Product chasing

[nvthis]

In every MJ or other plant related forum (or any media for that matter) are testimonials of various products that improve or inhance individual grows. What is interesting is that there are very few rebuttles and even when one product doesn't work for some one, it is claimed to be awesome by another, therefor creating an inconclusive result.

Here is some information regarding some of our favorite and endeared products with a slight twist. I found the topics of vit B1, mycorrhizae and soil food webs to be quite interesting.

mycorrhizae has long interested me. It seems this stuff can produce miracles as there is tons of testament, even on the Farm, swearing as much. I have been straight up told by hydro store employees that I was wasting my money, at the cost of their own sale!! There words were mycorrhizae takes at least a year to become beneficial. I have read posts on her that folks have used Rick Maughs mycorrhizae next to posts of folks using other similar products. I find this very interesting as even Rick Maughs says all these other brands (with the only exception being his, of course) take a year in the soil before they work! So?? What is the truth, exactly?? 'Cause I sure as hell can't figure it out!

So, on to the good stuff..

Palm Research Symposia

Horticulture is the cultivation of plants as ornamentals or for the production of food. When things go wrong
(plants grow poorly or not at all), horticulturists sometimes turn to products that can “cure”, revitalize,
invigorate, stimulate or enhance the growth of their plant or crop. A colleague of mine (a horticultural
consultant), has often told me, “There are no miracles!”. Unfortunately, when nothing else has worked, many
people will turn to these products hoping for a miracle. Products that purport to give you that miracle are
termed snake oil. Snake oil products claim many things, but usually without referenced research reports from
Universities. Snake oil products almost always offer numerous testimonials to support their use. Those who
provide testimonials are usually not researchers.
Science Based
The most creative and effectively marketed snake oil products often cite sound biological facts or knowledge
and then attempt to link their product to this knowledge, but references to the published research about their
product are always missing. Very often, snake oil products will attempt to use jargon relating to the chemistry,
biology or microbiology of the products in an attempt to impress the potential user with terms that sound
informative but are used in a meaningless context. In some cases, these products are “ambulance chasers” and
follow the most recent pest outbreak or natural disaster in an attempt to make money from desperate clients.
Works on a new principle
A prime indicator of snake oil products are that they rely on a new principle that gives them their efficacy. This
“new” principle may be entirely fabricated by the manufacturer or have a shred of truth based in current
science, but the science is so distorted that there is no truth in the claim. A clear explanation of the scientific
principle, its discoverer, where it was published and how it relates to the product at hand is rarely or never
available.

 

[nvthis]

