Bill,
Have you ever sponsored research with academic research labs? If so (and I strongly doubt it), did the results ever come in on the timetable you set at the beginning of the project? Do the experiments you plan to perform ever get executed exactly as planned? The answer is "no," nine times out of ten. This is, not surprisingly, one of the nine.
I have done exactly this kind of work—still doing it today, both with academic and with contract research organizations. (And in fact, I wrote the draft of the contract for the AHS, so I knew exactly what was in there.) Dr. Grewal moved his entire research operation to another university during the study, something completely out of the AHS's control. If you want more assured results, getting "no" down to three or four, then you pay three or four times as much to go with an independent contractor.
So this adds up to a misfit of timing (trying to get THJ to print while trying to get the most accurate research report in it), where you are off on your wild conspiracy theory.
I don't enjoy making excuses for the AHS, as I would certainly have handled this whole situation differently, frankly so that I wouldn't be using this forum for debating you. I'll push them to get the full results out in an e-newsletter ASAP.
Nemakill
Moderators: ViolaAnn, redcrx, Chris_W
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
David,
This forum debate is about the AHS officers, who are running a non-profit educational society, promoting an unknown and untested product that bypasses all EPA regulations for pesticides. I'm not the one presenting these results as a "summary of the key findings of the study" - they are. They are clearly using the study to promote Nemakill sales and I haven't speculated on what they are getting out of doing that. No idea why you bring up the contract or if there was any problems with it, because that was not made available to the members.
I knew from the proposed experiments that the study wasn't going to make any great discoveries and I'm sure Grewal did too. Nematodes are far too tough to deal with for any simple answers to just turn up in a few very basic experiments, most of which had already been done with hostas and other plants. The study was promoted as some grand project with lofty aspirations that it was never going to deliver on to get societies and individuals to provide the funding.
That aside, the people who are supposed to be reporting on the study to the people who paid for it are glossing over it as quickly as possible and rushing to promote Nemakill. There's no secret conspiracy - they are doing it as openly as possible, even in writing this time. Almost half of their final published summary of the research reads like an ad for Nemakill. I wouldn't be surprised if they allow the ExcelAg people to use copies of it in their advertising too, like they did with the last summary. Science was left by the roadside on the way to the Nemakill store.
So far only a handful of people reported trying Nemakill, one here who said it was ineffective and highly toxic, and one Chris mentions who said it was ineffective and burned her hands and lungs. It isn't looking like Mortko's "silver bullet" in anything so far.
I have to say kudos to you for having the gumption to stand up to them about using their position to promote Nemakill sales. I'm not surprised they ignored it, since they seem to be mainly interested in getting people to buy the stuff. But seriously, why would they leave out a major test that proved Nemakill was truly the "silver bullet" when that test was done last summer? They dropped all their excitement about bleach, ammonia, etc., which were giving the same results and then made a ridiculously bad comparison of Pylon and Nemakill.
This forum debate is about the AHS officers, who are running a non-profit educational society, promoting an unknown and untested product that bypasses all EPA regulations for pesticides. I'm not the one presenting these results as a "summary of the key findings of the study" - they are. They are clearly using the study to promote Nemakill sales and I haven't speculated on what they are getting out of doing that. No idea why you bring up the contract or if there was any problems with it, because that was not made available to the members.
I knew from the proposed experiments that the study wasn't going to make any great discoveries and I'm sure Grewal did too. Nematodes are far too tough to deal with for any simple answers to just turn up in a few very basic experiments, most of which had already been done with hostas and other plants. The study was promoted as some grand project with lofty aspirations that it was never going to deliver on to get societies and individuals to provide the funding.
That aside, the people who are supposed to be reporting on the study to the people who paid for it are glossing over it as quickly as possible and rushing to promote Nemakill. There's no secret conspiracy - they are doing it as openly as possible, even in writing this time. Almost half of their final published summary of the research reads like an ad for Nemakill. I wouldn't be surprised if they allow the ExcelAg people to use copies of it in their advertising too, like they did with the last summary. Science was left by the roadside on the way to the Nemakill store.
So far only a handful of people reported trying Nemakill, one here who said it was ineffective and highly toxic, and one Chris mentions who said it was ineffective and burned her hands and lungs. It isn't looking like Mortko's "silver bullet" in anything so far.
I have to say kudos to you for having the gumption to stand up to them about using their position to promote Nemakill sales. I'm not surprised they ignored it, since they seem to be mainly interested in getting people to buy the stuff. But seriously, why would they leave out a major test that proved Nemakill was truly the "silver bullet" when that test was done last summer? They dropped all their excitement about bleach, ammonia, etc., which were giving the same results and then made a ridiculously bad comparison of Pylon and Nemakill.
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Tigger
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Oct 14, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 6b - 7a
- Location: SE Penna Zone 6b (7a?), lat. 39°50'
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
From the Grewall report (still not the final version, but closer):
As well, when you see the whole set of experiments, you'll see that the protocol went far beyond building a sales sheet for Nemakill, but Nemakill was, in fact, the control that proved far superior to any other tested treatment.
Is the science complete on this? Certainly not. But I hope that you can see the value in what has been accomplished so far. For better or worse, results on the use of Nemakill in home gardens will be coming in. Cindy Deutekom (among others) have already reported positive results. Will you be trying the samples Carol got last year?
David
The procedure they used for infecting plants with FNs is described in other experiments, but I don't know that they had positive confirmation of infection in these plants. I also don't know why they don't describe the results of a control sample, assuming they did one (as they did for all the other experiments). For reference, the usual infection level in the control group another experiment (#8, assuming same test method and same infection method) was about 40. And (lastly) I don't know exactly what the weather was through the winter of 2015 to know what state of dormancy the hostas were in at the end of February in the test plot in Knoxville. I'll push for detail on these in the final report.Experiment 11. Determine effectiveness of treatment of nematode-infected hosta buds with 0.5% (v/v) Nemakill in preventing nematode infection (symptom development) in leaves later in the summer/fall season.
Procedure:
The treatment was given to the buds of 12 dormant nematode-infected plants grown in the ground at a garden at the end of February 2015 in Knoxville, TN. The plants were spaced at least 50 cm far apart from each other. For each plant, 1 liter of 0.5% (v/v) Nemakill solution prepared water was slowly drench applied to the center of the crown. The plants were examined for possible nematode infection symptoms visually every month until the end of the growing season.
