This is a letter written many years ago, and it’s still relevant today.
When the first Green Methods Technical Manual was created in 1996-’98, there were few technical resource publications available to growers. And the publications which did exist were geared mostly towards scientific or residential readers. Fine books these were, but for commercial greenhouse growers and interiorscapers, nurserymen and farmers-which fell somewhere in between-they left much to interpretation. However fine this may be, interpretation takes time and can be misleading. When going to a foreign land, most travelers would prefer to know the language instead of relying on interpretation. And the same applies to growers, except their foreign land is in their own greenhouse or interiorscape, field or orchard. And the misunderstood language is that of biological pest control and integrated pest management (IPM). And this website, based on and excerpted from a new manual which is currently in production (lol, sure it is), well, it’s not the end-all-be-all language complete but, hopefully, it’s a decent lap- or desk-top translator.
Even today there are still relatively few easy-to-digest technical resource publications or websites geared toward commercial growers. And the original Green Methods Technical Manual is probably due for an update. Like the last book, this web site will also be geared towards multifaceted growers-light-scientific, residential and all those commercial folks filling that void in between. Of course interpretations will still need to be made, as this is the case with any book [or website], even fiction, but the language used is that of growers. In fact, the information contained on this web site, like the last book, is mostly obtained from growers and their real life experiences.
A very small handful of folks may discredit some of the information on this website. They’ll say this website is nothing but a screen to screen compilation of anecdotal evidence and hearsay and should not be regarded as a useful, accurate website. Others of the same stripe will welcome it with open arms and use it daily as their biocontrol/IPM on-line resource. I know this because this was the case with the old printed manual. Fortunately, and I’m very pleased to report this, the vast majority of readers were quite enamored with the old printed manual. So much, in fact, that many schools, universities, cooperative extension offices and research organizations touted the Green Methods Technical Manual as the best publication available at that time. Many copies reside in university research libraries across the nation. Better yet, many cooperative extension field officers carry the book with them as an on-site reference tool. Is this website a screen to screen compilation of anecdotal evidence and hearsay? You bet. The best there is. And very accurate to the people whose comments were heard and respected. To the folks who generated the information, it is right on target.
Anecdotal evidence is a funny thing. It holds no water and has no bearing in the real world according to some. If that is so, however, how does one explain how this real world information provided by real world growers is not real? One reader, a researcher, being critical, said he thought I was wrong in stating in the last printed edition a particular parasitoid-a mini-wasp-was able to parasitize a particular pest. However, one vast site which used the parasitoid to control the pest in question had spectacular results; results which have since been replicated repeatedly in other sites as well. The parasitoids seemed to be working regardless of the individual’s comments. The pest in question was sporting exit holes. From those holes were emerging the offspring of the parasitoids we had supplied. A chemical was also being used on site, a systemic, but it was not compatible with the parasitoids being used. However, it appears the chemical was not being effectively translocated throughout the trees as it had no apparent effects on the mini-wasps, thus allowing them to continue their function. The doubting researcher said it must be the chemical killing the pests. But there were exit holes and emerging mini-wasps of the same species. A species which was not indigenous to the area. “Come on,” I said, “give me a break. Chemicals don’t make exit holes.” And the story doesn’t end there. Petri-dish trials were conducted with the parasitoids I supplied to this individual. And I was shocked when the person still said they didn’t work. However, I also discovered a major flaw in his lab methodology. After conceding to the oversight, he ran the trial again — this time the test was properly run and the results were much different. Petri-dish testing, like anecdotal evidence, has its flaws if that is the only testing considered.
Conversely, a lab will sometimes take note-and come to conclusions-of positive results based on experiments conducted in petri dishes. This being the counterpart to anecdotal evidence I presume. This, too, can mislead. In fact it happened to me. A few years ago I was overseeing some experimentation I was hoping would help me find a biological control of a little red beetle wreaking havoc on certain varieties of lilies. The lab-based experimentation was discouraging at first as nothing was impacting the beetle in any of its stages. One day, though, I hit pay-dirt. I had isolated one control which, in just a couple of days, had wiped out the larvae of this beetle. Quite effectively, quite inexpensively. I replicated the experiment again, not getting into the thick of the details, and found a solid winner. At that point I guess I could have gone forth and presented my findings to growers, but I didn’t. Being the anecdotal evidence lover that I am, I absolutely had to test these biocontrols in the real world before marketing a product based on the results of repeated lab trials. Though I guess I wasn’t really too surprised, my disappointment was clear. The biocontrols had no effect on the beetles’ larval forms outside the petri dish. I tried over and over again employing differing principals and methodology. Yet nothing worked. I found myself at square one: I had a pest and a market, but I had nothing to offer. Now I could’ve said that lab research is bogus because I couldn’t mirror the fantastic lab results outside the lab, but that would be on par with saying that real world results are bogus without having solid lab research behind them. I wouldn’t be right regardless of which comment I chose. So I’ll decline comment. However, one thing is clear. I, or anyone else who embraces anecdotal evidence, has to be careful when disregarding laboratory work. But, on the other hand, laboratory technicians and researchers should not too quickly disregard anecdotal evidence based on real world experiences. The two should be viewed independently and jointly if one really wants to get to the bottom of things.
Some of the information contained on this website is unsupported and undocumented in a proper, peer-reviewed scientific fashion. It will, therefore, not stand up in a petri dish court with the scrutiny of a purely scientific jury. There is no specific reference section on this website. Nor will I cite any literature (not that I didn’t get any information from books). In all honesty, which I’m hoping you’ll appreciate, if I did cite anything or anyone, it would probably read like this: Found out about it from Joe at Joe’s Greenhouse in 1998 and; Fred from Fred’s Interiorscape Service in 1999; and good old Bobby from the Dirt Patch Farm in 2000. These folks are, in essence, real. They’re not looking for fame and fortune in science. Nor are they looking for corroboration by review of their peers. They just want to do their jobs: grow plants and control the pests conspiring against them. You’ll be glad to know, perhaps, that I do need, for the most part, to have some pretty powerful corroboration from multiple sources before buying into any particular theory or making any particular conclusion-lab-based or anecdotal. After all, I don’t want to pass along shady, secondhand interpretations. If I hear something from ten or so unique, diverse and, what I consider solid, sources, I start believing it — regardless of what popular thought has to add. Moreover, I very much subscribe to logic.
I’m told I’m stubborn at times (this has been proven in both the petri dish court and from more than ten independent sources). However, if real world pest solutions tested by real world growers in real world situations are not good enough when it comes to making real world conclusions, then I just don’t know anything anymore. I guess I’d have to wait for someone else to make progress for me. The Wright Brothers were told their flying contraption wouldn’t work in the field by ‘flight experts’ of the era. The Brothers ignored it all and simply took off-literally. After all, ten billion birds can’t all be wrong. The experts then conceded that flight might be possible after all, even though they couldn’t actually get an airplane into the lab to test it. This last bit leads me to one question: how does one become an expert in an unknown, unproven science? My answer: just do it, take off and fly. Oh, and consider all sources.
My hat is off to biocontrol and IPM scientists and end-users the world over-those in lab coats as well as those in overalls. I’m not purposefully disrespecting those who put all their faith in a petri dish and I will accept a logical argument from just about anyone (I do try to keep an open mind). However, I boldly salute the growers actually doing this stuff as they, too, are research pioneers. And their conclusions, at least on my website [this website] hold an awful lot of weight. It is your decision whether or not you want to buy into any of it. In my eyes, though, all sources must be respected and considered-scientific and otherwise. — Mike Cherim
Director
