You indicate that you know several groves where trees infected with greening, a bacterial disease spread by several related insect species, are producing well in spite of the disease. I wonder, has a greening infection been confirmed by plant tissue analysis in those trees? The reason I ask is because if that is indeed the case it would be a real breakthrough. As I understand it the only sure method of confirming a greening infection in suspected trees is by DNA analysis.

Citrus greening was described about 85 years ago, confirmed in China about 70 years ago and Africa about 4 years later. It is currently considered indigenous to Asia and Africa. It is a recent import to FL, and the Americas.

This post was edited by TXEB on Fri, May 10, 13 at 9:48

BTW, in the U.S. it's not just in FL. It has also spread to California, Louisiana. South Carolina, Georgia, and as of January 18th Texas too.

Here is a link that might be useful: Texas Citrus Greening

So, who's working on this at the Florida ag schools? Have you talked to them directly? It's great news if true (no reason to doubt you), but you're preachin' to the choir!

The plant breeder from NC should like this one ...

"Spinach genes may stop deadly citrus disease"

Here is a link that might be useful: Spinach genes may stop deadly citrus disease

The advisor to the owner of that grove told me that the trees had all tested positive for greening, and other diseases. Perhaps he is fabricating it, but I doubt it, because I think it is next to impossible to have a grove of any size in florida and not be infected. In his opinion there is no cure for greening, and no getting rid of it. The only option is to make the trees healthy enough to live with it.

I believe he and some others have made efforts to get this info into the research pipeline, but apparently it is a brick wall (and possibly even dangerous to cross the big chemical manufacturing corporations). Maybe when the big growers realize they are about to lose everything - which they are - they will hear about this and put pressure on the research stations.

I used to work in the big chem manufacturing business, for one of the biggest including ag chem's. Believe me, there is no brick wall or danger.

If the folks have the real data, their county ag extension agent will run with it. If he/she doesn't, then a call to the researchers at the land grant will.

If the "fix" is real and works, the industry will beat a path to their door.

If there's a grower out there with known Huanglongbing infected trees and they're not treating with a psyllid control program they're just irresponsible to their neighbors unless they're in a rather isolated area.

You can't get rid of it and there's really nothing to be done about it.

Btw, the "land grant universities" and chemical companies have researched methods which they don't make a chemical for, nor profit from...they've tried antibiotic injections, for instance (which was hoped to be the best chance of saving trees). It's in a chemical company's best interest to have trees living so they can continue to sell their chemicals even if they don't sell the method to keep the tree alive. The real "brick wall" imo is finding a method for control that hasn't already been tested.

There's no real way to fight this with a chemical...just stopping the pests that spread it. The best way to control it is to remove the trees, get certified clean buds, and replace your trees. This disease is rather old and has been destroying groves in Brazil/China/etc for decades. A lot of research has been investigated and some of the best leads exhausted. There just isn't some magic remediation to the disease.

It can take 5-10 years before greening drops plant production or fruit quality issues. In early stages of infection, little to nothing may happen to the trees or fruit. Many groves aren't addressing the issue until excessive fruit drop or small fruit growth is pushing the issue for replacements.

Since 2008 in FL they have had testing for all source/nursery stock to be free of Huanglongbing, but as long as there's existing groves out there with infected trees it's still going to persist as long as there's groves growing that citrus and they're not controlling their pests efficiently. It's important to remember that one of the biggest industries for FL citrus is the juice industry, so the mis-shapen fruits common to heavy Huanglongbing infection isn't that big of a deal to companies sourcing juice oranges...in fact, they can source it a little cheaper in some cases.

"The plant breeder from NC should like this one ...

"Spinach genes may stop deadly citrus disease""

Yeah, I like it...but once some organizations get wind of another GMO out there the battle flags will go up.

I can understand, though not always agree, with those anti-GMO consumers/activists who are against pesticide/herbicide traits being introduced...and to an extent some cross pollinated seed contamination concerns...but this, to me, is a different beast.

No one grows orange trees from seed...especially commercially. Everything we enjoy in that industry is grown from bud stock from parent plants. It's all a "closed loop" as far as that goes...the same for bananas (GMO soon), papayas (GMO already exists for ring spot which can spread to other veggie crops such as squash/melons), and various other fruit trees.

