Subject: Re: Regulation of compost teas (was: NOSB loses its head)

From: James Kotcon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:35:38 -0400

Soil microbiologists today typically are using estimates of 99 to
99.9 % of bacterial species in soil are not culturable "using standard
methods" (95 % is an underestimate).  Standard agar plate techniques appear
to give a biased and incomplete view of bacterial diversity in soil,
compared to the diversity observed with molecular DNA methods.  Species
diversity in composts is often observed to be much lower than in soil with
higher proportions of the species being culturable, probably due to the fact
that composts are rich nutrient media favoring bacteria that grow on rich
media, while soil is generally a carbon-poor medium, except for short
periods immediately after incorporation of composts, manure, crop residues,
or other organic matter sources.  Even though composts may have higher
numbers of total CELLS per gram, soils typically contain thousands of
SPECIES per gram, while composts typically contain only a few hundred
species per gram.
JBK

At 02:59 PM 10/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Jeff Lowenfels wrote:
>> I am not sure Joel is right about 95% of soil bacteria not being
>> culturable......you mean you can't grow them in a petri dish? Where do you
>> get this statistic?
>>
>> I have my teas tested frequently and have seen the numbers. The biodiversity
>> is amazing and if that is only 5 % then so be it......though, again, I doubt
>> the percentage.... I would suggest Joel get in touch with
>
>Dr. Elaine Ingham
>Soil Foodweb, Incorporated
>[email-masked]
>http://www.soilfoodweb.com/phpweb/
>
>or Dr.Eric Nelsonn (Cornell) to answer his questions.
>
>-
>See: GreenReleaf Novozymes
>http://www.bi-chem.com/green_releaf/professional/tech_info/tech_info_backgr
d.htm
> From their website:
>"Soil bacteria also manufacture a suite of trigger compounds that are
attractive
>to other soil microbes and when present in the rhizosphere this consortium of
>microbes can be extremely beneficial to plants. Plus, when beneficial bacteria
>colonize the root surface they can often help exclude pathogenic microbes from
>gaining access to the roots. Interestingly, when plants are grown under sterile
>conditions they often do not thrive as well as when the full microbial
community
>is present."
>
>--
>L.F.London
>[email-masked]
>http://market-farming.com
>

*****
Jim Kotcon
304-293-3911 ext. 2230 (office)
304-293-2872 (fax)
304-594-3322 (home)
West Virginia University
Division of Plant and Soil Sciences
401 Brooks Hall, P. O. Box 6058
Morgantown, WV 26506

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:42:59 -0600

Hello James & other saneters following this interesting thread
(which I haven't had the time to to do very closely myself. I do
have a strong philosophical interest in accounting for this
phenomena however).

James stated:

JK> Soil microbiologists today typically are using estimates of 99
JK> to 99.9 % of bacterial species in soil are not culturable "using
JK> standard methods" (95 % is an underestimate). Standard agar
JK> plate techniques appear to give a biased and incomplete view of
JK> bacterial diversity in soil, compared to the diversity observed
JK> with molecular DNA methods.

If life is a contextual event, that makes sense. Take something out
of context and you lose it. It's like breaking a seed apart. If you
take it out of context, you not only disconnect it from it's source
of sustenance, you disconnect it from it's meaning for living.

JK> Species diversity in composts is often observed to be much lower
JK> than in soil with higher proportions of the species being
JK> culturable, probably due to the fact that composts are rich
JK> nutrient media favoring bacteria that grow on rich media, while
JK> soil is generally a carbon-poor medium, except for short periods
JK> immediately after incorporation of composts, manure, crop
JK> residues, or other organic matter sources.

JK> Even though composts may have higher numbers of total CELLS per
JK> gram, soils typically contain thousands of SPECIES per gram,
JK> while composts typically contain only a few hundred species per
JK> gram.

JK> JBK

For the sake of discussion, I will assume the above is true and
attempt to interpret it.

