The aerobic critters don't just eat the same food as the anaerobic guys, they also eat the anaerobic guys and their waste. Further, nothing gets eaten faster than that which is already partially broken down. It is much more available than the raw stuff.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
The aerobic critters don't just eat the same food as the anaerobic guys, they also eat the anaerobic guys and their waste. Further, nothing gets eaten faster than that which is already partially broken down. It is much more available than the raw stuff.
rave420
Member
I have had AWESOME results using the following recipe
- 4 teaspoons EWC
- 1 teaspoon High P Guano
- 1 teaspoon Blackstrap Molasses
- 1/2 teaspoon Seaweed Extract
- 1.5L of R/O water
bubble for 24 hours using one 1" airstone and a 1.3W aquarium pump.
I feed them using this 2 - 3 times a week, and my plain waterings still contain molasses.
I wouldn't worry about what sorts of organisms etc... Just mix it bubble it and feed. There is no way how you can effectivley analyze or predict the different kinds of organisms in there at home. Peace of mind is where it's at!
- 4 teaspoons EWC
- 1 teaspoon High P Guano
- 1 teaspoon Blackstrap Molasses
- 1/2 teaspoon Seaweed Extract
- 1.5L of R/O water
bubble for 24 hours using one 1" airstone and a 1.3W aquarium pump.
I feed them using this 2 - 3 times a week, and my plain waterings still contain molasses.
I wouldn't worry about what sorts of organisms etc... Just mix it bubble it and feed. There is no way how you can effectivley analyze or predict the different kinds of organisms in there at home. Peace of mind is where it's at!
C
CT Guy
Just a slight correction....you can analyze or predict the kinds of organisms in your tea, it just requires a microscope.
charlesweedmore
Member
great thread CT .
CT Guy
I was reading that 'agave nectar' contains high levels of 'inulin' (as well as high-levels of saponins) and wondered if these agents appear on the screen of AACT's.
Thanks for any input - as usual.
CC
I was reading that 'agave nectar' contains high levels of 'inulin' (as well as high-levels of saponins) and wondered if these agents appear on the screen of AACT's.
Thanks for any input - as usual.
CC
C
CT Guy
I've been meaning to do some tests with agave and saponin, but haven't had much free time. I'm hoping this fall, during the slow season for work.
I can't say I've heard anything though, outside of this forum, but I'm always curious to learn more. There's a lot in the industry that we still have to learn!
CT Guy
I bought a lb. of the TeraVita Humic Acid (SP-90) and have been using it for a couple of weeks or so for making compost teas as well as a foliar spray every week with EM-1.
It's the best purchase that I've made in several years. I sprayed all of the raised beds as well as my medical garden with spectacular results.
Thanks for providing this product that normally wouldn't be available to the average consumer.
CC
I bought a lb. of the TeraVita Humic Acid (SP-90) and have been using it for a couple of weeks or so for making compost teas as well as a foliar spray every week with EM-1.
It's the best purchase that I've made in several years. I sprayed all of the raised beds as well as my medical garden with spectacular results.
Thanks for providing this product that normally wouldn't be available to the average consumer.
CC
^ if I can add, how much do we mix with humic acid with for say 1 gallon of water? also what is the recommended rate or how often can you use the humic acid?
I have the humic acid also, I know it's quality stuff but really don't know how to use it
- also if I can add, I tried using yucca to use for a foliar spray, and noticed it clogged both my sprayers, one a pump and the other a normal hand pump one? any ideas?
I have the humic acid also, I know it's quality stuff but really don't know how to use it
- also if I can add, I tried using yucca to use for a foliar spray, and noticed it clogged both my sprayers, one a pump and the other a normal hand pump one? any ideas?
habeeb
Of the two different 'pure humic acid' products that I've used (BioAg' HumiSolve and TeraVita SP-90) the rate is 1/8 tsp. per gallon every 7-10 days.
Do not overuse according to both manufacturers.
HTH
CC
Of the two different 'pure humic acid' products that I've used (BioAg' HumiSolve and TeraVita SP-90) the rate is 1/8 tsp. per gallon every 7-10 days.
Do not overuse according to both manufacturers.
HTH
CC
habeeb
I use yucca extract at 1/4 tsp. per gallon in conjunction with neem seed oil.
HTH
CC
I use yucca extract at 1/4 tsp. per gallon in conjunction with neem seed oil.
HTH
CC
C
CT Guy
Regardless of how far out you decide to dilute your tea:
1. Don’t add soluble seaweed and humate powders “until you’ve diluted the tea down as far as you’ll be diluting it”… (this is so we know how many total gallons of liquid diluted product we’re adding to…)
2. Once diluted down as far as it will be, then you may add the following amounts of soluble seaweed and humate powders on a “per-gallon-of-diluted-material basis”
a. Add 1/8th teaspoon (not tablespoon) of TeraVita SP-90 soluble humate powder in each gallon of diluted material AACT and WATER…
b. Add 1/2 teaspoon (not tablespoon) of Nature’s Essence SEP soluble seaweed powder in each gallon of diluted material AACT and WATER…
3. More of each ingredient can be added under certain circumstances, but I know how people are, so I have to decline to recommend any higher amounts. The above rates will provide nice results, over a couple months time, especially if these rates (whether diluted in tea, or in water alone) are applied to both foliage and soil, every two weeks, consistently.