...but...as soon as this gets out in the open we'll have "GMO ORANGE FRANKENJUICE TO POISON YOUR KIDS!" pushed on us.

I'm in the camp that we have to look at GMO insertions on a case-by-case basis with an eye on reality, what was inserted, and how they're used by the consumer and potential growers.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, May 10, 13 at 18:11

pnbrown - sorry about not putting this in the previous post, but I was interrupted with a crisis situation.

The advisor may well be telling the truth about the greening diagnosis, and the trees may still be producing well. The greening disease (Citrus huanglongbing) can have a substantial incubation period between infection and symptomatic display. The length of time apparently depends upon which strain and time of year of infection, but UC Davis reports suggest that the incubation period can be as much 2-3 years. From what I understand that once infected there is no cure (yet), and that trees typically succumb in a 3-5 year period after visual symptoms are evident. The associated grower may be just living on borrowed time.

But here's the real problem - if there are infected tress in a grove then even if they are asymptomatic they can become a host for further spread. If growers are faced with infected tress that are still producing, I can understand why they would be reluctant to draw attention to themselves. I suspect they would be confronted with a regulatory requirement to destroy infected tress and possibly even a quarantine.

The entire state of FL is under quarantine for Huanglongbing, fwiw. The USDA is all over this.

This is a "nuclear" disease. It's not like rust or cankers...it's an industry destroyer.

Movement of plant materials, production of new plant material, and Psyllid controls are pretty much manditory...though enforcing proper psyllid control is the weakest link of the 3 things mentioned.

A lot of this was/is being spread by amateur plant growers sharing cuttings/buds across state lines as well as seasonal movement/migration of psyllids.

Frankenjuice? I like it.

Apparently the Psyllid was first detected in TX in 2001, but the disease wasn't confirmed until January this year.

I suspected there was a quarantine in FL. There is a USDA enforced quarantine in Hidalgo County, but right now it is very limited.

I live far from the TX citrus belt, but I have 4 Meyer lemons in my backyard that have been there since 2005. Has me wondering. I guess minimally I will need to forego my organic ways for them and at least get into Psyllid controls (I really don't like imidicloprid).

Well, that the grove may be on borrowed time, as it were, is an angle I hadn't thought of. Within a couple of years that will be evident, and maybe I will remember to report back here. Again, though, the difference in appearance between this grove and even the better-looking ones in the region is very notable. Superior flavor in the fruit is also notable to me and others who have compared.

If it is so that chem corporations do not have control over research then I'm pleased.

The effect may be very real. The question not being addressed is the cause and mechanism. I would not leap to "mineralization", as we discussed previously elsewhere. It really could be as simple as deep cultivation being used to apply the Azomite, as well as any number of other mechanisms. It could also be as bizarre as retardation of the bacteria by increasing what we would consider to be toxic heavy metals. Bottom line, nobody knows.

About the only research that chem/ag companies control is there own. That focuses on understanding of cause and effect relationships, and development of products, and is mostly done with profound confidentiality. Beyond that, they may have some say in research they sponsor, but that is usually rather limited. The bigger influence on independent research programs, such as those that dominate universities, are the government granting agencies (NSF, USDA, NIH, etc., etc.) and their oversight bodies (National Academies, Congress, etc.).

No deep cultivation involved in application - in fact it is merely broadcast once or twice a year I believe. In the deep florida sands there is really no reason to loosen soil once any heavily established grasses or other weeds are controlled.

I have no idea what they are doing currently in FL citrus groves. I based my comment on the results that were published in 1981 by Childs on reportedly using a montmorillonite in groves as a treatment for citrus decline. In that work, which is cited on the Azomite site, (btw - the way Azomite is described it wouldn't be a montmorillonite clay) the amendment, whatever it was, was applied at very high rates with some deep digging. By my reading it was a shaky report at best, but there apparently was some positive effect. The cause, however, was never suggested.

The question remains, what is the cause of the effect? There are a number of possibilities. If the effect is real and appreciable, I tend to believe that, via the cooperative extension network, University researchers would be all over top of it. Why that hasn't happened keeps me skeptical. Where are the county agents on this? Where are the growers associations?

Aside from the anecdotal accounts of benefit, if I were going to choose a mineral soil amendment to broadly apply to well depleted sandy soils, it would be a clay product, which Azomite is, rather than a true rock dust, which it isn't.

