Yep, that looks like Iceberg. In cooler weather, it will take on a little pink and then turn pure white. Bill

I never fertilize herbs. Not beyond what's in compost. Rosemary takes awhile to mature here. It was a common sage that grew into a big bush very quickly. Bill

The Iceberg climber is particularly nice IMO. I'm very fond of climbing roses. The bush form of Iceberg is ubiquitous in my corner of Los Angeles, but the climbing form isn't very common. You scored. Iceberg puts of flowers like no other rose. Expect the growth to become more substantial. It is a tough rose. The bush form will get quite large, although many people keep them very cut back. Rosemary is about the least demanding plant there is, so long as winters are not too cold (not an issue here). I did plant a few "Arp" rosemary plants this year that are said to be the about the most cold-hearty variety. Rosemary does like free draining soil. Amend soil as necessary. Other than that is is almost carefree. I'm tired, sore, dirty, and sunkissed. Many holes dug. Still, need amending. Too hot to plant now. I may have a mostly planted out bed this evening. Fingers crossed. Bill

I must admit, I resisted planting Iceberg roses for a long time. I love white roses. In my area, Iceberg is so common one could almost say it is ubiquitous. So I went for other varieties. Several big climbers of Mme Alfred Carrier (a beautiful old French rose) and a lot of Sombreuile (a Wicherania climber with a beautiful old rose type form [flat and quartered], and a now-obscure hybrid tea from the 1940s (IMS) called Snowbird, among others. I wanted something "different." Well, it took a while but it finally sunk in why Iceberg is planted everywhere in Los Angeles. It blooms like mad (no other rose I know comes close in its ability to put off flowers almost non-stop), and it is a tough plant. It is why even gas stations have beautiful plantings of Iceberg. So, I've moved to the position "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I have 6 Icebergs to plant today. After I finish this post and my coffee. I'm mixing the plantings with herbs like rosemary, lavenders, many types of sages, and catmint to create a drought tolerant version of a cottage garden. I guess I've dawdled long enough. Off to plant. Bill

We are indeed. After so many years of drought, a real rainy season that still hasn't ended (rain in the forecast for this weekend) is amazing. Everything is green. I did major replantings this fall. Ripping out thirsty lawns and replacing them with meandering gravel paths with mixed beds of mostly drought-tolerant plants. But, as you know, even drought tolerant plants need water to get established. By dumb luck, I picked the right year to re-plant. Bill

We must be pretty close proximity. I hear thunder and it is about to rain. Crazy for LA in May. I picked up four bush form Icebergs to plant today. That won't happen due to rain. I also planted Iceberg climbers this Winter (not bare root) and they are going gangbusters. This unusual wet California rainy season has been very good for the garden. Bill

LOL. I don’t have the burden of anything. I did my homework and have relayed the finding in the medical literature. You can do your own due dillagence or not. Vast numbers of studies on high-protein/high-fat vs high card diets is available online. Google Scholar is your friend. The evidence is overwhelming and it confirms real world experience. Low fat/ high- carb diets directly undermine dog’s vitality. Feeding a 13% fat diet ensure that a member of a highly athletic species will turn into a deconditioned couch potato as a direct result of a bad diet. Bill

LOL. Who said to significantly restrict calories? Not me. Are you trying to defeat strawmen? Feeding a smaller amount of calorically dense food (read high-protein/high-fat food) allows an owner to feed the same amount of calories while cutting down on the amount of food measured by volume or by mass. Dog’s digestive systems are not evolved to deal with large low calorie meals. It is rough on them and makes them lethargic, on top of the issues with boom and bust carb methabolism. High carb diets produce a lot of waste in the form of stool. In addition to legumes, high volumes of fiber, carbs, and stool is being looked at as a potential risk factor in taurine related heart disease, When dogs eat big meals they want to sleep. That’s natural. Processing food is best done while they rest. Adding bulk in the form of nonessential carbs is counterproductive if one’s desire is to keep a dog vital. Any dog can use as much stamin as possible. This is life force. Dogs are not “couch potatoes” by nature. Using high-carb diets to de-nature a dog’s vitality is something this person doesn’t countenance as good animal husbandry. Senior dogs fed a 13% fat based ration will suffer the inevitable consequences. This diet actively rbs them of vitality. Not a good way to go IMO. Bill

I only stare things as fact that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the scientific veterinary literature. It has been shown beyond any doubt that feeding high amounts of carbohydrates drastically reduces the vitality of dogs vs a high-protein/high-fat diet. Feeding dogs a high-carb diet will turn hose dogs into couch potatoes. Guaranteed. I just related the results with a significant study that involved "couch potato" dogs. The change in diet (alone) in these dogs dramatically improved their health and stamina. This mirrors studies with many other types of dogs. Dogs are robbed of their athleticism by feeding too many carbohydrates. It is an unkindness to turn members of a naturally athletic species into couch potatoes. And senior dogs suffer the most (not that it is good for dogs of any age). Dogs will be less active when fed high-carb. Carb metabolism in canines does not supply sustained energy. The mechanism for why that's rue is well understood in the veterinary-medical, community. If a person want not to be troubled by a dog with normal amounts of canine energy then feeding a high-carb diet is a great way to undermine their vitality. But that's a crummy way to treat our companions. It is using food as a drug that undermines their state of being. Why even have a dog if one is going to treat them in such a fashion. This has been studied more than any other aspect of canine nutrition. The result is always the same no matter what the target group tested. Massive differences in stamina (vs lethargy) depending on whether a dog is fed a high-protein/high-fat diet or one with high-carbs. People who can't control portions are not responsible and probably should not own dogs. Feeding excessive amounts of food is very rough on dogs, further exacerbates lethargy, and is bad for their health. Not to mention all the stool. A 13% fat diet will, without fail, send a senior dog into a tailspin. It a person want to have a dog who will spend his/her last years barely moving, gaining weight, and sleeping most of the day this is how to accomplish it. That's a crummy way to treat a dog IMO. Bill