Results and Interpretation:
In July, most plants looked good and only one had foliar nematodes and the total number of nematodes from the two infected leaves of this plant was 12. No evidence of phytotoxicity was observed on these plants.
These results indicate that treatment of buds of the hosta plants before they emerge from dormancy in the spring can significantly reduce the potential for nematode infection of leaves in the summer/fall season.
As well, when you see the whole set of experiments, you'll see that the protocol went far beyond building a sales sheet for Nemakill, but Nemakill was, in fact, the control that proved far superior to any other tested treatment.
Is the science complete on this? Certainly not. But I hope that you can see the value in what has been accomplished so far. For better or worse, results on the use of Nemakill in home gardens will be coming in. Cindy Deutekom (among others) have already reported positive results. Will you be trying the samples Carol got last year?
David
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
OK, looks like they did the preventative drench test after all. Mortko was asked specifically about this at their presentation at Hosta College, and he denied it. He did say dormant plants were drenched but specifically said they were not checked later to see if they had nematodes. Any idea why he would deny the test was done?
Just to stay clear we are talking about a preventative application here to keep nematodes from getting into the plant. Not dealing with nematodes inside a plant. They do not overwinter inside a dormant hosta, just between bud scales on the dormant buds, external to plant tissues. None are internal according to all research to date. Unless there are other experiments, it seems no tests were done on active plants - just dormant prevention tests.
Now, if you are working with Grewal, there are a few questions he might want to address in his report. The control for that test is one. Also, can he explain what infected dormant hostas means? The only way they could be called infected is if they had nematodes in the dormant buds since they would not be internal, so how would he know they were infected? Even if soil tests showed nematode presence it doesn't mean any were in the plant. Also, were leaf samples taken from non-symptomatic plants to check for nematodes? What does he mean by "given to the buds"? It reads as if they exposed the crowns of plants in the ground then poured the stuff on them.
The above questions go a long way to assessing the value of the results. Using just 12 plants is a very small sample for this kind of test. It would be more reliable as a field test with hundreds of test and control plants. If there was no control.........
I doubt I will try the sample this year. To see if it has any effect I would have to have test plants that I know have nematodes present in the dormant buds or the soil. Of course it's too late for a preventative drench anyway, and nothing anywhere indicates activity inside a plant with it. I'm more interested in getting a grip on the difference between the bacterial and nematode symptoms. Visual observation of brown streaks in leaves does not prove nematodes.
I don't think you can read too much into average gardeners assessing whether Nemakill works. Did anybody even have it early enough last year to do a preventative drench while they were still dormant? They had Cindy Deutekom testing their "cure for HVX" too. BTW, these 8oz. samples do not have the safety warnings about full protection including mask and eye protection.
Just to stay clear we are talking about a preventative application here to keep nematodes from getting into the plant. Not dealing with nematodes inside a plant. They do not overwinter inside a dormant hosta, just between bud scales on the dormant buds, external to plant tissues. None are internal according to all research to date. Unless there are other experiments, it seems no tests were done on active plants - just dormant prevention tests.
Now, if you are working with Grewal, there are a few questions he might want to address in his report. The control for that test is one. Also, can he explain what infected dormant hostas means? The only way they could be called infected is if they had nematodes in the dormant buds since they would not be internal, so how would he know they were infected? Even if soil tests showed nematode presence it doesn't mean any were in the plant. Also, were leaf samples taken from non-symptomatic plants to check for nematodes? What does he mean by "given to the buds"? It reads as if they exposed the crowns of plants in the ground then poured the stuff on them.
The above questions go a long way to assessing the value of the results. Using just 12 plants is a very small sample for this kind of test. It would be more reliable as a field test with hundreds of test and control plants. If there was no control.........
I doubt I will try the sample this year. To see if it has any effect I would have to have test plants that I know have nematodes present in the dormant buds or the soil. Of course it's too late for a preventative drench anyway, and nothing anywhere indicates activity inside a plant with it. I'm more interested in getting a grip on the difference between the bacterial and nematode symptoms. Visual observation of brown streaks in leaves does not prove nematodes.
I don't think you can read too much into average gardeners assessing whether Nemakill works. Did anybody even have it early enough last year to do a preventative drench while they were still dormant? They had Cindy Deutekom testing their "cure for HVX" too. BTW, these 8oz. samples do not have the safety warnings about full protection including mask and eye protection.
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Tigger
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Oct 14, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 6b - 7a
- Location: SE Penna Zone 6b (7a?), lat. 39°50'
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
I have asked for clarification on all my (your) points as listed above, including the safety labeling per Excel Ag. As these things go (again, my experience bears this out), it's the end of the semester for Professor Grewall, and the grad student who did the work has finished his degree and moved on to his next job, but Cindy is pushing hard for these final details. The goal is first to have the report finalized for distribution to the research sponsors (including local societies) and then AHS members, and to have the work published in a peer-reviewed journal.
How do you know it's too late for a crown drench/foliar application on infested plants? As we both agree, Grewall's was a one-off experiment with little dynamic variation: not ideal to have a single set of plants with a single application timeframe. Why not try for yourself? If you see no results, it could mean (broadly) one of two things: Nemakill doesn't work at all, or that the timing of the application is important (and you missed the window). I don't know when Cindy applied her treatments, or her test subjects' level of infestation (your comments about possible bacterial infection mimicking FN damage are well-taken), but she saw significantly less effect of (or mimicking) FNs.
Other experiments in the set of 13 indicate that a foliar spray/drench later in the season might also be beneficial (with the supposition that you should aim for the undersides of the leaves). This was not tested on whole plants, but on sections of infected leaves, resulting in FN death.
Cindy is not trialing their HVX stuff: she sees little hope in this (and I agree) and didn't want to keep any infected plants around her clean ones. AHS is not supporting that work to my knowledge, although sales of Nemakill will, of course, allow the company to conduct further product development.
How do you know it's too late for a crown drench/foliar application on infested plants? As we both agree, Grewall's was a one-off experiment with little dynamic variation: not ideal to have a single set of plants with a single application timeframe. Why not try for yourself? If you see no results, it could mean (broadly) one of two things: Nemakill doesn't work at all, or that the timing of the application is important (and you missed the window). I don't know when Cindy applied her treatments, or her test subjects' level of infestation (your comments about possible bacterial infection mimicking FN damage are well-taken), but she saw significantly less effect of (or mimicking) FNs.