One former county agent who spent his career advising and promulgating university advice to the citrus growers and cattlemen, says he was forced out when he began to question the efficacy of the poison paradigm and instead began to advise the Albrecht paradigm.

He now sells azomite and humate to homeowners and hobbyists - his outlet is where I was first able to get hold of some of each without having to pay outrageous shipping costs. He and another expert devised the program for the grove in question, and it has been under way for over ten years. Given when greening made its appearance in florida, it is likely that the grove was infected after the program started, which is likely why the trees have not only survived but thrived. So it may have turned out to be prophylactive treatment.

If I were in charge, and had an agent under my supervision decide independently to advise growers/farmers based upon his belief in some paradigm to use methods that had not been appropriately researched, tested and reviewed, I'd fire him too. That is incredibly reckless behavior that places those growers/farmers and an entire industry in an unknown risk situation. It's not about the methods, it is about his behavior and the potential risks that ensue.

After dismissing him I would then immediately encourage him to pursue his own consulting/advisory service. If his methods proved efficacious and superior, both the industry and the research community would beat a path to his front door with large sums of money in hand, and he would emerge a hero. If he was wrong, then he would be the goat. Either way, he would stand on his own.

This post was edited by TXEB on Sat, May 11, 13 at 10:05

TXEB, This discussion of tree health parallels the paradigm in human health, doctoring, and supplementation. My theory is to build up the health from the ground up and human health from the inside out rather than just reactive procedures to drug, cut, andburn. My stepmother once asked her doctor, "Should I be taking any supplements?" He replied, "When it is time for that, I will let you know." He never did tell her to take any supplements.
Now the doctor is all into medical procedures, but almost unlearned in nutrition. Some of us here are into soil supplementation and with me, human supplementation. In both cases it would be hard to authenicate results ....until I was 108 years old and in near perfect health. lol.

wayne -- Prevention is always preferred to correction. For both plants and animals I have no problems with using supplements, provided that:

1. their benefit has been established through appropriate, research, testing, and credible peer review;

2. the risks of using them has been defined via the same research, testing and review;

3. they are being properly used to address a well defined need determined through diagnosis by appropriate expertise.

For humans, if there is a medical condition or ailment that would benefit from dietary supplementation, an MD should be able to make the diagnosis (e.g., anemia) and prescribe the appropriate therapy (e.g., more iron). If there is no medical condition, then the use of dietary supplements should be guided by an RD. Both MD's and RD's are independent parties to those who benefit from the sales of dietary supplements

Taking counsel on the need for and use of dietary supplements or soil amendments from the very people who offer and sell those supplements is nothing more than succumbing to the pitch of a snake oil salesman.

BTW, I don't know of any state that has licensing or practicing requirements for Nutritionists. The use of the term, as far as I know, is completely unregulated.

Here is a link that might be useful: FDA on Dietary Supplements

This post was edited by TXEB on Mon, May 13, 13 at 2:32

How is it different on taking counsel about what and how much fertilizer one should use in a particular soil for a particular crop from the local fertilizer salesman?

brown - basic fertility needs have been well established for familiar crops. Fertilizers come with guaranteed analyses. Soil tests coupled with crop demands provide the needed guidance. The research has been done, including the risks of overdoing fertilizers. Asking a fertilizer salesman which one and how much to meet those needs is no different than asking a pharmacist about which multivitamin.

There is a big difference between asking which and how much to meet a well defined and characterized need that was independently determined and established, and buying a dietary supplement for something that has no well defined need and is an unregulated product based upon the recommendations of sellers of those products who have no credible background or credentials to advise on nutritional needs. FDA has found many, many cases of what was in the bottle of a dietary supplement was not what the product was represented to be.

This post was edited by TXEB on Sun, May 12, 13 at 11:12

Yep, I can buy that.

Not to say that all supplements will be useless.

"Not to say that all supplements will be useless."

Nope - nothing about what the value is, just that without the appropriate research, testing and review it is a complete unknown. Could be great, could be troublesome.

Now we circle back toward my OP:

Why has then been such exhaustive research into fertilizers of NPK-salts, for example, such that now any salesman can accurately predict the effect of one or more of them in a particular situation, while there has been zero or near zero research into whether other, cheaper (and maybe more effective) materials can do the job?

