Subject: Re: fungal vs bacterial/ till no? No till?

From: gil carandang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:13:58 +0000

jeff,
thanks for the information.  it is really of great help.  currently, we do a
lot of experimentations and observations on several vegetable families.  we
do our own microbial culture using lacto bacilli, forest and bamboo
microorganism.  apparently, the forest ones are much fungal and the bamboo
much bacterial.  lactic acid bacteria however is our main workhorse in
composting, digestion and arresting foul odors.  we do a lot of anaerobic
fermentation.  in fact, we ferment our materials first before we really
compost them.  we make special designer compost that includes several
diversed materials of which we inoculate with beneficial indigenous
microorganisms and add lots of bionutrients we normally extract from herbs.
our designer compost we add rice bran and rice hull charcoal aside from
microbes and bionutrients.  this compost is what we will start using for our
compost teas.  anaerobic to aerobic? well, let's see.
again, thanks. gil

>From: Jeff Lowenfels <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
><[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] fungal vs bacterial/ till no? No till?
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:02:42 -0800
>
>Hi Gil,
>
>You asked if there is any why to tell what a plant likes in terms of
>bacterial vs. fungally dominated soils.
>
>I am sure Dr. Elaine will give a better answer, but the way I remember it
>is
>to think of where the plant I am trying to grow sits on a line of
>succession
>from short growing season desert to grasses to prairie to deciduous woods
>to
>hardwood forests to old growth conifers.
>
>Annuals and row crops are at the bacterial end...things that take a short
>time to grow and produce.
>
>My understanding is that there  are "generally" the same numbers of
>bacteria
>in healthy soils no matter where the soil is taken along the line. It is
>the
>fungal numbers that change and increase as the system matures so that by
>the
>time you get to old growth, you have very high fungal dominance. And, of
>course, tilling decreases these numbers by killing the fragile, invisible
>fungi in the soil so you are left with a higher ratio of bacteria after you
>till.
>
>And, if you can stand two more paragraphs, getting rid of fungus is why we
>here in Alaska actually want to till gardens the first few years after they
>are carved out of the black spruce forests that are our back yard.....our
>soils are so fungal, it is hard to grow lots of annuals unless the soil is
>turned..
>
>Breccias, on the other hand, do well in our fungal soils. It is a kid's
>hell. Broccoli, kohlrabi, Brussels sprouts.  You may have heard of the
>giant
>100 pound cabbages. Of course, this may be more a factor of the cool
>temperatures or their ability to attract bacteria regardless of fungal
>numbers in the soil. This family of plants does not form mycorrhizal
>relationships either.
>
>You can tell my gardening engines are running, but spring has just now
>arrived here. Sorry. And, please correct me, Dr. Elaine!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeff L

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

---

From: gil carandang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 03:12:58 +0000

dear elaine,
i appreciate greatly your response.  in fact, you are right.  there's a
difference between the putrefactive and fermentative processes.
putrefactive anaerobic results in real foul stinky smells like sewage.
fermentative has much sour but not rotten smell.  there are definite
subtleties on the smells and experience is our best teacher.  some people
like the EM people also test the pH.

anyway, you definitely can use the yogurt.  i however, make our own lacto
bacilli in a very simple way.  we do a two stage process.  we first trap
several microbes to its food like carbohydrate and then saturate them (on
the second stage) with milk.  in this manner, we eliminate the other
microbes and keep a pure lacto bacilli culture.  we then add another kind of
food to keep them alive rather than the customary refrigeration.  in the
countryside, at least in the philippines, we don't have refrigeration.  it
is very cheap to produce that it is almost unbelievable.  i have a booklet
on this process that i distributed at the recent ecofarm conference.  anyone
who will be interested would simply need to e-mail me at:
[email-masked].
i was also told that lacto bacilli is both anaerobic and aerobic.  i guess
it is more anaerobic or may we call facultative.  lacto bacilli is really a
microbial workhorse.  it is normally associated with the word probiotics.
and in organic agriculture, especially livestock, they use a lot of these
and combined with immune booster herbs like aloe vera. again, most of highly
nutritious foods are fermented foods.  and lots of them are lactic acid
fermented.  in the same token, the microorganisms that we get from the
forest are assumed by natural farmers to be beneficial (as you observe where
you get them) and maybe more fungal in association.  and the bamboo
microorganism we use can be said to be more bacterial for its roots exudates
attract a lot of beneficial bacteria.  as natural farmers, do i still need
tests and counts?  probably yes.  although most practical farmers will not
have to.  through our experimentations and observations, we should be able
to "see".  we natural farmers always believe that if we open our eyes, ears,
heart and being to nature, nature will start to unfold its mysteries to us.
the ultimate answer to all our agricultural questions lie not on man but on
nature herself.  as long as we align our methods to the workings of nature,
we should be in good position. it is our holistic approach and broader
realization and appreciation of nature that will guide us and not
discriminating and dichotomized mindsets of the reductionist science.

