Category: Uncategorized

Where to Draw The Line on Home Remedies

On Tuesday Holly posted an extremely interesting article about how Bounce could help control fungus gnats.  Then one of our frequent commenters (and all around great guy) Ray Eckhart pointed out that he has a problem with promulgating an off-label use of a product.  And that got me to thinking.  What household products is it OK for us to suggest that a consumer use for a non-labeled purpose, and what products shouldn’t we suggest?  This is a question that has haunted me for a long time, so with this post I want to give you my line of thinking – I’m not trying to tell you what’s right or wrong – just trying to let you know my thoughts on the topic.

First of all, let’s admit that there are off-label uses of products which most of us hardly think about and simply accept as “generally OK.”  For example, I have never been taken to task for suggesting using a plastic bag for protecting fruit from insects or for suggesting that dish washing detergent may be a good insecticide.  Of course both of these pest control techniques have their drawbacks (it can get hot in the bags in the South, injuring fruit, and insecticidal soap can burn the foliage of sensitive leaves) still, using these products outside of their labeling doesn’t seem to bother people too much.  Likewise, the idea of using alcohol to stunt plant growth, eggshells to stop slugs, or milk to control plant disease doesn’t seem to upset people too badly (whether they work or not being beside the point).

But there are some off-label uses of products which could be considered obviously bad.  For example, controlling weeds by dumping gasoline on them and setting them on fire, or perhaps washing your ripe fruit in a cup of paint thinner.

Then there are the off-label uses of products such as mouthwash for plant disease and tobacco juice for insects.  I see these as neither obviously fine nor obviously terrible.  So where is the line to be drawn?

In my opinion, as an extension educator, I feel that it is my job to tell my audience (That’s you guys!) the facts about different gardening/growing techniques including those that are “off-label.”  I don’t feel that it’s my job to tell you what to do and what not to do (well…maybe with the exception of telling you not to pour gasoline on your weeds and light them on fire or not to soak your food in paint thinner!)  It is up to you to make your own decisions.

Let’s go through a “for-instance” here.  And let’s use one that I’ve written about – using hot peppers as an insecticidal spray.  Hot pepper sprays can work to control certain insects.  Just mix up a few hot peppers with some water, add some dish detergent, put it into a spray bottle, and off you go.  I have used sprays like this myself in small experiments to control mites, and they have worked reasonably well.  I have also read a number of articles showing that these sprays have at least some effect on certain pest insects.  But hot peppers certainly aren’t “labeled” for use against insects, and let me tell you, a little hot pepper in the eyes, or even the skin, and you can be in pain for hours.  Long term damage is unlikely – but not impossible.  So what should I, as an extension educator, do?  In my opinion exactly what I just did – give you the facts and let you make your own decisions.  I feel exactly the same way about Holly’s post about Bounce – she gave you the facts – if you want to try using Bounce to control something then that’s up to you.  Do I recommend Bounce for controlling insects?  No.  But I’m the kind of person who encourages careful experimentation, so I wouldn’t tell you not to use Bounce to try to control insects either – though I would tell you to be very careful and that unintended consequences might arise.

New Year’s Prediction: Invasive Fire Continues to Burn

Happy New Year!  I hope everyone had restful and enjoyable holidays.  In addition to looking back over the year that just past, a common New Year’s tradition is to make predictions for the coming year.  Without going too far out on a limb, one of my predictions for the upcoming year is that the debate over invasive plants will continue to intensify, especially as it relates to Landscape Horticulture.  Along these lines, a couple of recent articles by Gregorio Gavier-Pizarro and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and the USDA Forest Service caught my eye.

 

In both studies; “Housing is positively associated with invasive exotic plant species richness in New England, USA” (Ecological Applications 20:7, 1913-1925) and “Rural housing is related to plant invasions in forests of southern Wisconsin, USA” (Landscape Ecology 25:10, 1505-1518), the investigators conducted on-ground assessments of species richness and density of commonly listed invasive plants  (e.g., Japanese barberry, Autumn olive, Honeysuckle, Common buckthorn, Multiflora rose) in conjunction with spatial analysis of remote sensing data to examine patterns of invasive spread in the urban/wildland interface.  As one would expect, the presence and species richness of the invasives increased with development.  An important ‘take home’ message, however, is that disturbance associated with rural housing development and the creation of edges appears to be the biggest driver of invasive species encroachment.  That is, land clearing, road-building and other development activities create habitats that are more susceptible colonization – a condition referred to as ‘invasibility’.  So whether a particular homeowner plants natives or non-invasive exotics they may still contribute to the expansion of invasive exotic plants in their region by increasing its invisibility.

