more trouble from people stealing melons/squash than losing them from bugs. we haven't grown any now for a few years because of that. this season there is a vagrant squash plant that i'll let grow and we'll see how it goes. if the borers get it i won't fret, the plant is a freebie and the space will be covered one way or another. if the squash plant can do it then i won't need to worry about a different cover until the peas go in again.

majorly agreed...

i hand pick first too. if the trouble is aphids i sometimes will prune or pull the plant. lately the ladybugs have been doing ok in keeping the gardens clear of aphids.

:) i'd love it if we had that kind of setup here too. we use the well water as it is good, but rain water is much better.

we have done that here to the point where only about 5% of the grass/lawn is left to mow. that makes me happy as i would much rather plant gardens, weed, mulch, harvest, etc than mow. now that i've converted the one large area that used to be a field of random weeds into more managed spaces including a supply of green manure for other gardens and making fertilizer (using worms).

if you are in a city or town there may even be regulations about how tall your grass can be before you start getting threats of mowing from the outside. i was rather amazed when i lived with my exgf that she got a letter for letting a few plants grow taller in her lawn so they could flower and set seed (we suspected her ex for instigating that). oy!
i'm tremendously lucky here, we aren't in the city/town and no nearby neighbors to harrass us over such things. the only trouble we get is from drifting sprays from the farm fields or runoff if there is a lot of rain quickly.
we have a small pond, but it is kept sterile (not my doing, i would like a real frog habitat, but that's not happened yet). i use various methods for keeping runoff sequestered in low areas but if it is dry for a week or two then these areas go dry. i would like to have a much deeper spot for a pond but not yet. some day... :) i have a good source of water that could be used to keep the level somewhat constant and i have a design in mind but getting it by the management and going is a whole different story.
good luck with your plans. :)
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As far as I have been able to determine, trying to converse with a religious zealot is a Sisyphian excercise akin to arguing with an idiot.
--
Derald
FL USDA zone 9a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Derald wrote:

or a drunk... i hate it when i do that.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

groups findings because of their name? Were you taught the scientific method? It has very little to do with names.
Then when confronted with "Health Effects" of Roundup, or it's "Ecological Effects", or its sale using "false advertising and scientific fraud", you duck the questions.
Then you pose a question,"

respond to the answer.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Aris A, Leblanc S.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.
--
What's the matter? Don't you like the National Institute of Health's
name either?
  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.