elaine, i really enjoyed your workshop in tulare.  i learn a lot.  it pretty
much rationalize the things i have been doing in my natural farming with our
essential focus on these beneficial indigenous microorganisms and biological
nutrients.

i hope to bring you to the philippines one of this days.  and i hope you
will also be able to set up an office-lab here so we can improve the
philippine agricultural practices and directions.

again, thanks.
gil carandang
herbana farms
philippines

>From: Elaine Ingham <[email-masked]>
>Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 13:29:47 -0400
>
>In response to Gil's comments on anaerobic decomposition -
>
>As Steve Diver and I have commented, individually, before, there's a
>difference in fermentative and putrefactive anaerobic processes.
>
>When dealing with the lactobacilli, you are setting the stage for a very
>different set of processes than when you allow the run-of-the-mill
>putrefactive anaerobes to proliferate.
>
>Lactobacillus species establish a particular set of conditions that prevent
>the growth of other organisms.  Lactobacilli work to reach a particular pH
>by releasing certain organic acids.  They also control nutrient
>availability and thus prevent the growth of bacteria like E. coli and other
>human pathogens.
>
>Plant material from your garden usually does not contain lactobacilli, so
>you have to inoculate them.  You have to add an overwhelming number of
>these bacteria in order to move things in the right direction.  So the
>"starter" can be fairly expensive.  Grow your own, or add LIVE CULTURE
>yogurt to your compost pile.
>
>Gil, perhaps you know whether the lactobacilli in commercial yogurt are the
>same species as you are adding to your composts?
>
>How do you tell when you have the lactobacilli versus the putrefier
>bacteria?  Smell is one way.   What is "ok" stink, versus what is "bad"
>stink?  The sour kraut smell is ok, brimstone is not (you are losing your
>sulfur into the atmosphere).  Strong ammonia is bad, a slight urine smell
>can be ok.  The vomit smell is bad, the cole slaw smell is ok.  I need to
>do a course to demonstrate to people the differences in smells.
>
>Unfortunately, some people cannot discern the differences.  The smells can
>be subtly different, so they are not reliable in all cases.  Perhaps it is
>better to not worry about difficult-for-many-people-to-assess differences,
>and just keep it aerobic all the time.
>
>People who want to learn the differences in smells, should take a
>composting course where there is a hands-on part of the course, such as the
>Luebkes teach in Austria.  Talk about people with know-how, obtained
>through years of experience!  They may not use microscopes every day, but
>they figured out how to do things through trial and error.  They probably
>are better at distinguishing odors than I am.  I am more likely to know the
>name of the bug making the smell, but they can tell you more about the
>conditions that allowed that organism to grow, and therefore make that
>smell.
>
>----------
>
>It is ok when the compost goes anaerobic for a short time (not too much
>ammonia or hydrogen sulfide loss, please!), and then comes back to aerobic.
>  As long as you allow microbial growth to use up all the toxic anaerobic
>decomposition products, then things should be fine.  Of course, you will
>lose N, P, S if you let the pile become anaerobic, so if you really don't
>want to lose fertility, keep it aerobic.
>
>Hope this helps -
>
>Elaine Ingham
>President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
>SFI Corvallis, OR
>SFI Port Jefferson, NY
>SFI Lismore, NSW, Australia
>SFI Hilversum, The Netherlands
>SFI Cambridge, New Zealand
>www.soilfoodweb.com