 

The other thing that makes this work and related studies significant is that I think we will see a continued shift in the efforts to curtail the expansion of invasive exotic plants.  In particular, rural housing development and associated landscape practices will become and increasingly intense front-line in the invasive battle.

</d

One To Go!

Just one more little holiday to go over holiday week (A week during which faculty at UMN were put on furlough — in other words unpaid vacation), but for many of you I’m sure it’s a big one: New Years.  I’ve never been one for New Years resolutions.  It’s always just seemed kind of artificial to me.  Still, some people find real motivation with the passing of a new year.  What about you?  Any great New Year’s resolutions out there related to gardening?

Happy Holidays!

Relaxing at the in-laws in Ohio for the long Christmas weekend.  Hope all of our blog readers are having a enjoyable holidays.  In other words, I hope you didn’t have to fly anywhere over this Christmas weekend!

I’ve been catching up on some reading including recent articles on invasive alien plants that should be of interest to our readers.  I’ll share some thoughts when I get back on schedule next week.  In the meantime there’s still another football game to watch this evening and another plate of my mother-in-law’s cookies that need some attention.

Have a safe and happy New Year!

Bees and Pesticides

I had the opportunity to read a disturbing post over at Garden Rant the other day about the insecticide clothianidin and how the EPA required its producer, Bayer, to run tests on the safety of using plants grown from seeds treated with clothianidin for bees.  Tests which were, apparently, never carried out appropriately.  This post sent me over to another site, AlterNet, which explained the problem in detail.  In a nutshell what happened is that the EPA asked Bayer to run some tests on how its new pesticide might affect bees. Bayer was unresponsive at first, but eventually did run some tests (which were not what you would call robust) which showed that bees did fine when flitting around in a field of plants which came from clothianidin treated seeds  – at least for as long as the test was carried out.

Then one of our commenters asked for our opinion, and heaven knows, I am always more than happy to offer my personal opinion!  So here it is.  I am extremely unhappy with both Bayer and the EPA in this instance.  They didn’t do what they were supposed to do.  It’s as simple as that.  Tests were supposed to be run to demonstrate that it is unlikely that clothianidin affects bees.  This wasn’t done in a reasonable period of time.  Period.  As long as stuff like this occurs nobody is going to trust the EPA or the chemical manufacturers.  In terms of whether the tests were sufficient (basically some hives in a field of treated plants), well, I would have liked to have seen more depth, but they didn’t seem to be bad studies.

The implication is that, because we don’t have enough testing, clothianidin could be causing bee colonies to collapse.  This goes hand in hand with the suspicion that imidacloprid is leading to colony collapse since both of these chemicals are neonicotinoids.  We know that these pesticides can get into flowers where bees come into contact with them.  The question is whether the bees contact enough to cause hives to collapse (There is no question that these chemicals, at some level, are poisonous to bees – just as almost anything can be poisonous to humans at a high enough dose – even water).

One thing that is lost in this discussion is that SEED TREATMENTS were being examined.  A seed treatment is when the seeds which are planted are treated with a pesticide (in this case clothianidin) to protect the seed itself and the young plant from insects.  As the plant grows the insecticide will break down and become diluted – And so it is probably not going to be present at high levels in pollen that the plant (which comes from the treated seed) produces.  Still, there is potential for this to happen and so it is best if the plants which come from the seed are tested – hence the EPA’s request.

Historically, there are pesticides which have clearly and unambiguously lain waste to bee hives, the most infamous of which was Penncap-M.  This was a unique pesticide because it was a microencapsulation of the very dangerous insecticide methyl parathion.  The microencapsulation process made this pesticide last longer, and made it somewhat safer to handle, but it also made the pesticide into tiny little beads – about the same size as, you guessed it, pollen.  In fruit trees in particular this stuff would become attached to the bees (just like pollen does) and you can imagine the disastrous results.  The answer was to limit the use of this poison to certain times of the year and certain situations when bees were not likely to be around.  Why wasn’t it just banned outright?  Because it worked well and, when used appropriately, it didn’t affect bees (Here I’m giving you the official line – In my opinion its use should have been even more restricted than it was).   Penncap-M is not closely related to the neonicotinoids chemically, though it does affect insects’ nervous systems as many insecticides, including the neonicotinoids, do.

You can count me as one of the people who suspect that the neonicotinoids have something to do with colony collapse.  I’m not a bee researcher — but it is easy to see how the use of these chemicals might weaken a hive to the point where mites or disease could come in.  One of the things that drives me a little nuts though are those people who think that banning neonicotinoids is going to save our bees.  It seems quite obvious at this point that these chemicals are definitely not the sole cause of the disease and perhaps not even one of the major contributing factors.  They essentially banned these pesticides in parts of Europe, and guess what?  They still have bee colonies collapsing.  An interesting side note is that historically large-scale losses of bees isn’t as odd as we might think – in fact, we might have seen this disease (CCD) before.  Perhaps even in the 1800s.  In short, it seems that the answer to this problem is not as simple as banning some pesticides (though restricting their use may be a piece of the solution).  I wish it were.