Other experiments in the set of 13 indicate that a foliar spray/drench later in the season might also be beneficial (with the supposition that you should aim for the undersides of the leaves). This was not tested on whole plants, but on sections of infected leaves, resulting in FN death.
Cindy is not trialing their HVX stuff: she sees little hope in this (and I agree) and didn't want to keep any infected plants around her clean ones. AHS is not supporting that work to my knowledge, although sales of Nemakill will, of course, allow the company to conduct further product development.
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Regarding preventative drench, it isn't very clear at this time when the nematodes go up into the plant, or for how long a period. It would be temperature and weather dependent, so very fluid and not easy to say with any certainty. I suggested experiments along those lines, but Mortko ignored it. Having a better idea of when would be a lot more useful than knowing humidity conditions.
If you are doing it as an experiment knowing only what we currently know, doing it after the soil warms and the plants are leafing out provides too much chance for them to already be up in the leaves. The experiment then is spoiled. Only way to be sure is to do it before the shoots come out of the ground. The goal is to contact kill them before they can get safely into the leaves.
Then there's the question of whether nematodes are there to begin with. If you aren't sure they are (by observation) then you don't know if it worked or if there just weren't any there. If they do show up, then there's the question of whether they were infected later after the product was no longer active. It isn't that easy to be sure what you're looking at. You could go years thinking something worked when it didn't or didn't work when it did.
Then there's assessing the results. Grewal's experiment, small as it was, showed that Nemakill applied at that time and rate failed to eliminate the nematodes in at least 1 plant in 12. The low count in the leaf is odd, but probably not meaningful. Chris has seen hundreds in a section of symptomatic leaf. Without more detail, I don't think the test clearly demonstrated effectiveness, merely hinted at it.
Regarding the leaf tests, if the leaves were not on the plants, I doubt that really meant much. Why didn't he spray it on leafed out plants? That would be the more important test. Nothing much can be assumed from the leaf disk in a petri dish test. With no spraying on living plants, there was obviously no phytotoxicity test on leafed-out plants, either. This is important because you'll remember that some Nemakill ingredients are used as an herbicide.
Regarding phytotoxicity, how thoroughly did he check? Were the drench plants dug and checked for root damage? Were the plants stunted compared to the control plants, but otherwise looked healthy? As no real testing was done with this Nemakill stuff by the manufacturer, there are a lot of questions about what it does to the soil as well.
One thing is now clear - Nemakill did not show "100% effectiveness in hostas" as the AHS and ExcelAg people were trumpeting. Depending on the rest of the details of the drench test, it may not have shown any effectiveness, for example if none of the control plants showed nematodes. Even if the controls all showed nematodes the test ones weren't all nematode-free.
"C. Deutekom mentioned that Dr. David Miles is researching a cure for Hosta HVX, and he is confident that he is on the right path for success. C. Deutekom is also doing some testing for him." is what was printed in the board minutes last summer that were made available to the members on the AHS website. The minutes are highly "sanitized" and propagandized, and are always approved by all EC members. She said it - I didn't.
If you are doing it as an experiment knowing only what we currently know, doing it after the soil warms and the plants are leafing out provides too much chance for them to already be up in the leaves. The experiment then is spoiled. Only way to be sure is to do it before the shoots come out of the ground. The goal is to contact kill them before they can get safely into the leaves.
Then there's the question of whether nematodes are there to begin with. If you aren't sure they are (by observation) then you don't know if it worked or if there just weren't any there. If they do show up, then there's the question of whether they were infected later after the product was no longer active. It isn't that easy to be sure what you're looking at. You could go years thinking something worked when it didn't or didn't work when it did.
Then there's assessing the results. Grewal's experiment, small as it was, showed that Nemakill applied at that time and rate failed to eliminate the nematodes in at least 1 plant in 12. The low count in the leaf is odd, but probably not meaningful. Chris has seen hundreds in a section of symptomatic leaf. Without more detail, I don't think the test clearly demonstrated effectiveness, merely hinted at it.
Regarding the leaf tests, if the leaves were not on the plants, I doubt that really meant much. Why didn't he spray it on leafed out plants? That would be the more important test. Nothing much can be assumed from the leaf disk in a petri dish test. With no spraying on living plants, there was obviously no phytotoxicity test on leafed-out plants, either. This is important because you'll remember that some Nemakill ingredients are used as an herbicide.
Regarding phytotoxicity, how thoroughly did he check? Were the drench plants dug and checked for root damage? Were the plants stunted compared to the control plants, but otherwise looked healthy? As no real testing was done with this Nemakill stuff by the manufacturer, there are a lot of questions about what it does to the soil as well.
One thing is now clear - Nemakill did not show "100% effectiveness in hostas" as the AHS and ExcelAg people were trumpeting. Depending on the rest of the details of the drench test, it may not have shown any effectiveness, for example if none of the control plants showed nematodes. Even if the controls all showed nematodes the test ones weren't all nematode-free.
"C. Deutekom mentioned that Dr. David Miles is researching a cure for Hosta HVX, and he is confident that he is on the right path for success. C. Deutekom is also doing some testing for him." is what was printed in the board minutes last summer that were made available to the members on the AHS website. The minutes are highly "sanitized" and propagandized, and are always approved by all EC members. She said it - I didn't.
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Lucas Miles
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Apr 18, 2016 3:35 pm
- USDA Zone: 7
Re: Nemakill
Bill,
We’re sorry you're experience surrounding Nemakill has been such a negative one. We have had such overwhelming positive feedback and would like to better understand what has caused such a negative opinion. All of the ingredients, active and inert, are disclosed on the label and are 25(b) minimum risk ingredients for use in organic production. Nemakill has not been tested on animals but has been tested (by ExcelAg) on plants including annuals, biennials, and perennials in pots and in the ground and has not shown phytotoxicity at the recommended use rate. We always recommend safety precautions that will make safer conditions for users even when the product is considered to be of minimum risk. Regarding, the use of essential oils to control plant viruses, the following link, http://projects.nri.org/adappt/docs/63-84.pdf , is one source that provides information on how they are effective against many plant pests and pathogens. More specifically, if you scroll to page 14 you will find the section on antiviral agents. We would be glad to answer any questions you have about Nemakill and always appreciate honest feedback.