Please show me a single study where dogs have more vitality eating a high-carb diet vs one high in protein and fat. There are none. Zero. Meanwhile dozens and dozens that demonstrate the superiority of high-protein/high-fat rations. It is one of the most studied aspects of animal nutrition. One study, for example, took a bunch of "couch potato" type dogs and fed them a typical high carb kibble. Those dogs were then tested on treadmills for their aerobic capacity as measured by VO2 Max scores. Unsurprisingly these dogs had very poor scores. The same dogs were then switched to a high-protein/high-fat diet for a time and re-tested. Nothing in these dog's lives changed other than their food. When re-tested the VO2 Max scores soared to nearly the level of aerobic capacity as elite canine athletes due to diet alone. Dogs evolved to burn fat as their primary energy source. Not carbs. They burn fats beautifully, unlike carbs where there is always a crash and burn. If dog owners want to turn healthy animals into lethargic couch potatoes who suffer from obesity, joint issue, and bad health, then feeding high carbs is an excellent choice. Otherwise, it is foolish and deeply injurious to canine health. Senior dogs are under enough challenges without robbing them of their stamina and their vitality through food-based de-tuning. It ages a dog. The issue of nutritional deficiencies that you raise in feeding less food is a red-herring. All that's missing is empty calories from nonessential carbohydrates. Formulas are balanced according to the calorie density in dog foods. The is no reason to feed a dog any amount of carbohydrates. The less they get the better. Dogs are satisfied when they eat fats. Fats trigger satiety. If human beings are incapable of not overfeeding a dog, then those people ought not to be dog owners. Feeding massive amounts of low cal food to dogs is not kind. They are required to process unnatural about of waste. It is not normal or healthy. Plus humans have to deal with the absurd about of stool. It is a losing proposition all around. Pancreatitis is a separate issue and almost always happens to dogs who are fed very high carb diets that undermine a healthy pancreas in the first place, rather than regularizing dogs to a natural diet. If an owner of an older dog puts that senior on a high-carb diet they will inevitably see that dog lose any spunk he or she has left. It is a terrible thing to do to a beloved pet. They deserve better. Bill

It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the veterinary research that dogs do best on a high-protein/high-fat diet. Dogs are turned into "couch potatoes" by a high-carb diet. Directly. Full stop. I sometimes wonder if some people (consciously or not) embrace a high-carb "junk food" diet precisely because it makes their dogs lethargic and inactive. I guess a person has to ask themselves what they want for their dogs. The most athleticism and good health they can advance through appropriate food or whether they want to have a couch potato who sleeps all day and is bad health? Because that is the choice. The less food dogs eat in terms of volume the better. It is massively unkind to load up a dog with large portions of low-calorie food. Dogs are satisfied when they get proper portions of fat. This satisfies them. And digesting less food is a kindness, especially for older dogs. The thinking that promotes huge amounts of high carb food to satisfy dog's appetites is the path to obesity (in addition to lethargy). The worst thing for a senior dog is to be fat and inactive. Give your dogs a chance to thrive. Do not feed high-carb rations. Dogs pay a very high cost to their physical health when fed high-carb. Not good at all. Bill

If you are feeding a kibble based food, I'd advise not using a formula with less than 30/20 (protein/fat). Many "senior" formulas radically cut the fat in formulas. That's bad. Very bad. For all dogs cutting the fat portion and feeding high amounts of carbohydrates actively de-tunes a dog, meaning the food itself robs a dog of vitality and stamina. This is not "woo," but is well-established in the veterinary literature. Giving a high carb (low fat) diet to a senior dog is the most counterproductive move a person could take. Yet, the major dog food manufacturers all have low-fat senior formulas. It is crazy. Fat provides dogs with sustainable energy supply and increases their stamina (as measured by VO2 Max scores). Dogs burn fat beautifully (it is what they were shaped by evolution to use). Fat in conjunction with animal protein keeps dogs fit, lean, and energetic. In contrast, a high carb diet cuts stamina and promotes obesity. Best to feed smaller amounts of nutritionally dense high-protein/high-fat than high-carb. The fewer carbohydrates, the better. Canines have no essential need for carbs. They are filler and dogs pay a price. Aging dogs can use all the nutritional support they can get to keep their energy up and their weight down. Senior formulas that raise carb levels are as counterproductive to promoting optimal health as it gets. Minimum 30/20. Bill

Milkweed is essential to the preservation of Monarchs. I hate raising a caution because I understand how important it is to Monarch's survival. People just need to take reasonable precautions not to get the sap (the "milk" in milkweed) in their eyes. Bill

Don't you need to go with eye-dominance? I'm right handed but left-eye dominant, so I shoot left. Bill

Had a fun moment today. I was out doing some heavy gardening work today (SoCal's unusually rainy winter has been too good for the plants, so the garden has exploded and needed some thinning out). A neighbor walking her dog stopped to tell me how beautiful she thought my home and garden looked (not me, I was a fright soaked in sweat and dirt). But we got to chatting and I offered her some plants. Then she mentioned she lived around the corner and introduced herself. Then It struck me. I knew who she was. Pretty famous dramatic television actress. Her house, I should call it a "Manor" is perhaps my very favorite house in all of Los Angeles. And I told her so. Bill (tired, sore, and sun-kissed, and desperately in need of a shower)