Research Based
Some products make claims of efficacy based on extensive research. But who did the research? Upon
inspection, we find that independent, third party research, published in a journal is lacking. In-house research
or research conducted by contract with other companies may not have the same degree of objectivity as
University-based research projects. Some products allude to University research but never tell the user that the
research found that their product was not effective. Sometimes product literature tells outright lies about the
efficacy of the product discussed in the research. Sometimes a retired researcher will start selling a product
based on the good research they have done in the past, but with little bearing on the efficacy of the current
product or material. Past affiliations with Universities are no guarantee that products developed after the
researcher has left the institution are efficacious. Only current published reports of efficacy in peer reviewed
journals are acceptable references.
It’s too good to be true
Some problems like Armillaria (which causes root rot and basal cankers of many ornamental plants) are
essentially incurable. All the traditional sources of information suggest ways to limit the disease but no “cure”
is offered. Along comes a product that kills the pathogen and reinvigorates the sick host. Sounds too good to
be true? Then the product is probably snake oil. Rarely do efficacious pest management practices or products
come to market without some kind of University based research. Again, there are no miracles.
Soil Microbiology Products and Services
Since plants spend all their lives with a significant amount of themselves in the ground, and since we do not see
their roots very well, there is a lot of snake oil that concerns soils and soil treatments. Polymers, growth
activators, hormones, vitamins, fertilizers, worm castings, composts and their teas, are but a few products that
can fall into this category. Since none of these products claim to be a pesticide, the careful efficacy testing
required for state registrations is not required. Efficacy claims can run to the extreme.
--Mycorrhizae
Some of the most convincing products are those that have solid scientific basis for efficacy but no direct
evidence that they work. A classical example is mycorrhizal inoculants for landscape trees. Although elegant
research has shown the necessity of mycorrhizae for proper growth and development for many plants and tree
species, it does not indicate that those organisms are necessarily lacking from most soils, or that the products
used to add them to soil are viable. In a study of ten commercial mycorrhizae products, Corkidi et al.(2004),
found that four of the ten failed to infect the bioassay plants and in a second trial, three of the ten products failed
to infect. In a subsequent study, Corkidi et al (2005) found varying growth response in Liquidambar to four
commercially available products and that one product failed to infect the trees, indicating that not all products
perform the same on a given tree species
Recent research by several groups showed no effect on inoculated landscape trees from commercially available
mycorrhizal products. Enhanced survival of newly planted landscape plants and accelerated growth are
claimed by many product manufacturers when Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are included in planting
specifications. However, Carpio et al., 2003, found that high native AMF inoculum levels colonized all noninoculated
plants. Thus, comparative field studies of inoculated and uninoculated plants are difficult. Mature
trees are also subjects for mycorrhizal inoculation. The purported benefits of revitalization, increased vigor and
growth have not been substantiated in replicated third party research trials. Mature landscape trees (pin oak, Q.
palustris) were not benefited by AMF inoculants unless fertilizer was contained in the mix.(Appleton, et al.,
2003) .
Indeed many manufacturers of mycorrhizal inoculants add other ingredients to increase product efficacy.
Various studies have found that effective growth promoting inoculants do not necessarily cause infection of the
roots (Corkidi, et al., 2004, 2005,). Also, when infection does occur, growth is initially retarded in young
plants. Sometimes a product claims great things because of the interactions of its ingredients. A combination
of ingredients including mycorrhizal inoculants or cocktail will be the ticket to success. Unfortunately, we
cannot separate out the effects of the wetting agents the fertilizer or the biological component as the efficacious
ingredient, if any of them are effective. One component of the cocktail could have stimulated growth,
especially if there were nutrient deficiencies to start with. A simple all-purpose fertilizer could have achieved
the same result at 1/10 the cost.
There is a growing understanding that AMF populations are diverse and that different fungi inhabit different
geographies. Stabler (2001) suggests that urbanization changes the composition of AMF populations in
landscapes and that landscape irrigation may impede infection. Allen et al., (2005) have shown that various
successional stages of forests have their own unique AMF populations that may be more or less stimulatory to
replanted trees depending on their origin. Poor or non-existent urban soils are often used as the poster child for