4. The above recommended rates assume “level” measures of teaspoons…
5. The above rates are what I would refer to as minimums, unless a higher frequency of application were being made (then that would need to be addressed on a case by case basis)…
Hope this helps…
Both humic acids and seaweed are best used in micro amounts in greater frequency. These rates are for applications made every 2 weeks. I got this directly from the manufacturer. Cheers!
CT Guy
Thank you for the explanation on using seaweed extract and humic acid. I had it all wrong, i.e. I have been adding these agents at the beginning of the brew under some misguided idea that they facilitated the growth of fungai in the compost tea.
Should I continue to add fish hydrosylate at the beginning of the brewing process?
And what about kelp meal? Should that be used at all if you're going to be adding the seaweed extract prior to applying the tea to the plant/soil? And how much would I want to add for brewing a 5-gallon batch?
BTW - I made a batch of 'Fermented Plant Extract' using kelp meal - it's still fermenting so I don't have any information on the results. I have 6 potted geraniums to test it on and I'll let you know what I find. I plan on applying the fermented extract to 3 plants and then apply the seaweed extract to the others just to see what differences there may be.
CC
Thank you for the explanation on using seaweed extract and humic acid. I had it all wrong, i.e. I have been adding these agents at the beginning of the brew under some misguided idea that they facilitated the growth of fungai in the compost tea.
Should I continue to add fish hydrosylate at the beginning of the brewing process?
And what about kelp meal? Should that be used at all if you're going to be adding the seaweed extract prior to applying the tea to the plant/soil? And how much would I want to add for brewing a 5-gallon batch?
BTW - I made a batch of 'Fermented Plant Extract' using kelp meal - it's still fermenting so I don't have any information on the results. I have 6 potted geraniums to test it on and I'll let you know what I find. I plan on applying the fermented extract to 3 plants and then apply the seaweed extract to the others just to see what differences there may be.
CC
CC. You actually had it correct. I actually disagree for the interim anyway on adding foods to an already brewed tea because I've seen microbes quickly smothered by this practice. I've only explored fish hydrolysate which is why I say for the interim. See my webpage for recipes concerning fish hydrolysate. For humic acid I figured out that 2.5 oz. wt. = 70.875 g. = 75 ml = 5 (5.07) tablespoons approximately is a good amount for 50 gallons of tea put in at the beginning of the brew. You can deduce lesser or greater amounts.
C
CT Guy
CC and Microbeman,
Couple of questions/issues here:
1. Any of the above mentioned ingredients can be used as a food substrate in AACT. The rates I was posting were for additional foods/plant benefits based on the particular bio-amendments we're adding. Seaweed for the cytokinins, giberellins, auxins, and chelation properties, and humates for the chelation properties.
2. I agree with Tim that fish hydrolysate should be sprayed as a separate application, but can still be used at the beginning of the brew in small amounts as part of your recipe. It shouldn't be added to a finished tea.
3. I do feel that you can add seaweed and humic acids to a finished compost tea, immediately before spraying. It's a common practice that seems to bear good field results. I haven't heard of anyone having problems with anaerobic conditions occurring from this practice, though I know Tim will jump on me here for this, and hopefully we can get some data this Fall to support or discourage this methodology. Because we're dealing with relatively small amounts (fractions of teaspoons/gallon), I don't think the tea will turn anaerobic that quickly, but we do need further testing on this.
So just to be clear....the rates I gave above were for an application of humic acid or seaweed extract powder, NOT for use as a food source in a compost tea recipe.
4. Tim and I need to do more work with the humic acid, but I can say that using it as the primary food source in your recipe, or in high concentrations does not seem to promote microbial growth. We experimented with 3 different humic acids and did not see any fungal growth or even microbial activity. However, I think we used way too much humic acid and one of our humic acids turned out to not even be soluble!
Couple of questions/issues here:
1. Any of the above mentioned ingredients can be used as a food substrate in AACT. The rates I was posting were for additional foods/plant benefits based on the particular bio-amendments we're adding. Seaweed for the cytokinins, giberellins, auxins, and chelation properties, and humates for the chelation properties.
2. I agree with Tim that fish hydrolysate should be sprayed as a separate application, but can still be used at the beginning of the brew in small amounts as part of your recipe. It shouldn't be added to a finished tea.
3. I do feel that you can add seaweed and humic acids to a finished compost tea, immediately before spraying. It's a common practice that seems to bear good field results. I haven't heard of anyone having problems with anaerobic conditions occurring from this practice, though I know Tim will jump on me here for this, and hopefully we can get some data this Fall to support or discourage this methodology. Because we're dealing with relatively small amounts (fractions of teaspoons/gallon), I don't think the tea will turn anaerobic that quickly, but we do need further testing on this.