If human beings are shepherds and cultivators, stronger bonds are
established with the plants and animals associated with humans, by
choice on our end and by nature on theirs.

Cultivated crops consist of only those plants found in nature
that provide most for human survival or use. (Since GM crops are not
found in nature, those abominations would be discussed further here
at this time).

Agriculture recreates and extends select natural environments that
are suitable for plant growth.

Irrigated farming extends the conditions favoring growth beyond the
rainy season and the river & stream banks and lakefront shores.

Organic matter is also found in nature, just as a rotting fruit
feeds it's own seed in order help get it started.

Organic agriculture recreates and extends natural (and naturally
integrated) conditions much more precisely than conventional
agriculture does.

Sugars are not found in nature in an isolated form (honey may well
come closest, but the natural context for honey is not in the soil.
By the same token, molasses too is found in a contained context and
in any case, is derived from boiling the sap contained within
another organism which on decomposing naturally, yields a very
different composition.

In view of the above, the use of sugar and molasses in compost teas
is both too artificial and too out of context for organic
agriculture AND for successfully promoting the growth of the kind of
compatible and complementary soil microorganism populations that
Lawrence, Dale, Elaine Ingham and others refer to.

I suspect that the symbiotic and synergic interrelationships between
those microorganisms and the soil biosphere they jointly create is
much more significant than sheer (and possibly disconnected) numbers
of organisms as an indicator of soil fertility.

IOW, compatible and complementary relationships (compatible and
complementary with each other and with our own needs and
capabilities) are what count on this planet, rather diverse but
competing numbers of species.

The above may well contain a lesson for the internal working of
human society, as well.

Douglas

.

---

From: David Menne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:19:16 +0800

I believe there is a great truth here, in that whatever "food" is provided
for a microbial brew should provide [apart from sufficient and balanced
elements to satisfy the microbial equivalents of the Laws of von Liebig and
Voisin - plus  healthful tonic components such as Vit C, Vit E, Vits B etc];
the NATURAL food suite they would normally be feeding off.

Maybe the compost used in any tea should include more than the odd
smattering of rotted root material.

Next task : see if any patterns exist between plant and root compositions
[obviously chlorophyll !]; and in their composted products. [I always
thought roots were fairly rich in the sugars banned by the regulations -
does this mean - because of their sugar contents, their use (eg waste beets
fed to brews) too might also face Official Banishment ?]

David Menne : http://www.plantsfood.com

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them" - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret
by public incredulity" - Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:46:48 -0600

Hello David & other saneters following this thread,

You added to the great truth and ending by asked a good question:

DM> I believe there is a great truth here, in that whatever "food"
DM> is provided for a microbial brew should provide ... the NATURAL
DM> food suite they would normally be feeding off.

Or a little more concentrated (enriched) w/o altering the balance of
the envelope.

DM> Maybe the compost used in any tea should include more than the odd
DM> smattering of rotted root material.

The source of the raw materials being composted varies greatly from place to
place.

DM> Next task : see if any patterns exist between plant and root compositions
DM> [obviously chlorophyll !];

Roots don't need chlorophyll, leaves do.

DM> and in their composted products. [I always thought roots were
DM> fairly rich in the sugars banned by the regulations

The sugars contained in roots are in a balanced form in combination
with the plants living tissues, rather than the concentrated result
of an industrial process.

DM> - does this mean - because of their sugar contents, their use
DM> (eg waste beets fed to brews) too might also face Official
DM> Banishment ?]

Sugar cane waste is one of the principle sources of both bacterial
and vermicompost made in tropical and subtropical areas and AFAIK no
problems with organic certification have arisen.

The bacteria or earthworms feeding on the raw plant material
transform it into compost, which is not the same as adding sugar or
molasses to compost teas (which is the reverse - it's going
backwards in time, and adds the concentrated industrial product
rather than the original organic residues).