Sincerely,
ExcelAg
We’re sorry you're experience surrounding Nemakill has been such a negative one. We have had such overwhelming positive feedback and would like to better understand what has caused such a negative opinion. All of the ingredients, active and inert, are disclosed on the label and are 25(b) minimum risk ingredients for use in organic production. Nemakill has not been tested on animals but has been tested (by ExcelAg) on plants including annuals, biennials, and perennials in pots and in the ground and has not shown phytotoxicity at the recommended use rate. We always recommend safety precautions that will make safer conditions for users even when the product is considered to be of minimum risk. Regarding, the use of essential oils to control plant viruses, the following link, http://projects.nri.org/adappt/docs/63-84.pdf , is one source that provides information on how they are effective against many plant pests and pathogens. More specifically, if you scroll to page 14 you will find the section on antiviral agents. We would be glad to answer any questions you have about Nemakill and always appreciate honest feedback.
Sincerely,
ExcelAg
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
David, on another forum where people aren't allowed to talk if the moderator doesn't like it, you asked a question about why I thought the Nemakill people didn't do any testing on hostas before marketing their product. To answer, they apparently began marketing their product to the ag industry as a soil drench intended for control of soil nematodes, not as a product for foliar nematodes in plants.
As they make a point in their brochure of not having to test or register because the EPA allows them to avoid that, and they make no mention of any testing anywhere, it seems pretty unlikely that they did any tests on hostas. Hostas would be a very tiny portion of the market they hoped to sell their product in. Remember too, this is described by them as a contact-kill product - they are not saying that it works on nematodes inside the plant. That is being said by Mortko and Deutekom, who are obviously trying to promote sales of Nemakill.
The final summary of the research in the latest Hosta Journal is pure old-fashioned sales pitch. Special Offer - Buy Now! Only AHS members can take advantage of this low low price! Cindy is standing by the phone if you need help with your order! Don't miss out! Order Now before the price goes up! I wouldn't call that part of a report on academic research.
In the same post before it was taken down by the AHS board member moderating there, you said research has shown that Nemakill was "99.44%" effective, but didn't say what it was so effective at. Could you explain? So far the only test on actual hostas that has been revealed showed 1 in 12 having nematodes. Were there other tests not revealed yet on actual hosta plants, not water in test wells or pieces of leaves in petri dishes? Specifically, since those promoting Nemakill are telling people to spray it on leaves, was there an as yet unrevealed experiment of spraying Nemakill on leafed out hostas?
Regarding the preventative drench test, do you have the rest of the information on it? Two key parts were not included in what you shared. How was it determined the dormant test plants had nematodes? How many of the control plants came up with nematodes? Without that information, the 1 in 12 number alone doesn't mean anything, as I think you'll agree.
.......BIll Meyer
As they make a point in their brochure of not having to test or register because the EPA allows them to avoid that, and they make no mention of any testing anywhere, it seems pretty unlikely that they did any tests on hostas. Hostas would be a very tiny portion of the market they hoped to sell their product in. Remember too, this is described by them as a contact-kill product - they are not saying that it works on nematodes inside the plant. That is being said by Mortko and Deutekom, who are obviously trying to promote sales of Nemakill.
The final summary of the research in the latest Hosta Journal is pure old-fashioned sales pitch. Special Offer - Buy Now! Only AHS members can take advantage of this low low price! Cindy is standing by the phone if you need help with your order! Don't miss out! Order Now before the price goes up! I wouldn't call that part of a report on academic research.
In the same post before it was taken down by the AHS board member moderating there, you said research has shown that Nemakill was "99.44%" effective, but didn't say what it was so effective at. Could you explain? So far the only test on actual hostas that has been revealed showed 1 in 12 having nematodes. Were there other tests not revealed yet on actual hosta plants, not water in test wells or pieces of leaves in petri dishes? Specifically, since those promoting Nemakill are telling people to spray it on leaves, was there an as yet unrevealed experiment of spraying Nemakill on leafed out hostas?
Regarding the preventative drench test, do you have the rest of the information on it? Two key parts were not included in what you shared. How was it determined the dormant test plants had nematodes? How many of the control plants came up with nematodes? Without that information, the 1 in 12 number alone doesn't mean anything, as I think you'll agree.
.......BIll Meyer
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Chris_W
- Administrator
- Posts: 8465
- Joined: Oct 05, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 9
- Location: Co. Roscommon, Ireland
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Thank you for joining the discussion, Lucas.
In skimming over the link you provided about the studies on essential oils, it mentioned using different oils to inhibit various virus in different crops, or using oils to reduce the vectors that spread virus. The inhibition of virus symptoms using essential oils is something new for me. From experience I've seen and read about how virus symptoms can come and go, for example cucumber mosaic virus will often express symptoms in the spring that diminish later in the season or even disappear. I've had a few reports of HVX symptoms showing one year and not another, especially in the warmer states, and it could be possible that heat plays a role in virus load and the expression of symptoms.
The inhibition of virus and its symptoms would be especially important in the food supply. But this isn't the same as killing the virus. The plant will still be carrying it and can still spread it and with a perennial type plant, vs a food plant that is grown and harvested, it would seem that if an essential oil could be found that can inhibit HVX symptoms you would need to spray it on somewhat of a regular basis or symptoms simply come back. And if the virus continues to increase in concentration then the inhibition of symptoms would get more and more difficult over the years.
Like I said, I just skimmed over it, so didn't see anything that suggested a virus could be killed. It could be inhibited and you can work on reducing the vectors (aphids, thrips, nematodes) but that was it. Let me know if I missed something.
I look forward to hearing more from you, so thanks again for joining.
In skimming over the link you provided about the studies on essential oils, it mentioned using different oils to inhibit various virus in different crops, or using oils to reduce the vectors that spread virus. The inhibition of virus symptoms using essential oils is something new for me. From experience I've seen and read about how virus symptoms can come and go, for example cucumber mosaic virus will often express symptoms in the spring that diminish later in the season or even disappear. I've had a few reports of HVX symptoms showing one year and not another, especially in the warmer states, and it could be possible that heat plays a role in virus load and the expression of symptoms.
The inhibition of virus and its symptoms would be especially important in the food supply. But this isn't the same as killing the virus. The plant will still be carrying it and can still spread it and with a perennial type plant, vs a food plant that is grown and harvested, it would seem that if an essential oil could be found that can inhibit HVX symptoms you would need to spray it on somewhat of a regular basis or symptoms simply come back. And if the virus continues to increase in concentration then the inhibition of symptoms would get more and more difficult over the years.