So just to be clear....the rates I gave above were for an application of humic acid or seaweed extract powder, NOT for use as a food source in a compost tea recipe.
4. Tim and I need to do more work with the humic acid, but I can say that using it as the primary food source in your recipe, or in high concentrations does not seem to promote microbial growth. We experimented with 3 different humic acids and did not see any fungal growth or even microbial activity. However, I think we used way too much humic acid and one of our humic acids turned out to not even be soluble!
Tad,
No need to jump on you for this, as it is likely accurate. It is probably correct that very minor amounts added to a brew have little effect on the microbial life. I only state caution because I have tested fish hydrolysate with negative impact at rates called for by the producer. As you know, I have yet to run tests with these other amendments. So much to test....so little time & money.
Tim
No need to jump on you for this, as it is likely accurate. It is probably correct that very minor amounts added to a brew have little effect on the microbial life. I only state caution because I have tested fish hydrolysate with negative impact at rates called for by the producer. As you know, I have yet to run tests with these other amendments. So much to test....so little time & money.
Tim
Bass Akwards
Member
Take a deep breath ...
Take a deep breath ...
There's a bucket of kitchen compost, alfalfa pellets, molasses and cotton-seed meal bubbling out back. By Sunday morning it should be ready for dilution at one to one to drench a container garden and a small patch. It's good stuff, very useful in a number of ways.
However, many of the claimed benefits of compost tea are just hype. It's time to take a deep breath, and exhale a lot of hooey. The first page of this thread was overflowing with marketing baloney and outright bullshit.
Here are a few links that should bring a measure of sanity to the proceedings:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda .../Literature files/Compost tea references.html
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda ...yths_files/Myths/magazine pdfs/CompostTea.pdf
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda ...yths_files/Myths/magazine pdfs/CompostTea.pdf
( An EPA document on the use of compost against pests is at the bottom. )
When you've had a chance to briefly peruse those links, proceed below where I'll take issue with a few of the claims for compost tea.
If the thread-starter would please attempt to answer the questions below, I'd be much obliged. I'm willing to learn, but the proof ... must be proven, and the wise-cracks are free.
Is it Aerated Compost Tea or Non-Aerated Compost Tea in that example? Do you claim that Both are effective? Where are the studies?
Safe to pour on the ground, not safe on a skin abrasion. "Natural" also applies to Arsenic, and your very next turd. For much too long, the word Natural has been a marketing gimmick. "Buy our New, Natural, Lemon-Fresh, turd." Pardon me for not swallowing this bit of fluff.
Healthier than what? By who's definition? By what criteria?
"Mr. Broccoli, stick out your tongue, we have to take your temperature."
This one is really, really, rich. Like one of those infomercials to flush out your colon. It sounds so great: "Helps clean out those nasty Toxins!"
( Of course, "help" is a very flexible modifier ... could be 20%, 2%, or .2%. )
Please name those "toxins", and tell us exactly how they get on the plants in the first place? The wind? Rain? What kind of Sissy plants do you grow anyway?
And those "toxins" in the soil ... which ones will compost break down? Pesticides? Herbicides? Heavy metals perhaps? At what rate? ( If it lowered levels ten percent a year, it would take a century, at 3% ... you figure it out. )
Reduces, .... that's not unreasonable. Eliminate? Oh please, spare me the hallucination. Show us the studies, please.
This is, quite simply, complete hogwash.
Read it again. How could there be an "infection site" on the plant in the first place if the "disease-causing organisms can't penetrate the plant"? That's hilarious! Show us the studies. Where's the proof?
Again, depending on who defines the words "natural" and "organic", those terms can be manipulated to suit anyones agenda, or their Marketing Plan.
That's like saying: "If you don't Believe in the Spirit of the Holy Tea, you can't throw away those crutches."
Please be straightforward. Say: "Your results might vary."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Information on Pesticidal Use of Compost Tea
To date, no one has submitted a pesticide registration application for any product like compost tea. All product registrations to date with activity provided by microorganisms have been for an isolated, well-characterized strain of a microorganism.
Compost tea uses for pesticidal purposes are likely to need to be registered with our Office of Pesticide Programs. A pesticide is anything that is intended to control a pest and even a microorganism that is intended to outcompete a pest microorganism for nutrients in the environment is considered to be a pesticide. The pesticide law (HYPERLINK http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7_10_6_20_II.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7_10_6_20_II.html) states that no person may "distribute or sell" to any other any other person an unregistered pesticide. Previous interpretations of this law would allow a person to produce compost tea themselves and use it for pesticidal purposes if they used it on their own (non-public) land, but not necessarily to use it on someone else's land.
Registering a compost tea as a pesticide presents scientific problems. The law allows EPA to register a pesticide by making a determination that it performs its intended function without any adverse effects. EPA has developed well-defined data requirements for chemical and microbial pesticides to allow them to perform a valid risk assessment, but these don't work well for substances with such a variable nature. The law also recognizes the need for consistency in the composition of a pesticide. Sec 136(j)(a)(1)(C) states that it is unlawful to sell or distribute any registered pesticide the composition of which differs at the time of its distribution or sale from its composition as described in the statement required in connection with its registration. Thus, anyone wanting to register compost tea is going to have to figure out how to produce adequate data to support a risk assessment for all possible variation in their product. One way might be to conduct production batch monitoring for adverse toxicological endpoints.