What fir?

OK, it’s the middle of December so I get to indulge my passion for Christmas trees.  One of the most interesting projects I’ve gotten to work on during my time at Michigan State is a study to look at alternative species of firs (Abies spp) for Christmas trees and well as for landscape conifers.  Firs are fascinating trees that are distributed throughout temperate regions of the northern hemisphere.  There are about 50 species, many of which are important for timber, landscaping or Christmas trees.

 

For those of you that put off your Christmas tree shopping until the end (or want to start thinking about next year’s tree) here are three trees to keep an eye out for.

 


Korean fir Abies koreana We have several growers in Michigan that are now growing Korean fir.  It has relatively short needles that have a bottle-brush arrangement on the stem.  The color is often described as dark green, but I’d say the needles tend more to a true green or Kelly green with a silvery underside.

 


Concolor fir also makes a great landscape conifer

Conolor fir Abies concolor  I grew up in the Northwest so I always knew this tree as white fir until I moved to the Midwest.  In any case, it’s a great tree.  Long, soft-blue needles.  Depending on the seed source they can be as blue as a blue spruce.  The main draw-back here in Michigan is that concolor tend to break bud early, which makes them susceptible to frost damage in the spring.  Their citrus-like scent is hard to beat.

 


Danish growers compete for the best Nordmann fir in the “Fight for the Golden star” at their annual tree fair.

Nordmann fir  Abies nordmanniana  Denmark is the leading producer of Christmas trees in Europe and Nordmann fir is their principle species.  The Danes like Nordmann because of its deep, dark green color and natural form and symmetry.  Europeans don’t like their Christmas trees sheared so they rely heavily on genetics and selection to find trees that naturally have good form. We’re starting to see more Nordmann in the US, both here in the Midwest and in the Northwest.  Growers complain that the trees are slow-growing to start but I think some US consumers are looking for a more open, natural-looking tree and Nordmann can fill this niche.

Balanced fertilizers are usually out of balance

I’m in the midst of grading papers for my nursery management class, and something that I’m running across is an incredible number of papers where the students are recommending balanced fertilizers.  Why are they doing that?  Or maybe an even better question is, what is a balanced fertilizer?  A balanced fertilizer is a fertilizer which has three numbers which are about the same, like a 10-10-10.  The problem with balanced fertilizers is that they are much higher in phosphorus than what most plants need — at least in relation to the amount of nitrogen and potassium which plants need.  Especially here in Minnesota, where there is usually plenty of phosphorus in the ground, this extra phosphorus serves no purpose except to pollute waterways.  We have got to break the cycle of just assuming that a balanced fertilizer is the way to go.  I get to see a lot of soil tests from old agricultural fields where balanced fertilizers were used for years and years.  Usually 10-10-10.  What I usually see — with very few exceptions — are phosphorus and potassium levels which are either very high or off the charts entirely.  Phosphorus and potassium don’t move readily in the soil while nitrogen does, so every year that you add 10-10-10 in the appropriate amount for your plants needs for nitrogen you’re adding too much phosphorus and potassium.  Any extra nitrogen which you add will move through your soil, but P and K will build up year after year (and some will run-off into gutters and drains).  So what do I recommend?  I like a ratio of about 5-1-2 or 5-1-3 for an N-P-K ratio in a general use fertilizer.

The decline of Extension and the increased need for science-based information

I hate to be the downer this week, given Bert and Holly’s inspired posts, but reality continues to hit – or bite.  The budget crises in Washington state continues to gut higher education, and one of the hardest hit areas at WSU is Extension.  Land-grant institutions have a federal mandate to provide Extension services, and this sets WSU and similar universities apart from other state schools.  Unfortunately, Extension generates relatively little in terms of outside grants and contracts.  Land-grant universities like WSU tend to put their dwindling faculty resources into hiring those who can bring in multi-million dollar grants.  And as we’ve bemoaned in past posts, that isn’t in gardening or urban horticulture or arboriculture or any of those great topics that you all love to hear more about.

Let’s look what’s happened with Extension specialists at WSU.  Before I came in 2004, the Extension plant pathology specialist had retired.  The position was refilled with someone else.  The Extension entomology specialist retired last year.  His position will be refilled with someone to work with the structural pest control industry (there is some money there).  The questions that come from the public are shuffled around among other faculty, who may or may not have some partial appointment in Extension.  In any case, the public outreach and education aspect of land grant universities everywhere is taking the back seat to bringing in grant dollars and teaching college students.  That means fewer Extension Bulletins published or updated and more reliance on well-funded companies to provide their versions – good or bad – of agricultural sciences.

