From

Location

Message

Date Posted

New Hampshire

Six or seven years ago I was looking for some”gentler” more natural ways to fight diseases in my garden and patch. I inquired with Paul Sachs of North Country Organics in Vermont. It was from him I first heard of Compost Tea and I have been intrigued by Biological growing since then. The last several years Giant Pumpkin Growers have increasingly been talking of CT, mycorrhiza, low till, and topics of such. Last years Niagara key note speaker is one of the worlds finest authorities on MR. This year I noticed the key note speaker is the co-author of “Teaming with Microbes”.
Saying All that I have several observations and questions
1. I have seen little to none diseases suppression in my patch. I have also talked to other growers who are coming to the same conclusions. I know of only one grower who believes biology is keeping diseases at bay in his patch. He is a good grower and maybe he is doing it right. I have talked to one of this planets best growers and he told me he has abandoned the biological way and has turned to chemical drenches to control diseases and have had his best years doing so. He uses mycorrhiza but really does not know if it aids in his success. It probably doesn’t because his drenches are probably killing the mycorrhiza.
2. I see a disconnect between booking biology friendly speakers in one room and soil drench spraying programs in the other. I know some chemistry in more gentler on some of the good bugs but over all these drenches are killing the biology we are introducing to our soil (At least that is apparent to me or am I wrong). Its like shaving your head every day while taking Rogain.
3. What role is Biological enhancing products having on the progressive weights with AG?
4. Can Good biology and chemical drenches be compatible with one another?

I have no agenda or ax to grind with these observations and questions except the agenda of growing a heavier pumpkin.

12/9/2008 9:57:26 PM

Midway, UT

I don't know the specific answers to your questions (although I have opinions) but what I can say is that in the Pumpkin Grower's Survey I found that over 80% of heavy hitters use myco, over 80% of HH use only organic fertilizers and a higher percentage of HH use these products than all other growers. From this you can deduce one of two things: you have a better chance of becoming a heavy hitter when you use myco and organics or you can also deduce that 20% of HH got really big pumpkins without using these items so they may not be necessary. I think the answer is somewhere in between but I don't believe we know enough about the science of AG yet to get at the full answer. The other interesting thing that came from the Pumpkin Growers Survey is that HH have the lowest percentage of usage of compost tea of all grower groups. If I were to make a guess I think we would find that myco, organic fertilizers and compost tea all have a place in growing a big one but maybe at times we put more value in them then is really there. There is probably a happy medium between chemicals and soil biology that yields the best results. Since I don't know what that is yet I'm stickly with the organic side.

12/10/2008 2:31:27 AM

[email protected]

Jim,

I agree & probably know who you're talking about. I know of three 1500+ pound hitters who ran into the wall & now use fungicide drenches AND biologicals in combination.

The two disciplines are learning to coexist even if they don't admit it publicly.

There is one mycorrhizal inoculant manufacturer (that I know of) that has tested their inoculants in the presence of drenching fungicides. Their results have been published & I've linked it here several times.

I've asked said company to help sponsor Niagara this year. So far no answer either way.

We're hosting a commercial pesticide re-certification seminar today where said company's sales representative MIGHT show up for credits. Regardless I'll keep hounding him & his boss.

12/10/2008 7:12:16 AM

Griffith, In

Jamie, to be conclusive about HH and their use of mychorr, organics,and tea, you also need to see how long they have been using these things in comparison to how long they have been growing big,,,has it really affected their out come, or are they just on the bandwagon to use them, because someone that grew a big one used them also and they think it might benefit them, just like many of the rest of us do?

12/10/2008 2:55:57 PM

Ontario, Canada.

Jim, The simply fact is that in some patches and in some conditions certain disease strains can be more virulent. This says nothing about the suppression abilities of mycorrhiza or bacteria. The research is out there we only need to follow the links. Have those growers been testing their root systems for not only fungi colonization but spores and propagules too. The later is the key to good protection.

Biological enhancing products or SAR Systemic Acquired Response antagonists will become much more prevalent in the future. The process is largely still investigative in pumpkins. As such it is another weapon in the war chest that growers can utilize in the near term. Biological defences may over time come into wider acceptance. The pitfalls we often face is in identifying the direct cause of each condition in each location. I'm sorry to say but as yet there is no broad pen that can accurately determine why plant A from pumpkin B does better in your patch or mine.

Jamie, the survey numbers youve quoted go only so far. There still exists the possibly of ambiguity and bias in the survey.

The results are of evidence based studies are a broader example of conclusive affects but they often raise further concerns. I would not like to be on either side of the debate.

12/10/2008 4:10:16 PM

Midway, UT

I defintely agree with both of you and that is exactly what the survey final report says. Although there is a trend towards using these products there isn't anything in the survey data either way that shows a cause and effect relationship. That is why I pointed out that 20% of HH have gone big without the products even though the majority are using the products. Only long term numbers or some in depth pumpkin plant studies could prove anything either way.

12/10/2008 5:38:24 PM

Having just spent a couple days at a "bological soils" conference, and sorting through a few of things discussed, perhaps this is a perfect time to toss out some current ideas. These type events usually include some topics relating to our "giant"fetish once you sort out the distracting "farming" information ;-)

One of the keynote speakers was a "truck farm" specialist, I could only smile when one of his first statements was "healthy soils grow healthy plants" (I know I have stated that a few times Jim in our conversations). To go the next step, he went so far as to say that healthy plants are not only disease resistant but also insect resistant. Now this concept makes some sense when comparing it to "preventive medicine" for humans. Second thoughts would be that since many of the diseases we fight in the patch are vectored by insects, keeping them at bay with plants that are not prone to insect activity will reduce the odds of those diseases.

Now,all that said, "what do we do once the garden does become infected with soil bourne disease?" there was some discussion as to the use of biological treatments to the soil, crop rotation to include green manure crops, field "rest" as the soil is renewed.

Since I do realize many hobby growers don't have the option of moving to different dirt regularly I do see the need for fungicides when needed. BUT, to what degree of expense in both $$ and use of time do we really want or need to go in this direction. Perhaps more importantly, should this be done as a preventative or a cure? i.e. do we drench heavey because we can,,,or because all else has failed, we have a disease started and need to curtail it?

continued next post

12/10/2008 8:26:43 PM

One thing often NOT done is testing for pathogens present in our "native soil" before we even begin to build a garden. This important first step should be done and is just as important as that initial soil test for nutrient analysis, imo. IF you (or the lab) see a problem with elevated pathogens present, treat the area before any work is done, how is this preformed? ASK the lab for recommendations. These people are trained in this field and have first hand data on your particular soil sample. Now it basically depends on thier philosophy on treatment, chemical and current practices or the alternative of "bio-ag" for the long term wellness of that soil.

These really aren't any answers to what your initial post was asking but building that soil correctly takes time,,and more than the silver bullet of mycorrhiza to even get it close to what is a needed takes a few years and lots of knowledge. How do we get that knowledge? My suggestion is to find a team of professionals that you are comfortable with and follow their suggested program to the letter. IF you deviate from it even a little you have no one to blame but yourself if it fails in your expectations. No this isn't a quick fix or a fast method of gaining control of that soil, but in the end the time spent is worth it and the results will be there in the end.

Personally seeing chemicals dumped followed by biologicals is just another example of the "moron theory" being applied to our hobby. Bioligicals take time to show positive affects, time meaning more than the last month of the season. (just my .02 again)

12/10/2008 8:27:02 PM