It is possible to conduct field tests of unregistered pesticides but they will need to have an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) from the EPA. Some small scale testing is allowed without an EUP ( HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/index.htm ). These tests are only to be used to get data for registration, not to provide pesticidal benefits. Also, any uses on food crops will require a food "tolerance" from EPA (HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm ). To get a tolerance, data will be needed to rule out any possible human dietary toxicity from consuming the crops.
William R. Schneider, Ph.D.
Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8683
Take a deep breath ...
There's a bucket of kitchen compost, alfalfa pellets, molasses and cotton-seed meal bubbling out back. By Sunday morning it should be ready for dilution at one to one to drench a container garden and a small patch. It's good stuff, very useful in a number of ways.
However, many of the claimed benefits of compost tea are just hype. It's time to take a deep breath, and exhale a lot of hooey. The first page of this thread was overflowing with marketing baloney and outright bullshit.
Here are a few links that should bring a measure of sanity to the proceedings:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda .../Literature files/Compost tea references.html
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda ...yths_files/Myths/magazine pdfs/CompostTea.pdf
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda ...yths_files/Myths/magazine pdfs/CompostTea.pdf
( An EPA document on the use of compost against pests is at the bottom. )
When you've had a chance to briefly peruse those links, proceed below where I'll take issue with a few of the claims for compost tea.
If the thread-starter would please attempt to answer the questions below, I'd be much obliged. I'm willing to learn, but the proof ... must be proven, and the wise-cracks are free.
Is it Aerated Compost Tea or Non-Aerated Compost Tea in that example? Do you claim that Both are effective? Where are the studies?
Safe to pour on the ground, not safe on a skin abrasion. "Natural" also applies to Arsenic, and your very next turd. For much too long, the word Natural has been a marketing gimmick. "Buy our New, Natural, Lemon-Fresh, turd." Pardon me for not swallowing this bit of fluff.
Healthier than what? By who's definition? By what criteria?
"Mr. Broccoli, stick out your tongue, we have to take your temperature."
This one is really, really, rich. Like one of those infomercials to flush out your colon. It sounds so great: "Helps clean out those nasty Toxins!"
( Of course, "help" is a very flexible modifier ... could be 20%, 2%, or .2%. )
Please name those "toxins", and tell us exactly how they get on the plants in the first place? The wind? Rain? What kind of Sissy plants do you grow anyway?
And those "toxins" in the soil ... which ones will compost break down? Pesticides? Herbicides? Heavy metals perhaps? At what rate? ( If it lowered levels ten percent a year, it would take a century, at 3% ... you figure it out. )
Reduces, .... that's not unreasonable. Eliminate? Oh please, spare me the hallucination. Show us the studies, please.
This is, quite simply, complete hogwash.
Read it again. How could there be an "infection site" on the plant in the first place if the "disease-causing organisms can't penetrate the plant"? That's hilarious! Show us the studies. Where's the proof?
Again, depending on who defines the words "natural" and "organic", those terms can be manipulated to suit anyones agenda, or their Marketing Plan.
That's like saying: "If you don't Believe in the Spirit of the Holy Tea, you can't throw away those crutches."
Please be straightforward. Say: "Your results might vary."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Information on Pesticidal Use of Compost Tea
To date, no one has submitted a pesticide registration application for any product like compost tea. All product registrations to date with activity provided by microorganisms have been for an isolated, well-characterized strain of a microorganism.
Compost tea uses for pesticidal purposes are likely to need to be registered with our Office of Pesticide Programs. A pesticide is anything that is intended to control a pest and even a microorganism that is intended to outcompete a pest microorganism for nutrients in the environment is considered to be a pesticide. The pesticide law (HYPERLINK http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7_10_6_20_II.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7_10_6_20_II.html) states that no person may "distribute or sell" to any other any other person an unregistered pesticide. Previous interpretations of this law would allow a person to produce compost tea themselves and use it for pesticidal purposes if they used it on their own (non-public) land, but not necessarily to use it on someone else's land.
Registering a compost tea as a pesticide presents scientific problems. The law allows EPA to register a pesticide by making a determination that it performs its intended function without any adverse effects. EPA has developed well-defined data requirements for chemical and microbial pesticides to allow them to perform a valid risk assessment, but these don't work well for substances with such a variable nature. The law also recognizes the need for consistency in the composition of a pesticide. Sec 136(j)(a)(1)(C) states that it is unlawful to sell or distribute any registered pesticide the composition of which differs at the time of its distribution or sale from its composition as described in the statement required in connection with its registration. Thus, anyone wanting to register compost tea is going to have to figure out how to produce adequate data to support a risk assessment for all possible variation in their product. One way might be to conduct production batch monitoring for adverse toxicological endpoints.
