Ray, it does seem to boost the immune system against some diseases, but it is too early now to tell how really useful it will be since it has not been out long. It also is pretty expensive. So, you certainly can get by without it.

Is anyone here using this stuff?

Scott

My generalrule of thumb is, if it aint widely used commercially it's probably bogus. Look for some independent research.

Someone suggested Messenger over here as a cure for tomatoe blight. His plants didn't do so well, not that this really proves anything.

Products that I consider BS, though I'm sure some of you would disaggree, are Roots and mychorizial amendments.

I've used it, though I cannot say too much about it (I wasn't very discriminating in my spraying, I just did all the tomato plants and a couple other non-edibles). In hindsight I should have left a few tomatoes unsprayed. I can say that this was one of my better years for tomatoes and I did have fewer disease problems on them (I've usually pulled about half the plants by mid-Sept because they look so bad, I pulled none until late Oct this year).

I bought mine through a davesgarden co-op and the price wasn't too bad (I think I got 10 packets for about $20.00) And I only used 3 maybe 4 packets all summer.

Do you need to buy it? Nope. Would I get it were I you, probably not. Will I continue to use it (at least until I use up all that I have already bought) yep, though I haven't had too many disease problems over the past couple years.

~Chills

Last year was great for tomatoes amongst other things all over the east coast. Observe the weather, tomatoes always do well if there aren't too many consecutive rainey cool days. Fungus usually needs 100% humididty to get going. I've read that tomatoe blight is only spread by rain and can be prevented by constructing some kind of awning to keep the plant dry.

There are some rose growers who say Messenger really helps the roses grow larger and healthier. I wouldn't bother with it unless you are trying to go organic and are having problems with diseases.

"Cornell University: 'Overall, Messenger® did not increase [sweet corn] plant productivity or yield.' 'In
the last 2 years of testing, Messenger® has given only marginal control [of tree fruits].' 'No differences
in yield or quality were observed by application of Messenger® [on peppers].'
Iowa State University: 'None of the treatments significantly [including Messenger®] reduced disease
incidence [on strawberry] or improved yield in these trials. The biological control treatments even had
lower yield than the unsprayed controls in the gray mold trials.'
Kansas State University: 'It does not appear thatÂMessenger® had any effect on wheat growth,
development, disease tolerance, or grain yield.'
Michigan State University: "Âall the fungicide treatments (with the exception of
Messenger®Â)Âsignificantly limited foliar blights [of celery].'
Texas A&M: 'No significant differences were observed among yields [of peanuts].'
University of Georgia: 'Tests in Georgia have shown no benefit in disease control.'
University of Kentucky: 'HarpinÂhas not performed well in replicated tests.' 'Âno change in blue
mold activity with increasing rate of Messenger®  strong evidence of the lack of efficacy of this
product.'
University of Tennessee: 'Regular sprays of Messenger®Âdid not significantly affect seedling disease
incidence, early growth, or yield of fall spinach.'
Washington State University: 'Messenger® did not control Alternaria leaf spot [in cabbage] relative to
plants receiving no fungicide sprays.' Furthermore, treated plants 'showed premature senescence and
abscission of the older leaves.' In another study, Messenger® appeared to have a positive effect on cherry
and pear fruit size, but 'results in apple were mixed.' A third study on disease control in wine grapes
states that Messenger® is 'generally considered ineffective.'"

Here is a link that might be useful: The Myth of the Magic Bullet

I hope some of the participants of this site will learn something from this. Anecdotal endorsements of horticultural products are often meaningless. Controlled studies are problematic enough when you're trying to get to the truth.

In the 40 years of hort experience I've logged, I've seen hundreds of "magical" products come and go, always at some point enthusistically endorsed by willing buyers.

Of course, I'm still in love with my own anecdotal observations. Wisdom is ellusive!

In the lab, dissolve barber shop hair clippings in KOH or lye, add hair from a dog grooming outlet as well, package it up and make spectacular claims, hoping somebody will give you rave reviews, then you can copy and paste those reviews all over the internet!

I personally would not completely write off this stuff. The cycle with these things is often first they are going to save the world, then they are worthless garbage, and finally they are in fact shown to be very good treatments for a couple things. At this point since we don't know those very good things (if any), its best to pass on them. When I looked up studies online, there were about equal positive and negative studies, so the above WSU website is pretty selective in what it is quoting. None of the results were positive enough on the other hand to make me run out and buy it. The result that got me the most excited is that it was a "decent" fireblight preventative, not as good as streptomycin but much better than the controls. I had huge FB problems last summer so maybe its not a bad thing to throw into sprays in the periods when FB pressure is very high.

Scott

Scott, fair enough, but I live in two worlds as far as information is concerned. There is the world of commercial horticulture and than there is the world of commercial agriculture.

Over the years I've noticed that if a product is not used in commercial agriculture it is probably not worth the investment. If there is a magical product that is hugely benificial it will be snatched up by farmers because even a small increase in productivity can be crucial.

In commercial horticulture (think landscape contractors nurserymen etc.) people don't tend to mind throwing a few pennies in the wishing well. They can afford to waste a little money because they have larger margins than farmers. This would also be the mentality of hobbyists.

When commercial fruit growers, who can be bankrupt by a bad incident of fireblight, start using Messinger as a preventive measure I'll consider using it.

The amount of useless junk filling shelves in some garden stores and garden departments here can be staggering. Two worlds indeed.