Great information. Thank you!

Many of the myths are partial truths. It depends how they are worded. Some products are effective to some extent but the claims made for them are grossly exagerated.

That is a good site. Click on a link and you get a wealth of useful information.

Jim

Great site. Boy, WSU keeps coming up with great info. Not so much from the UW. hehe

Here is a link that might be useful: Sinfonian's garden

Agriculture is like medicine: what is 'truth' today may not be 'truth' tomorrow, and vice versa.

Sometimes what is left out is more important than what is included. I found this interesting:

"Questions to ask when assessing scientific objectivity and credibility of gray or popular literature:
1) Does the author have legitimate ties to a mainstream academic or scientific institution?
2) Does the article refrain from attempts to sell a product?
3) Does the article present verifiable information?
4) Does the article appeal to reason rather than emotion?
If the answers to these questions are "yes", then the likelihood is high that the information is objective and credible."

They left out one tiny criteria: where does this 'academic or scientific institution' get its funding?

Cynical Sue

Linda Chalker-Scott who wrote most, if not all, of those articles is a professional 'anti'.

She is an associate professor who has made a name for herself by being against pretty much everything.

I would advise taking everything she says with a grain of salt. Her article on peat moss is an example of cherry picked, misleading and even outright false information.

Many times she starts out calling something a myth and then goes on to indicate it isn't a myth, but then says it is again. Her article on the use of milk for fungus prevention in roses is an example. She points out that there are no studies on the efficacy of milk as an anti fungal agent on roses (I don't know if there are any or not), but then she does mention milk has been found effective on several other plant types.

So, why call it a myth? Why not just say it appears to work in some cases and not in others and more studies need to be done to determine why this is?

Anywho, she is one of those people I have learned to not bother reading anymore as the quality of her publications is abysmal. Not worthy of academia, in my opinion.

JAG

But she DOES refer to research about the claims of various gardening gurus, who tend to find a claim and repeat it with no backup.

I agree that she could qualify some of her "myth" declarations, but it's the mark of a good researcher to say when research shows something works and doesn't work. I think the "problem" is titling every topic on that page a myth.

OR, make conclusionary statements -- this part of the belief is a myth; that part isn't. (Essentially what you said.)

For instance, bleach works quite well to disinfect plastic and glass containers, just isn't so good for metal tools and materials. Or trees.

I didn't see her address corn meal or aspirin, both of which are also touted as being good for plants. Cornmeal doesn't work for all plant funguses, so you have to identify the fungus to use it effectively. Same for aspirin for plant viruses, and in some cases (see below) it's BAD for a plant.

In our ever-expanding quest for doing things better, we sometimes don't.

Here is a link that might be useful: Aspirin can suppress a plant's defensive response to attack

Annie, the site does make one stop and think about many truths we just take for granted.
But, that said, it does come down to just another person's interpretation of what has been said and written about.
With however she experimented in the subjects, certain parameters were followed which may not be consistently construed by others to come to the same conclusions.

All in all though, it is a very intelligent and thought provoking article.

thank you!

As far as what university might give imformation that is widely wished for by home gardeners, one should realize that the particular extension service in this instance is
a STATE CONTROLLED COLLEGE..Washington State University..that is, public dollars are what was used to bring this article to fruition.

Like most extension services, they are provided by state universities.....not private institutions which the University of Washington is.

For instance, there are many soil testing laboratories throughout the U.S. and Canada. Most are in "state" and "provincial" universities.
Other than those, there are many private laboratories that do such home soil tests.
Not all "state" universities have such extension service that provides such tests. Ohio State (OSU) used to --up to two years ago, provide such home garden soil tests. But no longer do they do it.
They instead will give you a number of locations of such private laboratories to carry out such tests.

None involve private universities.

The UW is not a private institution. It's just that it's extension office is miniscule in the heart of Seattle compared to a hotbed of aggricultural waves of grain like WSU. Heck the closest thing they have to a garden in Seattle are the various public Pea Patches.

Here is a link that might be useful: Seattle's Pea Patch Trust site

But she DOES refer to research about the claims of various gardening gurus, who tend to find a claim and repeat it with no backup.

Yes, she does, but she also cherry picks the studies she uses. I do not know her personally and have no insight into what makes her tick, but based on her publications she is focused on coming up with new myths regularly. If we put ourselves into the shoes of someone who needs to find a gardening myth to debunk regularly in order to continue publishing it isn't hard to imagine the pressures one would face after a few obvious ones are put to bed.

Every time I read one of her articles that is on a topic I actually know something about (meaning I have read relevant studies) I find her coverage to be shallow and selective.

In her article on the non sustainability/non enviro friendliness of peat moss she doesn't bother to mention that the harvest of peat from Canada (the main source for the US and Canada) is government regulated to never outpace the rate at which new bogs are forming. That's a pretty big omission in evaluating whether peat harvesting is a sustainable practice.

Other topics there just isn't enough in the way of controlled studies to make any firm conclusions. It's easy to site a few studies that found negative results, but this doesn't mean there is no positive result to be found. Compost tea is one of those areas. I am no fan of the miracle claims some make regarding compost tea, but there are many studies showing it effective at disease suppresion and many others showing no effect, and some others showing tea increases disease. What is needed is a study of the studies to determine why the outcomes were different, not simply cherry picking the studies and declaring something a myth.

Like I said in my last post, Linda Chalker-Scott is simply an associate professor trying to make a name for herself by being a professional anti. I have seen her name and her publications all over the place any time someone wants 'academic' proof something is bad or doesn't work. I have seen organic only folks source her stuff as well as those who have a disdain for organic practices. Any time one wants to show something is wrong, just look up Linda, she is sure to have something to show why the idea is wrong.

The quality of her work is simply junk science even when she gets something right.

I appreciate the above post because it reminds me to take a critical look at the info I get rather than just taking it as gospel because it is in print.
Some of these reads are intereting, but when it gets to the point that one changes how one does something, or spends money to do something differently, it is worthwhile to take a second look and assess the information itself just to check how valid it might be.

"In her article on the non sustainability/non enviro friendliness of peat moss she doesn't bother to mention that the harvest of peat from Canada (the main source for the US and Canada) is government regulated to never outpace the rate at which new bogs are forming. That's a pretty big omission in evaluating whether peat harvesting is a sustainable practice."

This seems to imply we should always trust the government is doing what is "right" to protect important resources, despite signficant pressures from those who make a living harvesting said resources.

Frankly, I think that's naive, and, in many cases, laughable.

It would have been far better in my opinion to mention the government's role and then add one's own caution as to governmental efficacy. But to present an article and just leave out the mention of all of this is not good or fair to those trying to make their own choices after reading.