Like I said, I just skimmed over it, so didn't see anything that suggested a virus could be killed. It could be inhibited and you can work on reducing the vectors (aphids, thrips, nematodes) but that was it. Let me know if I missed something.
I look forward to hearing more from you, so thanks again for joining.
-
Tigger
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Oct 14, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 6b - 7a
- Location: SE Penna Zone 6b (7a?), lat. 39°50'
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Bill,
Obviously you don't understand the humor in my "99 44/100%" comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_%28soap%29
The backstory on that slogan is that the marketing people were pestering the research group about test results, who had shown that the product was purer than other castile soap. "How much purer?" they pestered. "Just say it's 99 and 44/100% pure!" replied the frustrated lead researcher, subtracting the levels of various impurities he could identify from 100%. Given that soap is a mixture of fatty acid salts, there is, in fact, no good way to describe its absolute purity.
Which is to say that the Nemakill test results showed high activity in plants (presumably infected in the same way they had done for their other studies), but that neither I nor they put an absolute number on it. Sure, it's stupid for the AHS brochure to claim "100% effective" when nobody else has absolute numbers to say so, but would 98% control be good enough for you? 96%? 88%? Heck, if you say there was no elimination in 1 of the 12 plants and total control in the other 11, you might call that 91.67% effective. (not bad for a single treatment, eh?)
And Bill, clearly you're making a huge assumption that Excel Ag found it "convenient" not to test their product on actual infected plants, as Lucas indicates they did. You're also clearly assuming things about "contact" vs. "systemic" that may well be contradictory: the fact that Nemakill is not taken up by the roots (is not systemic) does not mean that the product cannot be effective when applied to leaves of plants with nematodes. Plant tissues are thin, permeable membranes. No, Grewall's group didn't do this test on whole plant samples, but it seems some AHS members and likely Excel Ag did.
Worst of all, you're clearly implying that AHS officers are getting some sort of personal benefit from promoting Nemakill, a libelous argument which I am frankly sick of. If the AHS is promoting Nemakill, it is because they have not given up the battle about controlling FNs in our hostas, an argument for which you vociferously choose the "get used to it" side. The personal battle you're fighting with the AHS (and I'm not laying any fault here; it's not my affair) should not be the subtext of your undermining scientific studies. Nobody wins in that game.
Lucas, I'm afraid you dilute your argument on Nemakill if you follow Bill down the anti-virus rabbit hole. Let's save that for another discussion.
I would like to know, though, why the product labeling directs such drastic safety precautions. Can you provide me a SDS? (I asked for one through by email but have not received a response.) We have also expressed concern/curiosity here about potential toxicity toward other sensitive garden creatures (amphibians are always at greatest risk, but we would care about earthworms, etc., as well).
David
Obviously you don't understand the humor in my "99 44/100%" comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_%28soap%29
The backstory on that slogan is that the marketing people were pestering the research group about test results, who had shown that the product was purer than other castile soap. "How much purer?" they pestered. "Just say it's 99 and 44/100% pure!" replied the frustrated lead researcher, subtracting the levels of various impurities he could identify from 100%. Given that soap is a mixture of fatty acid salts, there is, in fact, no good way to describe its absolute purity.
Which is to say that the Nemakill test results showed high activity in plants (presumably infected in the same way they had done for their other studies), but that neither I nor they put an absolute number on it. Sure, it's stupid for the AHS brochure to claim "100% effective" when nobody else has absolute numbers to say so, but would 98% control be good enough for you? 96%? 88%? Heck, if you say there was no elimination in 1 of the 12 plants and total control in the other 11, you might call that 91.67% effective. (not bad for a single treatment, eh?)
And Bill, clearly you're making a huge assumption that Excel Ag found it "convenient" not to test their product on actual infected plants, as Lucas indicates they did. You're also clearly assuming things about "contact" vs. "systemic" that may well be contradictory: the fact that Nemakill is not taken up by the roots (is not systemic) does not mean that the product cannot be effective when applied to leaves of plants with nematodes. Plant tissues are thin, permeable membranes. No, Grewall's group didn't do this test on whole plant samples, but it seems some AHS members and likely Excel Ag did.
Worst of all, you're clearly implying that AHS officers are getting some sort of personal benefit from promoting Nemakill, a libelous argument which I am frankly sick of. If the AHS is promoting Nemakill, it is because they have not given up the battle about controlling FNs in our hostas, an argument for which you vociferously choose the "get used to it" side. The personal battle you're fighting with the AHS (and I'm not laying any fault here; it's not my affair) should not be the subtext of your undermining scientific studies. Nobody wins in that game.
Lucas, I'm afraid you dilute your argument on Nemakill if you follow Bill down the anti-virus rabbit hole. Let's save that for another discussion.
I would like to know, though, why the product labeling directs such drastic safety precautions. Can you provide me a SDS? (I asked for one through by email but have not received a response.) We have also expressed concern/curiosity here about potential toxicity toward other sensitive garden creatures (amphibians are always at greatest risk, but we would care about earthworms, etc., as well).
David
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Hi Lucas,
I haven't used Nemakill, and only one person here has. See post from "treepep". My issue is with AHS officers claiming it did things it didn't do, specifically claiming it offered "100% control in hostas" before it was ever tested on hostas. There was a pre-emergent drench test done on actual hosta plants in the Grewal study, but that was done after their story about your product giving 100% control, and it did not give 100% control.
For background, Rob Mortko of the American Hosta Society rounded up a bunch of money in donations to pay for foliar nematode research. Once the research was underway, he wrote in the AHS publications the result above, and began pitching your product to the members. Those who believed him think actual research showed that your product gave 100% control of foliar nematodes in hostas. Your company picked up on Mortko's claim and added it to your advertising.
To ask a few simple questions, does ExcelAg maintain that Nemakill gives 100% control in hostas? And does it kill them once they are inside the plant tissues? Does your product penetrate plant tissues like a translaminar product would, or is it systemic in some way? Has ExcelAg done any tests of its own on actual hosta plants?
One other thing since you mention safety. I have here an 8oz. bottle of Nemakill, which clearly appears to have been produced by your company. On larger containers there are safety recomendations mentioned earlier, but on the 8oz. size there are no safety precautions mentioned. Comment?