Douglas

--

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:51:34 -0600

Hi Dale & other saneters following this interesting thread,

Dale responded to my saying:

>> take it out of context,

Adding to that: A seed is an organism or the beginning of one. As
such, it's parts are integrated in relation to single goal - that of
being a plant. The function of each part converges with the rest so
that in the context of soil, nutrients, humidity & sunlight etc. the
plant will grow. Breaking a seed apart prevents it from performing
the function it was created for in the context mentioned above.

>> you not only disconnect it from it's source of sustenance, you
>> disconnect it from it's meaning for living.

DW> The essence of evolution is the taking of things out of context and
DW> creation of new contexts.  This is how agriculture evolved.

Your "taking of things out of context and creation of new contexts"
sounds a lot like my "extending the contextual envelope" analogy.
In order to determine which is a more accurate description of a
given situation, answering the following questions may be helpful:

To what extent is the new context an extension of the old, to what
extent is it different, and what is the significance inherent to or
implied by those similarities and differences?

DW> As a parallel, this is how harvester ants evolved. I am sure you
DW> see them all the time in your region, clipping leaves and
DW> carrying them down into their nest,

That is correct. They are highly destructive. They'll strip a tree
of every leaf, if you let them. I've depopulated entire colonies
however by bathing and dancing with (on) them. It takes them a
while to regenerate but it's a lot of work.

DW> where they inoculate them with a unique fungal monoculture to
DW> cultivate for food.

They frequently harvest a crop planted by someone else to create
their own. If we analyze that we see that the relationship they
sustain with the providing plant (i.e. a peach tree) is highly
unsustainable. In relation to our own efforts (i.e. planting the
peach tree for other ends) the leaf cutting ants are a pest, period.

DW> Both the ants and the fungus have mutually taken each other out
DW> of old contexts, and created a life-system, a new context.

Dale, I see your point. My point is that I don't identify or
sympathize with leaf cutting ants or their way of doing things. The
relationships sustained with those they deal with is conflictive to
an unnecessary and unwarranted degree - and that's why we kill them.
(That's the complementary action they provoke).

DW> The reason that human innovation is seen as unnatural is that
DW> deep down, people [some people - DH] view humans as outside
DW> nature. But humans really are part of nature.

Of course.

>> are suitable for plant growth.

DW> This is entirely analogous to what the compost-tea-brewers (and indeed
DW> compost-makers, beer-makers, bakers, etc.) are doing.  They are taking
DW> naturally occuring microbial processes and placing them in new
DW> "artifical" contexts suitable for the growth of a very small number of
DW> species.

We agree that a multiplicity of contexts are possible, but not all
are compatible. I suggested that adding sugar and molasses to
compost teas may not be compatible (appropriate) in relation to
the standards governing organic agriculture since last Monday.
I also suggest why.

Context and environment can be considered interchangeable terms here
and contexts can overlap. Looking at compost itself as en
environment (for microorganisms) compatible with other environments
(such as organic food production) I also suggested that the
environmental change resulting from the addition of sugar and
molasses to compost teas may not be compatible with the growth of
microorganisms that predominate in compost (as per the quote by
Elaine Ingham contained in the post I responded to), if the dominant
presence of those microorganisms is due to the capability of
forming symbiotic and synergetic relationship with each other and
the plant (crop) itself they possess.

IOW, it seemed to me that the addition of sugar and molasses to
compost teas may not be compatible with the GOALS of organic
agriculture (soil improvement, as well as crop production), since
NUMBERS of microorganism is less significant than QUALITY of
microorganisms, if microorganisms that engage in and are capable of
forming symbiotic and synergetic relationship with each other and
the plant (crop) itself are indeed what we want. (I sure do).

>> another organism which on decomposing naturally, yields a very

DW> This is all a matter of scale.  All these things are found in nature,
DW> but at different concentrations and spatial scales.  Just as cropping
DW> systems provide a rich environment for the culture of a few off-beat
DW> plant species,

And often add to the presence of plant pests.