It is possible to conduct field tests of unregistered pesticides but they will need to have an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) from the EPA. Some small scale testing is allowed without an EUP ( HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/index.htm ). These tests are only to be used to get data for registration, not to provide pesticidal benefits. Also, any uses on food crops will require a food "tolerance" from EPA (HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm ). To get a tolerance, data will be needed to rule out any possible human dietary toxicity from consuming the crops.
William R. Schneider, Ph.D.
Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8683
C
CT Guy
Bass Awkwards,
I'm going to go ahead and respond to this post this time. However, if you continue to use rude language and make poor accusations, I'm not going to bother my time with you. If you wish to have an educated discussion on what I've posted, I'd be more than happy to accommodate you.
First off, I want to state that I'm on here promoting a technology, as I feel there is much misinformation out there, especially the links you sourced relating to Linda Chalker-Scott. Have you actually looked at the studies she uses? Most of them are complete garbage! Some of here work has been outstanding, but this whole issue with compost tea relates back to an academic dispute between her and Dr. Ingham. Look closer at the studies and show me where they used a good compost tea brewer, proper aeration, good compost, and foods, and a microscope for direct biological examination. If you can do that, then I'll start looking a bit closer at their findings.
Dr. Ingham has listed a bunch of articles and studies on her website at www.soilfoodweb.com. I've got a list in my office back home (I'm out of town right now). I recently got my hands on a study from Harvard using compost tea and microbial based horticultural practices, and it was found to support what I've written in my article above. They're now switching Harvard Yard over to a compost tea based system. Of course, what does Harvard know right?
The benefits I've discussed above are attributed to AACT or aerated compost teas where dissolved oxygen levels are kept above 6 mg/l throughout the entire brewing cycle.
When I discuss plant health, you can use brix as a measure or look at it from the perspective of crop yield or disease/pest problems. I've gotten results from farmers confirming all of the above, and have disease suppression tests relating to all of the diseases listed above from BBC labs.
You're correct in that I cannot make claims relating to my products on the labels stating that compost tea is a pesticide. I don't think that it is one. ~cides kill things! AACT outcompetes pathogens....there's a subtle difference. I also can't claim it's a fertilizer, yet it will provide nutrients to your plants through nutrient cycling. Does that mean that people don't get reduction in disease problems like powdery mildew or fusarium just because I can't put it on the label? Seaweed has been shown in documented studies to help control many common pest problems. Pick up a copy of TL Senn's book "Seaweed and Plant Growth" if you want to see for yourself. Would I call it a pesticide then? No, that would be ridiculous!
As far as microbes protecting a plant, there's tons of information to support that! Have you ever seen a photo of mycorrhizal fungi capturing a root feeding nematode?
If you choose not to believe anything I've stated, that's just fine with me. Please do your research though before you slander my posts or anything I've written. Address me in a respectful manner and I'll be sure to do the same...
Cheers
I'm going to go ahead and respond to this post this time. However, if you continue to use rude language and make poor accusations, I'm not going to bother my time with you. If you wish to have an educated discussion on what I've posted, I'd be more than happy to accommodate you.
First off, I want to state that I'm on here promoting a technology, as I feel there is much misinformation out there, especially the links you sourced relating to Linda Chalker-Scott. Have you actually looked at the studies she uses? Most of them are complete garbage! Some of here work has been outstanding, but this whole issue with compost tea relates back to an academic dispute between her and Dr. Ingham. Look closer at the studies and show me where they used a good compost tea brewer, proper aeration, good compost, and foods, and a microscope for direct biological examination. If you can do that, then I'll start looking a bit closer at their findings.
Dr. Ingham has listed a bunch of articles and studies on her website at www.soilfoodweb.com. I've got a list in my office back home (I'm out of town right now). I recently got my hands on a study from Harvard using compost tea and microbial based horticultural practices, and it was found to support what I've written in my article above. They're now switching Harvard Yard over to a compost tea based system. Of course, what does Harvard know right?
The benefits I've discussed above are attributed to AACT or aerated compost teas where dissolved oxygen levels are kept above 6 mg/l throughout the entire brewing cycle.
When I discuss plant health, you can use brix as a measure or look at it from the perspective of crop yield or disease/pest problems. I've gotten results from farmers confirming all of the above, and have disease suppression tests relating to all of the diseases listed above from BBC labs.
You're correct in that I cannot make claims relating to my products on the labels stating that compost tea is a pesticide. I don't think that it is one. ~cides kill things! AACT outcompetes pathogens....there's a subtle difference. I also can't claim it's a fertilizer, yet it will provide nutrients to your plants through nutrient cycling. Does that mean that people don't get reduction in disease problems like powdery mildew or fusarium just because I can't put it on the label? Seaweed has been shown in documented studies to help control many common pest problems. Pick up a copy of TL Senn's book "Seaweed and Plant Growth" if you want to see for yourself. Would I call it a pesticide then? No, that would be ridiculous!
As far as microbes protecting a plant, there's tons of information to support that! Have you ever seen a photo of mycorrhizal fungi capturing a root feeding nematode?