.........Bill
I haven't used Nemakill, and only one person here has. See post from "treepep". My issue is with AHS officers claiming it did things it didn't do, specifically claiming it offered "100% control in hostas" before it was ever tested on hostas. There was a pre-emergent drench test done on actual hosta plants in the Grewal study, but that was done after their story about your product giving 100% control, and it did not give 100% control.
For background, Rob Mortko of the American Hosta Society rounded up a bunch of money in donations to pay for foliar nematode research. Once the research was underway, he wrote in the AHS publications the result above, and began pitching your product to the members. Those who believed him think actual research showed that your product gave 100% control of foliar nematodes in hostas. Your company picked up on Mortko's claim and added it to your advertising.
To ask a few simple questions, does ExcelAg maintain that Nemakill gives 100% control in hostas? And does it kill them once they are inside the plant tissues? Does your product penetrate plant tissues like a translaminar product would, or is it systemic in some way? Has ExcelAg done any tests of its own on actual hosta plants?
One other thing since you mention safety. I have here an 8oz. bottle of Nemakill, which clearly appears to have been produced by your company. On larger containers there are safety recomendations mentioned earlier, but on the 8oz. size there are no safety precautions mentioned. Comment?
.........Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
David, until we see the info on both the control plants and the verification of whether the test plants had nematodes to begin with, we don't have any idea if the Nemakill prevented nematodes from entering the other 11 or if there were no nematodes there to kill. I'm sure you understand that, so we'll discuss it when we see that info. We agree, though, that there is/was no basis for the claim of 100% control in hostas, which was my original issue - promoting a product with false information.
So, now it is clear that no post-emergent tests were done on hostas. No leaf spraying, leaf drenching, fumigating, etc. You will note that Mortko and Deutekom have recommendations for spraying hostas once they are up. How often and at what rate. So they have no idea whether that would accomplish anything at all, but I guess they want people to think that falls under their "100% control."
Foliar nematodes reproduce rapidly inside a plant and then start coming out and getting into other plants. We don't really know how many typically get into the plants to begin with. Once inside they make thousands more - that we do know, so reducing the intial ones is of limited value. As long as any get in, there will be thousands more in short order coming out and infecting other nearby plants. There are very good reasons that nematodes are so difficult to control and so many millions have been spent in so many countries on trying to find ways to do it.
I don't claim to know what Mortko and Deutekom receive for their promotion efforts regarding the product. I would venture that it wouldn't be unusual in general terms for two business people (not scientists) with nursery businesses to be paid for promoting a pesticide product, but in no way do I claim to have any knowledge of what they receive if anything. Seriously you can't deny that they are engaged in very clear and open promotion of Nemakill in what are supposed to be research summaries? With Cindy being at the ready to help people with their orders? That's a little beyond reporting on research.
........Bill
So, now it is clear that no post-emergent tests were done on hostas. No leaf spraying, leaf drenching, fumigating, etc. You will note that Mortko and Deutekom have recommendations for spraying hostas once they are up. How often and at what rate. So they have no idea whether that would accomplish anything at all, but I guess they want people to think that falls under their "100% control."
Foliar nematodes reproduce rapidly inside a plant and then start coming out and getting into other plants. We don't really know how many typically get into the plants to begin with. Once inside they make thousands more - that we do know, so reducing the intial ones is of limited value. As long as any get in, there will be thousands more in short order coming out and infecting other nearby plants. There are very good reasons that nematodes are so difficult to control and so many millions have been spent in so many countries on trying to find ways to do it.
I don't claim to know what Mortko and Deutekom receive for their promotion efforts regarding the product. I would venture that it wouldn't be unusual in general terms for two business people (not scientists) with nursery businesses to be paid for promoting a pesticide product, but in no way do I claim to have any knowledge of what they receive if anything. Seriously you can't deny that they are engaged in very clear and open promotion of Nemakill in what are supposed to be research summaries? With Cindy being at the ready to help people with their orders? That's a little beyond reporting on research.
........Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
David, in slightly more than a month the AHS convention will feature Dr. Grewal giving a verbal presentation on the nematode research. Do you know if the paper report will be out before the convention? I'm sure people will have questions, and it would be nice to read the report first. It's always good to see the report first so they don't have to ask things that are answered in it.
........Bill
........Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Lucas Miles
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Apr 18, 2016 3:35 pm
- USDA Zone: 7
Re: Nemakill
Bill,
We do not claim exact quantitative values of control for any of our products due to varying conditions that exist, including but not limited to environmental, population dispersion in soil, soil types, etc. Nemakill does kill nematodes inside the plant tissues, it acts like a translaminar product so it will penetrate the plant tissues but is not systemic. ExcelAg has tested Nemakill on hosta plants and a large variety of agricultural and ornamental crops in USA and overseas markets and all tests showed good control of foliar nematodes. Nemakill is not sold in 8 oz containers, only samples not for sale are packaged in this size. Due to the 8 oz bottle size label wording is restricted however product leaflets with precautionary statements and use recommendations do accompany our smaller Nemakill samples.
Sincerely,
ExcelAg
We do not claim exact quantitative values of control for any of our products due to varying conditions that exist, including but not limited to environmental, population dispersion in soil, soil types, etc. Nemakill does kill nematodes inside the plant tissues, it acts like a translaminar product so it will penetrate the plant tissues but is not systemic. ExcelAg has tested Nemakill on hosta plants and a large variety of agricultural and ornamental crops in USA and overseas markets and all tests showed good control of foliar nematodes. Nemakill is not sold in 8 oz containers, only samples not for sale are packaged in this size. Due to the 8 oz bottle size label wording is restricted however product leaflets with precautionary statements and use recommendations do accompany our smaller Nemakill samples.
Sincerely,
ExcelAg
-
Tigger
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Oct 14, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 6b - 7a
- Location: SE Penna Zone 6b (7a?), lat. 39°50'
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Thanks for the response, Lucas/Excel Ag. I would still like to see an SDS for the product before I purchase it.
Bill,
We have received a revision of the final report. She hopes to distribute it soon, perhaps within the next week. I, in fact, may be the bottleneck on this because I want the research to be presented in a sound, well-documented manner, and so requested additional clarification on a few points, and a more cohesive conclusion. As a member of this science team, my own scientific reputation is at stake, so I want the report to be clear about what this research does and does not say about control of nematodes.