DW> microbial processing grows a few species of fungi or bacteria to
DW> accomplish certain goals (like making a drug, leavening bread,
DW> or controlling a plant disease.

Which is not to say that adding sugar &/or molasses to compost teas
will provide results that we could define as good. I suggest we
ground our terms in specific examples (i.e. leaf cutting ants or
peach trees etc.).

>> Lawrence, Dale, Elaine Ingham and others refer to.

DW> I think it is unproductive to be dogmatic about such things.

Dale, there's no dogma here. The only dogma is the need to define
goals and define the results obtains from determined practices and
try to identify or account for the cause, to define the principles
involved.

DW> People develop methods to get the job done (just like harvester
DW> ants).

Which are pests, by my criteria.

DW> Some of these compost-tea methods may be very useful.

Useful for what purpose? MY purpose here is to emphasize the need
for defining goals and determining whether those goals have been
fulfilled in the best possible way.

DW> Things that seem "unnatural", eventually are perceived as
DW> "natural" when your system has evolved to fill the niche. In
DW> other words, the merits and costs of some new technology have to
DW> be judged on a basis other than "naturalness" IMO. "Natural" is
DW> just too slippery a word.

I maintain that the "nature" of different ways of dealing with the
"nature" you refer to (a general term) can and should be defined, in
terms of the objective stated, results obtained and means employed.

>> of organisms as an indicator of soil fertility.

DW> But we are really talking about the leaf surface of a particular crop
DW> for a short time, a small portion of time and space.  If a grower can
DW> control a devastating disease using a highly "artificial" compost tea,
DW> why not do it?  Unless the practice can be shown to be dangerous in
DW> some way.

Agreed. But this needs to be researched and defined. And that is one
of the areas in which you have specific capabilities. All I have
stated in this thread are postulations of principle. Now we need to
examine and apply them to specific applications. (I do have some in
mind that jive with what Lawrence and others posted, relating to
phyto-hormones and antibiotic production by beneficial bacteria and
fungus, among other soil microorganisms - I don't have time to dig
them out at the moment though. I will later).

>> competing numbers of species.

DW> Words like "compatible" and "complementary" are very relative and
DW> scale-sensitive.

They been defined in specific instances such as those described by
Elaine Ingham that Lawrence quoted. Please don't infer that I have
no specific instance in mind, just because I don't cite one. I'd
rather you asked for an example rather than claim I am generalizing.
The words themselves have an accepted meaning. Rather than reject
the use of them, we need to refer to specific situations in order
tot determine whether or not we agree regarding a given, specific
application of the terms.

DW> In the context of human evolution, your statement could be taken
DW> to negate all of agriculture, a recent and environmentally
DW> destructive innovation.

At this point in time, human beings are without-a-doubt the most
destructive pest the planet has ever known, and at this point in
time, the planet would be much better off if human beings were
removed from it. However, human beings are not without a still
unrealized potential (on a planetary scale) to do good, and many on
this list are probably doing just that to the extent they can at
present.

>> The above may well contain a lesson for the internal working of

DW> Douglas, I really think we agree on a lot of underlying values.  I
DW> agree we need more complementarity and working together in human
DW> society.

Definitely. I see no conflict in our positions. On the contrary, we
all have much to gain by working with and learning from each other.

Douglas

BTW: by putting two hyphens and a space then hitting <enter> after
your signature, the yahoo.com propaganda won't appear on a reply to
your letter (like this):

--

.

---

From: Jeff Lowenfels <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:37:22 -0800

It is great how this thing has ranged, but the issue is whether using sugars
to increase bacterial biomass in compost teas is inconsistent with Organic
methods. Adding beneficial bacteria and fungi, protozoa and in some cases
nematodes to the soil surely has to be considered within the scope as
Organic.    It is exactly analogous to putting mulch down or compost to a
lesser degree.