If you choose not to believe anything I've stated, that's just fine with me. Please do your research though before you slander my posts or anything I've written. Address me in a respectful manner and I'll be sure to do the same...
Cheers
Wee!
Wee!
My biggest problem with Chalker-Scott's discredited published works is her constant method of misapplying terms to specific processes and methods which does little more than confuse the reader. That may be one of the reasons that her 'research' sits on web sites and little else. Where are the replications of her work/research? Her gibberish has been sitting around for about 10 years - you'd think that we'd be looking at 25-50 studies supporting her claims at a minimum.
Contrary to Linda's misinformation, a 'leachette' is not a compost tea any more than a bucket of warm piss is recycled beer. Water with compost added is not an AACT - something that Chalker-Scott fails to mention in both her writings as well as her presentations. There is a difference between compost created anaerobically, aerobically, and EWC. It's interesting to watch her get frustrated when confronted with these types of questions at her 'seminars' which fortunately are pretty much limited to talking with the gray-hairs in the Tacoma area.
BTW, she's going to be at one of the local 'garden club' meetings here on July 2 as she continues to push her book written for beginning gardeners. You should probably order a copy at Amazon.com - it's amusing if nothing else.
CC
Wee!
And what exactly is kitchen compost in your world?
My biggest problem with Chalker-Scott's discredited published works is her constant method of misapplying terms to specific processes and methods which does little more than confuse the reader. That may be one of the reasons that her 'research' sits on web sites and little else. Where are the replications of her work/research? Her gibberish has been sitting around for about 10 years - you'd think that we'd be looking at 25-50 studies supporting her claims at a minimum.
Contrary to Linda's misinformation, a 'leachette' is not a compost tea any more than a bucket of warm piss is recycled beer. Water with compost added is not an AACT - something that Chalker-Scott fails to mention in both her writings as well as her presentations. There is a difference between compost created anaerobically, aerobically, and EWC. It's interesting to watch her get frustrated when confronted with these types of questions at her 'seminars' which fortunately are pretty much limited to talking with the gray-hairs in the Tacoma area.
BTW, she's going to be at one of the local 'garden club' meetings here on July 2 as she continues to push her book written for beginning gardeners. You should probably order a copy at Amazon.com - it's amusing if nothing else.
CC
Bass Akwards,
Most of what you dispute is related to compost tea (CT) as a pesticide. Only people who really don't know what they are talking about, claim CT to be a pesticide. Why would something which promotes life, kill?
It is quite common knowledge in the soil science community that there are microbial populations in the rhizosphere which protect the roots of plants from pathogenic microbes and that there are microbes which protect/help microbes which protect roots and deliver nutrients to roots. If you email me through my page I'll send you some citations on this.
It is true that there are very few controlled field studies showing the results of disease control utilizing CT, however I have witnessed this employed by farmers whose very living depends on it. Two cases I can vouch for;
1/ A farmer who had been growing flowers commercially (very similar to hemp growing) for many years with chemical fertilizers developed an erwinia infection throughout his entire farm including his enormous greenhouse. The agriculture authorities told him to remove his soil, stock and start over. Instead he built a 5000 gallon CT brewer with an above ground swimming pool and began applications undiluted through his overhead irrigation. He spread the spent compost on the soil. He persisted despite ridicule from other farmers and in six months beat back the erwinia. He noticed that the quality and quantity of his flowers had increased so he just kept right on using this method. Other growers, seeing his superior product came to see his set up. He never used fertilizer again; only CT and compost. In the ninth or tenth year of this practice he sold the farm and retired but the microbial population had become so balanced that there was no need to apply CT anymore. Another thing he reported was only minimal incidence of powdery mildew where he had heavy pressure previously. Because he stopped using chemicals, all sorts of life abounded so when two spotted mites showed up, they were gobbled by other good bugs, cutting short the damage caused. [pesticide?]
2/ We have a 1500 square foot greenhouse on our farm and prior to starting to use CT we had heavy pressure from powdery mildew (PM), especially if we applied fertilizer high in P. Believe me, we went through the whole gambit, even getting an $1800 professional soil nutrient test kit, tried neem and all that stuff. It was only when we started using CT that we got results. We built a 1200 gallon brewer and applied it undiluted through overhead irrigation. Gradually the PM subsided and has never returned. We have NEVER again used fertilizers (including so-called organics), using only CT, our own vermicompost/compost and fish hydrolysate.
Regarding Linda Chalker-Scott; Once when she asked for input concerning CT, I responded to her briefly stating that I was dubious about the pesticidal claims of CT and she practically gushed all over me. She asked me to report my experiences with CT. When she got my report and saw there was mostly a positive side to it, she never used it, nor contacted me again.
You are right that 'natural' is an overused term and all that is natural is not safe in all applications. I prefer the term natural growing to organic but this is phrased more after 'nature farming' which is a growing trend in many parts of the world. Many microbial based methods are used; CT, EM, various beneficial microbes, mushrooms and of course compost. I believe we must persist in the use of this term and challenge those who use it to sell products which are far removed from natural. What we are trying to promote here, on a global scale is a relatively close replication of nature. This is necessary to stop the tremendous harm we have caused. Anyway, just as I would not shove my face into a patch of nettles, I don't shove my face into nor drink CT nor do I put it on my cuts.