Can that really have nothing to do with the flow of money and influence from the chem-giants? Is there no possibility that there has been an active discouragement of research into the possibility for fertilizers and amendments that lead to less dependency rather than more?

There has been A LOT of research into other fertilizers, including the use of manures, biosolids, organic fertilizers, etc. Those studies have been funded largely with public money via land grant universities, USDA, etc. A number of universities are very deep into sustainable ag, low-input farming, etc., and those typically include alternative methods of managing soil fertility.

The chem companies fund their own research, and influence nobody else. Maybe more gets spent by them. But there is no shortage of quality, credible research on the use of other, natural fertilizers. All you need to do is search and read the appropriate literature. Open the literature and your mind - what you are asking for is already abundantly available.

"Why has then been such exhaustive research into fertilizers of NPK-salts, for example, such that now any salesman can accurately predict the effect of one or more of them in a particular situation, while there has been zero or near zero research into whether other, cheaper (and maybe more effective) materials can do the job? "

Like noted, there's been tons of research done...we didn't just start research on agriculture in the 1940s. It's not only a huge area of research, it's a long standing and "not going away anytime soon" area of research.

There's still a lot going on and comparison studies are very much in play. For instance, in states where there's a lot of animal waste it's not only in play, it's highly funded. These are outputs of farming that not only need to be managed, they have benefits to other areas of farming...from food production for the animals to food production for humans.

Here in NC, using all this poultry and hog manure is huge business and so is research on it's best methods/uses. In Wisconsin, using all the dairy (from excess milk to manures) is a huge area of study. They didn't just discover this a few years ago, either...it's a multi-decade+ thing.

"Chem giants" don't even screw around much with artificial N/P/K nutrition...it's a very known issue, in both time/amount of application and it's effect on most any crop you can think of. Most of that research comes/came out of university level, too...because farmers want to put the least amount of input of anything at the appropriate time.

The notion that chemical companies own, guide, and do a majority of the research is mostly assumption or conspiracy theory over actual real-world practice and application. Many people devote their lives to study in these fields and very few are "bought off" or funded by an Illuminati corporate shadow government that they're slaves to.

I suscribe to an Agriculture weekly news that follows the big ag line heavily, but nowadays has more and more organic ag news and articles. It seems that many people with a bit of extra money and interest in better health are changing even the old conventional order to a degree. The conventional systems of medicine leave some stones unturned for many of us. Even my daughter who is a Registered Dietitian would have some pretty set protocols to follow that I would not fully agree with. It;s what is lacking that I disagree with.

I have had 2 brother-in-laws come down with cancer in the last 2 years. See, I want to be more proactive and Tex, you might think it is wasteful or not peer reviewed enough.

Well stated nc. Let me add a specific response to the following:

"Can that really have nothing to do with the flow of money and influence from the chem-giants? Is there no possibility that there has been an active discouragement of research into the possibility for fertilizers and amendments that lead to less dependency rather than more?"

In my 30 years in the industry I never heard of any of the industrial ag chem companies attempting to discourage any research effort by anyone on alternative methods, fertilizers, pest control, etc. In fact, just the opposite. I've seen major ag chem co's buy into alternative programs to have a "window" on the potential opportunity.

The ag chem companies follow market opportunities, and they will invest and work to respond to those opportunities. With the increasing interests in organic / sustainable / low-input agriculture where do you think they are now looking for new opportunity and investing? Those same fields.

One big issue from the consumer/activist point of view is there's a lot of people willing to jump to conclusions and label absolutely absurd as all hell assumptions on industry movement.

Take the recent purchase of BeeLogics by Monsanto...

Without ANY proof...and without any common sense applied to the issue...way too many people have arbitrarily made up their minds that this purchase was made in order to squash research or other wise destroy some findings that may help Monsanto's business.

This is utter, complete, total nonsense. It's a mindblowing off-the-mark assessment.

Let's just take a quick look at the #1 pesticide implicated at bee issues right now...neonicotinoids. Now let's take a quick look at neonicotinoid producers...of which Monsanto is such a minor player they're barely in the picture. It would BENEFIT MONSANTO GREATLY if neonicotinoids were banned. Too many can't understand why an agriculture/chemical company would actually want to own a company like this because too many people think those companies only exist to poison the world and make a buck without an regard to animal, insect, or land effect.