The only issue is does it cause E. coli to grow...... a conclusion the NOSB
reached as a result of what many of us believe were flawed studies based on
personal agendas.... there were supposed two, not reported and not peer
reviewed.

Again, adding fungi, bacteria and protozoa is clearly organic. It is what we
all do when we mulch and apply compost. THE  ISSUE IS E COLI AND BAD
SCIENCE. AND NOT IF SUGARS ARE FOUND IN NATURE.....

     Jeff L

.

---

From: Dave DeCou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:31:54 -0700

>personal agendas.... there were supposed two, not reported and not peer

Although I cannot deal with the details of the decisions made here I
believe that it is important to recognize that the NOSB (National Organic
Standards Board) (an appointed Board coming from out of the industry) makes
recommendations to the NOP (National Organic Program) (a portion of the
AMS, in the USDA). The NOSB does not make decisions for the NOP, unless it
is a straightforward "Materials" issue, this is the only realm which the
NOSB has a large degree of control. By law all materials on the "National
Lists" must be placed there initially by the NOSB, after that the USDA can
remove something but it can not add anything.
I believe that the NOP has made these decisions about compost and compost
teas. Since the "Final Rule" had to be passed by the Office of Management
and Budget, I suspect that some political horse trading went down at the
organic farmers' expense. Do not expect logic to always prevail in these
things, no matter how right you might be.

>SCIENCE. AND NOT IF SUGARS ARE FOUND IN NATURE.....

Yours,
Dave DeCou

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:18:51 -0600

Hello Jeff & other saneters following this thread,

In response to Jeff Lowenfels at gardener.com's message sent
Wednesday, October 23, 2002:

JL> It is great how this thing has ranged, but the issue is whether
JL> using sugars to increase bacterial biomass in compost teas is
JL> inconsistent with Organic methods.

It's also about why adding sugar and / or molasses is or isn't
inconsistent with the USDA's organic regulatory framework.

JL> Adding beneficial bacteria and fungi, protozoa and in some cases
JL> nematodes to the soil surely has to be considered within the
JL> scope as Organic.

As I understand it, the issue is not about adding beneficial
bacteria and fungi, protozoa and in some cases nematodes to the
soil. The the issue is about adding adding sugar and / or molasses
to compost teas.

JL> It is exactly analogous to putting mulch down or compost to a
JL> lesser degree.

Obviously, some disagree.

JL> The only issue is does it cause E. coli to grow...... a
JL> conclusion the NOSB reached as a result of what many of us
JL> believe were flawed studies based on personal agendas.... there
JL> were supposed two, not reported and not peer reviewed.

You have no agenda?

JL> Again, adding fungi, bacteria and protozoa is clearly organic.
JL> It is what we all do when we mulch and apply compost. THE ISSUE
JL> IS E COLI AND BAD SCIENCE. AND NOT IF SUGARS ARE FOUND IN
JL> NATURE.....

Thank you for providing your opinion of what THE issue is or isn't.
It will certainly be taken into account.

Douglas

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:18:51 -0600

You have no agenda?

Douglas

.

---

From: Dale Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:21:29 -0700

Hi Douglas,

James wrote:
> JK> standard methods" (95 % is an underestimate)....

> of sustenance, you disconnect it from it's meaning for living.

The essence of evolution is the taking of things out of context and
creation of new contexts.  This is how agriculture evolved.  As a
parallel, this is how harvester ants evolved.  I am sure you see them
all the time in your region, clipping leaves and carrying them down
into their nest, where they inoculate them with a unique fungal
monoculture to cultivate for food.  Both the ants and the fungus have
mutually taken each other out of old contexts, and created a
life-system, a new context.

The reason that human innovation is seen as unnatural is that deep
down, people view humans as outside nature.  But humans really are part
of nature.

> are suitable for plant growth.