The criteria for healthy plants: look good, taste good, relatively free of disease, grow fast. You say Mr Broccoli stick out your tongue. Does this mean human health can be determined by the appearance of the tongue? Do we not judge some people to be healthy looking? Why would plants be that different?
I do not think CT necessarily has effect on toxins on the surface of plants (although I have noticed healthy shiney leaves from CT use) but that soil microbes break down toxins in soil is quite common knowledge and is used widely for environmental clean up. This is particuraly true of bacteria, archaea and fungi. There is an interesting study/trial concerning the breakdown of petroleum toxins by fungi on www.fungi.com . Often, when there is a toxin spilled in a remote area, good soil microbes are stimulated to multiply by applying black strap molasses dilutions. Some particularly good bacteria for devouring a wide range of toxins in soil are purple non-sulfur bacteria (PNSBs). Some of these which may occurr in CT are Rhodopseudomonas palustris, Rhodobacter sphaeroides and R. capsulatus, if certain ingredients are included and if brewed with light. Besides this there are many species of degrader fungi and bacillus bacteria which are multiplied in CT which are well known for anti-toxin (& anti-pathogen) attributes. What we are doing when brewing a CT is attempting to get a diverse range of microbes from three groups (I'm lumping archaea with bacteria; shame);
bacteria/archaea, fungi and protozoa. When applied to the soil, if the environment is conducive and/or if their services are required certain of these microbes will continue to flourish, while others will go dormant, to come back to life when called upon. Most of the specialized bacteria (mentioned by the EPA) contained in many of the specialized products for sale will be contained in a properly brewed CT. One reason I like using a microscope prior to applying CT is so I can see that there is a relative balance of the three groups when I use it. I then know that there is already a functioning nutrient cycling consortia so there is a better chance of success. By the way, not one of the studies, on which the USDA and EPA has based their opinion on CT, looked for these three groups [unless there is a new study I'm unaware of]. That they would not do so is amateurish to the nth degree and seems to show who it is that butters their bread. The only way they could get E-coli to grow in CT was to inoculate CT with E-coli and then they did no follow up to see if the E-coli was dealt with by the consortia; shame.
I guess, this is where your 'Results may vary' come in. Of course if you do not use actual compost or not enough air or brew for too long or too short you may get crap rather than a microbial consortia.
For example; You say you are using kitchen compost. What does this mean? Is it actually composted? Are there still chunks of stuff in it? If it is compost it should be a brown to black substance with an earthy odor and have no recognizable components.
CT is not magic and CT Guy has not stated it to be so. Many people wish it to be magic and perpetuate myths concerning its efficacy. It is a huge tool in a natural growing system, especially when transitioning from traditional growing techniques. There are a lot of powerful companies who have an interest in seeing CT fail and unfortunately they also fund university research. I offer much information freely on my webpage with hopes of making my small contribution towards this needed change. I know that CT Guy does the same. We both have helped many build their own brewers. I noticed that larger CT brewers on the market were overpriced and not well designed so I designed one and made it affordable. I sell a DVD set for half of what is typical so people can use it to identify soil/CT/compost microbes. I'm building and selling affordable microscopes with a minimal mark up compared to the industry so I might encourage it's use as a horticultural tool. Ya, I make some money because I need to eat but my motivation is to do my bit to change the world. I know that CT Guy works hard to increase his knowledge and continuously gathers data so he can improve the service and products he provides.
Your implication that it is all about business is misplaced in this case.
Most of what you dispute is related to compost tea (CT) as a pesticide. Only people who really don't know what they are talking about, claim CT to be a pesticide. Why would something which promotes life, kill?
It is quite common knowledge in the soil science community that there are microbial populations in the rhizosphere which protect the roots of plants from pathogenic microbes and that there are microbes which protect/help microbes which protect roots and deliver nutrients to roots. If you email me through my page I'll send you some citations on this.
It is true that there are very few controlled field studies showing the results of disease control utilizing CT, however I have witnessed this employed by farmers whose very living depends on it. Two cases I can vouch for;
1/ A farmer who had been growing flowers commercially (very similar to hemp growing) for many years with chemical fertilizers developed an erwinia infection throughout his entire farm including his enormous greenhouse. The agriculture authorities told him to remove his soil, stock and start over. Instead he built a 5000 gallon CT brewer with an above ground swimming pool and began applications undiluted through his overhead irrigation. He spread the spent compost on the soil. He persisted despite ridicule from other farmers and in six months beat back the erwinia. He noticed that the quality and quantity of his flowers had increased so he just kept right on using this method. Other growers, seeing his superior product came to see his set up. He never used fertilizer again; only CT and compost. In the ninth or tenth year of this practice he sold the farm and retired but the microbial population had become so balanced that there was no need to apply CT anymore. Another thing he reported was only minimal incidence of powdery mildew where he had heavy pressure previously. Because he stopped using chemicals, all sorts of life abounded so when two spotted mites showed up, they were gobbled by other good bugs, cutting short the damage caused. [pesticide?]