There's a lot of assumptions and hack-assed conclusions drawn about what's going on with the major players in our food production system. Too many people are looking for evident evils that don't even know what's actually in play. This is real fundamental, not-secret, out in the open stuff.

Thanks for the frank feedback, both of you. I appreciate that.

I am very much a non-believer in conspiracy theories myself, so I don't think there are any in the ag industry nor in government. Collusion can be quite real, though, as well as self-interested businesses. However, as pointed out, if there is serious money to be made in rock powders or whatever, one would assume that some large player would be in it.

What I wonder is, then, if something has not been researched exhaustively and proven (like azomite, for example), does that mean that it has been looked at and rejected as not effective, or insufficiently profitable, or in some cases could researchers and industry have missed a boat?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to lump anyone into the conspiracy theory thing...or assume you were going that route. That's why I stated "assumption or conspiracy theory" as reasons some people go that route. I understand assumptions, right or wrong, because assumptions usually have some basis in reality and are weighed before stated.

Rock powders have been investigated, btw. The major issue is how many years it takes for them to become plant available vs how quickly you can incorporate those nutrients via other means. There's more than a few studies that see little to no effect after 3+ years. When you can apply a chemical corrective measure...or even a manure/seaweed/compost/etc measure and get more immediately available effects it becomes more relevant.

A lot of rock dust applications I see out in the "real world" are in permanent plantings, such as orchard and perennials with existing root systems which you can't till to dig in to amend. This is an industry that still relies heavily on foliar feeding, too...and they're always looking for a way to supplement anything that can lessen the labor/mechanical-intensive foliar feedings.

Many of these rock dusts are industrial/mining waste. There's a lot of people who would love to have another avenue of revenue out of what would otherwise be waste. That's the reason Ironite exists. Even though there's cheaper and more quickly available way to get iron+micros into a garden/lawn, it's been successfully marketed as a nutrient addition. It was a waste product of industry until someone figured out you could get people to dump it on their lawns.

As far as a lot of money to be made in rock dusts, I'm not so sure about that. The weight of the material, the amount of application needed, and the time to get effectiveness are holding back it's use.

As it is, the volume being sold is holding the market back to the point where a few dollars worth of crushed rock is demanding a price that's rather outrageous and mostly used by the hobby gardening market. A lot of the large scale use (such as in orchards) are mostly being used by those who have access to local mining or distributors who can supply it cheaply so they don't have to deal with it as waste. The market for these dusts have been a curiosity for decades, but it's been trying to find a foot since the 1970s without getting anywhere quickly. It's not for a lack of research into their properties...it's a few variables...especially time of effectiveness and cost (suppliers, shipping, and local availability).

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, May 12, 13 at 19:14

nc makes a very important point that I want to try to amplify, and that is the distinction between the home and hobby gardening market vs. the large-scale commercial ag market, and their attendant impacts on the ag chemical industry.

The majors in the ag chemical industry (Dow Ag, DuPont, Monsanto, etc.) basically ignore the home and hobby market for sound business reasons. That market segment is not large enough to support the cost of doing the R&D, the testing, the development, the registration, etc. to bring new products to market. Instead, they focus primarily on the needs of the large scale commercial markets worldwide. Where it fits they will include uses for home applications of the products they develop,. But that is not their drive.

Large-scale ag is driven by economics of growers serving consumers of their products. Until recently organic/sustainable/etc. had a notable cost disadvantage compared to conventional agriculture. That left it as a small, niche market. Organic/sustainable/low-input was largely ignored for years because there was no substantial market at least large enough to make the required investments prudent. Thanks to the efforts of a small group of devoted pioneers, supported by universities, and the USDA, the economic gap between organic/etc. and conventional has been closed appreciably (there's still a gap). As prices have become more competitive consumers are increasingly making organic/etc. selections, accepting slightly higher prices for the benefits they perceive. The market for those products is expanding. That is driving further investment and, in turn, further economic improvement. As a result of that growing market trend, the big boys have been getting interested, very interested. Still, conventional methods dominate today, but the new trends are driving investment in the large-scale ag chem industry

The ag chem industry exists to serve their markets. They don't create those markets, they don't direct them, they don't control them, they serve them. As those markets evolve so will the ag-chem industry.