This is entirely analogous to what the compost-tea-brewers (and indeed
compost-makers, beer-makers, bakers, etc.) are doing.  They are taking
naturally occuring microbial processes and placing them in new
"artifical" contexts suitable for the growth of a very small number of
species.

> another organism which on decomposing naturally, yields a very

This is all a matter of scale.  All these things are found in nature,
but at different concentrations and spatial scales.  Just as cropping
systems provide a rich environment for the culture of a few off-beat
plant species, microbial processing grows a few species of fungi or
bacteria to accomplish certain goals (like making a drug, leavening
bread, or controlling a plant disease.

> Lawrence, Dale, Elaine Ingham and others refer to.

I think it is unproductive to be dogmatic about such things.  People
develop methods to get the job done (just like harvester ants).  Some
of these compost-tea methods may be very useful.  Things that seem
"unnatural", eventually are perceived as "natural" when your system has
evolved to fill the niche.  In other words, the merits and costs of
some new technology have to be judged on a basis other than
"naturalness" IMO.  "Natural" is just too slippery a word.

> of organisms as an indicator of soil fertility.

But we are really talking about the leaf surface of a particular crop
for a short time, a small portion of time and space.  If a grower can
control a devastating disease using a highly "artificial" compost tea,
why not do it?  Unless the practice can be shown to be dangerous in
some way.

> competing numbers of species.

Words like "compatible" and "complementary" are very relative and
scale-sensitive.  In the context of human evolution, your statement
could be taken to negate all of agriculture, a recent and
environmentally destructive innovation.

> The above may well contain a lesson for the internal working of

Douglas, I really think we agree on a lot of underlying values.  I
agree we need more complementarity and working together in human
society.

Dale

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

.

---

From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:56:52 -0700

[exerpted from the SFI, Inc., Soil Foodweb Newsletter, August 2002
archived at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/pcwiki/pcwikiufu/August2002Ezine.txt]
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Dr. Elaine Ingham
Soil Foodweb, Incorporated
[email-masked]
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/phpweb/
AUGUST 2002 EZINE
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
What is the Soil Foodweb?

"What is soil? · Bedrock weathered into parent material, or the sand, silt and
clay fractions. These fractions
hold the minerals, typically measured as CEC, or cation-exchange capacity.  The
minerals held in the sand,
silt and clay are NOT plant available and  must be processed by bacteria and
fungi, protozoa, nematodes or
microarthropods to become plant available. ·    Organic matter, which is food to
feed the organisms. ·
Bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods. ·        Soil aggregates
are built by the bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, nematodes and microarthropods using organic matter and the
sand, silt, clay.

The least productive soils in the world are those with the least amount of
organic matter and the least
complex food webs, which mean the fewest numbers and diversity of soil
organisms.  The least productive soils
will be nearly 100% bacterial.  The fungal component increases directly as
system productivity increases.

The most productive soils are those with the greatest amount of organic matter
used by BENEFICIAL bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, nematodes and microarthropods to build soil structure.  The
most productive soils in the
world are 100 to 1000 times more fungal than bacterial.  There is more fungal
biomass present in an old
growth forest than there is biomass in trees!  The most productive soils have
more bacteria than less
productive soils, but the fungi far outweigh bacteria in the most productive
systems.

What is the soil foodweb? The soil foodweb is the set of bacteria, fungi,
protozoa, nematodes,
microarthopods, earthworms, and other critters in soil, which use the litter
material dropped to the soil by
the plants and the roots and the root exudates released by the plants.

The exact composition of the foodweb changes at each stage of succession.  You
need to know what your plants
require in terms of the ratio of fungi to bacteria in soil, protozoa and
nematodes, microarthropods, in order
to set up nutrient cycling and nutrient availability correct for the plant.