mycorrhizae applications. The supposition is that since the soils were removed (grading) or degraded by other
home building activities, that mycorrhizae need to be replaced before plants will grow--but which mycorrhizae?
Allen et al. (2005), indicate that mycorrhizae not native to a site may not function at that site because they are
not adapted to grow there. This calls into question the use of “any old” mycorrhizal inoculant to stimulate tree
growth.
-Biological control
A considerable amount of time is spent each year by companies producing biological control microorganisms.
Although these often show good efficacy in laboratory or greenhouse trials and this research is grandly
displayed, there are only a few products that show such efficacy in field-based trials. Many of the Trichoderma
based products simply do not work outside the lab or greenhouse. Biological control is an elusive thing that we
seek to understand constantly, catch glimpses of in the field, study intensively and consistently fail to recreate
when and where we want it to happen.
-Soil Food Webs
Manipulation of Soil Food Webs is said to balance all the complexities of soil so that plants will grow well.
The concept here is to balance the various microorganisms so that the soil will benefit the crop at hand. Lab
services are used to diagnose the organism content of a given soil sample. Horticulturists then use this
information to make the recommended changes to modify the soil ecology and enhance plant performance. The
entire concept is couched in soil microbiology and soil ecology concepts. Because the ideas are new to many
people and the speaker is enthusiastic and charismatic, a new crop of “followers” are created that spread the
mythos that this is the way to manage soils, fight disease and produce healthy plants. As the story goes, in
poorly managed soils, all the “good” fungi are killed and only the plant pathogens remain.
I will agree on one thing, Soil food webs are complex. For a review on this subject, see the paper by Ferris and
Matute, (2003). Ferris and others have found that nematodes are good indicators of the status of the soil food
web. Since nematodes feed on fungi and bacteria, the two most important manipulators of organic carbon,
nematodes guilds can be monitored to determine the various successional stages of decomposers in a food web.
Maintenance of labile sources of soil organic carbon ensures adequate levels of enrichment for opportunist
bacterivore nematodes and thus adequate fertility necessary for crop growth. Labile organic carbon can be
supplied by organic amendments or by the roots left behind after a crop is harvested. Organisms come and go
in the soil, dependant on carbon available for their growth. If one group (guild) of bacteria or fungi use up the
available food, another will take over on what is left. Ferris and others refer to the changes in food web
function as functional succession. Analysis of nematode fauna has emerged as a bioindicator of soil condition
and of functional and structural makeup of the soil food web (Bongers and Ferris, 1999). Nematodes are used
to assess the food web because evaluation of the food web structure is in itself very difficult; you would have to
inventory and assess all of the participants. Functional analysis of the web is difficult because it may not
indicate how the various functions are being accomplished or whether they are sustainable (Ferris, 2005).
Merely counting bacteria and fungi gives nothing but a snapshot view of what was happening the day the
samples were obtained. Since Nematodes are the most abundant animal in soils, they can be used as a useful
tool in assessing the structure, function and probably resilience of the soil food web (Ferris, 2005). Ferris and
others are still researching what perturbations in the soil food web mean for crop production. This
understanding of the biology of soils is new and not yet practicably applicable on a wide basis.
-Compost Teas
A natural extension of food web science is the use of compost teas to strengthen the food web. Compost teas
are “brewed” from compost usually in an aerobic fermenter. Because the feedstock (compost) is highly
variable, the resultant teas can also be quite different. This variability makes them difficult to conduct research
on—or at least research that can be published in peer reviewed journals. Compost teas contain many different
substances plus nutrients that plants can use for growth. The problem comes with rates. How much do you
apply and how often? There is a lot of experimentation going on by the users of the teas but not much in the
academic community due to the variability of these systems.
Horticultural Urban Legends
These are practices and products that many people working in our industry may hold to be useful but have no
scientific basis for method of action. They are formed from misinformation passed on over the generations or
from common observations that are misinterpreted. A good example is that of placing gravel or rocks in the
bottom of a planting hole to increase drainage for the rootball. This is borne out by the fact that these drawings
exist in old books (see fig. 1. taken from the book of trees, 1952). Even though the mistakes are corrected in
modern texts (Harris et al., 2003) the myth that rocks in the bottom of a planting hole creates drainage, lives on
today, and actually shows up in some modern architectural plans.