2/ We have a 1500 square foot greenhouse on our farm and prior to starting to use CT we had heavy pressure from powdery mildew (PM), especially if we applied fertilizer high in P. Believe me, we went through the whole gambit, even getting an $1800 professional soil nutrient test kit, tried neem and all that stuff. It was only when we started using CT that we got results. We built a 1200 gallon brewer and applied it undiluted through overhead irrigation. Gradually the PM subsided and has never returned. We have NEVER again used fertilizers (including so-called organics), using only CT, our own vermicompost/compost and fish hydrolysate.
Regarding Linda Chalker-Scott; Once when she asked for input concerning CT, I responded to her briefly stating that I was dubious about the pesticidal claims of CT and she practically gushed all over me. She asked me to report my experiences with CT. When she got my report and saw there was mostly a positive side to it, she never used it, nor contacted me again.
You are right that 'natural' is an overused term and all that is natural is not safe in all applications. I prefer the term natural growing to organic but this is phrased more after 'nature farming' which is a growing trend in many parts of the world. Many microbial based methods are used; CT, EM, various beneficial microbes, mushrooms and of course compost. I believe we must persist in the use of this term and challenge those who use it to sell products which are far removed from natural. What we are trying to promote here, on a global scale is a relatively close replication of nature. This is necessary to stop the tremendous harm we have caused. Anyway, just as I would not shove my face into a patch of nettles, I don't shove my face into nor drink CT nor do I put it on my cuts.
The criteria for healthy plants: look good, taste good, relatively free of disease, grow fast. You say Mr Broccoli stick out your tongue. Does this mean human health can be determined by the appearance of the tongue? Do we not judge some people to be healthy looking? Why would plants be that different?
I do not think CT necessarily has effect on toxins on the surface of plants (although I have noticed healthy shiney leaves from CT use) but that soil microbes break down toxins in soil is quite common knowledge and is used widely for environmental clean up. This is particuraly true of bacteria, archaea and fungi. There is an interesting study/trial concerning the breakdown of petroleum toxins by fungi on www.fungi.com . Often, when there is a toxin spilled in a remote area, good soil microbes are stimulated to multiply by applying black strap molasses dilutions. Some particularly good bacteria for devouring a wide range of toxins in soil are purple non-sulfur bacteria (PNSBs). Some of these which may occurr in CT are Rhodopseudomonas palustris, Rhodobacter sphaeroides and R. capsulatus, if certain ingredients are included and if brewed with light. Besides this there are many species of degrader fungi and bacillus bacteria which are multiplied in CT which are well known for anti-toxin (& anti-pathogen) attributes. What we are doing when brewing a CT is attempting to get a diverse range of microbes from three groups (I'm lumping archaea with bacteria; shame);
bacteria/archaea, fungi and protozoa. When applied to the soil, if the environment is conducive and/or if their services are required certain of these microbes will continue to flourish, while others will go dormant, to come back to life when called upon. Most of the specialized bacteria (mentioned by the EPA) contained in many of the specialized products for sale will be contained in a properly brewed CT. One reason I like using a microscope prior to applying CT is so I can see that there is a relative balance of the three groups when I use it. I then know that there is already a functioning nutrient cycling consortia so there is a better chance of success. By the way, not one of the studies, on which the USDA and EPA has based their opinion on CT, looked for these three groups [unless there is a new study I'm unaware of]. That they would not do so is amateurish to the nth degree and seems to show who it is that butters their bread. The only way they could get E-coli to grow in CT was to inoculate CT with E-coli and then they did no follow up to see if the E-coli was dealt with by the consortia; shame.
I guess, this is where your 'Results may vary' come in. Of course if you do not use actual compost or not enough air or brew for too long or too short you may get crap rather than a microbial consortia.
For example; You say you are using kitchen compost. What does this mean? Is it actually composted? Are there still chunks of stuff in it? If it is compost it should be a brown to black substance with an earthy odor and have no recognizable components.
CT is not magic and CT Guy has not stated it to be so. Many people wish it to be magic and perpetuate myths concerning its efficacy. It is a huge tool in a natural growing system, especially when transitioning from traditional growing techniques. There are a lot of powerful companies who have an interest in seeing CT fail and unfortunately they also fund university research. I offer much information freely on my webpage with hopes of making my small contribution towards this needed change. I know that CT Guy does the same. We both have helped many build their own brewers. I noticed that larger CT brewers on the market were overpriced and not well designed so I designed one and made it affordable. I sell a DVD set for half of what is typical so people can use it to identify soil/CT/compost microbes. I'm building and selling affordable microscopes with a minimal mark up compared to the industry so I might encourage it's use as a horticultural tool. Ya, I make some money because I need to eat but my motivation is to do my bit to change the world. I know that CT Guy works hard to increase his knowledge and continuously gathers data so he can improve the service and products he provides.
Your implication that it is all about business is misplaced in this case.