The benefits of having a healthy soil foodweb are: ·    Retention of nutrients
in the soil instead of
leaching (stop using fertilizers) ·     Prevention of erosion (soil aggregation
keeps things tied down,
slopes don’t slide) ·   Disease suppression and prevention (stop using
pesticides) ·    Decompose toxic
materials in your soil ·        Increase plant growth by having the proper plant
growth hormones made by the
biology in the soil ·   Build soil structure (reduce watering by 50% over the
course of 1 to 2 years,
increase water infiltration into the soil and reduce erosion because water moves
the soil instead of running
over the surface)

Compost is an excellent way to replace the life in your soil, but applying solid
material to large areas, or
transporting solids long distances from a source of GOOD aerobic compost can be
expensive.  Compost tea
requires very little compost (15 - 20 pounds for make 500 gallons of tea in 24
hours) to make large amounts
of tea, and since the organisms grow (yes, fungi grow in the tea, if you make
conditions right).   Fungi are
strict aerobes, and so if tea becomes anaerobic at all, fungi will be attacked
and killed by the anaerobic
bacteria.

What is the foliar foodweb? The foliar foodweb is the set of organisms, similar
to the soil foodweb, on the
foliage of your plant.  The plant leaf, blossoms, stems, etc. release exudates,
just like the roots, to feed
these organisms and keep a protective layer around the plant so disease can’t
attack, and nutrients will be
cycled correctly for the plant.

Improving the activity of the biology on leaf surfaces increases the carbon
dioxide in the leaf surface
layer, which increases the length of time the plant stomates are open.  This
increases the nutrient uptake
that can occur.  Of course, in drought conditions, this doesn’t happen.

Compost tea replaces these organisms in the soil and on the foliage.  Active
organisms are required in tea so
they will stick to leaf, branch, blossom and bark surfaces.

What is Compost Tea? A water extract of aerobic compost (can be thermal, vermi-
or static produced) that
contains the soluble nutrients, the bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes
which were in the compost.

All compost teas should be aerobic when applied or you run the risk of killing
the plant parts to which the
tea is applied.  Anaerobic tea or compost will contain alcohol, phenols, organic
acids, and proteins that are
very toxic to plant tissue.

It is necessary to have the ENTIRE foodweb to gain ALL the potential benefits of
compost tea.

Bacteria in tea: ·      Compete with and inhibit a few disease-causing organisms
·      Cover surfaces so
some of the bad guys can’t find food, can’t infect the plant surfaces, and
uptake of micronutrients is
enhanced ·      Certain bacterial species are especially desirable in certain
conditions because they
decompose pesticides, sequester heavy metals, help fungi remove thatch, improve
mycorrhizal colonization,
repel insects. ·        Certain bacterial species produce materials that kill
specific species of root-
feeding nematodes ·     Retain nutrients in their biomass ·     Improve soil
structure by building micro-
aggregates

Fungi in tea: · Compete with and inhibit most fungal disease-causing organisms ·
        Cover surfaces so
most of the bad guys can’t find food, can’t infect the plant surfaces, and
uptake of micronutrients is
enhanced ·      Certain fungal species are especially desirable since they
attack maggots, aphids, plant-
sucking insects, caterpillars, potato beetle, mosquito larvae, etc. ·   Retain
nutrients in their biomass ·
Improve soil structure by building macro-aggregates

Protozoa in tea: ·      Consume bacteria and some fungi ·       Indicate
anaerobic conditions when ciliate
numbers are high ·      Release nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and other nutrients
in plant-available forms

Nematodes in tea: ·     Consume bacteria, fungi, protozoa and other nematodes. ·
        Certain species of
nematodes are especially desirable, since they carry bacteria that attack wire
worm, root-grubs, maggots,
cranefly larvae, weevil larvae. ·       Other nematodes specifically prefer to
consume root-feeding nematodes"

.

---

From: Jeff Lowenfels <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:37:22 -0800

Jeff L

.

---

From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:56:52 -0700

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:51:34 -0600

Of course.

Douglas

--

.

---

From: Jeff Lowenfels <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:37:22 -0800

Jeff L

.