This revision does include the previously missing control component for the key experiment: in fact 24 nematode-infested plants were field planted, and 12 were treated pre-emergence with a Nemakill solution. The 12 non-treated plants (control sample) all showed evidence of nematodes as the season progressed, where only one of the 12 treated plants showed evidence of FNs, and that plant at a significantly lower level than the non-treated plants. All this from a SINGLE TREATMENT.
(Confoundingly, in their greenhouse soil kill experiment, they did treat pots containing clean hostas with nematodes and then with a chemical treatment, and tested the mortality of FNs in the soil but did not test the hosta leaves! Perhaps the FN never got into the hostas at all?)
Again, we do not know the criticality of the timing of the application in the field test. Clearly an early spring treatment was effective, and it seems Excel Ag has evidence of the effectiveness of treatments at other times (work that is NOT part of this report, although I expect any introduction from Cindy might allude to or state directly the results of other treatment scenarios). As more AHS users trial the product, the AHS hopes to compile a "real world" scientific record on the product, even if we aren't quantifying the results as thoroughly as a lab like Grewal's can do.
David
Bill,
We have received a revision of the final report. She hopes to distribute it soon, perhaps within the next week. I, in fact, may be the bottleneck on this because I want the research to be presented in a sound, well-documented manner, and so requested additional clarification on a few points, and a more cohesive conclusion. As a member of this science team, my own scientific reputation is at stake, so I want the report to be clear about what this research does and does not say about control of nematodes.
This revision does include the previously missing control component for the key experiment: in fact 24 nematode-infested plants were field planted, and 12 were treated pre-emergence with a Nemakill solution. The 12 non-treated plants (control sample) all showed evidence of nematodes as the season progressed, where only one of the 12 treated plants showed evidence of FNs, and that plant at a significantly lower level than the non-treated plants. All this from a SINGLE TREATMENT.
(Confoundingly, in their greenhouse soil kill experiment, they did treat pots containing clean hostas with nematodes and then with a chemical treatment, and tested the mortality of FNs in the soil but did not test the hosta leaves! Perhaps the FN never got into the hostas at all?)
Again, we do not know the criticality of the timing of the application in the field test. Clearly an early spring treatment was effective, and it seems Excel Ag has evidence of the effectiveness of treatments at other times (work that is NOT part of this report, although I expect any introduction from Cindy might allude to or state directly the results of other treatment scenarios). As more AHS users trial the product, the AHS hopes to compile a "real world" scientific record on the product, even if we aren't quantifying the results as thoroughly as a lab like Grewal's can do.
David
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Lukas,
I do not think you technically did anything wrong with your promotional brochure in which you quoted Mortko and Deutekom saying that Nemakill gives "100% control of this pest in hosta". After all you were only quoting them. What they said wasn't true as it is now clear no experiments had even been done on hostas at the time they said that. The dishonesty is theirs, not yours, but you could have checked before you printed it. Also, I don't know who put that brochure together but at least two of the photos were used without permission - also not a good reflection on your company.
I am interested in the "low toxicity" claim. Could you explain that? Your product carries safety precautions for full-body coverage for one. For another we have the poster "treepep", who described your product as "incredibly toxic to amphibians and arthropods as well as extremely toxic to many perennials." The paper you linked to earlier said that all three of the oils that make up half your product "are among the most active constituents against insects." Would "treepep"'s description be accurate?
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing the published reports of the research your company conducted on hostas if possible.
Lastly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, because of the Mortko/Deutekom promotion of your product local hosta societies are purchasing your product and dividing it into small amounts to distribute to their members. Those members are just ordinary gardeners, just consumers not professionals. They are getting your product without the safety precautions. Do you consider Nemakill a safe enough product for inexperienced consumers considering the safety instructions you put on the label? Here's an example of what is going on with your product - note board member demonstrating it with no protection on page 5.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/47ea61_598abcb ... 8a5ff5.pdf
Also, just to be clear, you are not claiming your product Nemakill has any effect on plant viruses, are you?
.......Bill
I do not think you technically did anything wrong with your promotional brochure in which you quoted Mortko and Deutekom saying that Nemakill gives "100% control of this pest in hosta". After all you were only quoting them. What they said wasn't true as it is now clear no experiments had even been done on hostas at the time they said that. The dishonesty is theirs, not yours, but you could have checked before you printed it. Also, I don't know who put that brochure together but at least two of the photos were used without permission - also not a good reflection on your company.
I am interested in the "low toxicity" claim. Could you explain that? Your product carries safety precautions for full-body coverage for one. For another we have the poster "treepep", who described your product as "incredibly toxic to amphibians and arthropods as well as extremely toxic to many perennials." The paper you linked to earlier said that all three of the oils that make up half your product "are among the most active constituents against insects." Would "treepep"'s description be accurate?
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing the published reports of the research your company conducted on hostas if possible.
Lastly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, because of the Mortko/Deutekom promotion of your product local hosta societies are purchasing your product and dividing it into small amounts to distribute to their members. Those members are just ordinary gardeners, just consumers not professionals. They are getting your product without the safety precautions. Do you consider Nemakill a safe enough product for inexperienced consumers considering the safety instructions you put on the label? Here's an example of what is going on with your product - note board member demonstrating it with no protection on page 5.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/47ea61_598abcb ... 8a5ff5.pdf
Also, just to be clear, you are not claiming your product Nemakill has any effect on plant viruses, are you?
.......Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
David, I'm curious about the first part. Dr. Grewal has published quite a few papers at this point, so he would cretainly do a professional job I would think. He is the one writing it, isn't he? I certainly don't think your reputation is tarnished by what Mortko and Deutekom did. You have no control over what they do. If they make things up to make their Nemakill promotion sound better it doesn't reflect on you in any way. I was on the AHS board long enough to understand that crew and their, um, "flexible interpretation" of things, and how impossible it is to stop them from behaving like that. They are what they are.
It will be interesting to see the details in the report, since details are everything in scientific experiments. I'm especially curious how the other products fared in the pre-emergent drench test. Did Nemakill outperform bleach, ammonia, etc.? Obviously those and others could contact kill just as well, which was the point of the pre-emergent drench test.
The point of the potting soil test eludes me too. Adding nematodes to dormant hostas in pots makes no sense. Why would they be expected to go to the dormant buds? If they didn't, then they might as well have been added to just potting soil.