 

[nvthis]

Another example is the notion that pruning woody plants
stimulates their growth. The more severe the pruning, the more
the plant is shocked into good growth. Although the growth of
latent buds from major limbs that have been headed back leads to
copious regrowth, if you compare the overall growth of this tree
to a similar unpruned tree, the pruned tree will have grown lesson
the main trunk over the same amount of time.
Transplanted trees do not need to be pruned to compensate for
their root loss. Sometimes when trees are moved, compensatory
pruning is done to “balance” the roots with the shoots. Research
has consistently shown that as mentioned above, pruning is a
growth retarding process, and thus slows the establishment of
transplanted trees (Dagit and Downer, 2002)
There are many funny ideas about mulches. Almost Any mulch
can be applied to the soil surface with few bad affects. There are
some exceptions where the mulch contains toxic acids or contains
weed seeds. However, the belief that high C:N ratio mulches
(contain a lot of wood) will extract nitrogen from under the soils
to which they are applied has little or no scientific evidence to
support it. Just the opposite is true. Over time, woody mulches
decay and release nitrogen to underlying root systems (Downer et
al, 2002).
A product that has attained Horticultural Urban Legend status is Vitamin B-1. The historical account of
Vitamin B-1 and the public craze it caused was well told by Rasmussen (1999) and is briefly summarized here.
In the 1930’s Caltech’s James Bonner discovered, that Thiamin (vitamin b-1) was able to restore growth to pea
root tips that had languished in tissue culture. It was concluded to be essential in plant growth media. Bonner
later found that B-1 had little growth promoting effects on most whole plants in hydroponic culture, but that
some plants such as camellia, and cosmos showed dramatic growth increased to added B-1 vitamins. Bonner
latter discovered that thiamin production was associated with the foliage of growing plants. The hoax was on in
1939 when Better Homes and Gardens magazine ran an article that claimed thiamin would produce five inch
rose buds, daffodils bigger than a salad plate and snapdragons six feet tall!. In 1940, Bonner entered into
collaborative research with Merck pharmaceutical company to master the growth-promoting effects of B-1,
account for the wide variability in his experimental results and develop a product that gave consistent good
results. Bonner proved during this period that B-1 was phloem mobile was made in leaves and transported
downward in stems. Bonner’s experiments with Cosmos continued, but with varying results, so he sought
cooperative research with University experiment stations around the country. Results were mixed, some
showed growth promotion, most not. By 1940, other physiologists widely reported negative results. By 1942
Bonner was debunking his own discoveries, stating that the effect only ever occurred in very few plants and that
since thiamin was found in soil itself, field applications were unlikely to benefit plants. Bonner ultimately fully
retracted his claims of efficacy by saying “It is now certain, however, that additions of vitamin B1 to intact
growing plants have no significant or useful place in horticultural or agricultural practice.”.. The public craze
and fanatical headlines about thiamin continued but Merck withdrew all interest and funding in the concept so
as to distance itself from a product that does not work.
Conclusion
New products come and go. Snake oil products unlike horticultural urban legends tend to disappear rapidly,
when their efficacy fails to materialize after application. The products that confound their purported results
with fertilizers or growth stimulators can persist, but eventually they too fail to live up to expectations at some
point and will fade from popularity. Try to obtain some kind of consensus with university-based research or
other peer reviewed research reports, field efficacy trials that you run for yourself, and the testimonials of
others. After awhile, you will be able to ascertain the nature of the oil before you purchase it.
References
Allen, M.F. and E.B Allen, and A. Gomez-Pompa. 2005. Effects of mycorrhizae and non-target organisms on
restoration of a seasonal tropical forest in Qunitana Roo, Mexico: Factors limiting tree establishment.
Restoration Ecology 13:325-333.
Bongers, T. and H. Ferris. 1999. Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental
monitoring. Trends Evol. Ecol. 14:224-228.
Carpio, L.A., Davies, F.T. and M.A. Arnold. 2003. Effect of commercial mycorrhiza on growth, survivability,
and subsequent landscape performance of selected container grown ornamental nursery crops. Procs. of the
SNA research conference 48:45-48.
Corkidi, L., E.B. Allen, D. Merhaut, M.F. Allen, J. Downer, J. Bohn and M. Evans. 2004. Assessing the infectivity of
commercial mycorrhizal inoculants in plant nursery conditions. J. Environ. Hort. 22:149-154.
Corkidi, L., E.B. Allen, D. Merhaut, M.F. Allen, J. Downer, J. Bohn and M. Evans. 2005. Effectiveness of commercial
mycorrhizal inoculants on the growth of Liquidambar Styraciflua in plant nursery conditions. J. Environ. Hort. 23:72-76.
Dagit. R. and J. Downer. 2002. To prune or not to prune: recovery of Coast Live Oak after transplanting. Proceedings of
the 5th Oak Symposium, San Diego, CA USDA Forest Service G. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-184: 269-380.
Downer, J., B. Faber. and J. Menge. 2002. Factors affecting root rot control in mulched avocado orchards.
Hort Technology 12:601-605.
Ferris, H. 2005. The structure and functions of the soil food web. Proceedings of the Landscape Disease
Symposium, November 29, 2005, Santa Paula, CA. pp 28-36.
Ferris, H. and M.M Matute. 2003. Structural and functional succession in the nematode fauna of a soil food
web. Applied Soil Ecology 23:93-110.
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and N. P. Matheny. 2003. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees,
Shrubs, and Vines Fourth Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Rasmussen, N. 1999. The forgotten promise of thiamin: Merck, Caltech biologists and plant hormones in a
1930’s biotechnology project. J. of the History of Biology 32:245-261
Stabler, L.B., C.A. Martin, and J.C. Stutz. 2001. Effect of urban expansion on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal
mediation of landscape tree growth. J. Arboriculture 27:193-202

 

[nvthis]

Well now, that was certainly fun. Or, at least, food for thought.

Original documents found here:

hXXp://ceventura.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Landscape_Notes8436.pdf

XX to TT

 

[Qman]

Good read nv. I don't know if I am smarter our stupider :icon_cookie:

Doesn't Rick Maughs use his version of a SuperSoil?

 

[baggins]

nice job. not just another " the guy at the hydro store told me" post. excellent research.

 

[been]

You're going to make consumers rich with their own money NV! :cash