I’m not going to rail about the idiocy of letting public higher education fail in this country through lack of state funding – I’m sure you can see that for yourselves wherever you live.  Instead, I want to point out an effort to gather the remnant state forces to have a national impact. 

This year I’ve become associated with eXtension (a national group of Extension personnel) in the Community Horticulture Community of Practice.  This is a fledgling effort to construct a national web presence containing relevant, current, science-based information on all things horticultural.  If you check out the link above, you can click on Garden Myths, where you’ll find information from…Jeff Gillman and myself.

It’s going to take a long time to get this web resource organized and populated with good information – but it’s a start.  If you, or someone you know, is interested in helping, be sure to post a comment or email Karen Jeannette, our intrepid coordinator in Minnesota.  (I can provide her email if you are interested.)

Not your father’s extension service

We recently received a question on one of my old posts (Dec. 12, 2009) from a blog reader in Iran (yes, Iran) regarding agricultural extension and asking what’s new in how we disseminate science-based information.  There’s no doubt that things have evolved in agricultrual extension over the years.  There’s an old joke:  Guy walks into a county extension office and the agent is sitting behind his desk, crying.  The visitor asks, “What’s the matter?”   Agent replies, “My farmer died.”  

Hey, I said it was an old joke, I didn’t say it was a funny one.  Point is, the days of field extension agents or campus-based extension personnel going out and holding a farmer’s hand are long gone.  While some may still  think of dim-witted Hank Kimball on “Green Acres” when they think of extension (go to http://www.hulu.com/watch/140842/green-acres-my-husband-the-rooster-renter if you miss the reference), most university extension is going increasingly high tech.  I’m sure each on my colleagues can provide several examples of recent extension innovations in there area.  I’ll provide one that we have just launched here at Michigan State.

 

Obviously the single biggest tool we have for outreach and extension is the internet.  Recently, Dr. Pascal Nzokou, one of the lead members of our Christmas tree extension team launched the MSU Christmas Tree Channel on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/MSUChristmasTrees   


 
On the Christmas tree channel members of our extension team provide short (1 ½ – 4 minute) videos on various aspects of production: site selection, species selection, pest management, irrigation, nutrition.    


There are several advantages of using youtube for these types of videos.  First, uploading the videos is easy and straightforward.  We had a professional shoot the videos and do the editing but anyone with a digital video camera can shoot videos and load them on to youtube.  For short videos it’s easy to upload videos for viewing even at HD resolution eliminating the ‘Invisibale Gardener expereince’.  Once the video is loaded you can send the link out to people you think will be interested or include the link on your website.  People may also find your video using the search feature depending on the information you include in the description.  Lastly, most people that use the web regularly are used to searching and viewing on youtube so there’s high consumer acceptance.

Published: 11/22/2010 2:21 PM
BlogTitleForUrl: not-your-father’s-extensio

DMSO

A few months ago I was interviewed for an article where they asked me whether I thought that a deer repellant which was taken up into a tree would be a good idea. I said sure, great idea.  It would last a long time — something that most repellants currently don’t.  Well, I just saw the article and I must say that I’m not so sure that it’s a great idea any more.

It seems that the repellant that they’re talking about is basically a combination of hot peppers and DMSO.  The hot peppers have been around for a long time.  The DMSO not so long — just a few decades really (though there is very small quantity of naturally occurring DMSO in fruits) but DMSO has some properties that concern me.  When I was younger I was a competitive runner and I recall certain other runners using DMSO as a treatment for aches and pains.  I also remember a run-down house along one of my regular runs selling the stuff via a cardboard sign on the porch.  Looked kinda shady.  I haven’t seen much DMSO around recently, maybe because it isn’t legal everywhere — at least as far as I can tell.

DMSO is a solvent which crosses membranes, such as skin, very easily.  Apparently, if you use it anywhere on your body, it will make your breath garlicy.  In terms of toxicity — it isn’t considered very toxic. However, it has the ability to dissolve things, such as poisons (the insecticide imidacloprid for example), and anything which it dissolves can then cross the skin barrier very rapidly right along with the DMSO.

So to me this is a little worrying.  I don’t have much experience with DMSO, and I don’t have a problem with professional pesticide applicators who have the proper equipment applying DMSO, but I can’t help but wonder whether this stuff might be just a little too tempermental for the average homeowner to use.  Apparently the EPA has it now.  Here’s hoping that they’ll make the right decision, whatever that is.