The AHS has no ability to conduct its own research. Only a handful of people could do it properly. Did the test hosta actually have nematodes last year? Given that, there's no certainty it would this year. Or did it have the bacteria that mimics nematode symptoms? Only people with a good microscope can confirm bactreria presence unless we are lucky enough to get a test strip for it. Putting together anecdotal evidence from ordinary gardeners would just be a mix of mostly useless data. People will think it worked when it didn't or didn't when it did. Then what about controls? Sorry, but no way member opinions should be confused with science.
.......Bill
It will be interesting to see the details in the report, since details are everything in scientific experiments. I'm especially curious how the other products fared in the pre-emergent drench test. Did Nemakill outperform bleach, ammonia, etc.? Obviously those and others could contact kill just as well, which was the point of the pre-emergent drench test.
The point of the potting soil test eludes me too. Adding nematodes to dormant hostas in pots makes no sense. Why would they be expected to go to the dormant buds? If they didn't, then they might as well have been added to just potting soil.
The AHS has no ability to conduct its own research. Only a handful of people could do it properly. Did the test hosta actually have nematodes last year? Given that, there's no certainty it would this year. Or did it have the bacteria that mimics nematode symptoms? Only people with a good microscope can confirm bactreria presence unless we are lucky enough to get a test strip for it. Putting together anecdotal evidence from ordinary gardeners would just be a mix of mostly useless data. People will think it worked when it didn't or didn't when it did. Then what about controls? Sorry, but no way member opinions should be confused with science.
.......Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!
-
Tigger
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Oct 14, 2001 8:00 pm
- USDA Zone: 6b - 7a
- Location: SE Penna Zone 6b (7a?), lat. 39°50'
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Bill, a few points and then I'm done, since I doubt you will ever be satisfied.
First, every writer needs a good editor. I do reviews of scientific papers and research dissertations on a regular basis, and am always disappointed in the level of the writing. Not bad grammar, which of course does happen, but the need for clarification, when a researcher is sometimes too close to the work to make the points clear and logical to someone who is less familiar or completely unfamiliar with the research process.
Second, only Nemakill was tested in the field study. It and Pylon were both the most effective in the greenhouse studies (complete mortality in vitro, complete mortality in soil, no phytotoxicity), but, as you note, Pylon is not approved for outdoor use. Ammonia and NaDCC (a bleaching agent) were only moderately successful in those greenhouse trials. You'll see details in the full report.
David
First, every writer needs a good editor. I do reviews of scientific papers and research dissertations on a regular basis, and am always disappointed in the level of the writing. Not bad grammar, which of course does happen, but the need for clarification, when a researcher is sometimes too close to the work to make the points clear and logical to someone who is less familiar or completely unfamiliar with the research process.
Second, only Nemakill was tested in the field study. It and Pylon were both the most effective in the greenhouse studies (complete mortality in vitro, complete mortality in soil, no phytotoxicity), but, as you note, Pylon is not approved for outdoor use. Ammonia and NaDCC (a bleaching agent) were only moderately successful in those greenhouse trials. You'll see details in the full report.
David
-
Bill Meyer
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Feb 17, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Nemakill
Thank you David for trying to get the actual report of the study out where people can see it. Hopefully it won't be confined to a Members Only part of the AHS website. It will be good to see the genuine and truthful report after all the Mortko/Deutekom sales pitch nonsense. It is a shame you weren't doing those earlier reports.
I do have to say that I am pretty disappointed in what was proposed to be a $100,000 research project intended to, in Grewal's own words, "Develop a comprehensive integrated approach to manage foliar nematodes on hosta and other ornamentals for nurseries and home landscapes." It is pretty unimpressive that the end sum of the research is that only one test was done on actual hostas and none on the other ornamentals he referred to. Just one very little test of one product on 12 hostas, almost like an afterthought so long after the Nemakill sales pitches began. Not surprisingly, that one product is the one the AHS officers have been trying to get people to buy for two years now. Not exactly "comprehensive" unless I don't understand the word.
On the other hand as someone who has been involved in the foliar nematode war for 20 years now, I didn't think there was anything really useful that could come from the research. The best and most effective nematicides were banned by the EPA, except for Vydate which they made virtually unobtainable. Pylon is a good product, but since it kills birds it wasn't an outdoor replacement for them. The nematodes won the war in ornamentals because of those bans. Nemakill isn't the new Nemacur, which BTW really did give 100% control in hostas in pots in the North Carolina study and was safely used by professionals for decades.
Now apparently they want everybody to go out and buy the product they're promoting as the "silver bullet" for nematodes and report on whether they think it worked. Is that supposed to be "science", or is that just yet another sales gimmick to get people to buy Nemakill, like telling them it was 100% effective on potted hostas? When people pay for something they are invested in it and will be prone to think it worked even if it didn't, so the nonsense surrounding this whole thing will continue for years. Do Mortko and Deutekom even know the difference between science and the public opinion they've been manipulating with false information?
.......Bill
I do have to say that I am pretty disappointed in what was proposed to be a $100,000 research project intended to, in Grewal's own words, "Develop a comprehensive integrated approach to manage foliar nematodes on hosta and other ornamentals for nurseries and home landscapes." It is pretty unimpressive that the end sum of the research is that only one test was done on actual hostas and none on the other ornamentals he referred to. Just one very little test of one product on 12 hostas, almost like an afterthought so long after the Nemakill sales pitches began. Not surprisingly, that one product is the one the AHS officers have been trying to get people to buy for two years now. Not exactly "comprehensive" unless I don't understand the word.
On the other hand as someone who has been involved in the foliar nematode war for 20 years now, I didn't think there was anything really useful that could come from the research. The best and most effective nematicides were banned by the EPA, except for Vydate which they made virtually unobtainable. Pylon is a good product, but since it kills birds it wasn't an outdoor replacement for them. The nematodes won the war in ornamentals because of those bans. Nemakill isn't the new Nemacur, which BTW really did give 100% control in hostas in pots in the North Carolina study and was safely used by professionals for decades.
Now apparently they want everybody to go out and buy the product they're promoting as the "silver bullet" for nematodes and report on whether they think it worked. Is that supposed to be "science", or is that just yet another sales gimmick to get people to buy Nemakill, like telling them it was 100% effective on potted hostas? When people pay for something they are invested in it and will be prone to think it worked even if it didn't, so the nonsense surrounding this whole thing will continue for years. Do Mortko and Deutekom even know the difference between science and the public opinion they've been manipulating with false information?
.......Bill
If you thought the auction was fun, come to the meeting!