I will prune it in early spring, but I have a few questions. Is it fine if I prune 5-10% of the tree? I would like to keep a few small branches in a V shape. Can this harm the tree? I want to remove all the top branches. No point in keeping them, can't even reach that high. I've read that pruning a lot during summer can potentially kill an apricot tree (bleeding it to death), but I'm assuming it would be safe to do it while it's dormant? I've marked the branches that I plan to keep. I will apply a copper spray fungicide on them next week. A week later, I will apply a chlorothalonil fungicide just for some extra protection. In early spring, I will remove the rest of the branches, apply copper spray fungicide. When the leaves open up, chlorothalonil will be applied. Assuming that there would be a lot of new growth in summer, the following spring, I will prune out all the old branches and only keep the new ones. All this just to make sure that the disease is hopefully completely gone. Does this sound like a good plan? This post was edited by Ghadames on Wed, Oct 22, 14 at 22:35

Hey that's pretty cool for a seedling. I expect a lot of mine will be even more boring to start with considering the parent plants i am using. but even now i can't wait to see what kind of flowers i get from the seedlings i have going. the two oldest seedlings - one is the little copy of butterfly and the other i should find out in about a month or so as long as i don't lose the bud. guessing it may also be a copy of butterfly. (i suspect it was a self pollinated pod i found at disney one year)

YES, milk allergy can definitely cause chronic ear infections. As a matter of fact, milk allergy would be the first thing I would suspect, especially since it is most often the cause, and it is so easy to test for & treat. I really need ot write this down & save it so I don't have to keep typing it out.... Milk allergy and lactose intolerance ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!! Do not, I repeat DO NOT confuse the two! Lactose intolerance is the inability to digest the milk-sugar lactose, which is present in all mammal milks. It usually develops in susceptible people around the 2-4 year mark (which means it is EXTREMELY RARE to have a lactose-intolerant infant), when the stomach stops producing the enzyme Lactase, which is needed to break down the lactose. Milk allergy, on the other hand, is a true allergic response. Sometimes (although not too terribly often), it can cause typical food-allergy reactions like swelling & hives. But most often, a milk allergy is of the "hidden" type, manifesting itself in symptoms like chronic ear infections, chronic runny nose, headaches, and bedwetting. To test for milk allergy, all you have to do is remove all cow's milk products from the child's diet. With the array of soy & rice milk-substitutes on the market, this is no longer a difficult thing to do - although you do have to be vigilant in reading labels, as milk is hidden in most processed foods. Look out for milk derivatives like casein (which is found, surprisingly, in soy cheese!) and whey, as well, as they will also interfere with the testing process. When the milk has been removed from the diet for about a week, the offending symptoms should be gone, or at least be lessened. The child should be kept off of milk until the symptoms go away. If they don't, the something other than milk is probably the culprit (or sometimes other foods in conjunction with milk). If they do, then introduce milk back into the diet for a day & see what happens. Usually the symptoms will return almost immediately. If an earache crops up that night, then you've found the problem. It's relatively easy to do, and SO much healthier than over-reliance on antibiotics. It's best to save those for treatable infections, when they are really needed.

Hey guys, Thanks to all that took the time to answer. I appreciate it. I know my post was long and I'm not very good at communicating this way. Yes, costs are a consideration... but not the main thing. We have had communication "issues" in the past with this vet and her office staff and we are trying to rectify this. Although, I don't think we are getting anywhere. For instance, when we took the new pups in for the second set of shots (the rescue shelter had given the pups the first set of shots, but we missed the time frame by 6 days (it was unavoidable on our part) so the vet insisted that the first shots wouldn't count). After the exam she sent in a vet tech to finish up and we specifically asked what would be needed on the next visit for puppy shots (what we considered the 3rd set but the vet said they were the second set) and we were told that there was no charge for the actual visit because there was no need for an exam, it was considered just a follow up visit, and then given a list of shots needed. I had it figured at 57 dollars... and that is after i told them that it wasn't just the money due that was the problem, it was not knowing ahead of time and we are not willing to face surprise charges (when possible, of course, we are not talking about emergency situations or diagnostics). So... here we are with the pups in the exam room, on time, according to the vets strict shedule for time allowed between sets of puppy shots and just to be doubly sure I mention this to the vet tech who sees us and the pups before the vet does. She tells me there must be some confusion (picture heavy sighs and eye rolls from DH and I.. here we go again) and I explained to her that the confusion must be on their part, not ours, because we specifically asked on the last visit about this. She tells me this is "impossible'. I tell her it is not only possible but, sadly, highly possible and par for the course. Geesh! She then asks me who the vet tech was on that visit. I tell her I don't know her name (it's hard to keep track, there are new and different employee's, including this one, every time we visit and this is, again, after we have told them that we want all communication on record and that we neeed to know what to expect, moneywise, beforehand... surprises are no longer accepted) but it should be on the record, no? Silly me, eh? We tell her we want to speak with the vet.. she scurries off and comes back just as quickly...says things will be straightened out. Starts to leave again, as she does we spot the vet tech from the previous visit. We tell her that is her, she's the one that gave us the info. Much wispering and not so whipering conversations going on in the hall. At this point it is bordering on the absurd. I open the door and ask the vet to talk to us.. she says take it up with the office manager and walks away. My DH was boiling. Anyway, office manager tells us same thing... it is impossible that anyone could have told us this. At this point door is opened and i see the vet again... she tells me that this is not up for discussion and that if I don't agree with the exam fee and a few other puppy shots that we were, also, told previously that were not needed, that we can go to petco! I was furious and told her that even petco has scheduled shot days and if we left now, the pups would, again, be off the allowed puppy shot period, thus forcing us to negate the 2nd set of shots just as we had to negate the first set. Her reply was that a week or so wouldn't matter!! My DH had taken us to the vets office directly from work... he works construction, very hard work... he had not even had a chance to take his boots off. He was tired to begin with. Now he was exhausted and pis*ed, too. We gave up in sheer frustration. What was supposed to cost 57 dollars now costs us 147 dollars! Ugh! We didn't even have 147 dollars. It simply wasn't in the budget for that week. Don't forget, we did try to budget for this. Also, on the Rimadyl thing, I struggled with the issue when Toby needed it. I knew it was a risk but he was in so much pain that if there were no relief I would have had to put him down. He was crying at night and could never find a comfortable position. The Rimadyl was a miracle drug for him. My concern for the pups is because the vets office says that there isn't much risk for young pups. I'm not sure I believe that. And I do know that there are lots of other meds out there. What I need to know is which ones to ask for and which ones will work with less risk. There, surely, must be standard meds for post surgical pain? As to folks who say that the pups won't need pain meds? Maybe not for 5 to 7 days...but I do believe that they will need some pain meds. I don't subscribe to the thought that they (animals) don't need them even for such things as dew claw removal, neutering and tail docking (as newborn pups or older) and such. I remember when hospitals routinely did circumcision (no anestectic) on human babies. I didn't understand THAT thought process then, never mind that it came from doctors. It took a nurse to prove just how excruciating the pain actually was/is. She instinctively knew that the cries from these babies were cries of pain. Nobody listened to her. She taped recorded the different cries of babies. Clearly, you could hear the terror and pain in the cries. It seems so foolish to me that doctors would think otherwise. I know that when I had abdominal surgery I was very, very sore and in pain for more than 24 hours. I won't over medicate them. I'll observe them and see what they need for how long. But I also won't under medicate them. Hey, maybe I will end up taking the pups somewhere else. Still, I'd like to know ahead of time what pain meds are effective and not risky. Thanks again, Silly