The following article should be read
and studied by every farmer and
gardener. SUBJECT: "Miracle Products"
in North Carolina Horticultural
Crop Production.
The following article was written for
Missouri farmers by a recognized
Extension Agronomist in that state.
This information is timely and relevant
to North Carolina farmers, so we are
reproducing it here in its entirety, with
the author's permission:
MIRACLE PRODUCTS —
ARE THEY FOR REAL?
Dr. Gary W. Colliver,
Associate Professor State
Extension Agronomy Specialist
Soils & Crops, Comments from
Agronomy, vol. 5, No. 7, Feb. 1977,
Cooperative Extension Service University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
"Soil activators, soil conditioners,
plant stimulators, soil inoculants,
'natural' minerals, liquid liming
materials, seaweed, fermented manures,
crushed mineral (rock) materials,
humic materials, and even
coal-like materials are among the
'miracle' products being offered for
sale to farmers. Such products have
been around for quite some time but
seem to be increasing in numbers in
recent years.
The promoters of these products
often make fantastic claims for their
beneficial effects on soils and crop
growth. They are sometimes billed as
'cure-alls' which can be good for nearly
anything that might ail a soil or plant.
They may also be recommended as a
livestock feed additive and claims are
made for improving the nutritive value
of both feed and food crops. I recently
read a claim that the use of a seaweed
product foliarly on corn this past
summer overcame the effects of
drought and tripled corn yields.
Promotional materials for one
product called a soil conditioner and
plant stimulator, claims it will '-cut
the use of fertilizer in half or eliminate
it altogether -, revitalize worn out soils
and eradicate root rot in such
agricultural crops as cotton.' It further
claims to, '-release nutrients bound in
the soil, -reduce caking characteristics
in soil and build soil structure,
-improve root growth, stimulate
circulation in the plant and, provide
trace minerals to plants.' As if that
wasn't enough it is further claimed it,
'-adjust soil pH to a favorable range.'
In my opinion, any product that could
do all of these is truly a miracle!
Sales promotions are usually based
largely on testimonials from farmers
that supposedly have 'successfully'
used the product. There is an absence
of scientific research to support the
claims. If research is quoted, it is often
taken out of context, incomplete, and
attributed to someone in a distant
state. Creditability is sometimes based
on quotes from 'experts' who have no
expertise whatsoever in agronomy.
Such 'experts' include M. D.'s,
veterinarians, lawyers, and even television
personalities. Their involvement
may be financial backing and are
probably well-meaning, but are largely
uniformed in the fundamentals of soil
chemistry, soil fertility, and plant
I physiology.
When asked how their products can
produce the remarkable results they
claim, the promoters often answer, 'We
don't know why, but it works.' They
may suggest it is due to some
'unknown' natural process or ingredient,
or perhaps that the ingredients
and how they work must be kept secret
to protect their investment. Another
approach is to use a conglomeration of
scientific terms in a sales pitch, which
Agriculturally
Speaking
By L. B. HARDAGE
County Extension Chairman
may sound legitimate to laymen not
trained in the science necessary to fully
understand such terminology.
Promoters are usually very vocal
critics of agronomic researchers in
universities, the U.S.D.A., and large
corporations. They will probably tell
you, 'The university doesn't know it
works because they haven't tested our
product.' Some may also claim
universities won't recommend it
because they are 'controlled' by large
corporations. Another common characteristic
of some promoters is the claim
that they want to rid agriculture of its
dependence on pesticides and inorganic
fertilizers, replacing them with their
'natural, organic' products.
The miracle products are usually
used in very small quantities on an
acre basis, some as little as 2 ounces
per acre. Claims for one product are
that 2 to 3 gallons of it will produce the
same soil acidity neutralizing benefits
as 2 to 3 tons of agricultural limestone.
It boggles the mind to visualize such
benefits. Skepticism is also cast on the
claims that these products variously
produce the following benefits: chelation
of plant nutrients, improve soil
water absorpative and holding capacity,
increase numbers of earthworms
and microbes, increase microbial activity,
add beneficial microbes to soil,
improve soil organic matter, eliminate
crop disease, reduce insect infestation,
increase root growth and improve crop
quality.
bo-called proof of positive results
from farmers' field can easily be based
on erroneous conclusions. For example,
if you have two fields and use a
product on one field and not the other
and the yield turns out higher where
you used it, you might conclude the
product produced the benefit. Such,
however, is not necessarily the case.
There are many other factors which
may have caused the difference.
Unless the comparison is based on
sound scientific principles, the results
cannot be considered reliable. Further,
with the normal variations in any field,
any series of field trails not properly
designed can show what would appear
to be a 'response' in as many as
one-half the trials, regardless of what
treatment is applied. This gives the
promoters their 'ammunition', and
they tend to 'forget' about the trails
where no response is shown.
A bad crop year, such as the one
we've had in Missouri during 1976, also
sets the stage for 'proof that a product
works. For example, let's say a farmer
used a 'Miracle' product for the first
time in 1977, and gets a very high yield,
of course much better than in 1976. It's
likely he could be convinced that at
least part of that big yield increase was
due to the product, when in fact it's
more likely due to a better season.
There are too many of these products
to conclusively test them all by sound
research procedures. The limitations
on dollars for agronomic research at
the agricultural colleges prevent doing
everything that might be needed, and
there are higher priorities than testing
'miracle' products. Therefore, judgments
have to be made based on
scientific knowledge and a limited
amount of research which has been
done on such products. The research
which has been done in various states
by competent agronomic researchers
do not support most of the claims being
made for most 'miracle' products.
Further the vast amount of scientific
expertise available within the ranks of
agricultural researchers nationside,
has not found validity in most of the
claims for such products. The answer
to the question in the title of the article
seems to be, no.