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

---

From: gil carandang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:56:20 +0000

dear elaine,
i fully agree with you.  in fact, that's the way it should be.  i have
nothing against testings and science.  what i simply propose is to really
involve farmers in determining their agriculture, self-reliance and not
dictated by the next guy.  in my farm, i do internship and apprenticeship,
and when someone applies, i always asked, who's gonna touch and deal with
the dirt.  if the prospect intern or apprentice is not the one who will be
dealing with the soil, then i gracefully turn them down.  a good true farmer
should really be able to connect with the dirt, observe and "talk" to the
dirt and plants.  it is this simplicity of relationship that determines the
outcome of his agriculture.  and this can only happen when you are the real
person doing it and not someone else.  that's the reason, i don't believe
too much on big agriculture.  big agriculture loses our connection with the
dirt.  it alienates and separates us from the earth.  we are but part of it
and cannot be separated from it.  we respond to the "dictates" of nature and
not of man.

anyway, let us not be conditioned with what the next guy will tell us.  let
us be free and creative in what we do in agriculture.  let us be holistic
and simple. let us learn from nature.  and let us align of ways to the
workings of nature.

let us know our soil and its microbial activities and ecologies.  and in
knowing, we shall start to understand.  and understanding will be the true
beginning of our journey -- our relationship with her.

tests are extremely important in knowing what may be "wrong" with the soil.
but let us not stop and be dependent on it.  soil test for example is just
the beginning.  we still owe it to ourselves not just to know but to
understand our position and relationship with mother earth.  observations
and experiments are important.  but you are right elaine, you should know
where you are coming from. you should know the cost-benefit.  and without a
better understanding of our land, then you need the the test to really start
your journey in this farming with the dirt.

gil carandang
herbana farms
philippines

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:15:16 -0400
>
>Hi Gil -
>
>I agree that often times the grower knows enough about their land and past
>practices that they should have a really good idea of what is going on
>biologically in their soil.
>
>But sometimes, even though things should be going right, they aren't.  Take
>the front lawn at SFI.  We have been using compost tea, a few organic
>additives like kelp, corn gluten, and the occasional product that people
>want tested, and we are having a weed problem.  Head-scratching.  But then
>we noticed that the soil is extremely compacted, as shown by the imbalance
>in active to total bacteria, no beneficial fungi present, and extremely
>high ciliate numbers.
>
>The people who own the protperty have been over-watering.  It's
>water-logged the soil.  So, we have to get them to turn the water off,
>because healthy soil requires 50% less water than poor-structure soil.
>Especially in western Oregon, over-watering can be a real problem.
>
>But, what do you do to fix this, now that we've figured out what the
>problem is?  First, reduce water by 50%.  Then get air back into the soil.
>
>Aeration cores are the best bet.  Fill the holes with fungal-dominated
>aerobic compost, with VAM spores, because we've lost the beneficial fungi
>completely in that soil.
>
>It was the soil biology analysis that let us know exactly what was wrong,
>and how to fix it.
>
>Often turf people just apply humic acids in a similar condition, and hope
>that was all that was needed.  But then a  month later, you know it wasnt'
>adequate to fix the problem.  The grass is in serious trouble.
>
>If it is economically worth while, running a check and knowing what needs
>to be done solves the problem before the plants die.
>
>It always comes down to a question of cost - benefit ratio.  Do you spend
>the money to do the testing BEFORE the plant response lets you know
>something is wrong?
>
>Depends on how much money will be made on that crop.  If the crop isn't
>that big a deal, and you can afford to lose productivity, or maybe lose the
>crop all together, then letting the plant tell you something is wrong is
>ok.
>
>But if the loss of part or all of the crop would be economically devasting,
>then doing the soil biology, and chemistry, analysis is worthwhile.
>
>If you can afford the consequence of guesswork, then guess.  If the
>potential improvement in production is more than the cost of the testing,
>then it makes sense to test, and then correct the problem.
>
>If you know your land, and the impact that the things you do to it have on
>the biology, then you aren't doing guesswork.
>
>What I'd really like to do is have people add manures, different kinds of
>compost, different products, and then test to see what the affect is on the
>biology.  Then we'd KNOW what adding these materials actually is.  In the
>future we'd just need to assess the quality of the compost, or manure, and
>we'd know what effect the additions have on the soil.  Less and less
>testing would be required with time, and we'd have a better idea what to do
>in different situations to really fix a soil to grow what you want it to
>grow.  So, here's hoping for that kind of knowledge base!
>
>I'd love to work with you to train people in the Phillipiines to do the
>kind of testing that we do.
>
>Elaine Ingham

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus