From rpeter@nmsu.edu Fri Mar 24 23:14:02 EST 1995
Article: 1681 of bionet.mycology
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!lynx.unm.edu!dns1.NMSU.Edu!bilbo!rpeter
From: rpeter@nmsu.edu (Peter Herman x5495)
Newsgroups: bionet.mycology
Subject: Re: Q: using endomychoritzas for agricultural purposes
Date: 21 Mar 1995 21:40:16 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3knh40$26l@dns1.NMSU.Edu>
References: <3k8m5o$eco@plootu.helsinki.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bilbo.nmsu.edu

In article <3k8m5o$eco@plootu.helsinki.fi> laakkone@cc.helsinki.fi (Tero Laakkonen) writes:
>hi,
>
>i am an organic farmer from hollola, southern finland. i have read intriguing
>reports on using endomychoritzas to mine nutrients out of the depths for
>the benefit of cultivated plants (eg. grains). our fields are said to
>contain a lot of potash, and i want to use endomychoritzas to mine it out.
>
>can someone point me to a comprehensive guide on how to use these techniques?
>


On a recent trip to Uppsala, I met a Finnish researcher in
mycorrhizae who is interested in agricultural applications of AMF .
His name is Mauritz Vestberg and he is located at the research
center in Laukka.

I am sure he can steer you to the appropriate information

Peter
*   Peter Herman, Dept. of Biology	Phone: +1 505 646 4532    *
*   New Mexico State University		Fax:   +1 505 646 5665    *
*   Box 30001, Dept. 3AF					  *
*   Las Cruces, NM 88003 USA		e-mail rpeter@nmsu.edu    *


From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzSun Feb 26 21:03:43 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 20:05:37 +1200
From: Valerie Cowperthwaite <Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nz>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Soil microbes


Coming late to this discussion I'd just like to point out that the 
biodynamic preparations have shown to be an effective microbial input. 
 The 500 prep, made from cow dung and sprayed on pasture in spring and 
autumn is the best for large, general areas.  The others can be 
incorporated into any composting process and used on the soil or as 
foliar feeds.  John Reganold led a study in New Zealand comparing 
biodynamic and conventional neighbouring farms with identical soil 
profiles.  Microbial activity was one of the signficiant differences.  
The study was published in Science April 17 (?) 1993.
From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzMon Feb 27 13:47:40 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 07:10:36 +1200
From: Valerie Cowperthwaite <Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nz>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Biodynamics/soil microbes


Great to have such a positive response to BD. I've replied to posters 
separately but for others who may have the same queries - first I'm a 
journalist/researcher closely involved with one of the farms in the 
Reganold study. I'm no farmer but I'm pretty close to the action with 
plenty of mud and cows--t on my boots, not to mention hundreds if not 
thousands of planted trees to my credit.

More to the point - how do we know the BD preps make the difference.  
In pure scientific terms of course we don't and as one poster pointed 
out it would make an excellent subject for a research programme.  Some 
work was done by Pfeiffer in the US who worked with composts identical 
in every way except for use or non-use of individual BD preps.  The 
ones with the preps were shown to enhance presence and activity of 
particular organisms. I can find the exact reference for anyone who is 
interested.  Also forgive my lack of precise scientific terminology!

In the Reganold study, which I don't have to hand at the moment, farms 
included dairy, cropping, mixed (livestock & crops) and some vegetable 
growing.  Taking a pasture situation - with which I'm most familiar  - 
the inputs from rotation/legumes/raw animal manure would have been 
common to both BD and chemical farms.  We don't spread composted 
manure on our pastures.  The differing inputs were the NPK fertilisers 
on the chemical farm as opposed to the herbal preps and fish 
fertiliser foliar feed (made with preps) on the BD farm.  It would 
seem reasonable that all other things being more or less equal a 
starting point for research into soil microbe indicators would be the 
preparations.  

One poster, Woody, made the point that he 'would expect microbial 
respiration to be a product of the whole management program in general 
and the high organic matter in particular'.  Good point and the whole 
management program is vital.  But in our case in particular the sandy 
soils on which the pasture is based do not naturally contain or 
receive a high rate of organic matter.

With
From MEEDS_C@wpb1.dep.state.fl.usWed Oct  4 02:10:38 1995
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 14:12:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 <MEEDS_C@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us>
To: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x <MEEDS_C@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us>,
    pmillner <pmillner@asrr.arsusda.gov>,
    sanet-mg <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>,
    leafmulch-mg <leafmulch-mg@esusda.gov>, ddouds <ddouds@arserrc.gov>,
    pghartel <pghartel@uga.cc.uga.edu>, mwander <mwander@uiuc.edu>,
    crice <crice@ksuvm.ksu.edu>, rfharris <rfharris@calshp.cals.wisc.edu>,
    stottd <stottd@soils.ecn.purdue.edu>, wlindema <wlindema@nmsu.edu>,
    myrold <myrold@ccs.orst.edu>, jdoran <jdoran@unlinfo.unl.edu>,
    dallan <dallan@soils.umn.edu>, moorman <moorman@nstl.gov>,
    deb_neher <deb_neher@ncsu.edu>,
    ldrinkwater <ldrinkwater@parti.parti.inforum.org>,
    cindy <cindy@nstl.gov>, jkarns <jkarns@asrr.arsusda.gov>,
    wmulbry <wmulbry@asrr.arsusda.gov>, invam <invam@wvnet.edu>,
    mallen <mallen@sciences.arsusda.gov>,
    "sdsu.edu" <sdsu.edu@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: FWD: Compost BMP Table of Contents

    Here is the table of Contents for the 40 page BMP DRAFT document 
    to follow.  They tell me to tell you loudly  and clearly, "DRAFT!  
    DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE!"  
    
    This needs to be camera ready by Oct. 15.  Any comments you could 
    make will be appreciated MORE if they are timely!!!  

  [ Part 2: "Included Message" ]

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 02:09:48 EST
From: carol <carol@shadow.net>
To: meeds_c <meeds_c@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us>
Subject: Compost BMP Table of Contents










                    BEST  MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL
                        FOR YARD TRASH MANAGEMENT
                                    
                               First Draft
                                     
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                   by
                                    
                 Florida Organics Recycling Association
                                    
                         In conjunction with the
         Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
                                    
                                For the 
             Florida Department of Envirinmental Protection
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                           September 15, 1995











                   BEST  MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL 
                        FOR YARD TRASH MANAGEMENT
                                    
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
_______________________________________________________________________

Introduction                                           1
Background                                             2

Chapter 1 - Florida Yard Trash Composition and Characteristics        4

     Florida MSW Composition                           4
     Florida Yard Trash Composition by Region                    5
     Weight and Volume Characteristics                      5

Chapter 2 - Yard Waste Recycling Alternatives                    8

     Composting                                        8
     Mulching                                     9
     Fuel Production                                   9
     Direct Land Application                           9
     Landfill Cover Amendment                          10
     Firewood                                     11

Chapter 3 - Fundamentals of Compost Production                   12

     Contamination                                12
     Feedstock Preparation                             12
     Oxygen and Aeration                               13
     Particle Size and Surface Area                         13
     Moisture Content                                  14
     Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio                             14
     pH                                           15
     Pathogens                                    15

Chapter 4 - Fundamentals of Mulch Production                16

     Types of Mulch                               16
     Characteristics                                   16
     Fresh Mulch                                       17
     Sanitized Mulch                                   17
     Log Mulch                                    18
     Plant Safety                                      18


Chapter 5 - Fundamentals of  Fuel Production                19

     Material Description                                   19
     Particle Size                                     19
     Product Storage                                   20
     Non-wood Contamination                            20
     Moisture Content                                  20
     Ash Content                                       20
     BTU Value                                    20

Chapter 6 - Facility Siting and Design                      21
     
     Location                                     21
     Permitting Requirements                           21
     Local Zoning and Building Requirements                 22
     Local Environmental Agencies                      22
     Waste Management Districts                             23
     Florida Department of Environmental Protection              22
     Setbacks                                     22
     Buffers                                      23
     Entrance and Exit Requirements                         23
     Stormwater Control                                24
     Percolation                                       24
     Slope                                             24
     Retention or Detention Areas                           24
     Land Area Requirements                            24
     Staging Area                                      25
     Processing Area                                   25
     Storage and Curing Area                           25
     Projections for Site  Capacity and Layout for Composting
          and Mulching Facilities                      25
     Staging Area Operations                           26
     Processing Area                                   26
     Storage Area                                      27
     Site Surface and Sub-Surface                      27
     Utilities                                    27
     Security                                     27
     Signage                                      27
     Materials Measurement                             28

Chapter 7 - Operational Considerations                      30
     
     Incoming Material                                 30
     On-Site Personnel                                 30
     Incoming Materials Considerations                      31
          Separation by Material Type                       31
          Plastic Bags                                 31
          Grass                                        31
          Contaminants                                 31
     Storage Parameters                                32
     Size Reduction                               32
     Volume Reduction                                  32
     Processing Times                                  33
          Minimal Level                                33
          Low Level                               33
          Intermediate Level                           34
     Pile to Alley Relationship                             34
     Dust Control                                      34
     Bioaerosols                                       34
     Odors                                             35
     Noise                                             35
     Noise Reduction Measures                          36
     Pest and Insect Control                           36
     Fire Prevention                                   37
     Employee Safety and Health                             38
     Material Screening                                39

Chapter   8 - Product Considerations                             41
     
     Nutrients                                    42
     Recordkeeping                                43
     Product Testing                                   43
     Representations of Product                             44
     Marketing Guidelines                                   44
     
Appendix  
          
We are the Ones we have been waiting for.
When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Why would you think that I speak for my employer?
Carol Meeds: mother, chemist, woman, warrior

  [ Part 2.2: "Included Message" ]

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 13:36:29 EST

RFC-822-headers:
Received: from shadow.net (anshar.shadow.net) by EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US
 (PMDF V5.0-4 #7204) id <01HW07EF7ZGG005LNO@EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US> for
 meeds_c@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 13:36:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from shadow.net (ppp-wpb-135.shadow.net [204.198.46.135])
 by shadow.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA15882 for <
 meeds_c@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us>; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 13:40:41 -0400
X-Mailer: PMMail v1.1 UNREGISTERED SHAREWARE
From steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:12:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: CMC Humus-Compost Seminars

Sanetters:

The following seminar announcement is posted for your information. 


*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

Fall 1994 Seminar Program on Composting and Humus Management based
             on Controlled Microbial Composting

Controlled microbial composting (CMC) seminars led by the Luebke
family of Austria will be held in the United States again this
fall.  Seminar locations are Pennsylvania and California. 

                              Seminar Schedule

Speakers:      Uta Luebke, Angelika Luebke, and Urs Hildebrandt 
               from Austria

Pennsylvania Location:   Village of Bird-in-Hand,
                         Lancaster County, PA

California Location:     Herbert Ranch/T.K.O. Complex
                         Hollister, CA


Seminar #1:   BASIC SEMINAR on C.M.C.

Dates:         October 20th to October 22nd.......Pennsylvania
               November 2nd to November 4th.......California
Class Fee:     $400

Day 1:    9-12 and 2-5:30

*    Basic concepts of CMC and humus management
*    CMC humus management with green manures
*    CMC humus management with compost

Day 2:    9-12 and 2-5:30

*    Introduction to chromatography and preparation of soil and 
       compost sample
*    Practical applications of chromatography testing

Day 3:    9-12 and 2-4

*    Testing organic matter content of soil
*    Testing humus value of soil and compost, along with           
       "potential" and actual pH measurements
*    Interpretation of the total values

Note:  Every participant needs to bring their own soil and compost
       sample. 

Seminar #2:   C.M.C. - COMPOST SEMINAR 

Dates:         October 24th to October 27th.......Pennsylvania
               November 7th to November 10th......California
               November 14th to November 17th.....California

Class Fee:     $600

Prerequisite:  Basic Seminar on CMC

Day 1:    9-12 and 2-5

*    Lecture on basics of CMC composting with slides and overhead
*    Building a properly made compost windrow on-site

Day 2:    9-12 and 2-5

*    In-depth discussion of basic parameters of composting (i.e.,
       raw materials, C/N ratios, moisture levels, etc.
*    Operation of field test instruments
*    Correction of dry and wet compost piles

Day 3:    9-12 and 2-5

*    Introduction to, and testing of nutrient cycles in a 'proper'
     (CMC) composting process
*    Evaluating and testing compost for maturity

Day 4:    9-12 and 2-4

*    Humus testing
*    pH values
*    Interpretation of results

Note:  Every participant needs to bring two to three compost      
       samples

Register with:

Autrussa Compost Consulting        Herbert Ranch
P.O. Box 1133                      P.O. Box 65
Blue Bell, PA  19422-2508          Hollister, CA  95024-0065
610-825-2973                       408-637-5517
610-825-3982 Fax                   408-637-0139 Fax
Contact:  George Leidig            Contact:  Patti Herbert

From jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.orgThu Dec 29 22:38:53 1994
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:07:00 +0600
From: Jim Mcnelly <jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org>
To: london@sunsite.unc.edu
Subject: ECI - technology for turn



Lawrence London forwarded this advertisement for FPM technologies:

J> One Man's Sludge Is Another Man's Opportunity

I have some comments and questions, being marginally familiar with FPM 
and comparable processes.

J> Suppose that the sewage sludge, manure, lawn and garden debris and
J> industrial and commercial food processing wastes now being generated
J> in your community were not going to the landfill but instead were the
J> basis of a valuable commodity, in demand worldwide. 

>From what I have seen of the FPM process, which requires raw organics to 
be shredded or otherwise mascerated to a point where it can be 
pelletized, only sewage sludge is already size reduced sufficiently to 
meet the FPM process specification. Lawn and garden debris in particular 
are not only contain large particle sizes, they are also full of 
contaminants such as glass, plastics, and other inert debris. Again, 
these items do not shred or pelletize well.

Manures are again a potential problem depending on the presence of 
bedding materials or debris from soil where the manures are scraped. 
Bedding free material such as certain chicken manures might meet the FPM 
process specification.

Commercial food processing residues are a case by case item depending on 
the food being processed, its moisture content, and other factors. Most 
of these items are currently land applied or sold as animal feeds. They 
are not a significant liability. Virtually none of the items listed are 
being landfilled. Yard trimmings are now banned from landfilling in 27 
states. FPM is competing with composting, not landfilling.


J> We at ECI are pleased to report that a new process that manufactures a
J> high quality fertilizer from a variety of organic waste streams is now
J> available to waste generators, both industrial and municipal. Our
J> friends at FPM Corp. are making a silk purse of 5-5-5 NPK fertilizer
J> out of sewage sludge, manures, and other organic waste feedstocks (a
J> sow's ear if ever I heard of one).

Aside from the appreciated humor, the actual substance of the FPM 
methodology is that they are using organic matter as a "carrier medium" 
for delivering synthetic fertilizer. A comparable technology to pelletize 
organic debris would cost much less than FPM's system. The only "bell and 
whistle" I see in their process is that they add chemical NPK in the 
pelletizing process. I am yet to be convinced that farmers will pay a 
premium for chemical fertilizer when compared to applying organic matter 
and chemicals separately. I have yet to see a farm that will pay for the 
value of pelletizing organic materials. What value is a pellet versus a 
raw organic matter or a compost?

J> rebuilds the soil for many seasons to come. In most cases, the 5-5-5
J> NPK fertilizers provide higher yields than chemical fertilizers with
J> concentrations as high as 15-15-15. The superiority of the EOF is most
J> pronounced after several seasons or crop rotations allow soil
J> redevelopment.

This value is dubious compared to applying the chemical and organic 
materials separately. I assert that applying organic matter alone without 
pelletizing will yield equal, if not better, value. What is there about 
the FPM process that adds value to either the organic matter or to the 
NPK pelletized together that is not there in the two materials alone? I 
say there is none.  The "secret FPM formula" sounds like snake oil to me.

J> prospective plant owner/operators. Approximately $4 million is
J> required to develop a facility for processing 300 tons of organic
J> waste per day--about half the waste stream of a city of 300,000
J> people; this compares favorably to other competing capital programs.

These capital costs do not include the shredders and bulk storage 
areas required to prepare the material for FPM pelletizing. These costs 
assume that the material is already conditioned for pelletizing, such as 
as thickened sewage sludge. FPM is not a solid waste management system. 
It is a sludge pelletizing technology. As such, its capital costs do not 
compare favorably with other material handling systems. 

Sludge pelletizing is a viable alternative to composting, it is true. 
Adding chemical NPK in the pelletizing process may improve the 
marketability of the sludge in certain bio-regions. The question is 
whether the FPM pelletizer and their "royalty" and "per ton" magic 
formula is worth the operating cost versus purchasing a competing 
pelletizer.


J> There are two main sources of revenue. Comparable fertilizers (based
J> on equivalent plant yield and soil amendment) sell at wholesale for
J> $150 to $200 per ton and at retail for up to $750 per ton. Waste
J> generators in the USA pay from $10 to $150 per ton to dispose of waste
J> materials that are suitable for the process. Production costs are low.

Production costs are low! Low compared to what? In the FPM or other 
pelletizing system, a 20% solids feedstock is dewatered via oil or gas 
heat to at least 90% solids. That is a lot of $$$ up in steam, upwards of 
$60 per ton. The wear factor on the pellet dies is far greater than the 
few dollars per ton (no cost at all in one pro-forma I saw) that FPM 
claims in their literature. I know, I have run pelletizers and anticipate 
die replacement costs over $20 per ton. This of course assumes that there 
are no shredding stages that will have hammer replacement costs in the 
$20 to $40 per ton range, if there is a shredder made that can even grind 
fine enough to feed the FPM pelletizer.

Pelletizing biomass may have a place IF there is no room to stockpile a 
semi liquid sludge, IF there is a seasonal summer or winter market for 
organic matter where organics can not otherwise be spread directly on 
land in a raw or semi treated stage, and IF there is a buyer for the 
pellets who will pay a premium for the organic matter and for the 
chemical combined, plus the cost of the FPM foo foo dust.

Turfgrass buyers for example, do not want the large FPM horse pellet, 
which is over 1/2" in diameter and 2" long. It will just sit there on 
the surface looking like a dog turd. They want a smaller pellet more the 
size of a rabbit pellet. The FPM process can make such a fine pellet, 
but you can add an additional $30 per ton in die wear cost to make it so 
small, if the feedstock is sufficiently fine in its original condition. 
Will a turf buyer pay the equivalent of $150 per ton for an organic 
matter pellet (aside from the NPK value)? I don't think so when a fine 
screened compost will sell for under $40 per ton.

One other point that FPM fails to mention is that their organic matter is 
not in the least bit "treated" regarding organic nitrogen or carbon 
conversion. True, the pelletizing and heating process sterilizes the 
material, killing weeds and pathogens. But the organic nitrogen is still 
unstable and does not meet the new EPA 503 stability rules for 
unrestricted distribution. This means that the sewage facility will have 
to permit every land application site for their sludge product, and the 
premium markets they are looking for will vanish. Or they will have to 
compost their material first, which suggests a double stage capital and 
processing system.

Since the FPM process must market its hardware and "magic formula" mostly 
to sewage facilities, the finished product will still be a "sludge". Even 
calling it the new term "bio-solids" will not assist the utility in 
eliminating the unfortunate stigma, or at least not enough in my opinion, 
to recoup the value which is promised from using the FPM methodology.

My recommendation is that biosolids managers and waste treatment facility 
officials should look into the new generation of enclosed, 
containerized, composting systems that use temperature feedback, oxygen 
sensing, and biofiltration of process air. These emerging technologies 
will produce a consistent, stable, and stockpile-friendly compost. Five 
ton per day facilities start at $300K with 120 TPD operations in the 2 
million dollar range.

E-mail me for more information before you get yourself involved with 
a questionable pelletizing system.

Mr Compost~~~

Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org


 * RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil?

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------
From ReesC@aol.comTue Dec 27 22:27:13 1994
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 17:07:56 -0500
From: ReesC@aol.com
To: london@sunsite.unc.edu
Subject: Reply to Nicaragua posting

Read your note. The following may be of interest to the agricultural support
industries in the region. It describes a process for converting urban and
other organic waste to an enriched organic base fertilizer that could help
the soils you describe retain their fertility or restore soils that have been
depleted. Our company has project development rights in the region, and we
are looking for regional strategic partners.

Sincerely, Rees Clark



One Man's Sludge Is Another Man's Opportunity

By A. Rees Clark, PhD
Environmental Concerns Inc.

Suppose that the sewage sludge, manure, lawn and garden debris and industrial
and commercial food processing wastes now being generated in your community
were not going to the landfill but instead were the basis of a valuable
commodity, in demand worldwide. Suppose that the technology for conversion of
these wastes into the new product provided local jobs and contributed to long
term renewal of our agricultural resources. Suppose all this cost less than
competing methods of disposal. Suppose that a waste control strategy based on
this technology transferred power and control to local interests instead of
remote bureaucracies. Would you be interested enough to read on?

Environmental Concerns Inc. (ECI) is a small group of environmental
entrepreneurs dedicated to bringing innovative technologies to the
marketplace of environmental remediation. Most good ideas originate in small
companies, and we are working with selected process developers to market
their proven technologies.

We at ECI are pleased to report that a new process that manufactures a high
quality fertilizer from a variety of organic waste streams is now available
to waste generators, both industrial and municipal. Our friends at FPM Corp.
are making a silk purse of 5-5-5 NPK fertilizer out of sewage sludge,
manures, and other organic waste feedstocks (a sow's ear if ever I heard of
one).

Organic waste like sewage or food processing waste has most of the nutrients
required for plant growth, including trace nutrients. But it normally does
not provide the stimulus of high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
(NPK) that farmers and horticulturists want to provide the rapid growth that
helps them make a profit. The FPM process adds very small amounts of such
materials as dolomite and rock phosphate, for example, to the organic waste
stream to boost the quick-growth chemicals needed for commercial agriculture.
This combination, which we call enriched organic fertilizer (EOF), has been
shown to provide rapid plant growth that exceeds the productivity of chemical
fertilizers in the current crop, while providing slow enrichment that
rebuilds the soil for many seasons to come. In most cases, the 5-5-5 NPK
fertilizers provide higher yields than chemical fertilizers with
concentrations as high as 15-15-15. The superiority of the EOF is most
pronounced after several seasons or crop rotations allow soil redevelopment.

Chemical fertilizers are superb at giving quick return, but overuse can
actually damage soils by overdrawing locally available minor nutrients and by
concentrating the fertilizers and their byproducts. Organic fertilizers are
great at soil amendment, but they do not give the economic return needed for
commercial agriculture.

The FPM process combines the best of both. It gives the user all the benefits
of organic fertilizer (such as manures and composts), plus the benefits of a
small boost of growth stimulating major nutrients. 

Productivity studies have been conducted by recognized institutions in the US
and overseas. Some exemplary results (apologies to nonfarmers) based on side
by side comparisons include: (1) russet potatoes, increased production 2.28
tons/acre; 17% increase in volume of potatoes 10 oz or more and a 1.5%
decrease in hollow heart; (2) alfalfa, average increase of protein content of
over 20%; (3) carrots, So. California truck crops 30% increase by weight; (4)
tomatoes, consistently larger and of subjectively better texture. A major US
Department of Agriculture comparative study is now in progress.

Because the process uses waste products as its feedstock, raw material costs
and therefore fertilizer prices are low. Fertilizer manufacturing can
actually be a profitable local industry in medium to large cities, where
production can be be based on sewage plus garden and food waste, and in
agricultural areas, where crop residues and manures can be the feedstock.
This process cleans up the environment, reduces dependence on chemical
fertilizers, and improves the quality of agricultural produce.

Here are the general economic characteristics of the enterprise. The standard
system can produce up to 300 tons of fertilizer per day (which equates about
one to one with the raw material we dispose of). This is not a design or an
idea or a project or a term paper; the plant is operating in the northwestern
US, and visits can be arranged for qualified project developers or
prospective plant owner/operators. Approximately $4 million is required to
develop a facility for processing 300 tons of organic waste per day--about
half the waste stream of a city of 300,000 people; this compares favorably to
other competing capital programs. There are two main sources of revenue.
Comparable fertilizers (based on equivalent plant yield and soil amendment)
sell at wholesale for $150 to $200 per ton and at retail for up to $750 per
ton. Waste generators in the USA pay from $10 to $150 per ton to dispose of
waste materials that are suitable for the process. Production costs are low.

Our role at ECI is to identify and develop fertilizer manufacturing
opportunities. We're now working on projects in the USA and overseas, and we
are interested in identifying potential projects, especially outside the USA.
 Prospective developers will need to be interested and skillful in (a)
attracting or controlling a waste stream, (b) obtaining local regulatory
approval(s), (c) marketing fertilizer in your regional agricultural context,
and (d) capital formation. If you are (a) a generator of organic waste
(industrial, agricultural or municipal--including sewage treatment), (b) a
waste hauler, (c) a regulator, or (d) another concerned person and you want
more information on why we're so enthusiastic, let me hear from you.

Permission to copy is granted if full attribution is included.

A. Rees Clark, PhD
Environmental Concerns Inc.
1065 12th Ave NW E1
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206)391-1951
reesc@aol.com
(This article is also available in Spanish.)
From cbannon@cce.cornell.eduMon Feb 27 17:44:42 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:25:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Carl Bannon <cbannon@cce.cornell.edu>
To: sgs@coopext.umass.edu
Cc: sanet-mg@oes.orst.edu
Subject: Re: your mail

Sonya,

To capture methane you require anaerobic decomposition of manure or other
organic matter.  There is an EPA group that has been promoting methane
recovery systems and have been helpful with a dairy producer in my region
that is considering this technology for energy production but more
importantly odor control for anaerobically stored liquid manure.

The EPA program is called AgStar.  Their direcor is Kurt Roos, contact
him at (202) 233-9041 for more info.

Carl Bannon
Area Field Crops Specialist
Cornell Cooperative Extension
60 Central Avenue
PO Box 5590
Cortland, NY 13045
(607) 753-5077
cbannon@cce.cornell.edu


From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduSat Mar 23 12:15:15 1996
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:03:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Effects of Compost - Response (fwd)

Forwarded message:
> To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 20:16:23 -0800 (PST)
> From: Elisheva Kaufman <elisheva@igc.apc.org>
> Subject: Effects of Compost - Response
> 
> To: Patrick Maddens
> World Sustainable Agriculture Association
> 
> From Elisheva Kaufman
> Project Coordinator;
> Ecological Soil Management Collaborative
> <elisheva@igc.apc.org>
> 
> Patrick,
> There is great interest in this area internationally as well. 
> As coordinator of the Ecological Soil Management Collaborative,
> a proposed project involving US, Palestinian and Israeli
> collaboration for  sustainable agriculture, we will research disease 
> suppression through compost, and integrated soil fertility strategies 
> appropriate for dryland conditions with developing country constraints.
> under the leadership of Dr. Will Brinton, of Woods End, and 
> Dr. Fred Magdoff of the University of Vermont (pending funding).
> 
> Our goal is to restore degraded soils and promote sustainable ag 
> through ecological soil managment practices.  Traditional, small
> farmers need low-tech, effective methods to generate their own on-farm 
> compost high in disease suppressivecapacity and the soil biodiversity 
> that promotes natural bio-controls. Thus the costly, high intensity 
> management and heavy expensive machinery of the Lubke approach is not 
> helpful. The small American farmer operates with similar constraints.
> 
> After much investigation, we found that Woods End could provide us 
> with exemplary compost quality evaluation and standards, a compost 
> management approach adapted to the economic limits and appropriate 
> technology-needs of a developing country, and muncipal and on-farm 
> implementation skills to train the local people for self-suficiency 
> and sustainability.
> 
> We would be most interested in networking with other dryland region 
> researchers, and indigenous peoples, on composting methods for disease 
> suppression, and related soil life/biodiversity/fertility concerns. 
> 
> What other compost researchers are looking are the relationship between
> compost managment intensity and disease suppression; in terms of 
> compost temperature, the nature of the microbial and fungal growth and
> recipes.  It would seem that the closer we recreate the natural humus 
> forming conditions of the forest floor, the low temperature and slow 
> activity over time, the greater the biodiversity potential.  Any thoughts 
> on this?
> 
> Good Wishes in Your Work,
> 
> Elisheva Kaufman
> <elisheva@igc.apc.org>
> 
> PS: I have faxed this conversation to Prof. Said Assaf, the director of 
> the Palestinian National Agricultural Reseach Center, 
> since he is not yet on-line, and emailed it to Dr. Michael Raviv, of 
> the Israeli Ministry of Ag.  Following is Dr. Ravivs response:
> 
> Michael Raviv; 
> Thanks for the interesting discussion on compost effects.
> Right now I'm cooperating with a plant pathologist from another
> research center - in the Negev, on similar problems: they have severe problem
> of Alternaria on potato. I prepared for her several composts with defined
> properties and prepared extracts (what you call tea) from them. We 
> conducted a through chemical analysis (biological one will be done later on) 
> and now we can start linking between compost properties and effectiveness 
> against this disease. results of sterilized teas are good but not impressive,
> suggesting a role also for microorganisms prevailing in the teas.

 
From reesc@aol.com Thu Feb  2 00:20:11 EST 1995
Article: 5272 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: reesc@aol.com (ReesC)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Date: 31 Jan 1995 11:54:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 116
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3glq0m$5sj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: reesc@aol.com (ReesC)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Between the theoretical extremes of "factory farming" and "sustainable
agriculture" lies a continuum of intermediate mixes of industrial and
personal farming. I'd like to present a system for manufacturing a high
quality fertilizer from (urban) organic waste. Our company develops
environmental remediation projects in organic waste derivatives and water
treatment. Thanks, Rees Clark

One Man's Sludge Is Another Man's Opportunity

>From  A. Rees Clark, PhD
Environmental Concerns Inc.

Suppose that the sewage sludge, manure, lawn and garden debris and
industrial and commercial food processing wastes now being generated in
your community were not going to the landfill but instead were the basis
of a valuable commodity, in demand worldwide. Suppose that the technology
for conversion of these wastes into the new product provided local jobs
and contributed to long term renewal of our agricultural resources.
Suppose all this cost less than competing methods of disposal. Suppose
that a waste control strategy based on this technology transferred power
and control to local interests instead of remote bureaucracies. Would you
be interested enough to read on?

Environmental Concerns Inc. (ECI) is a small group of environmental
entrepreneurs dedicated to bringing innovative technologies to the
marketplace of environmental remediation. Most good ideas originate in
small companies, and we are working with selected process developers to
market their proven technologies.

We at ECI are pleased to report that a new process that manufactures a
high quality fertilizer from a variety of organic waste streams is now
available to waste generators, both industrial and municipal. Our friends
at FPM Corp. are making a silk purse of 5-5-5 NPK fertilizer out of sewage
sludge, manures, and other organic waste feedstocks (a sow's ear if ever I
heard of one).

Organic waste like sewage or food processing waste has most of the
nutrients required for plant growth, including trace nutrients. But it
normally does not provide the stimulus of high levels of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium (NPK) that farmers and horticulturists want to
provide the rapid growth that helps them make a profit. The FPM process
adds very small amounts of such materials as dolomite and rock phosphate,
for example, to the organic waste stream to boost the quick-growth
chemicals needed for commercial agriculture. This combination, which we
call enriched organic fertilizer (EOF), has been shown to provide rapid
plant growth that exceeds the productivity of chemical fertilizers in the
current crop, while providing slow enrichment that rebuilds the soil for
many seasons to come. In most cases, the 5-5-5 NPK fertilizers provide
higher yields than chemical fertilizers with concentrations as high as
15-15-15. The superiority of the EOF is most pronounced after several
seasons or crop rotations allow soil redevelopment.

Chemical fertilizers are superb at giving quick return, but overuse can
actually damage soils by overdrawing locally available minor nutrients and
by concentrating the fertilizers and their byproducts. Organic fertilizers
are great at soil amendment, but they do not give the economic return
needed for commercial agriculture.

The FPM process combines the best of both. It gives the user all the
benefits of organic fertilizer (such as manures and composts), plus the
benefits of a small boost of growth stimulating major nutrients. 

Productivity studies have been conducted by recognized institutions in the
US and overseas. Some exemplary results (apologies to nonfarmers) based on
side by side comparisons include: (1) russet potatoes, increased
production 2.28 tons/acre; 17% increase in volume of potatoes 10 oz or
more and a 1.5% decrease in hollow heart; (2) alfalfa, average increase of
protein content of over 20%; (3) carrots, So. California truck crops 30%
increase by weight; (4) tomatoes, consistently larger and of subjectively
better texture. A major US Department of Agriculture comparative study is
now in progress.

Because the process uses waste products as its feedstock, raw material
costs and therefore fertilizer prices are low. Fertilizer manufacturing
can actually be a profitable local industry in medium to large cities,
where production can be be based on sewage plus garden and food waste, and
in agricultural areas, where crop residues and manures can be the
feedstock. This process cleans up the environment, reduces dependence on
chemical fertilizers, and improves the quality of agricultural produce.

Here are the general economic characteristics of the enterprise. The
standard system can produce up to 300 tons of fertilizer per day (which
equates about one to one with the raw material we dispose of). This is not
a design or an idea or a project or a term paper; the plant is operating
in the northwestern US, and visits can be arranged for qualified project
developers or prospective plant owner/operators. Approximately $4 million
is required to develop a facility for processing 300 tons of organic waste
per day--about half the waste stream of a city of 300,000 people; this
compares favorably to other competing capital programs. There are two main
sources of revenue. Comparable fertilizers (based on equivalent plant
yield and soil amendment) sell at wholesale for $150 to $200 per ton and
at retail for up to $750 per ton. Waste generators in the USA pay from $10
to $150 per ton to dispose of waste materials that are suitable for the
process. Production costs are low.

Our role at ECI is to identify and develop fertilizer manufacturing
opportunities. We're now working on projects in the USA and overseas, and
we are interested in identifying potential projects, especially outside
the USA.  Prospective developers will need to be interested and skillful
in (a) attracting or controlling a waste stream, (b) obtaining local
regulatory approval(s), (c) marketing fertilizer in your regional
agricultural context, and (d) capital formation. If you are (a) a
generator of organic waste (industrial, agricultural or
municipal--including sewage treatment), (b) a waste hauler, (c) a
regulator, or (d) another concerned person and you want more information
on why we're so enthusiastic, let me hear from you.

Permission to copy is granted if full attribution is included.

A. Rees Clark, PhD
Environmental Concerns Inc.
1065 12th Ave NW E1
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206)391-1951
reesc@aol.com
(This article is also available in Spanish.)


From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Mar 17 00:06:32 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus 

 Abstract:  Response to post about the role of humus in Nature 
            Farming and S.A.
 Keywords:  humus, microbes, Nature Farming, the Luebke
            method, soil test
 
 Jim McNelly,
 
 I saw your posting (below) on sustag-public concerning the 
 concept of humus as the basis for sustainable agriculture 
 as versus designer microbes, companion planting, etc.  
 [Sustag-public is a gateway for Usenet news to be posted on
 an Internet mailing list, and vice versa].  Thanks for bringing this 
 issue to light.  A couple of comments:
 
 Firstly, it was revealed on sanet-mg that the NatureFarm posting 
 was a working draft by folks associated with this project.
 It was posted onto sanet-mg by a third party without prior
 notice or approval from the authors. 
 
 Secondly, here are my two cents on the matter of humus in 
 Nature Farming and S.A.:
  
 In the 1994 Proceedings of the Oklahoma Horticulture 
 Industries Show, I compared Nature Farming, traditional organic 
 farming, biodynamic farming, and Reams biological farming as
 viable sustainable farming 'methods' that conventional 
 veggie growers may want to adopt during a transition to
 low-input sustainable agriculture.  
 
 Here is an excerpt on Nature Farming:
 
   "Nature Farming was developed in Japan in the 1930s by 
 Mokichi Okada, who later formed the Mokichi Okada
 Association (MOA).  Nature Farming parallels organic farming
 in many ways but includes special emphasis on soil health
 through composts rather than organic fertilizers, when
 possible.  Kyusei Nature Farming, a branch group, emphasizes
 use of microbial preparations in addition to traditional
 Nature Farming.  Nature Farming is most active in the
 Pacific rim, including California and Hawaii."  
 
   "Since the late 1980s, Nature Farming has gained wider
 recognition in the United States through the coordinated
 efforts of MOA and the Rodale Institute in the formation of
 the World Sustainable Agriculture Association (WSAA).  The
 WSAA and MOA sponsor annual conferences on Nature Farming
 and sustainable agriculture.  Kyusei Nature Farming conducts
 on-farm research in California." 
 
 One MOA worker in Hawaii explained that in fact they 
 even make special composts for different purposes.  Thus, 
 in terms of how the foundation of Nature Farming is laid,
 it appears that humus indeed forms the basis of production.
 Likewise, while not being familiar with all the particulars
 of Effective Microorganisms (EM) used in Nature Farming, 
 on viewing the number of research papers available through 
 Kyusei Nature Farming that deal specifically with microbes,
 it appears that these microbial additions to soils are 
 important also for the role they play in the formation of 
 humus.  
 
 All of this stuff on humus is important, just as is the advanced 
 work being done on biological controls by Dietrick, Grossman, BIRC, 
 Kyusei Nature Farming, etc.
 
 More on humus, the Luebke influence: 
 
 The Luebke farm family of Austria have infused a reawakening
 amongst farmers and landgrant workers as to the importance of 
 humus through their seminars and conference appearances. 
 
 The Luebkes teach a 3-day seminar on humus management, and a
 4-day seminar on Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC).  The
 Luebke system is based on the use of forage- and
 covercrop-based crop rotations, green manures microbially 
 incoculated at plowdown, CMC compost prepared with microbial 
 inoculants and rock dusts, and proper tillage (spade plow). 
 
 Whether a farmer is financially capable of purchasing a 
 Sandberger compost turner and adopting the whole CMC compost 
 preparation method is secondary to the fact that they come
 away with a deeper understanding of the vital role soil microbes 
 play in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, and how they can 
 manage their soils to increase this effect.  
 
 For example, the Luebkes improved a clay soil on their farm
 from 2% O.M. to 15% O.M. in a ten year period using humus 
 management techniques. 
 
 Most interesting to me as a farm advisor and sanet
 participant, are the soil health evaluation procedures the
 Luebkes employ.  These include percent O.M., the colorimetric 
 humus test, the circular chromatography test, and the buffered
 pH test.  
 
 One of these in particular, the colorimetric humus test,
 has merit for wider adoption, and indeed has already been 
 adopted by several commercial soils labs in the U.S. after
 it was re-introduced by the Luebkes.  In fact, this method 
 was developed in the U.S. decades ago but fell out of usage.  
 
 The colorimetric humus test is done by extracting a soil or
 compost sample with a weal alkali solution (sodium
 hydroxide), filtering the solute, and then comparing the
 color of the extract against a colorimetric scale of 
 standardized liquid-filled test tubes.  The result is a 
 relative number from 0-100.  
 
 The idea behind this test is that it gives an indication of
 the degree and amount to which organic matter in soil has 
 entered a humified state.  When the humus number is compared 
 against percent O.M., it provides a ratio that can be evaluated.
 Ideally, the ratio will be 1 part O.M. to 3 parts humus.
 Too little or too high humus readings provide an indication
 of a soil out of balance.  
 
 This test is especially insightful in combination with 
 the chroma and buffered pH test.  In one instance, 
 it was apparent the soil was constipated...plenty of soil 
 humus, but no microbial activity to make the goodies available 
 through mineralization. 

 At the very least, it demonstrates that sustainable 
 farmers are getting useful information about the condition
 of their soils via other methods of soil evaluation in
 addition to or as an alternative to standard university soils 
 tests.  
 
 So, McNelly, you have a good point and I think farmers,
 landgrant workers, and s.a. advocates should be thinking about 
 humus.  That's why I've summarized these few ideas and
 post them here for others to 'mull' over.   :-)   
 
 Steve Diver
 steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
  
  
 Jim McNelly wrote:
 
 > After a long and informative note on Naturfarm, I was surprised to find 
 > no reference concerning the organic matter concentration in the soil. 
 > Is this typical of many of the new generation of sustainable farmers?
 >
 > Forage and dairy farmers I have met at sustainable ag conferences speak 
 > longingly about organic matter levels, and how to import organics from 
 > off farm to build up soils to native levels around 7% humus, or at least 
 > to a more sustainable level around 3% to 5%,
 > 
 > If I read many of the early proponents of both organic and sustainable 
 > farming correctly, compost, humus, and natural ecosystems were stressed 
 > over other influences such as pest control, disease suppression, 
 > watering and so forth. The (older?) model held that if the soil was 
 > improved, other values would follow. Perhaps it is just me, but does it 
 > not seem that more and more farmers on the sustainable front are talking 
 > about companion planting, beneficial insects, designer microbes, drip 
 > irrigation and other techniques.
 
 .....................Stuff Deleted................................
 
 > This is not to put down such practices, but more to make the observation 
 > that these efforts might be considered to be a substitute for humus and 
 > organic matter.
 >
 > Does anyone else think that organic matter levels in the soil are being 
 > neglected in much of the sustainable agriculture discussion? 
 > 
 > Mr Compost~~~
 > Affordable In-vessel Composting
 > PO Box 7444
 > Saint Cloud, MN 56302
 > 
 > Jim~ McNelly
 > jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
 > 
 > 
 >  * RM 1.3 02460 * A bird in the hand craps on the wrist.
 > 
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
 >    Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
 >    Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
  
From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduThu Sep  7 12:03:17 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 08:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Luebke Seminars: CMC Compost & Humus Mgm't (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 10:09:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Luebke Seminars: CMC Compost & Humus Mgm't

Sustainable Aggies & Farmers: 

The following announcement is posted for your information.

*         *         *         *         *         *

============================================================
Luebke Seminars, Fall 1995
============================================================

CMC Compost and Humus Management seminars will be held in the
United States again this fall in two locations:  Pennsylvania 
and California.  The courses will be taught by Uta Luebke, 
Angelika Luebke, and Urs Hildebrandt of Austria.  The Luebkes 
manage an organic vegetable/dairy sheep farm and developed the 
Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC) technique through years 
of on-farm research.

CMC may be defined as an intensive methodology of efficiently 
producing a consistent, high-quality aerobic compost.  Humus
management is the systematic program of incorporating these
biologically-active composts, along with specific green
manuring and tillage techniques, to quickly and effectively
re-establish nutrient & carbon cycling, storage capacity,
tilth, and microbial activity to the soil. 

=============================================================
CMC Humus Management Course
=============================================================
Course Topics: 

Overview of integrated soil building techniques such as green
manuring, tillage, composting, and crop rotations.  Slides
of farm soils, research, and microphotography of the
clay-humus crumb will clearly show the importance of microbial 
activity in soil, and also, how to manage soils with composts 
and green manures treated with microbial inoculants.  Introduction 
to circular chromatography, colorimetric humus test, lab 
procedures, and interpretation of soil chromas, organic
matter, and humus content. 

Schedule & Location: 

Lancaster, PA       November 9-11 

Hollister, CA       November 27-29
                         and
                    November 30-December 2

*  The first day can also be attended as a single lecture

=============================================================
CMC Composting Course
=============================================================
Course Topics:

Compost site & materials selection, construction and monitoring
of windrows using the Controlled Microbial Composting method,
correction and balancing of moisture, structure and C/N factors,
testing compost for finishedness, compost quality assessment and
use.  This is a "hands on" composting class, revolving
around on-site building and monitoring of compost windrows.


Schedule & Location:

Lancaster, PA       November 13-16

Hollister, CA       December 4-9
                        and
                    December 11-16

=============================================================
Information and registration
=============================================================
East Coast:
     Autrusa Compost Consulting
     P.O. Box 1133
     Blue Bell, PA  19422
     (610) 825-2973
     (610) 825-3982 Fax

West Coast:
     Herbert Ranch
     P.O. Box 65
     Hollister, CA  95024
     (408) 637-5517
     (408) 637-0139 Fax 


From OZ@oz.msn.sub.orgFri Mar 31 12:17:57 1995
Date: 28 Mar 1995 11:54:00 +0200
From: Oliver Zechlin <OZ@oz.msn.sub.org>
To: london@sunsite.unc.edu
Subject: Re: Septics-Yuck

> Excerpts from netnews.alt.architecture.alternative: 26-Mar-95
> Septics-Yuck by repoman@fox.nstn.ca
> > I was wondering if anyone knows of,(or where to look for), information
> > on some alternative septic disposal systems suitable for a single
> > family home. I was thinking along the lines of Reconstucted Wetlands
> > or something similiar.

I just got the Loompanics Unlimited Spring Supplement in the mail in which  
I found:

"The Humanure Handbook - A Guide to Composting Human Manure" by J.C.  
Jenkins, $15.00

Chapters include:       * Crap Happens
                        * Microhusbandry
                        * Deep Shit
                        * A Day in the life of a Turd
                        * Composting Toilets and Systems
                        * Worms and Disease
                        * The Tao of Composting

Oliver
From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduSun Sep 17 11:50:18 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 08:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Forwarded mail....



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:16:50 -0400
From: FREITAS Pedro <freitas@orstom.fr>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: 

Following the announcement about LUEBKE SEMINARS (by Steve Diver in Sept,
7th), does anyone hnow the address and who to reach Uta Luebke, 
Angelika Luebke, and Urs Hildebrandt in Austria??
        I have interest in visiting they and need their direction.

        Thank you in advance.

        Pedro De Freitas  -  EMBRAPA/BRAZIL  -  ORSTOM'Pos Doc.
                <freitas@orstom.orstom.fr>
>

From jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org Tue Jan 10 22:53:26 EST 1995
Article: 50545 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!mr.net!bardeen.physics.csbsju.edu!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
X-Apparently-to: DAN HUISJEN
Subject: Organic material names -
From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Message-ID: <36.6586.2599@granite.mn.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 00:37:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372
Lines: 64

DAN HUISJEN TO ALL
Discussing: Organic material names - ON 01/04/95
Replied To: Friday, January 6, 1995 00:00


H> I always liked the term "biomass"  myself.

H> Vague as it is, it seems to describe quite a variety of materials
H> according to
H> their potential use, rather than their source.  

Hi Dan,

Biomass has been one of my favorite words to describe organic matter 
too. However, our department of energy and the Great Lakes Council of 
Governors have published so much material on "biomass utilization" 
which is strictly related to combustion, that the term is now thought 
of as an energy source, to the exclusion of other values.

I noticed once that organic matter sources and forms can be lumped 
generally into four "F" categories, fuel, feed, fiber, and fertilizer.
It is hard, aside from Biomass before it was associated with just 
fuel, to find a word that describes all four uses and categories.

H> When viewing an ecosystem, one can also use the term to encompas
H> all of the material before specifying smaller parts, as in: 52 -
H> 55% of the biomass in an
H> old growth forest is composed of fungi, while only a third of the
H> total biomass is visable above the level of the forest floor.

A good friend of mine, a composting and permaculture expert from 
Sprout Acres in Laguna Beach, CA, Dr. Bill Roley, coined the term 
"humusphere" to describe the soil ecosystem. I like the sound of the 
phrase, as it connotes a respiration cycle or a systems approach to 
the soul, rather than any one humus aspect.

Reminds me of the refrain from Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock"

We are stardust
We are golden
Billion year old carbon
Locked in the Devil's bargain
And we've got to find a way
Back to the garden


To me, that just about sums it all up.

Mr Compost~~~

Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org






 * RM 1.3 02460 * A belief in anything is better than a doubt of everything

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------


From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Mar 17 00:06:46 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus 

 Abstract:  Response to post about the role of humus in Nature 
            Farming and S.A.
 Keywords:  humus, microbes, Nature Farming, the Luebke
            method, soil test
 
 Jim McNelly,
 
 I saw your posting (below) on sustag-public concerning the 
 concept of humus as the basis for sustainable agriculture 
 as versus designer microbes, companion planting, etc.  
 [Sustag-public is a gateway for Usenet news to be posted on
 an Internet mailing list, and vice versa].  Thanks for bringing this 
 issue to light.  A couple of comments:
 
 Firstly, it was revealed on sanet-mg that the NatureFarm posting 
 was a working draft by folks associated with this project.
 It was posted onto sanet-mg by a third party without prior
 notice or approval from the authors. 
 
 Secondly, here are my two cents on the matter of humus in 
 Nature Farming and S.A.:
  
 In the 1994 Proceedings of the Oklahoma Horticulture 
 Industries Show, I compared Nature Farming, traditional organic 
 farming, biodynamic farming, and Reams biological farming as
 viable sustainable farming 'methods' that conventional 
 veggie growers may want to adopt during a transition to
 low-input sustainable agriculture.  
 
 Here is an excerpt on Nature Farming:
 
   "Nature Farming was developed in Japan in the 1930s by 
 Mokichi Okada, who later formed the Mokichi Okada
 Association (MOA).  Nature Farming parallels organic farming
 in many ways but includes special emphasis on soil health
 through composts rather than organic fertilizers, when
 possible.  Kyusei Nature Farming, a branch group, emphasizes
 use of microbial preparations in addition to traditional
 Nature Farming.  Nature Farming is most active in the
 Pacific rim, including California and Hawaii."  
 
   "Since the late 1980s, Nature Farming has gained wider
 recognition in the United States through the coordinated
 efforts of MOA and the Rodale Institute in the formation of
 the World Sustainable Agriculture Association (WSAA).  The
 WSAA and MOA sponsor annual conferences on Nature Farming
 and sustainable agriculture.  Kyusei Nature Farming conducts
 on-farm research in California." 
 
 One MOA worker in Hawaii explained that in fact they 
 even make special composts for different purposes.  Thus, 
 in terms of how the foundation of Nature Farming is laid,
 it appears that humus indeed forms the basis of production.
 Likewise, while not being familiar with all the particulars
 of Effective Microorganisms (EM) used in Nature Farming, 
 on viewing the number of research papers available through 
 Kyusei Nature Farming that deal specifically with microbes,
 it appears that these microbial additions to soils are 
 important also for the role they play in the formation of 
 humus.  
 
 All of this stuff on humus is important, just as is the advanced 
 work being done on biological controls by Dietrick, Grossman, BIRC, 
 Kyusei Nature Farming, etc.
 
 More on humus, the Luebke influence: 
 
 The Luebke farm family of Austria have infused a reawakening
 amongst farmers and landgrant workers as to the importance of 
 humus through their seminars and conference appearances. 
 
 The Luebkes teach a 3-day seminar on humus management, and a
 4-day seminar on Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC).  The
 Luebke system is based on the use of forage- and
 covercrop-based crop rotations, green manures microbially 
 incoculated at plowdown, CMC compost prepared with microbial 
 inoculants and rock dusts, and proper tillage (spade plow). 
 
 Whether a farmer is financially capable of purchasing a 
 Sandberger compost turner and adopting the whole CMC compost 
 preparation method is secondary to the fact that they come
 away with a deeper understanding of the vital role soil microbes 
 play in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, and how they can 
 manage their soils to increase this effect.  
 
 For example, the Luebkes improved a clay soil on their farm
 from 2% O.M. to 15% O.M. in a ten year period using humus 
 management techniques. 
 
 Most interesting to me as a farm advisor and sanet
 participant, are the soil health evaluation procedures the
 Luebkes employ.  These include percent O.M., the colorimetric 
 humus test, the circular chromatography test, and the buffered
 pH test.  
 
 One of these in particular, the colorimetric humus test,
 has merit for wider adoption, and indeed has already been 
 adopted by several commercial soils labs in the U.S. after
 it was re-introduced by the Luebkes.  In fact, this method 
 was developed in the U.S. decades ago but fell out of usage.  
 
 The colorimetric humus test is done by extracting a soil or
 compost sample with a weal alkali solution (sodium
 hydroxide), filtering the solute, and then comparing the
 color of the extract against a colorimetric scale of 
 standardized liquid-filled test tubes.  The result is a 
 relative number from 0-100.  
 
 The idea behind this test is that it gives an indication of
 the degree and amount to which organic matter in soil has 
 entered a humified state.  When the humus number is compared 
 against percent O.M., it provides a ratio that can be evaluated.
 Ideally, the ratio will be 1 part O.M. to 3 parts humus.
 Too little or too high humus readings provide an indication
 of a soil out of balance.  
 
 This test is especially insightful in combination with 
 the chroma and buffered pH test.  In one instance, 
 it was apparent the soil was constipated...plenty of soil 
 humus, but no microbial activity to make the goodies available 
 through mineralization. 

 At the very least, it demonstrates that sustainable 
 farmers are getting useful information about the condition
 of their soils via other methods of soil evaluation in
 addition to or as an alternative to standard university soils 
 tests.  
 
 So, McNelly, you have a good point and I think farmers,
 landgrant workers, and s.a. advocates should be thinking about 
 humus.  That's why I've summarized these few ideas and
 post them here for others to 'mull' over.   :-)   
 
 Steve Diver
 steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
  
  
 Jim McNelly wrote:
 
 > After a long and informative note on Naturfarm, I was surprised to find 
 > no reference concerning the organic matter concentration in the soil. 
 > Is this typical of many of the new generation of sustainable farmers?
 >
 > Forage and dairy farmers I have met at sustainable ag conferences speak 
 > longingly about organic matter levels, and how to import organics from 
 > off farm to build up soils to native levels around 7% humus, or at least 
 > to a more sustainable level around 3% to 5%,
 > 
 > If I read many of the early proponents of both organic and sustainable 
 > farming correctly, compost, humus, and natural ecosystems were stressed 
 > over other influences such as pest control, disease suppression, 
 > watering and so forth. The (older?) model held that if the soil was 
 > improved, other values would follow. Perhaps it is just me, but does it 
 > not seem that more and more farmers on the sustainable front are talking 
 > about companion planting, beneficial insects, designer microbes, drip 
 > irrigation and other techniques.
 
 .....................Stuff Deleted................................
 
 > This is not to put down such practices, but more to make the observation 
 > that these efforts might be considered to be a substitute for humus and 
 > organic matter.
 >
 > Does anyone else think that organic matter levels in the soil are being 
 > neglected in much of the sustainable agriculture discussion? 
 > 
 > Mr Compost~~~
 > Affordable In-vessel Composting
 > PO Box 7444
 > Saint Cloud, MN 56302
 > 
 > Jim~ McNelly
 > jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
 > 
 > 
 >  * RM 1.3 02460 * A bird in the hand craps on the wrist.
 > 
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
 >    Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
 >    Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
  
    .        ..    demo-project                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    From Kashmanian.Richard@epamail.epa.govThu Jun  6 13:26:01 1996
Date: 6 Jun 96 10:15:26 
From: Richard Kashmanian <Kashmanian.Richard@epamail.epa.gov>
To: sanet-mg <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Looking for information on dry hog manure handling systems

Dear Sanet,

      Regarding the multiple postings, I sent my message below out yesterday 
only once.  I ignored the messages that certain addresses were invalid.  
However, I received two bcc copies yesterday, the first at 6:14:41 and the 
second at 11:06:54.  So it looks like the problem of multiple messages is 
compounded by automatic duplicate (or more?) mailings of the originals.  The 
server does not realize that less (messages) is more (satisfying).

Richard
kashmanian.richard@epamail.epa.gov

To: sanet-mg @ amani.ces.ncsu.edu @ IN
cc:  
From: Richard Kashmanian
Date: 06/05/96 02:06:57 PM
Subject: Looking for information on dry hog manure handling systems

Dear Sanet Users,

      A colleague of mine with EPA's Region 7 in Kansas City, KS, asked me to 
post a question to the Sanet group concerning raising hogs and handling their 
manure.  Does anyone know examples of hog farms that use dry manure handling 
methods -- such as bedding, or compressed air to blow the manure down a 
concrete slope into a trough?  He remembers seeing the latter, maybe in the 
1960's.  Also, is there any information on raising hogs on bedding and the 
economics of doing so?  And how was the manure handled?  Was it composted?  So 
far I have sent him the following papers:

Etc.
From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDUFri Nov 25 00:27:22 1994
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:24:44 -0800
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L <SUSTAG-L@WSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term experiments (fwd)

[I have invited SOMNET, centered at Rothamsted Experiment Station to
use sustag-l, at least to get started.  Soil organic matter is a basic
component of sustainable agriculture.  Anyway we will see how things go.
Let me know if this seems appropriate or not.  TH, moderator]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:19:05 +0000
From: JOSMITH <jo.smith@afrc.ac.uk>
To: Non Receipt Notification Requested <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term
 experiments

     SOMNET: A GLOBAL NETWORK OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER MODELS AND
     LONG-TERM EXPERIMENT DATASETS

     SOMNET is a global network of soil organic matter models
     and long-term experiments and will be established during
     1995. Soil organic matter (SOM) represents a major pool of
     carbon within the biosphere, acting as both a source and
     sink. When organic material decomposes, CO2 is released,
     but a fraction may become stable, withdrawing it from the
     active carbon cycle. Changes in climate are likely to
     influence the rates of accumulation and decomposition of
     SOM through changes in temperature, moisture and the rate
     of return of plant residues to the soil. Other changes,
     especially in land use and management, may have even
     greater effects. The ability to predict the effects of
     climate, atmospheric composition and land use change on SOM
     dynamics is essential in formulating environmental,
     agricultural and social/economic policies. Mathematical
     models of SOM dynamics are needed to predict the effects of
     environmental change, to test specific scenarios and to
     develop strategies to manage the effects of environmental
     change. Most models have been developed using data from a
     single land use type. The ability of models developed for
     use in one system (e.g. arable agriculture) to simulate SOM
     changes in another (e.g. grassland) is a major limitation
     when simulating the impact of land use change. There is a
     pressing need to systematically evaluate the suitability of
     SOM models in predicting the effects of environmental
     change.

     SOMNET will establish a network of researchers
     investigating the impacts of environmental change on SOM
     with particular relevance to the validation of mathematical
     models that can be used to evaluate management and policy
     options. Questionnaires will be sent to holders of datasets
     to establish nature of sites, type of measurements, quality
     control measures and the availability of data. Similarly,
     questionnaires will be sent to developers of models to
     establish type of models, nature of model inputs and
     outputs, quality control measures and the availability of
     the model. The collated information will be published as a
     directory and electronic database to provide information
     about the source and nature of experimental datasets and
     SOM models.

     A NATO Advanced Research Workshop will initate a comparison
     of model performance to evaluate representative SOM models
     using representative long-term experimental data sets.
     Holders of representative experimental datasets and
     developers of representative models will be invited to
     participate in the workshop to be held May 22-26, 1995, at
     Rothamsted, UK. This will establish robustness of
     simulations over a wide range of environments and expose
     deficiencies in understanding and/or available experimental
     data.

     Questionnaires will be sent out before the end of 1994. If
     you would like to participate in SOMNET, please contact...

     Pete Smith,
     Soil Science Department,
     IACR Rothamsted,
     Harpenden,
     Herts,
     AL5 2JQ
     UK.

     Telephone: (+44) 582 763133
     Fax: (+44) 582 760981
     Email: PESMITH@BBSRC.AC.UK

     To be considered for invitation to the NATO Workshop to be
     held May 22-26, 1995 on "Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter
     Models using Long Term Experimental Datasets",
     questionnaires must be returned by 1 February, 1995.

     For information about experimental datasets or models to be
     included in a directory to be compiled at the end of 1995,
     questionnaires must be returned by 1 September 1995.

     For information about experimental datasets or models to be
     included in SOMNET, questionnaires can be returned at any
     time.
From WLockeretz@Infonet.Tufts.EduThu Mar  2 00:06:44 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 20:36:54 EST
From: WLockeretz@Infonet.Tufts.Edu
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: The Poetry of Compost


To the interesting discussions going on in this group regarding soil quality 
and compost, I would like to contribute the eloquence of Walt Whitman, whom I 
nominate as Poet Laureate of the sustainable agriculture movement.

Willie Lockeretz
                
******************************************************************************

                        THIS COMPOST 
                        Walt Whitman

1.Something startles me where I thought I was safest,
  I withdraw from the still woods I loved,
  I will not go now on the pastures to walk,
  I will not strip the clothes from my body to meet my lover the sea,
  I will not touch my flesh to the earth as to other flesh to renew me.

  O how can it be that the ground itself does not sicken?
  How can you be alive you growths of spring?
  How can you furnish health you blood of herbs, roots, orchards, grain?
  Are they not continually putting distemper'd corpses within you?
  Is not every continent work'd over and over with sour dead?

  Where have you disposed of their carcasses?
  Those drunkards and gluttons of so many generations?
  Where have you drawn off all the foul liquid and meat?
  I do not see any of it upon you to-day, or perhaps I am deceived,
  I will run a furrow with my plough, I will press my spade through the sod
     and turn it up underneath,
  I am sure I shall expose some of the foul meat.

2.Behold this compost! behold it well!
  Perhaps every mite has once form'd part of a sick person--yet behold!
  The grass of spring covers the prairies,
  The bean bursts noiselessly through the mould in the garden,
  The delicate spear of the onion pierces upward,
  The apple-buds cluster together on the apple-branches,
  The resurrection of the wheat appears with pale visage out of its graves,
  The tinge awakes over the willow-tree and the mulberry-tree,
  The he-birds carol mornings and evenings while the she-birds sit 
     on their nests,
  The young of poultry break through the hatch'd eggs,
  The new-born of animals appear, the calf is dropt from the cow,
     the colt from the mare,
  Out of its little hill faithfully rise the potato's dark green leaves,
  Out of its hill rises the yellow maize-stalk, the lilacs bloom 
     in the dooryards,
  The summer growth is innocent and disdainful above all those strata
     of sour dead.

  What chemistry!
  That the winds are really not infectious,
  That this is no cheat, this transparent green-wash of the sea 
     which is so amorous after me,
  That it is safe to allow it to lick my naked body all over with its tongues,
  That it will not endanger me with the fevers 
     that have deposited themselves in it,
  That all is clean forever and forever, 
  That the cool drink from the well tastes so good,
  That blackberries are so flavorous and juicy,
  That the fruits of the apple-orchard and the orange-orchard,
     that melons, grapes, peaches, plums, will none of them poison me,
  That when I recline on the grass I do not catch any disease,
  Though probably every spear of grass rises 
     out of what was once a catching disease.

  Now I am terrified at the Earth, it is that calm and patient,
  It grows such sweet things out of such corruptions,
  It turns harmless and stainless on its axis,
     with such endless successions of diseas'd corpses,
  It distills such exquisite winds out of such infused fetor,
  It renews with such unwitting looks its prodigal, annual sumptuous crops,
  It gives such divine materials to men, and accepts such leavings
     from them at last.

******************************************************************************
From pmadden@igc.apc.orgWed Mar 13 12:01:49 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:46:27 -0800
From: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>
To: Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: effects of compost? -Reply

Thanks, Grace, for your prompt and helpful response.  I will
follow up on it.

Patrick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov  Tue Mar 12 10:44:04 1996
 > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:44:00 -0500
 > From: "Grace J Gershuny" <Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov>
 > Subject: effects of compost? -Reply
 > To: pmadden@igc.apc.org
 > X400-Mts-Identifier: [ /P=GOV+USDA.T/A=ATTMAIL/C=US/ ;
 3145C650.CDD8.01E2.000 ]
 >
 > Hi Pat--The person to contact about this is Will Brinton of
 Woods End
 > Laboratory. phone: 207-293-2457, fax: 207-293-2488.  He's done
 great
 > work on developing compost assays of various kinds &
 customizing
 > composts for use in disease suppression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu Thu Jun 16 23:30:53 EDT 1994
Article: 35477 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.duc.auburn.edu!aces17!aces20.acenet.auburn.edu!jhibbert
From: jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu (Jeffrey R. Hibbert)
Subject: ag waste database
Message-ID: <jhibbert.771620153@aces20.acenet.auburn.edu>
Summary: ag waste mgmt
Sender: news@acenet.auburn.edu (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: aces5
Organization: Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 18:55:53 GMT
Lines: 30


Dear Colleagues,
        Demand for information on efficient and environmentally sound ways
of managing and using agricultural wastes is growing. In response to this
need, Auburn University College of Agriculture and the Alabama Cooperative
Extension Service, with support from the Tennessee Valley Authority, have
developed a comprehensive, computerized Agricultural Waste Database. The
Ag Waste Database system provides an up-to-date, exhaustive listing of
research-based published works on the management, disposal and productive
use of agricultural wastes, and on use of industrial and municipal wastes
in agriculture. The service is available to anyone seeking information on
scientific, economic, practical, environmental, or legal aspects of
agriculture-related wastes. The database is continually updated and is
unique in its focus, filling a need not covered by any other database or
reference service. 
        If you have internet access and usa a Gopher client outside the
ACENET (acenet.auburn.edu) domain, use the address
gopher.acenet.auburn.edu. For access by modem, call 205-844-0329, settings
N-8-1, full duplex, vt102 terminal emulation, and ZMODEM file transfer
protocol. Baud rates up to 57,600 are supported; default is 2400. On
connecting to the ACES Gopher server, you will see a login:  prompt. Type
gopher and press ENTER. Messages may be displayed; then you will be
presented with the ACES Gopher main menu. To end your session, press Q to
log off. 
        If you have any questions or comments, please email myself or my
colleague, James Murray. 

 Jeff Hibbert			 James Murray
jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu	 jmurray@acenet.auburn.edu
        


From steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:12:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: CMC Humus-Compost Seminars

Sanetters:

The following seminar announcement is posted for your information. 


*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

Fall 1994 Seminar Program on Composting and Humus Management based
             on Controlled Microbial Composting

Controlled microbial composting (CMC) seminars led by the Luebke
family of Austria will be held in the United States again this
fall.  Seminar locations are Pennsylvania and California. 

                              Seminar Schedule

Speakers:      Uta Luebke, Angelika Luebke, and Urs Hildebrandt 
               from Austria

Pennsylvania Location:   Village of Bird-in-Hand,
                         Lancaster County, PA

California Location:     Herbert Ranch/T.K.O. Complex
                         Hollister, CA


Seminar #1:   BASIC SEMINAR on C.M.C.

Dates:         October 20th to October 22nd.......Pennsylvania
               November 2nd to November 4th.......California
Class Fee:     $400

Day 1:    9-12 and 2-5:30

*    Basic concepts of CMC and humus management
*    CMC humus management with green manures
*    CMC humus management with compost

Day 2:    9-12 and 2-5:30

*    Introduction to chromatography and preparation of soil and 
       compost sample
*    Practical applications of chromatography testing

Day 3:    9-12 and 2-4

*    Testing organic matter content of soil
*    Testing humus value of soil and compost, along with           
       "potential" and actual pH measurements
*    Interpretation of the total values

Note:  Every participant needs to bring their own soil and compost
       sample. 

Seminar #2:   C.M.C. - COMPOST SEMINAR 

Dates:         October 24th to October 27th.......Pennsylvania
               November 7th to November 10th......California
               November 14th to November 17th.....California

Class Fee:     $600

Prerequisite:  Basic Seminar on CMC

Day 1:    9-12 and 2-5

*    Lecture on basics of CMC composting with slides and overhead
*    Building a properly made compost windrow on-site

Day 2:    9-12 and 2-5

*    In-depth discussion of basic parameters of composting (i.e.,
       raw materials, C/N ratios, moisture levels, etc.
*    Operation of field test instruments
*    Correction of dry and wet compost piles

Day 3:    9-12 and 2-5

*    Introduction to, and testing of nutrient cycles in a 'proper'
     (CMC) composting process
*    Evaluating and testing compost for maturity

Day 4:    9-12 and 2-4

*    Humus testing
*    pH values
*    Interpretation of results

Note:  Every participant needs to bring two to three compost      
       samples

Register with:

Autrussa Compost Consulting        Herbert Ranch
P.O. Box 1133                      P.O. Box 65
Blue Bell, PA  19422-2508          Hollister, CA  95024-0065
610-825-2973                       408-637-5517
610-825-3982 Fax                   408-637-0139 Fax
Contact:  George Leidig            Contact:  Patti Herbert

From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDUFri Nov 25 00:27:22 1994
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:24:44 -0800
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L <SUSTAG-L@WSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term experiments (fwd)

[I have invited SOMNET, centered at Rothamsted Experiment Station to
use sustag-l, at least to get started.  Soil organic matter is a basic
component of sustainable agriculture.  Anyway we will see how things go.
Let me know if this seems appropriate or not.  TH, moderator]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:19:05 +0000
From: JOSMITH <jo.smith@afrc.ac.uk>
To: Non Receipt Notification Requested <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term
 experiments

     SOMNET: A GLOBAL NETWORK OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER MODELS AND
     LONG-TERM EXPERIMENT DATASETS

     SOMNET is a global network of soil organic matter models
     and long-term experiments and will be established during
     1995. Soil organic matter (SOM) represents a major pool of
     carbon within the biosphere, acting as both a source and
     sink. When organic material decomposes, CO2 is released,
     but a fraction may become stable, withdrawing it from the
     active carbon cycle. Changes in climate are likely to
     influence the rates of accumulation and decomposition of
     SOM through changes in temperature, moisture and the rate
     of return of plant residues to the soil. Other changes,
     especially in land use and management, may have even
     greater effects. The ability to predict the effects of
     climate, atmospheric composition and land use change on SOM
     dynamics is essential in formulating environmental,
     agricultural and social/economic policies. Mathematical
     models of SOM dynamics are needed to predict the effects of
     environmental change, to test specific scenarios and to
     develop strategies to manage the effects of environmental
     change. Most models have been developed using data from a
     single land use type. The ability of models developed for
     use in one system (e.g. arable agriculture) to simulate SOM
     changes in another (e.g. grassland) is a major limitation
     when simulating the impact of land use change. There is a
     pressing need to systematically evaluate the suitability of
     SOM models in predicting the effects of environmental
     change.

     SOMNET will establish a network of researchers
     investigating the impacts of environmental change on SOM
     with particular relevance to the validation of mathematical
     models that can be used to evaluate management and policy
     options. Questionnaires will be sent to holders of datasets
     to establish nature of sites, type of measurements, quality
     control measures and the availability of data. Similarly,
     questionnaires will be sent to developers of models to
     establish type of models, nature of model inputs and
     outputs, quality control measures and the availability of
     the model. The collated information will be published as a
     directory and electronic database to provide information
     about the source and nature of experimental datasets and
     SOM models.

     A NATO Advanced Research Workshop will initate a comparison
     of model performance to evaluate representative SOM models
     using representative long-term experimental data sets.
     Holders of representative experimental datasets and
     developers of representative models will be invited to
     participate in the workshop to be held May 22-26, 1995, at
     Rothamsted, UK. This will establish robustness of
     simulations over a wide range of environments and expose
     deficiencies in understanding and/or available experimental
     data.

     Questionnaires will be sent out before the end of 1994. If
     you would like to participate in SOMNET, please contact...

     Pete Smith,
     Soil Science Department,
     IACR Rothamsted,
     Harpenden,
     Herts,
     AL5 2JQ
     UK.

     Telephone: (+44) 582 763133
     Fax: (+44) 582 760981
     Email: PESMITH@BBSRC.AC.UK

     To be considered for invitation to the NATO Workshop to be
     held May 22-26, 1995 on "Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter
     Models using Long Term Experimental Datasets",
     questionnaires must be returned by 1 February, 1995.

     For information about experimental datasets or models to be
     included in a directory to be compiled at the end of 1995,
     questionnaires must be returned by 1 September 1995.

     For information about experimental datasets or models to be
     included in SOMNET, questionnaires can be returned at any
     time.
From jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu Thu Jun 16 23:30:53 EDT 1994
Article: 35477 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.duc.auburn.edu!aces17!aces20.acenet.auburn.edu!jhibbert
From: jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu (Jeffrey R. Hibbert)
Subject: ag waste database
Message-ID: <jhibbert.771620153@aces20.acenet.auburn.edu>
Summary: ag waste mgmt
Sender: news@acenet.auburn.edu (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: aces5
Organization: Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 18:55:53 GMT
Lines: 30


Dear Colleagues,
        Demand for information on efficient and environmentally sound ways
of managing and using agricultural wastes is growing. In response to this
need, Auburn University College of Agriculture and the Alabama Cooperative
Extension Service, with support from the Tennessee Valley Authority, have
developed a comprehensive, computerized Agricultural Waste Database. The
Ag Waste Database system provides an up-to-date, exhaustive listing of
research-based published works on the management, disposal and productive
use of agricultural wastes, and on use of industrial and municipal wastes
in agriculture. The service is available to anyone seeking information on
scientific, economic, practical, environmental, or legal aspects of
agriculture-related wastes. The database is continually updated and is
unique in its focus, filling a need not covered by any other database or
reference service. 
        If you have internet access and usa a Gopher client outside the
ACENET (acenet.auburn.edu) domain, use the address
gopher.acenet.auburn.edu. For access by modem, call 205-844-0329, settings
N-8-1, full duplex, vt102 terminal emulation, and ZMODEM file transfer
protocol. Baud rates up to 57,600 are supported; default is 2400. On
connecting to the ACES Gopher server, you will see a login:  prompt. Type
gopher and press ENTER. Messages may be displayed; then you will be
presented with the ACES Gopher main menu. To end your session, press Q to
log off. 
        If you have any questions or comments, please email myself or my
colleague, James Murray. 

 Jeff Hibbert			 James Murray
jhibbert@acenet.auburn.edu	 jmurray@acenet.auburn.edu
        


From adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au Wed Oct 26 10:56:55 EDT 1994
Article: 1245 of alt.architecture.alternative
Newsgroups: alt.architecture.alternative
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news.duke.edu!eff!news.umbc.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!sserve!ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!adm
From: adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
Subject: Re: Alternative to Septic Systems
Message-ID: <1994Oct24.040914.22524@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
Sender: news@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
References: <3896ph$mt7@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 04:09:14 GMT
Lines: 16

The Australian Army have successfully trialed a composting
system utilising worms to break down waste matter. The system
is self-regulating, the worms reproduce or become dormant
depending on the amount of waste material available for
consumption. During peak load conditions (about 1000 people
using the facilities) air is forced through the worm bed to
maintain aerobic conditions but under light loads (<20 users)
natural convection is sufficient. The system is installed at
a camp inside a Training Area which has a high conservation
value, and the method was chosen for it's minimal effect
on the environment. Feedback from the users of the system
was all positive.

(Information remembered from a radio interview)

David Moss.


 lZ  .      ..   l  compost-making.faq   l compost-using.faq                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   From jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu Thu Nov  3 10:40:11 EST 1994
Article: 4302 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu (Joel B Gruver)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: info request
Date: 3 Nov 1994 04:11:02 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 11
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411022215.A17546-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Thanks to everyone that sent me info concerning hog composting. I am 
familiar with Joel Salatin's system and the Nordell system. If anyone 
knows of any other farmers using hog composting systems, I would
like to hear about them.

I am interested in hearing about mechanical and cultural cover crop 
suppression techniques. Grazing, mowing, flaming, scalding with hot 
water, undercutting, strip tilling... are some exaamples.
Joel Gruver
jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu



From kkelleher@ucdavis.edu Tue Nov  8 09:57:59 EST 1994
Article: 4390 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: kkelleher@ucdavis.edu (Kristen Kelleher)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Animals in Ag Systems: Hogs
Date: 8 Nov 1994 01:21:31 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 24
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199411080007.QAA25441@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Joel Gruver:

In response to your question about integrating animals into agricultural
systems, specifically hogs, the Western region USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education program, SARE, supported a research project by Kent
Fleming of the University of Hawaii at Manoa on hog farming integrated with
market gardening and orchard production.  The climate was obviously
tropical. Contact Dr. Fleming for specific information about his research. 
His phone number is (808) 322-9136.

If you have any additional questions, or would like more information about
Western SARE-funded research and education projects, please feel free to
contact me.

Sincerely,

Kristen Kelleher
Public Information, Western U.S.
USDA SARE/ACE
c/o University of California
(916) 752-5987
kkelleher@ucdavis.edu




From d.richardson@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU Wed Nov  2 21:25:50 EST 1994
Article: 4286 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: d.richardson@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU (Dick Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: hogs in composting
Date: 2 Nov 1994 17:36:41 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 27
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199411021610.KAA15330@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Joel, you asked about

>Specifically, I am now looking for information concerning the use of hogs in
>composting systems. I would appreciate any information concerning
>alternative integrations of animals into ag. systems.

Have you made contact with Joel Salatin near Staunton, Virginia?  He's not
on the Internet, but has written a series of six articles in the The
Stockman Grassfarmer, beginning in September 1993.  Their phone is
601-981-4805.  In addition, Joel Salatin's address can be obtained from The
Stockman Grassfarmer.

In a nutshell, he's had the hogs doing essentially all the work turning the
compost while they grew and got fat.  He's got a win-win combination,
unless you ask the pig in the end.  He also uses chickens in portable pens
for pasture maintenance, and has people traveling over 100 miles to buy
meat and produce from him at the farm.



=========================================================================
R. H. (Dick) Richardson               *    (512) 471-4128  (w)
Zoology Department                    *    (512) 471-9651  (FAX)
University of Texas                   *    (512) 476-5131  (h)
Austin, TX  78712                     *    d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu




From jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu Wed Nov  2 21:29:12 EST 1994
Article: 4285 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu (Joel B Gruver)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: (none)
Date: 2 Nov 1994 14:14:35 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 8
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411020736.A12472-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I am investigating alternative uses of 
animals in agricultural systems. For example, weeder geese, grazing 
management of covercrops, fly control...
Specifically, I am now looking for information concerning the use of hogs in 
composting systems. I would appreciate any information concerning 
alternative integrations of animals into ag. systems.
Joel Gruver (413) 582-5348
jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu


From jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Wed Nov  2 21:29:39 EST 1994
Article: 4299 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Meade)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: 3 Nov 1994 01:54:13 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 19
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411021832.D157504-0100000@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411020736.A12472-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Joel,

Joel Salatin has some good ideas on using hogs in composting systems.  
Are you familiar with his work?

He feeds his cattle at a hay bunker, and buries some grain in the 
bedding.  When the bedding is several feet thick, he turns in hogs who 
root and turn the bedding thoroughly to get at the grain.

You received a reference to Salatin in another post, so I won't repeat 
his address here.

Good luck.


Jim - Farmer - Iowa City, IA, 
jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu




From pivotmac@aol.com Mon Nov 28 15:17:44 EST 1994
Article: 2263 of sci.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: pivotmac@aol.com (PivotMac)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Land application of waste
Date: 27 Nov 1994 23:05:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 7
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3bbku3$im3@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <37e968$rtl@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <37e968$rtl@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>, aplante@uoguelph.ca (Alain
F Plante) writes:

We have done some work with food processors and the application of waste
products through center pivot irrigation systems. Drop me a note and give
me an idea of what your project covers and I will see if I can put you in
contact with some more clever than I.


From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth Fri Apr 15 23:27:55 EDT 1994
Article: 29743 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth
From: snorth@acs.ucalgary.ca (Sheldon North)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Diatomacious Earth
Message-ID: <Apr12.054723.13066@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:47:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <9404111709.PN14247@LL.MIT.EDU>
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 23

Mike Killoran (killoran@ll.mit.edu) wrote:


: I read somewhere that it is just crushed shells of some ancient 
: crustacean but I'm not sure about this.  If it is just crushed

Yes, just the endoskeltons of diatoms.  It is primarily silicon
dioxide (aka glass, sand) and was also used to stabilize
nitroglycerine (Nobel dynamite).

: shells, I would think it would be OK to dump it in the compost
: pile or sprinkle it around in the woods.  I'd rather not have
: it hauled away to a landfill if it is benign enough for the 
: backyard.


I would expect that it would be great for soil/compost because it
has a lot of surface area and thus should help drainage and
gas-exchange.  I doubt it would help nutrient holding capacity,
but it isn't likely to hurt it either.


Sheldon


From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth Fri Apr 15 23:27:55 EDT 1994
Article: 29743 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth
From: snorth@acs.ucalgary.ca (Sheldon North)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Diatomacious Earth
Message-ID: <Apr12.054723.13066@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:47:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <9404111709.PN14247@LL.MIT.EDU>
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 23

Mike Killoran (killoran@ll.mit.edu) wrote:


: I read somewhere that it is just crushed shells of some ancient 
: crustacean but I'm not sure about this.  If it is just crushed

Yes, just the endoskeltons of diatoms.  It is primarily silicon
dioxide (aka glass, sand) and was also used to stabilize
nitroglycerine (Nobel dynamite).

: shells, I would think it would be OK to dump it in the compost
: pile or sprinkle it around in the woods.  I'd rather not have
: it hauled away to a landfill if it is benign enough for the 
: backyard.


I would expect that it would be great for soil/compost because it
has a lot of surface area and thus should help drainage and
gas-exchange.  I doubt it would help nutrient holding capacity,
but it isn't likely to hurt it either.


Sheldon


From jenab@sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int Wed Nov  9 00:00:36 EST 1994
Article: 47251 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!nntp.sita.int!sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int!jenab
From: jenab@sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int (Jena B)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Vermicomposting
Date: 3 Nov 1994 19:34:25 GMT
Organization: SITA
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <39be01$mt6@ash.es.atl.sita.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunshine.es.atl.sita.int
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]

Hello all,
I was the lucky MG chosen to become the 'worm expert' in the Atlanta area.
I have already printed two post from a week or two ago, and have even
started a little 'worm box'.  Now, I would really appreciate any help,
comments, funny stories, success stories, etc. that any of you would be
willing to share with me.  I will have to compile all information into
a pamplet for the extension service, and will give credit where credit
is due.  I am also scheduled to speak at our Gwinnett County Master
Gardners meeting in March '95.  And some schools have expressed an interest
in having me come and speak about vermicomposting, and perhaps getting
the children started on their own project.  (won't their parents love
that!)

Thanks in advance!  Post it here, or e-mail me and I will keep everyone
up to date on the progress.

--
Jena Buttimer
jenab@es.atl.sita.int


From esact@selway.umt.edu Sun Nov 27 22:03:51 EST 1994
Article: 4624 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: esact@selway.umt.edu (Tony Tweedale)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: wood chip-digesting fungi and ground nuts
Date: 28 Nov 1994 01:56:53 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 12
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.941127182952.16311A-100000@selway.umt.edu>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411271828.B20889-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

the usfs wood science lab in madison, wi (1 gifford pinchot drive) puts 
out a lot of papers on fungal degradation (applications include paper 
pulping, wood protection and toxics degrafation). the stars seem to be the
white rot family, tho the brown rot family is also studied.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
tony tweedale            |TEMPERATE BUT ENDANGERED PLANET.
recycle missoula, inc.   |ENJOYS WEATHER, NORTHERN LIGHTS,
224 e. pine st (2)       |CONTINENTAL DRIFT. SEEKS CARING
missoula mt 59802-4541   |RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLIGENT LIFE
tel.: 406-542-1709       |FORM. (Friends of the Earth)
internet: esact@selway.umt.edu



From kluson@chuma.cas.usf.edu Wed Dec  7 00:01:53 EST 1994
Article: 4718 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: kluson@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Robert Kluson BIO)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: wood chip-digesting fungi and ground nuts
Date: 6 Dec 1994 16:10:05 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 66
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941206095050.8071A-100000@chuma>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411271828.B20889-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Greetings, Joel.  Sorry for the delay in sharing my information on your 
request below.  Nevertheless, I think that you would be very interested 
in the following references:

 1) Solbraa, K., M.D. Sant, A.R. Selmer-Olsen, and H.R. Gislerod.  1983.  
Composting soft and hardwood barks.  BioCycle, Vol. July/August:44-48,59.

 2) Hoitink, H.A.J., E.B. Nelson, and D.T. Gordon.  1982.  Composted bark 
controls soil pathogens of plants.  Ohio Report 67(1):7-10.

 3) Wood Products for Fertilizer.  1945.  Bulletine No. 7, NE Wood 
Utilization Council, New Haven, Conn.

 4) Composting section of the Appropriate Technology Microfiche Library, 
Volunteers in Asia, Stanford, CA, 1-800-648-8043.  Their information 
describes some very interesting successes in East Africa with applying 
sawdust to field soils as a fertilizer!  I too had questions of possible 
nitrogen immobilization but I suppose their successess can partially be 
explained by research such as the following:

 5) Hill, N.M, and D.G. Patriquin.  1990.  Evidence for the involvement 
of Azospirillum brasilense and Helicomyces roseus in the aerobic 
nitrogen-fixing/celluloytic system from sugarcane litter.  Soil Biol. 
Biochem. 22(3):313-319.

Joel, I noticed that someone did suggest using the references from Paul 
Staments for specific fungal inoculants, and I agree wholeheartedly on 
that.  He probably is one of our most kowledgeable resources persons on
this subject.  If you are interested too in more ideas about results from 
microbial screening trials on woody substrates, check out the following 
reference:

 6) Kirk, T.K., T. Higuchi, H.M. Chang (eds.).  1980.  Lignin 
Biodegradation: Microbiology, Chemistry and Potential Applications.  CRC 
Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Good luck on your trials.  I too feel that wood-based compost is an 
under-utilized resource.  I would be very interested in hearing about 
your experiences.  Later...

 On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, 
Joel B Gruver wrote:

> I have 2 info requests. 
> First, I have access to large volumes of roughly 
> chipped hardwood limbs with a small amount of foliage and coniferous 
> limbs mixed in. (These materials were chipped by a road maintenance crew.)
> Black cherry is probably the dominant hardwood constituent.
> I am looking for a method of accelerating the decomposition of  
> these materials so that I can use them as a soil amendment. I am 
> wondering if there is a species of fungi that I can innoculate or 
> encourage to accelerate the break down of such high lignin materials. 
> Where can I find good information on the biochemistry of fungal digestion of 
> high ligno-cellulosic materials ? Is there an edible species of mushroom 
> that I can culture on this material ?
> 
> Where can I find information on the cultivation of the wild edible 
> plant (Apios americana, common name: ground nut) ? Who is researching the 
> economic potential of this plant ? Where can I obtain seeds, cuttings... of 
> groundnuts selected for desirable traits ?
> 
> Joel Gruver
> Hampshire College Farm Center
> (413) 582-5348
> jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu
> 


From rossk@ext.missouri.eduWed Jun 12 15:26:24 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 15:42:46 cdt
From: rossk@ext.missouri.edu
To: x1dlewis@exnet.iastate.edu, a.harris@mirinz.org.nz, flowers@rt66.com,
    gina-fernandez@ncsu.edu, sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: alternative fumigants

          I have attached all the articles I received both over sanet
          and the small fruit mail group along with my original
          message so that all who are interested may learn as much
          about this subject as I did.

          My sincere thanks to everyone.

          Karen Ross
          Dallas Co., MO
          Extension Assistant/Water Quality
          rossk@ext.missouri.edu

          Dear Friends,
     
          I recently attended one of the research stations field days 
          on Strawberries.  There seemed to be a great dependence on 
          chemical fumigants to control weeds, and kill every other 
          living creature.  It was mentioned that there is a variety 
          of mustard being used as a fumigant.  I am interested in 
          finding out what variety it is.
     
          It was also suggested that there is a fairly good cropping 
          rotation in use in the New York area to control diseases and 
          pests.  I would also be interested in this information.
     
          Thanks in advance.
     
          Karen Ross
          Extension Assistant/Water Quality
          rossk@ext.missouri.edu
          P.O. Box 1070
          Buffalo, MO 65622


Karen, 

All of the brassicas and crucifers and radishes have some 
fumitoxic effect when used as a green manure because they 
contain isothiocyanates/glucosinolates which contain sulfur.  

However, some of the crops that are used more specifically 
include: 
   rapeseed
      'Humus' is the variety bred for high-glucosinolates 
       for use as a fumitoxic green manure.  Bred at Idaho
       State University. 
   oilseed radish (Raphanus sp.) is big in Canada/Europe
   mustards used as cover crops 
   
When solarization with clear plastic is used in combination
with a fumitoxic brassica, the effect is pronounced; this 
is limited to a high-value crop (such as strawberries) 
as a matter of practicality though. 

All of this stuff is much better in the context of a 
whole-farm approach that emphasizes biological processes 
such as crop rotation, composting, 
green manuring, microbial inoculants, etc. rather than
a single practice (crucifer solution) within a largely 
chemically-dependent farming system.

Take care, 
steve diver
steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
Several researchers presented results of using cole crops, particularly 
broccoli, as a soil fumigant at teh 1995 Annual International REserach 
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives And Emissions Reductions in San 
Dieo, Calif.

For California strawberry production, see: F. V. Sances (Pacific Ag 
Research, Arroyo Grande, CA), and E.L. Ingham (Oregon State University, 
Corvallis, Oregon).

For verticillium wilt control: Chang-Lin Xiao, Judith Hubbard, et al, 
Dept. Plant Pathology,U California- Davis.

If you cannot find their addresses elsewhere, you may want to contact the 
conference coordinator: Margie Killacky, 3425 N. First #101; Fresno, CA  
93726; tel 209-244-4710.

Suzanne Cady,
Extension Agent
Hillsborough County Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
SWCA@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

 We in New Hampshire are looking at the annual hill production 
system for strawberries and have relied on Chandler as our primary 
cultivar to date.  In addition, about 100 strawberry growers in the state 
rely on standard short-day cultivars such as Allstar, etc.  Methyl 
bromide use is unusual simply because there are no commercial applicators 
to do the job (2 growers do have their own equipment).  Most growers have 
a 5 or 6 year rotation scheme that includes a year of Sudan grass as part 
of the rotation to reduce nematode pressure.

 For our annual hill system, we do fumigate under the plastic 
mulch but not in the aisles.

      Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Lord  (wgl@christa.unh.edu)  
Extension Specialist, Fruits and NH State Liaison, IR-4 and NAPIAP
Department of Plant Biology
137 Spaulding Hall, 38 College Road  Fax:   (603) 862-4757
Univ of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824  Phone: (603) 862-3203
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
I believe the mustard you are talking about is a rape (canola).  It 
is used to reduce the nematode population.  Other pathogens that 
fumigation kills may not be affected by only using the canola.  I 
know that Dr. John Halbrendt at Penn State University Fruit Research 
and Extension Center, PO Box 309, Biglerville, Pa 17307 has done a 
lot of work with canola as a cover crop and green manure crop.
However, I'm pretty sure Dr. Halbrendt has not done any work with 
strawberry.  Especially as to annual production.
agaus@coop.ext.colostate.edu
or
agaus@lamar.colostate.edu

Al Gaus
Colorado State Univ.
Rogers Mesa Research Center
3060 HWY 92
Hotchkiss, CO 81419
Phone: (970) 872-3387
fax: (970) 872-3397

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I was at the methyl bromide alternatives conference, and if my memory is 
correct, the problem with brassicas like mustard as a soil fumigant is that 
they are phytotoxic to strawberries. 

But for many other crops, mustards make good soil fumigants, particularly 
when combined with solarization. The plastic tarp used in solarization 
holds in the toxic gases that arise from the decomposition of the mustards 
[and other cole crop residues, including cabbage], providing quicker and 
better results than without tarping.

The key with strawberries is some R&D to find out the cause of toxicity, 
and then find a plant variety that can be used as an alternative fumigant 
for the crop. But this line of research is, to the best of my knowledge, 
not being pursued.

By the way, there is a 10-page article titled "Brassica Alternatives to 
Herbicides and Soil Fumigants," with a page of references on the subject, 
in the July 1993 IPM Practitioner [BIRC, Berkeley, CA, 510/524-2567; last I 
checked they were selling back issues for $5, if you're really interested 
in the subject]. I thought then, and still think now, that the concept of 
grouping fumigant green manure/cover crops is a good one. The major 
limitation is that when dealing with home-grown botanical products, there 
will be variations in levels of the toxicants in the plants and efficacy 
due to climate, soil, growing conditions etc. Also, these plant chemicals 
are not always benign -- remember the famous mustard gas of World War I was 
a product of these same brassicas.

Joel Grossman
disclaimer: I wrote the brassica article for the IPMP referred to above.
0003216125@mcimail.com
Hi Karen,
I recently attended the USDA_ARS weed control field tour in Prosser,
Washington. The rapeseed variety Jupiter and the brown mustard variety
Green Wave both appeared fairly effective in controling weeds after
incorporation. Hope this helps.

Joe Bennett
joeb@cfarm.com
This is in response to Karen's question about brassicas as a soil fumigant.
Last year I set up an experiment in a commercial pea field here in SW
Washington to investigate the pest control potential of several crops
planted as overwintering covercrops.  I will say right off that my
experiment was washed down the river in 3 successive floods this spring.
Oh well - the trials and tribulations of on-farm research.  But what I did
learn was some of the literature on the subject.

Excuse the ad nausium message.  Just thought others might be interested in
the topic.  I am always collecting information for future reference and
would appreciate hearing from others who are researching or following this
topic.  This is an experiment which I hope to repeat in the near future.
Soil fumigants are expensive and in some cases being phased out.  I think
we need to seriously investigate alternatives.

Managment of the cover crop is critical to the success of pest control.
Winter cover crops are fall planted and plowed down in the spring.  Fall
planting should be timed so that the cover crop puts on enough growth
before winter, but not so much growth that flowering occurs before plow
down.  Not only is excess vegetative growth difficult to plow down, but
also, the seed can become a weed.

Winter hardy plants are likely to be the most effective for pest control
because it is the decomposition of green plant material which gives these
plants their pesticidal properties.  Correct me if I am wrong, anybody, but
I do not think that a dead plant when plowed down will produce the same
chemicals as decaying green tissue.  I have not seen any tests of this,
just my opinion.

Planting of the successive crop should not occur within 2 weeks of plow
down - otherwise the crop will likely suffer the same fate as the pests.
The mode of action of these cover crops does not appear to be very
discriminatory.  They likely affect beneficial organisms as well as
pathological ones.  I do not know if any research has measured this, but it
is my understanding.

To enhance the action of the pesticidal crop, tarping is suggested - this
will prevent the active chemicals from being volatilized.

Weed control - small seeded weeds are the most likely to be controled due
to some penetration factor.  I am sure this is related to seed coat and
uptake, but I do not have any results to quote.

Current research includes:

2 references from SARE/ACE report:

1.  1992.  Rapeseed planted as a green manure in potatoes for control of
root-knot nematode.  Control was up to 80%, yields were boosted 10-50%, and
weed biomass was reduced up to 50% - compared to standard pesticide plots,
I believe (not clearly stated in abstract). Project coordinator is Jeffrey
Stark, U. of Idaho, 208-397-4181.

2.  1992.  European fodder radish as alternative to aldicarb (soil
fumigant) in sugarbeets for cyst nematode control.  Infestation reduced
57%, yields boosted by 5 tons/A (30% greater than aldicarb-treated plots).
Radish acts as a trap crop.  Project Coordinator is David Koch, U of
Wyoming, 307-766-3242.

1994.  Weed control with green manures and cover crops - white mustard,
rapeseed, annual rye, and sudangrass - in green pea, potato and mint.
Kassim Al-Khatib, WSU Mt Vernon Research Station, 360-424-6121.  I do not
know if any results have been published yet.

Some papers:
Suppression of root-knot nematode populations with selected rapeseed
cultivars as green manure.  H. Mojtahedi, et al.  1991.  J of Nematology
23(2):170-174.

Managing M. chitwoodi (Columbia root-know nematode) on potato with rapeseed
as green manure.  H. Mojtahedi, et al.  1993. The American
Phytopathological Soc. 77(1):42-46.

Cover crops for root lesion nematode (P. penetrans) suppression.  1994(?),
Oregon Hort Society, Diane Kaufman & Russ Ingham, OSU.


    Carol A. Miles, Ph.D.
    Washington State University
    Extension Agricultural Systems
    360 NW North Street
    Chehalis, WA   98532
    PHONE 360-740-1295   FAX 360-740-2792
    milesc@wsu.edu


<Winter hardy plants are likely to be the most effective for pest control
<because it is the decomposition of green plant material which gives these
<plants their pesticidal properties.  Correct me if I am wrong, anybody, but
<I do not think that a dead plant when plowed down will produce the same
<chemicals as decaying green tissue.  I have not seen any tests of this,
<just my opinion.

If you looked at the plant pathology literature, you would find that
dried plant residues are just as effective. Indeed, dried cabbage 
residues are excellent, and could be collected and moved to fields
where needed. The refs for this are in the IPM Practitioner article
mentioned in a previous post [which I sent once, but which the sanet-mg
server seems to be sending out endlessly, ad nausem].

Joel Grossman
0003216125@mcimail.com
Karen,

RE your inquiry about a mustard crop alternative for methyl bromide 
use, you might want to contact Dr. John Halbrendt at Penn. State's 
Bigglerville Research Center.  He has been working on that option for 
several years.  My recollection is that he has had good results with  a 
cv. named  "Humus".  The procedure was to grow the mustard and plow 
it under while soil moisture levels were sufficient to facilitate 
conversion of the naturally occuring  glucosinilate (?) in the 
mustard crop to methyl isothiocyanate (the active ingredient in the 
no longer available fumigant, Vorlex).  Anyway, John would be the 
person to contact for details.  Good luck.

Harold Larsen
Colo. St. Univ. - Orchard Mesa Research Center, Grand Junction, CO
 
Harold Larsen                   ph:   970-434-3264
Colo. St. Univ                  FAX:  970-434-1035
Orchard Mesa Research Center    EMail:  OMRC@coop.ext.colostate.edu
3168  B .5  Road
Grand Junction, CO  81503-9621
Some of the most extensive testing I know of was done by Jim Stapleton
out of the University of California.  I don't recall whether he looked at
strawberries, but he tested the effect of a number of cover crops
(mustard etc) in a factorial experiment with solarization.  I don't have
Jim's address right now, but he is in the Amer. Phytopath. Soc.  as well
as U. C., I believe.  

(Daniel Cooley)
dcooley@pltpath.umass.edu 
Check w/ Marvin Pritts <mpp3@cornell.edu> at Cornell regarding the crop
rotation for strawaberries. He used it w/ matted row system, northern
adapted varietes. If you get any useful information on alternatives to
methyl bromide could you please pass this information on to me?

Thanks

*********************************
Gina Fernandez
North Carolina State University
207 Research Station Rd.
Plymouth, NC 27962

Email:Gina_Fernandez@ncsu.edu
Tel: 919-793-4428
Fax: 919-793-5142
********************************

       Karen Ross

while this may be true we have had some problems with mustards such as
rapinni which seems to be a collector of insects of all types which is great
as long as that is not your crop i would be interested in seeing other
results for the mustards especially for fumigation .how wouldyou use the
mustards for this ?


Martin Connaughton
Wilderness Flowers
Flowers@rt66.com
Rt 19 Box 111-D
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 988 3096


This letter was printed the other day in the Watsonville
Register-Pajaronian.  It was written in response to several venomous
letters from the strawberry industry assailing a local teacher for teaching
about pesticides (methyl bromide) and getting her kids to write letters to
the paper.
Feel free to use it in your endeavors.
Kert


***************************

June 1, 1996

Register- Pajaronian
The Editor
P.O. Box 50055
Watsonville, CA 95077

To the editor,

        I am writing to deliver some factual evidence to the debate on
Watsonville school children being educated about the hazards of pesticides.
Not only do the children of Watsonville have the right to learn the truth
about the health impacts of pesticide use in their communities, it is only
through such education that they can begin to protect themselves from harm
should they take jobs in the agricultural sector or live near farmland.
The truth is, the Watsonville area, according to data submitted to the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation by farmers themselves, has
some of the most intensive use of pesticides in the entire state and indeed
the nation.

        A new study published jointly by the University of California and
the state found that strawberries, a major Watsonville area crop, are by
far the most intense users of pesticides in California at 234 pounds of
pesticides per acre of berries.  That equals almost 150,000 pounds per
square mile, to put it in more tangible terms.  While the vast majority of
this total pesticide use is made up of the soil fumigants methyl bromide
and chloropicrin, over thirty different synthetic pesticides were used by
the strawberry farmers of Santa Cruz County last year.  This same study
found that the use of pesticides has increased in recent years and that
state wide, pesticide use amounts to six pounds per capita.  In Santa Cruz
County pesticide use totaled 1.5 million pounds in 1993, the last year for
which complete data are available.  Pesticide use in Monterey County
totaled 8.2 million pounds that same year.

        County records show that in 1995 growers used almost 633,000 pounds
of methyl bromide on 1,865 acres of Santa Cruz county farmland.  Strawberry
fields accounted for at least 80 percent of this use (506,000 pounds).  In
1992, the strawberry crop was the target of 61percent of all the pesticides
applied county wide ( including 98 percent of the Captan used (a Prop 65
listed carcinogen) and 79 percent of the Benomyl used (a Prop 65 listed
reproductive toxin).  It is not an exaggeration to say that your area is
one of very heavy pesticide use, even for California.

        However, even more important than the heavy use of pesticides is
the high potential for human illness from offsite drift of these
pesticides.  Breathing methyl bromide for example is serious health threat.
Methyl bromide is a highly toxic gas and it never stays where it is put.
According to the latest studies, anywhere from 30-60 percent gets into the
air depending on the application method and weather, despite the plastic
tarping placed on top.  Methyl bromide goes right through plastic.  It
doesn't take a plastic glue failure, a strong wind or kids ripping off the
plastic for there to be methyl bromide in the air around strawberry fields.
Applications of methyl bromide to California strawberry fields average
around 200 pounds per acre.  That means 60 to 120 pounds vaporizes into the
surrounding breathing space from each acre of strawberries.

        The Department of Pesticide Regulation and the farmers know this.
But instead of monitoring how much methyl bromide is in the air, they use
computer models to guess where the methyl bromide will go after it leaves
the field and use this information to establish a "buffer zone" around
fields where methyl bromide is used.  It is dangerous to enter this buffer
zone after a methyl bromide application.  The DPR's methods of computer
modeling have been questioned by experts in the field of risk assessment.
As reported last February in the Los Angeles Times, the DPR is using an old
version of the computer model and using weak meteorological data averaged
statewide, instead of local weather data that gives a better picture of
where the methyl bromide will drift.

        The scientist who developed these computer models while working for
the state (now a private consultant on air pollution) compared the DPR
buffer zones to more realistic buffer zones using an updated computer model
and local, up-to-date weather data.  He found that in Salinas for example,
DPR buffer zones should be 4 to 10 times larger than currently mandated for
various field sizes and pesticide application rates.  A DPR buffer zone of
40 feet should be 510 feet, A DPR buffer zone of 140 yards should be more
than a quarter mile.  This raises serious questions about the safety of
people living, working and going to school close to methyl bromide treated
fields.
       In testimony before the California Assembly in February,  Dr.
William Pease, a toxicologist at UC Berkeley and the Environmental Defense
Fund, illuminated the health effects of methyl bromide as a nerve toxin, a
reproductive and developmental toxin, and went on to show that the state
has not established methyl bromide air pollution standards to protect
humans from chronic exposure to methyl bromide.  Nobody is monitoring how
much is in the air and the methyl bromide levels that are legally allowed
in the air are derived from studies on rats and rabbits, even though
primates, including humans, have been shown to be more sensitive.  The one
study that attempted to measure the chronic effects of low level exposure
ended with six dead beagles after just a few days.  It was determined by
the researchers that "the cumulative effect for methyl bromide induced
neurotoxicity made it difficult to estimate an exposure level which the
dogs could tolerate for a 28-day or 1 year exposure study."

        Methyl bromide is being used near people.  Subdivisions and schools
are increasingly close to agricultural areas in California.  An
Environmental Working Group (EWG) report completed in February found that
Santa Cruz county had three elementary schools and day care centers within
1.5 miles of over 25,000 pounds of methyl bromide use.  Neighboring
Monterey County had 24 schools within the same range and 4 schools within 2
miles of more than 80,000 pounds of annual methyl bromide use.  One of
these, the Ohlone elementary school, is literally surrounded by strawberry
farms, a pastoral but potentially dangerous setting.

        In addition to methyl bromide, strawberry fields get their share of
toxic fungicide and insecticide treatments as well.  A recent record of
pesticide applications during from March and April to a strawberry field in
Castroville reads like a hit list of noxious pesticides.  This one field
was treated with multiple fungicides, insecticides and herbicides during
the two month period: three times with Captan, twice with benomyl
(Benlate), twice with iprodione (Rovral), once with metalaxyl (Ridomil),
five times with Malathion, once with glyphosate (Roundup), twice with
abamectin (agri-mek) and six times with sulfur along with several other
compounds.  Benomyl, captan and iprodione are all classified by the EPA as
carcinogens.  Malathion is a potent nervous system toxin.

        It is hardly surprising that some of the pesticides that go onto
strawberries in the fields remain on the fruit when it gets to the
supermarket. An Environmental Working Group report, "The Shopper's Guide to
Pesticides in Produce", in which we analyzed FDA pesticide residue data, ,
found that when compared to 41 other fresh fruits and vegetables,
strawberries ranked worst for pesticide contamination.  This report is
available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org.

        The facts speak for themselves and should not be obscured by those
condemning the Watsonville teacher for using the classroom to convey
"political" beliefs.  There is nothing political about the right-to know.
And one more thing, it is worth noting that Teresa Thorne, who penned a
recent sharply worded letter to the Pajaronian assailing the teacher and
public schools generally as havens for misinformation, failed to mention
that she is an employee of the California Strawberry Commission.

        It is not surprising that the strawberry industry was the first to
condemn the discussion of pesticides in Watsonville schools.  Knowledge is
a powerful thing.

Sincerely,

Kert Davies
Environmental Working Group
Washington, DC


*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>**<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<
>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*
Kert Davies  ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C.  20009
e-mail:  kert@ewg.org
EWG web page:  http://www.ewg.org
202-667-6982  fax 202-232-2592
Any opinions expressed are mine and not my employer's.
*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>**<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<
>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*




From woody@cfarm.comWed Jun 12 15:30:21 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:12:18 -0700
From: "DERYCKX, WOODY" <woody@cfarm.com>
To: 'sanet-mg' <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>,
    'Joel Grossman' <0003216125@mcimail.com>
Subject: RE: Mustards as fumigants

I personally agree with you about the value of brassicas as alternatives
to soil fumigants but would like to remind us all that green manures in
general have the value of generally feeding the bottom of the soil -
detrital food chain which must promote an increase in soil respiration,
competition, antibiosis, and at some point, biodiversity.  Most any
green manure crop when turned under green and young is, therefore, apt
to have a beneficial effect on the disease problem potential situation
on following crops.  When we select soil fumigant act alike green
manures such as the brassicas and sudan grass,  we get the double effect
of direct initial mortality to most anything in the soil including the
disease causitive organisms we are concerned about plus apparently some
species of small seeded weeds followed by a great energy rich food
source for recolonizing saprophytes and food wed they support.  
Otherwise they would be of limited ecological value - just home grown
cheep fumigants.

I still believe that we are missing the boat by talking about
"alternatives to Methyl Bromide".  The fact is that Methyl Bromide  IS 
the alternative;  the alternative to good husbandry and soil health. And
thanks for your excellent article in IPM Practitioner,  it informed and
inspired a lot of people. 
>----------
>From: 	Joel Grossman[SMTP:0003216125@mcimail.com]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, June 05, 1996 9:52 AM
>To: 	sanet-mg
>Subject: 	Mustards as fumigants
>
>I was at the methyl bromide alternatives conference, and if my memory
>is 
>correct, the problem with brassicas like mustard as a soil fumigant is
>that 
>they are phytotoxic to strawberries. 
>
>But for many other crops, mustards make good soil fumigants,
>particularly 
>when combined with solarization. The plastic tarp used in solarization 
>holds in the toxic gases that arise from the decomposition of the
>mustards 
>[and other cole crop residues, including cabbage], providing quicker
>and 
>better results than without tarping.
>
>The key with strawberries is some R&D to find out the cause of
>toxicity, 
>and then find a plant variety that can be used as an alternative
>fumigant 
>for the crop. But this line of research is, to the best of my
>knowledge, 
>not being pursued.
>
>By the way, there is a 10-page article titled "Brassica Alternatives to
>
>Herbicides and Soil Fumigants," with a page of references on the
>subject, 
>in the July 1993 IPM Practitioner [BIRC, Berkeley, CA, 510/524-2567;
>last I 
>checked they were selling back issues for $5, if you're really
>interested 
>in the subject]. I thought then, and still think now, that the concept
>of 
>grouping fumigant green manure/cover crops is a good one. The major 
>limitation is that when dealing with home-grown botanical products,
>there 
>will be variations in levels of the toxicants in the plants and
>efficacy 
>due to climate, soil, growing conditions etc. Also, these plant
>chemicals 
>are not always benign -- remember the famous mustard gas of World War I
>was 
>a product of these same brassicas.
>
>Joel Grossman
>disclaimer: I wrote the brassica article for the IPMP referred to
>above.
>
>

From 0003216125@mcimail.comWed Jun 12 15:38:02 1996
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 19:04 EST
From: Joel Grossman <0003216125@mcimail.com>
To: sanet-mg <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Mustards & Cabbage Dry Residues as Fumigants

<Winter hardy plants are likely to be the most effective for pest control
<because it is the decomposition of green plant material which gives these
<plants their pesticidal properties.  Correct me if I am wrong, anybody, but
<I do not think that a dead plant when plowed down will produce the same
<chemicals as decaying green tissue.  I have not seen any tests of this,
<just my opinion.

If you looked at the plant pathology literature, you would find that
dried plant residues are just as effective. Indeed, dried cabbage 
residues are excellent, and could be collected and moved to fields
where needed. The refs for this are in the IPM Practitioner article
mentioned in a previous post [which I sent once, but which the sanet-mg
server seems to be sending out endlessly, ad nausem].

Joel Grossman

From milesc@wsu.eduWed Jun 12 15:39:54 1996
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 22:56:46 -0800
From: "Carol A. Miles" <milesc@wsu.edu>
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, rossk@ext.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: mustard as a fumigant

This is in response to Karen's question about brassicas as a soil fumigant.
Last year I set up an experiment in a commercial pea field here in SW
Washington to investigate the pest control potential of several crops
planted as overwintering covercrops.  I will say right off that my
experiment was washed down the river in 3 successive floods this spring.
Oh well - the trials and tribulations of on-farm research.  But what I did
learn was some of the literature on the subject.

Excuse the ad nausium message.  Just thought others might be interested in
the topic.  I am always collecting information for future reference and
would appreciate hearing from others who are researching or following this
topic.  This is an experiment which I hope to repeat in the near future.
Soil fumigants are expensive and in some cases being phased out.  I think
we need to seriously investigate alternatives.

Managment of the cover crop is critical to the success of pest control.
Winter cover crops are fall planted and plowed down in the spring.  Fall
planting should be timed so that the cover crop puts on enough growth
before winter, but not so much growth that flowering occurs before plow
down.  Not only is excess vegetative growth difficult to plow down, but
also, the seed can become a weed.

Winter hardy plants are likely to be the most effective for pest control
because it is the decomposition of green plant material which gives these
plants their pesticidal properties.  Correct me if I am wrong, anybody, but
I do not think that a dead plant when plowed down will produce the same
chemicals as decaying green tissue.  I have not seen any tests of this,
just my opinion.

Planting of the successive crop should not occur within 2 weeks of plow
down - otherwise the crop will likely suffer the same fate as the pests.
The mode of action of these cover crops does not appear to be very
discriminatory.  They likely affect beneficial organisms as well as
pathological ones.  I do not know if any research has measured this, but it
is my understanding.

To enhance the action of the pesticidal crop, tarping is suggested - this
will prevent the active chemicals from being volatilized.

Weed control - small seeded weeds are the most likely to be controled due
to some penetration factor.  I am sure this is related to seed coat and
uptake, but I do not have any results to quote.

Current research includes:

2 references from SARE/ACE report:

1.  1992.  Rapeseed planted as a green manure in potatoes for control of
root-knot nematode.  Control was up to 80%, yields were boosted 10-50%, and
weed biomass was reduced up to 50% - compared to standard pesticide plots,
I believe (not clearly stated in abstract). Project coordinator is Jeffrey
Stark, U. of Idaho, 208-397-4181.

2.  1992.  European fodder radish as alternative to aldicarb (soil
fumigant) in sugarbeets for cyst nematode control.  Infestation reduced
57%, yields boosted by 5 tons/A (30% greater than aldicarb-treated plots).
Radish acts as a trap crop.  Project Coordinator is David Koch, U of
Wyoming, 307-766-3242.

1994.  Weed control with green manures and cover crops - white mustard,
rapeseed, annual rye, and sudangrass - in green pea, potato and mint.
Kassim Al-Khatib, WSU Mt Vernon Research Station, 360-424-6121.  I do not
know if any results have been published yet.

Some papers:
Suppression of root-knot nematode populations with selected rapeseed
cultivars as green manure.  H. Mojtahedi, et al.  1991.  J of Nematology
23(2):170-174.

Managing M. chitwoodi (Columbia root-know nematode) on potato with rapeseed
as green manure.  H. Mojtahedi, et al.  1993. The American
Phytopathological Soc. 77(1):42-46.

Cover crops for root lesion nematode (P. penetrans) suppression.  1994(?),
Oregon Hort Society, Diane Kaufman & Russ Ingham, OSU.



>          Dear Friends,
>
>          I recently attended one of the research stations field days
>          on Strawberries.  There seemed to be a great dependence on
>          chemical fumigants to control weeds, and kill every other
>          living creature.  It was mentioned that there is a variety
>          of mustard being used as a fumigant.  I am interested in
>          finding out what variety it is.
>
>          It was also suggested that there is a fairly good cropping
>          rotation in use in the New York area to control diseases and
>          pests.  I would also be interested in this information.
>
>          Thanks in advance.
>
>          Karen Ross
>          Extension Assistant/Water Quality
>          rossk@ext.missouri.edu
>          P.O. Box 1070
>          Buffalo, MO 65622

    Carol A. Miles, Ph.D.
    Washington State University
    Extension Agricultural Systems
    360 NW North Street
    Chehalis, WA   98532
    PHONE 360-740-1295   FAX 360-740-2792
    milesc@wsu.edu


From 0003216125@mcimail.comWed Jun 12 15:43:52 1996
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 11:52 EST
From: Joel Grossman <0003216125@mcimail.com>
To: sanet-mg <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Mustards as fumigants

I was at the methyl bromide alternatives conference, and if my memory is 
correct, the problem with brassicas like mustard as a soil fumigant is that 
they are phytotoxic to strawberries. 

But for many other crops, mustards make good soil fumigants, particularly 
when combined with solarization. The plastic tarp used in solarization 
holds in the toxic gases that arise from the decomposition of the mustards 
[and other cole crop residues, including cabbage], providing quicker and 
better results than without tarping.

The key with strawberries is some R&D to find out the cause of toxicity, 
and then find a plant variety that can be used as an alternative fumigant 
for the crop. But this line of research is, to the best of my knowledge, 
not being pursued.

By the way, there is a 10-page article titled "Brassica Alternatives to 
Herbicides and Soil Fumigants," with a page of references on the subject, 
in the July 1993 IPM Practitioner [BIRC, Berkeley, CA, 510/524-2567; last I 
checked they were selling back issues for $5, if you're really interested 
in the subject]. I thought then, and still think now, that the concept of 
grouping fumigant green manure/cover crops is a good one. The major 
limitation is that when dealing with home-grown botanical products, there 
will be variations in levels of the toxicants in the plants and efficacy 
due to climate, soil, growing conditions etc. Also, these plant chemicals 
are not always benign -- remember the famous mustard gas of World War I was 
a product of these same brassicas.

Joel Grossman
disclaimer: I wrote the brassica article for the IPMP referred to above.

From SWCA@gnv.ifas.ufl.eduWed Jun 12 15:46:03 1996
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 10:25:30 -0500 (EST)
From: SWCA@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
To: rossk@ext.missouri.edu
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: mustard as a fumigant

Several researchers presented results of using cole crops, particularly 
broccoli, as a soil fumigant at teh 1995 Annual International REserach 
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives And Emissions Reductions in San 
Dieo, Calif.

For California strawberry production, see: F. V. Sances (Pacific Ag 
Research, Arroyo Grande, CA), and E.L. Ingham (Oregon State University, 
Corvallis, Oregon).

For verticillium wilt control: Chang-Lin Xiao, Judith Hubbard, et al, 
Dept. Plant Pathology,U California- Davis.

If you cannot find their addresses elsewhere, you may want to contact the 
conference coordinator: Margie Killacky, 3425 N. First #101; Fresno, CA  
93726; tel 209-244-4710.

Suzanne Cady,
Extension Agent
Hillsborough County Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
From agrimet@infi.net Tue Dec 27 23:02:32 EST 1994
Article: 2539 of sci.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.infi.net!larry!agrimet
From: agrimet@infi.net (Fred Rossi)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: CHICKEN MANURE --> CATTLE FEED
Date: 27 Dec 1994 15:29:48 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3dpbtc$7um@lucy.infi.net>
References: <3daq7f$4v7@lucy.infi.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: larry.infi.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Chris Stone (cstone@infi.net) wrote:
: I am looking for any information (resources, textbooks) that might
: explain how to process chicken waste into fertilizer or a cattle feed
: supplement.  I am specifically looking for the process and want to gain
: a general understanding.  I am an engineer, not industrial or chemical, 

If the waste is from layers and you have lots of water available
you could use a washing system to clean the waste twice a week.
The waste then could be used for methane production and then spread
as ferilizer. The advantage of this method is that the N is retained 
rapidly by bacteria and therefore it is not lost to ammonia emission
to the air, and that the nutrients are in the organic state and less
soluble in the soil.
For solid waste we are trying a bacteria product which is spread once
a week in the chicken house (in water) with the same objective as 
above. In winter NH3 reduction is extra important because ventilation
is kept minimal for economical reasons. We suspect, but have not had
time to test that the resulting waste has more value as a feedstuff.
Mecanically, in the solid state you just pile up the manure once a
year and then spread it in the field at a variable rate, depending
on the soil analysis.
For further information concerning poultry you could subscribe to
the poultry email group by sending a message saying 
SIGNON PLTRYNWS to LISTSERV@SDSUVM.BITNET

(SIGNOFF to unsuscribe)

Sincerely,

A. Fred Rossi, PhD
Agrimetrics Associates
----------------------
* agrimet@infi.net * voice (804)748-8176 * Fax (804)796-9615 *


From dclark@wellspring.us.dg.com Tue Apr 18 13:18:07 EDT 1995
Article: 64433 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!dg-rtp!webo!wellspring.us.dg.com!dclark
From: dclark@wellspring.us.dg.com (Dave Clark)
Subject: Re: Compost, Yarrow Helps?
Sender: usenet@us.dg.com (Usenet Administration)
Message-ID: <dclark.297.00110FBA@wellspring.us.dg.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:03:34
Lines: 22
References: <1995Apr9.103510.3081@hartwick.edu> <1737DBE23S86.LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Organization: Data General Corp.  Westboro, MA
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 22

In article <1737DBE23S86.LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:

>I started some Yarrow seeds this weekend.  Planning to add this
>to our small herb garden after reading how beautiful it would be
>in bloom.  I'm not familiar with Yarrow, but my wife read of grand
>things it leaves could do in out compost.  One leaf can take on
>a wheelbarrow of material?  Based on that review I planted more seeds
>and can't wait for true growth.
> 
>Can this be true?  Yarrow a compost helper?
> 
I don't know about Yarrow, but I've been told that Comfry is one of the best 
things you can put into a compost pile and that if you grow it for no other 
reason it is worth it.
Comfry tea however is a carcinogen.
--------------------
Dave Clark - Data General Corp. Westboro, MA
dclark@wellspring.us.dg.com

Opinions expressed are my own.  Any resemblance to other opinions
living or dead are purely coincidental.
--------------------


From iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk Fri Apr  7 22:31:07 EDT 1995
Article: 5987 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!maui.cc.odu.edu!kuroshio.ccpo.odu.edu!xanth.cs.odu.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!inet!iaotb
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Wood ash as a soil amendments
Followup-To: alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Date: 3 Apr 1995 23:12:40 GMT
Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <3lpvd8$aag@news.uni-c.dk>
References: <D5yz91.6Gx@cruzio.com> <D64LKC.Mzt@news.hawaii.edu> <3larki$1njk@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <3lf68q$k4p@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <3lisfb$2knn@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: inet.uni-c.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bigblue.oit.unc.edu alt.sustainable.agriculture:5987 sci.agriculture:3936

jdstewa@ibm.net wrote:
: In <3lf68q$k4p@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, eqn7918@is2.nyu.edu (Eiko  Naito) writes:
: >: I'm looking for info on the use of bio-ash as a soil amendment, mainly
: >While wood ash is useful in raising pH for your compost, exercise 
: >moderation.  

: Exactly, how acidic is compost?  Does the PH vary with the starting material
: and stage of decomposition?

: I have been using sulfur to lower the PH on sand knolls and it is way too expensive!

I surmise from your question, that you consider to use compost as a way 
to lower the pH on your sand knolls. 

Good composted material should be only weakly acidic, but it sure 
has an effect by raising the buffer capacity in soil. 
While composting, the aerobic degradation of organic material tends to 
produce weak organic acids. This can bring the composting process on the 
wrong track, and undesirably changes the transformation in the pile. Adding 
wood ash in sprinkle amounts when building the pile can control this -  
but surely moderation is required when adding wood ash. To much will do 
harm to the process also. If you don't have wood ash, some amount of good 
quality soil would have to be added to the pile to control the acids 
produced by the composting process.

Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

: TIA,
: John Stewart

--
;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';
; Torsten Brinch               If you understand nothing but chemistry, ;
; iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk          you do not really understand chemistry.  ;
; 6640, Ferup, Denmark                   G.C. Lichtenberg  (1742-1799)  ;
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;



Article 17834 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: samba.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!mindlink!a8427
From: Barry_Carlson@mindlink.bc.ca (Barry Carlson)
Subject: Using grass treated with chemicals as a mulch
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 03:39:35 GMT
Message-ID: <24805@mindlink.bc.ca>
Sender: news@deep.rsoft.bc.ca (Usenet News at rsoft.bc.ca)
Lines: 38

Regarding grass treated with chemicals, David Rudolph:
rudolph@sparc20.hri.com writes:

>I recently read that grass which has been treated with a broadleaf >weed
herbicide should not be used as mulch in a vegetable garden. >While this
makes sense, the author didn't specify how long after >using chemicals it
might be safe to use the grass. I have already >mulched my strawberries with
grass that I treated with Scotts Halt >about 1 year ago.

>Does anyone know how long these chemicals remain in the grass, and
>whether a year is long enough to make the grass safe?

I was just re-reading a copy of Organic Gardening Magazine (January 1993
issue) where this exact topic was discussed in their "Solutions" section
(Page 25). The answer they gave was as follows: "...Unfortunately, there are
no easy answers.  According to the University; of Illinois Center for Solid
waste Management Research, some common herbicides can stay active for a full
year.  "Once these herbicides are introduced into your garden, some could be
taken up by plants.  So, yes-theoretically, you may get traces of these
toxins in the food you grow," says Joe Pignatello, Ph.D., a scientist who
studies pesticide breakdown at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station.
Scientific research on how pesticides and herbicides break down in the
compost pile is just beginning, but the consensus is that some of these
substances may survive the composting process.  Whether they do or not
depends on just which pesticide or herbicide was used; different chemicals
break down at different rates.  And the conditions within the compost pile
(heat, moisture, pH, etc.) also affect the rate at which any introduced
toxins will disappear.
With all these variables, there's just no way for the average backyard
gardener to tell when (or if) compost ingredients that started out tainted
become safe for organic food growing.  So, the answer for the truly organic
is no-just don't do it.  Don't use herbicide or pesticide treated plant
material as mulch or add it  to your compost pile..."

Hope this helps.
-Moira Carlson



From pmadden@igc.apc.orgWed Mar 13 12:06:39 1996
Date: 12 MAR 1996 18:47:59 -0000 
From: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: effects of compost? 

Are there any good scientific studies on the disease
suppressiveness of soils treated with compost?  I have seen only a
few, and wonder if much more literature is out there.

Clearly not all compost is "created equal."  Studies on this
subject would have to take account of the many properties of the
compost, when and how it is applied, to what kind of soil, for
what kinds of crops, in what climate and growing conditions etc.
etc.  The studies I have seen so far have been encouraging, but
not comprehensive.

With more and more urban "green waste" going into compost, there
will be a major expansion in supply.  Demand will be strongly
influenced by user perceptions of the impacts, including disease
repressiveness, soil tilth, water holding capacity, etc. and both
short-term and long-term effects on yields.  Clear thinking and
solid data are needed to head off wrong expectations, and to
provide growers with factual basis for informed choice.  WSAA
would like to help disseminate the results of good studies in this
important area.

Thanks.

Patrick Madden, World Sustainable Agriculture Association

March 12, 1996


From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduWed Mar 13 12:08:31 1996
Date: 12 MAR 1996 23:53:36 -0000 
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: effects of compost? 

> Are there any good scientific studies on the disease
> suppressiveness of soils treated with compost?  I have seen only a
> few, and wonder if much more literature is out there.
>
> Patrick Madden, World Sustainable Agriculture Association

Disease-suppressive composts are instrumental in the
rhizosphere.  Compost teas are instrumental in the
phyllosphere.  That is why foliar applications of compost
teas coupled with land applications of compost are emerging
as the basis of many biological farms, along with all the
other components such as crop rotation, green manures and 
cover crops, rock minerals, microbial inoculants, etc. 

One large farm in California applied 200 gallons of 
compost tea made from Luebke compost as a foliar drench to
celery at a cost of $0.10 per gallon.  The tea wets the
foliage of the transplant and runs down the stem and
inoculates the soil too.  They packed out 100 extra boxes of 
celery per acres.    

Many of the microbial products on the market are the same 
ones found in composts, so the scientific basis of this
decades-old approach has now being verified through research
and commercialization of green products.  These include
microbial antagonists like Trichoderma, Gliocladium, etc. 

Harry Hoitink at Ohio State University has pioneered much of
the research into disease-suppressive potting mixes, as you 
may well know.  An author index search on the AGRICOLA database 
will turn up many citations.  More recently, his lab has
shown that a cucumber plant whose roots are in touch with 
disease-suppressive compost is systemically resistant to 
infection; i.e., the aerial portion of the plant resists 
infection, not just the root system.  Fascinating! 

Elaine Ingham's (Oregon State Univ.) research on microbial 
communities in soils supports the whole humus management/microbial 
activity approach to biological farming.  Likewise, an author index 
search on AGRICOLA will turn up a long list of articles. 

Siegfied Luebke's work with Controlled Microbial Composting
fits nicely with both Hoitink's and Ingham's research. 
Little is published on the Luebke method, it is taught in 
seminars and through practitioners.  However, there is one
thesis that was published in The Netherlands.  Anyways, 
the level of practical and scientific knowledge the Luebkes have
contributed to the making of quality compost and microbial manipulation 
of the rhizosphere and the clay-humus complex is quite amazing.  

Related to the Luebkes, Bob Pike of Pike Lab Supplies in 
Strong, Maine, has a microscope setup valued over $40,000
similar to that which Siegfied uses in his lab.  I don't 
think there is any more need for data once you can see for 
yourself under a light microscope the beautiful humus-crumb 
structure and activity of microbes when soils and composts are 
managed properly.  This certainly relates to natural disease
control, and to the use of a new research tool that supports
treatments and practices implemented on-farm and on-station.  

The biodynamic composters, including Ehrenfried Pfeiffer and
William Brinton are other folks that have contributed to
this field.  Plus, all the farmers across the 
organic-sustainable spectrum who have plenty to offer through 
years of demonstrated results on the farm.  
 
The IPM Practitioner ran a feature that summarizes much of
the knowledge associated with disease-suppressive mixes in 
the August 1995 issue, an article titled "Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide in Nurseries - Disease Suppressive Media", 
pages 1-13.  This is an excellent review article, as usual 
from the Bio-Integral Resource Center, the publisher of IPM 
Practitioner. 

I put together a slide show on this whole topic last year
and found the following citations to be helpful in my 
research.  

Steve Diver
ATTRA - Sustainable Farming Information 


General Articles: 

Lumsden, Robert D. et al.  1983.  Effect of organic amendments on
soilborne plant diseases and pathogen antagonists.  p. 51-70.  In:
Lockeretz, William (ed.)  Environmentally Sound Agriculture
(Selected Papers from the Fourth International Conference of
IFOAM).  Praeger Press, New York, NY. 

Trankner, Andreas.  1992.  Use of agricultural and municipal
organic wastes to develop suppressiveness to plant pathogens.  p.
35-42.  In:  E.C. Tjamos, G.C. Papavizas, and R.J. Cook (ed.) 
Biological Control of Plant Diseases:  Progress and Challenges for
the Future.  NATO ASI Series No. 230.  Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Weltzein, H.C.  1990.  The use of composted materials for leaf
disease suppression in field crops.  p. 115-120.  In:  Crop
Protection in Organic and Low-Input Agriculture.  BCPC Monographs
No. 45, British Crop Protection Council, Farham, Surrey, England.


Articles on Compost Watery Extracts:

Anon.  1990.  Plant protection using compost extracts. 
International Ag-Sieve.  Vol. 3, No. 4.  p. 1-2.

Andrews, J.H., and R.F. Harris.  1995.  Compost extracts and the
biological control of foliar plant disease.  CRIS Abstract. 
Current Research Information System database in Internet URL: 
          http://wais.wais.com/scripts/waisgate

Brinton, William F.  1995.  The control of plant pathogenic fungi
by use of compost teas.  Biodynamics.  January-February.  p. 12-
15.

Elad, Y., and D. Shtienberg.  1994.  Effect of compost water
extracts on grey mould (Botrytis cinerea).  Crop Protection.  Vol.
13, No. 2.  p. 109-114.

Kai, Hideaki, Tohru Ueda, and Masahiro Sakaguchi.  1990. 
Antimicrobial activity of bark-compost extracts.  Soil Biol.
Biochem.  Vol. 22, No. 7.  p.  983-986. 

Mache, Rainer.  1990.  Protecting crops with a compost soup.  The
Furrow.  November-December.  p. 18.

Peavy, William S.  1993.  Liquid eco-fertilizer:  Using 'extract
of compost' on garden crops.  Ohio Ecological Food & Farm
Association News.  Winter 1993.  p. 10. 

Weltzein, H.C., et al.  1986.  Control of Downy Mildew, Plasmopara
viticola (de Bary) Berlese et de Toni, on grapevine leaves through
water extracts from composted organic wastes.  Journal of
Phytopathology.  Vol. 116.  p. 186-188. 

Weltzein, Heinrich C.  1988.  The effects of compost extracts on
plant health.  p. 551-552.  In: Patricia Allen and Debra Van Dusen
(ed.)  Global Perspectives on Agroecology and Sustainable
Agricultural Systems (Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference of IFOAM).  Agroecology Program, University of
California-Santa Cruz.

Weltzein, Heinrich C.  1989.  Some effects of composted  organic
materials on plant health.  Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment.  Vol. 27.  p. 439-446. 

Weltzein, H.C., et al.  1989.  Improved plant health through
application of composted organic material and compost extracts. 
p. 377-379.  In:  A. Djigma et al (ed).  Agricultural Alternatives
and Nutritional Self-Sufficiency.  Proceedings of the IFOAM
Seventh International Scientific Conference, Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso.   

Weltzein, Heinrich C.  1991.  Biocontrol of foliar fungal diseases
with compost extracts.  p. 430-450.  In:  John H. Andrews and
Susan S. Hirano (ed.)  Microbial Ecology of Leaves.  Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY. 


Articles on Disease-Suppressive Composts:

AARC.  circa 1995.  Compost Doubles as Pesticide.  U.S.D.A. -
Alternative Agricultural Research & Commercialization Center. 
1 p. Information sheet on Earthgro potting mix research. 

Williams, Greg, and Pat Williams (eds.) 1994.  Disease-suppressive 
growing mixes.  HortIdeas. January.  Vol. 11, No. 1.  p. 5.

BioCycle Staff.  1991.  Tree bark compost for plant protection. 
p. 158-160.  In: The Biocycle Guide to The Art & Science of
Composting.  BioCycle: Journal of Waste Recycling.  The JG Press,
Inc., Emmaus, PA. 

Gindrat, D.  1979.  Biological soil disinfection.  p. 253-287. 
In: D. Mulder (ed.)  Soil Disinfection.  Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co., New York, NY. 

Hadar, Yitzhak, Raphael Mandelbaum, and Barbara Gorodecki.  1992. 
Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens by suprressive
composts.  p. 79-83.  In:  E.C. Tjamos, G.C. Papavizas, and R.J.
Cook (ed.)  Biological Control of Plant Diseases:  Progress and
Challenges for the Future.  NATO ASI Series No. 230.  Plenum
Press, New York, NY. 

Hoitink, Harry A.J.  1980.  Fungicidal properties of composted
bark.  Compost Science/Land Utilization.  November-December.  p.
24-27.

Hoitink, Harry A., and Peter C. Fahy.  1986.  Basis for the
control of soilborne plant pathogens with composts.  Annual
Reviews of Phytopathology.  Vol. 24.  p. 93-114. 

Hoitink, H.A.J., Y. Inbar, and M.J. Boehm.  1991.  Status of
compost-amended potting mixes naturally suppressive to soilborne
diseases of floricultural crops.  Plant Disease.  September.  p.
869-873. 

Hoitink, H.A.J., Y. Inbar, and M.J. Boehm.  1993.  Compost can
suppress soil-borne diseases in container media.  American
Nurseryman.  September 15.  p. 91-94.

Martinson, Charlie A.  1995.  Control of soil-borne pathogens with
strategic use of animal manures.  Competitive Grant Report 90-65. 
Progress Report of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture,
Iowa State University.  Volume 4.  p. 92-96.


Articles on Control of Plant Pathogens & Inocula through
Composting: 

Lopez-Real, J., and M. Foster.  1985.  Plant pathogen survival
during the composting of agricultural organic wastes.  p. 291-299. 
In:  J.K.R. Glasser (ed.)  Composting of Agricultural and Other
Wastes.  Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, New York, NY.  

Yuen, G.Y., and R.D. Raabe.  1984.  Effects of small-scale aerobic
composting on survival of some fungal plant pathogens.  Plant
Disease.  Vol. 68, No. 2.  p. 134-136.


Articles on Induced Resistance to Plant Pathogens:

Kuc, Joseph, and Norman E. Strobel.  1992.  Induced resistance
using pathogens and nonpathogens.  p. 295-301.  In: E.S. Tjamos,
G.C. Papavizas, and R.J. Cook (ed.)  Biological Control of Plant
Diseases: Progress and Challenges for the Future.  NATO ASI Series
No. 230.  Plenum Press, New York, NY.  




From pmadden@igc.apc.orgWed Mar 13 12:08:54 1996
Date: 13 MAR 1996 00:27:01 -0000 
From: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: effects of compost? -Reply 

Thanks, Grace, for your prompt and helpful response.  I will
follow up on it.

Patrick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov  Tue Mar 12 10:44:04 1996
 > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:44:00 -0500
 > From: "Grace J Gershuny" <Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov>
 > Subject: effects of compost? -Reply
 > To: pmadden@igc.apc.org
 > X400-Mts-Identifier: [ /P=GOV+USDA.T/A=ATTMAIL/C=US/ ;
 3145C650.CDD8.01E2.000 ]
 >
 > Hi Pat--The person to contact about this is Will Brinton of
 Woods End
 > Laboratory. phone: 207-293-2457, fax: 207-293-2488.  He's done
 great
 > work on developing compost assays of various kinds &
 customizing
 > composts for use in disease suppression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From werner@zzyx.ucsc.eduWed Mar 13 12:13:03 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:35:18 -0800
From: Matthew Werner <werner@zzyx.ucsc.edu>
To: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>, sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: effects of compost?

L. Hoitink at Ohio State has written extensively on the subject. Marc
BUchanan and Richard Smith have a paper in press reporting disease
suppressive effects of municipal compost used in an onion field. I am sure a
library search could yield quite a bit more.

At 06:23 AM 3/12/96 -0800, Patrick Madden wrote:
>Are there any good scientific studies on the disease
>suppressiveness of soils treated with compost?  I have seen only a
>few, and wonder if much more literature is out there.
>
>Clearly not all compost is "created equal."  Studies on this
>subject would have to take account of the many properties of the
>compost, when and how it is applied, to what kind of soil, for
>what kinds of crops, in what climate and growing conditions etc.
>etc.  The studies I have seen so far have been encouraging, but
>not comprehensive.
>
>With more and more urban "green waste" going into compost, there
>will be a major expansion in supply.  Demand will be strongly
>influenced by user perceptions of the impacts, including disease
>repressiveness, soil tilth, water holding capacity, etc. and both
>short-term and long-term effects on yields.  Clear thinking and
>solid data are needed to head off wrong expectations, and to
>provide growers with factual basis for informed choice.  WSAA
>would like to help disseminate the results of good studies in this
>important area.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Patrick Madden, World Sustainable Agriculture Association
>
>March 12, 1996
>
>



Matthew Werner
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
1156 High Street
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
408/459-4661
408/459-2799 fax
werner@zzyx.ucsc.edu
From pmadden@igc.apc.orgSun Jun 16 06:55:24 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>
To: monalisa@albany.net
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: effects of compost?

TO: Monalisa From Patrick Madden

Point well taken, and well established in the literature.  Can't
ignore the pre-composting inputs.

A Japanese group I work with uses a grading system that includes
germination testing of the copmost.  Samples of compost are placed
in petri dishes in a growth chamber with radish seeds, to
determine if the compost inhibits germination.  Some "compost" is
toxic, and will kill the seeds.  They also do many other tests.
The group of MOA Nature Farming.  If interested I can snail mail
you some info on it.

Sorry for the long delay in replying.

Incidentally, I received Harry Hoitink's book, Science and
Engineering of Compost, which is a seminal work in this area.
Available from Renaissance Publications, 7819 Barkwood Drive,
Worthinington, Ohio, 43085.

I also received many other suggestions and lists of sources..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From monalisa@albany.net  Sat Mar 16 17:42:12 1996
 > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 20:43:23 -0500
 > From: Lisa Lehman-Gordon <monalisa@albany.net>
 > Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
 > To: Patrick Madden <pmadden@igc.apc.org>
 > Subject: Re: effects of compost?
 > References: <199603121423.GAA03119@igc2.igc.apc.org>
 >
 > Saw your posting while browsing through the alt.ag newsgroup,
 and
 > wanted to share these thoughts regarding compost composition.
 The
 > characteristics of compost will be greatly affected by the
 material
 > being composted.  In my area, various composting operations are
 > contending with the implications of the composting feedstocks
 they are
 > using;  for example, a local commercial site receives some food
 waste
 > and a lot of paper mill sludge and has to search for bulking
 agents to
 > blend in.  There are also interesting discussions going on
 regarding
 > the feasibility of adding gypsum salvaged from gypsum wallboard
 > recovery (paper removed first) and other less-than-common
 items.  As
 > you attempt to characterize the charateristics of compost, I
 implore
 > you to include the pre-composting inputs in your consideration.
 Users
 > of compost will need this information in order for your
 analysis of
 > characteristics to be truly useful.
 >
 > Wouldn't it be great if we could come up with some sort of
 grading
 > system for compost that an end user could refer to when
 planning their
 > compost use?  Factors such as inclusion of paper mill sludge
 and
 > gypsum could be considered;  so could the possible presence of
 plastic
 > contaminants from food waste composting, etc.  Other inputs,
 such as
 > manure, leaves, pine needles, lumber scraps, etc, no doubt have
 their
 > own effects on compost characteristics, which could be
 considered.
 >
 > Perhaps it exists, but I'd love to see a simple table that
 matches
 > compost type (based on degree of composting and inputs to the
 > composting process) to soil type and end use (crop to be grown,
 > whether corn or oats or golf course grass).
 >
 > Perhaps we could classify composted material in a universal
 grading
 > system, e.g.:
 > Type 4 compost is from yard waste 75% or greater and pulp mill
 waste
 > 20% or greater and is great for melons, corn and residential
 lawns.
 > Bad for herbaceous perennials and wheat. (Obviously, a made-up
 > example.)
 >
 > So, what you guys doin' up there, anyways?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org Mon Dec 19 00:38:43 EST 1994
Article: 4863 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!winternet.com!news2.mr.net!mr.net!bardeen.physics.csbsju.edu!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
X-Apparently-to: LARRY LONDON
Subject: Tropics: Cassava and Wast
From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Message-ID: <36.1023.1470@granite.mn.org>
References: <65c_9412140600@psybbs.durham.nc.us>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:32:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372
Lines: 46


Discussing: Tropics: Cassava and Waste ON 12/08/94
Replied To: Saturday, December 17, 1994 02:01


L> I am currently working on an assignment that involves a proposed
L> tropical sustainable system for cassava.  I am finding a lack of
L> background information

L> 3. Are there any safe systems for the composting of human waste for
L> use as cropping mulch?  If so, how long does it take at a location
L> with 85c daily averages year round?

There are literally dozens of composting technologies available, each 
having merit depending on feedstock, regulations, cost, etc. The one 
critical standard when working with human "waste" (I assume that you mean 
wastewater treatment facility biosolids) is achieving pathogen 
destruction. The two accepted standards are:

1. windrow composting for at least 15 days where the temperature reaches 
at least 55C (131F) once per day with periodic turning (typically five 
turnings)

2. In-vessel composting such that the temperature reaches at least 55C 
continuously for a minimum of 72 hours.


There are other stability standards, as well as concerns about heavy 
metals and other contaminants, not to mention several other aesthetic or 
market driven issues.

I have worked as a composting operator and consultant since 1975 and 
design cost effective custom composting facilities.


Jim~ McNelly

jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org


 * RM 1.3 02460 * COMPOSTING: Because a rind is a terrible thing to waste.

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------


From natloo@ozemail.com.auFri Jun 30 11:48:18 1995
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 14:18:00 +1000
From: KEITH NIELSEN <natloo@ozemail.com.au>
To: permaculture-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Nature-Loo : Composting Toilet Info

If you want to know more about composting toilets. You can find the Nature-Loo 
site on the web at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~natloo

This site has detailed information on Composting toilets, how they work, 
technical details on the micro biological activity, advantages over traditional 
water systems like sewage and septics and drawings and photos etc.

It also offers a detailed DIY kit if any enthusiast wants to build their own.

Permacultually yours,

Keith





From adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au Wed Oct 26 10:56:55 EDT 1994
Article: 1245 of alt.architecture.alternative
Newsgroups: alt.architecture.alternative
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news.duke.edu!eff!news.umbc.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!sserve!ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!adm
From: adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
Subject: Re: Alternative to Septic Systems
Message-ID: <1994Oct24.040914.22524@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
Sender: news@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
References: <3896ph$mt7@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 04:09:14 GMT
Lines: 16

The Australian Army have successfully trialed a composting
system utilising worms to break down waste matter. The system
is self-regulating, the worms reproduce or become dormant
depending on the amount of waste material available for
consumption. During peak load conditions (about 1000 people
using the facilities) air is forced through the worm bed to
maintain aerobic conditions but under light loads (<20 users)
natural convection is sufficient. The system is installed at
a camp inside a Training Area which has a high conservation
value, and the method was chosen for it's minimal effect
on the environment. Feedback from the users of the system
was all positive.

(Information remembered from a radio interview)

David Moss.


From d.richardson@mail.utexas.eduWed Mar 22 22:28:39 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 19:55:11 -0600
From: Dick Richardson <d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural

Thomas Hansmeyer poses the question we all need to ask, namely:

> [snip] ... I guess I am asking if the Luebkes
>needed to import Carbon from other sources?  Which gets into further debate
>as to whether enough carbon exists within the current system to allow all
>of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy levels, 5% or so.

Composting is fine, and avoids lots of problems that have regulations tied
to them, but actually, it's even better if the composting occurs in the
soil.  Lots of benefits are lost in having the composting first as a
"treatment" of the organic materials in order then to produce a soil
amendment.  The microbes in the compost pile are also needed in the soil.

Another case in point is with the use of urban sewage.  We call it "waste"
and much is sent to the landfill.  If we called it a "resource" we'd be
working on improving the quality, and thereby reduce some of the
potentially harmful components of organic and inorganic types.  Even the
legally required anaerobic digestion could be avoided if society was
properly aligned with the needs of recycling the carbon, as Thomas
Hansmeyer mentioned in his post, where the carbon is food supplied to the
microbes and other "soil" organisms like dung beetles.  As it stands, some
sewage (or treated, "biosolids") is fine for land application, before or
after composting, and other sources are fine in certain soils -- as for
example, alkaline soils when there are somewhat more heavy metal components
in the sewage (or biosolids) than one would use in an acid soil.  However,
there is a strong engineering perspective (bias) in the treatment and use
of such resources, and there are ecologically sound alternative
perspectives we need to begin using.

I have not done the calculations on how it all adds up, but as a matter of
principle, there needs to be a complete cycle of organics (and inorganics
also) leaving the land where food is produced and its return from the areas
where it is used in foodstuffs (whether eaten first, or discarded uneaten),
building materials, clothes, or whatever.  That is, it is not a negative
feature to bring materials "back" to the land from "outside".  It's all one
system, and should include the urban part along with the rural part.

On another "curiosity info" note, there is a rumbling in our current
Legislature that one should not label compost as a "fertilizer" or a "plant
nutrient", but as a soil conditioner/additive.  This is from the commercial
fertilizer interests, who don't acknowledge that the NPK of commercial
fertilizer does little good (or should be) for feeding the microbes, which
in turn feed the higher plants AND condition the soil.  If we reacted as
strongly against some commercial fertilizers with regard to "heavy metals"
(including "trace minerals") as we do when they are in the sewage, we'd
likely be banning the "fertilizer" to the landfills and bagging the sewage!
;-)

Cheers,



R. H. (Dick) Richardson                 Office: 512-471-4128
Zoology Dept.                           Home:   512-476-5131
Univ. of Texas                          FAX:    512-471-9651
Austin, TX 78712


From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAThu Mar 23 10:32:49 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:57:06 EDT
From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural

Responding to Dick R. on the issue of composting.  Just curious about 
the comment that it is better if composting occurs in the soil.  Just 
finished an M.Sc. student doing a study on composting and we didn't 
come across this idea in the lit.  I'd be interested in learning what 
it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil -
 as against ahead of time.  Evidence from the literature?  
Conventional organic wisdom hereabouts sees placement of raw manure 
directly into the soil as a net negative, because of a) rapid release 
of N which destabilizes cycling, b) VFA's which can be caustic, and 
c) potential for anaerobic decomposition when high moisture substrate 
(whether animal manure or direct cut red clover) is plowed into the 
soil.  As an example, they recommend cutting and wilting red clover 
plowdown before plowing it in, to avoid this problem.  

Good points on "waste" management at landfills!  Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX:  519 763-8933
Tue 16 Mar 93  9:02
By: Helen Fleischer
Re: Crab Waste

This was tucked away in a corner of the Washington Post Business
section a little while ago.  I seem to remember some discussion of various
uses of crab waste, so I thought it might be of interest.

NEW EARTH SERVICES INC. of Cambridge , Md., has found a way to turn leftover
shell parts and other waste from Chesapeak e blue crabs into an organic
fertilizer that eliminates the major problem of seafood-based fertilizers-the
odor . The c ompany's president, Pat Condon, 43 , a former Chicago options
trader, said he grew weary of his high-pressure job and d ecided to try
something new. Condon said his fledgling company has found the right blend of
oxygen and wood chips that takes the odor out of thousands of tons of crab
"chum." Before the process is completed, however, there's enough odor t o knock
you down, Condon said. The effort is one of several in which Maryland
entrepreneurs are turning waste into busi ness opportunities with help from
University of Maryland research funds and technical advice. In another case,
Kanan As sociates Inc. of Columbia transforms rubber from old tires into a
component for noise barriers next to highways and air ports. Pedro Albrecht ,
professor of civil engineering at College Park, helped with the project .

 * Origin: Three Mausketeers (1:109/172)
Article 22831 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: [ DAMPING OFF aka DAMP OF
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: samba.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.1266.2552.0N41BD09@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
References: <081303Z19091993@anon.penet.fi>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 19:52:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City BBS 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 33

An32959@Anon.Penet.Fi to All - Sunday, September 19th:
Discussing: [ DAMPING OFF aka DAMP OF


A>Hello!

A>  Can anyone offer any advice on the prevention of DAMPING OFF?
 >  (other than the scrubbing of pans and pots in soapy water, then
 >   soaking them in bleach, and cooking soil for quite a long time)
 >  Is Captan effective, if so what method should be used with it.
 >  Also any other advice and criticism is very welcome!

Dr. Harry Hoitink in Plant Pathology at The Ohio State University branch
of OARDC in Wooster, has documented that the best *prevention* of
damping off, fusarium in particular, is the use in the soil mixture of
fully cured compost.

His research which was first published in 1973 is so well documented
that fusarium suppression is not a means of determining compost
stability. The absence of humus, such as soilless mixtures, or the
presence of immature compost, is the proper environment for fusarium
development.

To prevent fusarium, add up to 30% fully cured compost to the soil
mixture. Guaranteed, no fusarium or damping off.

Jim  Mr Compost~~~ McNelly

Granite Cities BBS 612-654-8372-HST 654-0678 v.32bis

e-mail jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
 * September 19th - Never mind the star... get those camels off my lawn!


   .        ..     compost-making.faq    compost-using.faq                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Article 13815 of rec.gardens:
From: jimm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jim MacDonald)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 20:33:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Worm Compost bin pH adjustment
Message-ID: <9880049@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Path: samba!concert!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!jimm
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
References: <44666@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Lines: 129

Robert,

Welcome to Ft. Fun.  I received this from a co-worker here.  I never
tried it but it sure looks good.

Jim

------------------------------ clip here ------------------------------


>2)  Does anyone have a good and SIMPLE strategy for recycling clippings.
>    Any information, or pointers to resource material would be
>    appreciated.

Try *fast* composting (although you may not find it too easy).  Included
below are some notes I've compiled from various sources:

  * _Easy Composting_, Vic Sussman, Rodale Press.
  * _How to Grow More Vegetables_, John Jeavons, Ten-Speed Press.
  * _The Rodale Guide to Composting_, Rodale Press.


SUMMARY OF FAST COMPOSTING METHOD

  1. Start with a correctly balanced C:N ratio (typical is 4 parts
     plant matter:1 part manure).  (More on C:N ratio below.)

  2. Greater variety of ingredients causes better composting.

  3. Build heap all at one time and keep protected from rain.

  4. Use a bin or enclosure for best results.

  5. Minimum pile size is 3 feet square by 4 feet high.

  6. Materials may be layered (Indore method) or mixed.

  7. "Turn" the pile no less than every 2 or 3 days; not more
     than once a day.

  8.  Break composted materials into smallest possible parts.


THE CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO

  * The target Carbon to Nitrogen ratio (C:N) ranges between 25:1 to 30:1.

  * The correct C:N ratio is important to compost quickly and at high
    temperatures (which kill weed seeds).  Temperatures above 160F are
    not uncommon.

  * Ratios lower than 25:1 can cause excessive ammonia to be produced.

  * Ratios higher than the 30:1 cause lower pasteurizing temperatures,
    resulting in slower composting and less weed seeds killed.


        Table 1: C:N ratios of various organic substances
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Material  		 C:N  Material  		  C:N   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Alfalfa  		13:1  Mature Sweet Clover  	 23:1  
   Alfalfa Hay  	12:1  Oat Straw  		 80:1  
   Cornstalks  		60:1  Paper  			170:1  
   Food Wastes  	15:1  Rotted Horse Manure  	 20:1  
   Fruit Wastes  	35:1  Sawdust  			500:1  
   Grass Clippings  	19:1  Sewage Sludge: Activated    6:1  
   Green Sweet Clover  	16:1  Sewage Sludge: Digested  	 16:1  
   Humus  		10:1  Straw  			 80:1  
   Leaves          80:1-40:1  Sugar Cane Residues  	 50:1  
   Legume-Grass Hay  	25:1  Wood  			700:1  
   ----------------------------------------------------------------


  * When calculating the C:N ratio of your pile, base it on the
    weight of materials.  For example, if you have 100lbs of green
    grass clippings and 200lbs of leaves, your C:N ratio would be
    calculated as:

      100 * 19 + 200 * 60
      -------------------  = 46  => you need more grass clippings
        300 (total lbs)


TURNING SCHEDULE

A reasonable turning schedule:  2nd, 4th, 7th, and 10th days.
Temperatures should be:

  110-120F by 2nd or 3rd day
  130-160F by 4th or 5th day

Pile is finished when temperature does not rise above 110F, usually
around the 10th day if you used a vigorous turning schedule.

(Usually it takes my pile two to three weeks to compost completely.
 I regularly achieve temperatures above 150 degrees F.)

WHEN AND HOW TO APPLY COMPOST

  * Use only finished compost around growing plants; unfinished compost
    is best used in parts of the garden that have already been harvested.

  * Add rough or still-fibrous compost about 1 month before planting.

  * Use compost as a mulch for heat-loving plants (such as tomatoes) only
    after the soil has warmed up in the spring or early summer.

  * Plants that like "cool feet" (e.g., lettuce, cabbage, brocolli) can
    take compost as a mulch earlier.

  * In general, the best times to apply compost are:  fall, winter, and
    early spring.

  * If soil is poor, apply organic material early in fall, working into
    the top 12 to 18 inches; leave soil rough.

  * Spread compost just before tilling in spring.

  * Summer is a good time because soil microbes are quite active.
    This is also a good time to add rock dust, bone meal, and
    greensand.

  * It's good to apply compost before a rain storm.

  * Apply 1/2- to 3-inch layer over growing areas once or twice during the
    growing season.  Unless used as a mulch, work into the top 1 to 4
    inches of soil, but be careful not to damage roots.



From jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org Tue Jan 10 22:53:26 EST 1995
Article: 50545 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!mr.net!bardeen.physics.csbsju.edu!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
X-Apparently-to: DAN HUISJEN
Subject: Organic material names -
From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Message-ID: <36.6586.2599@granite.mn.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 00:37:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372
Lines: 64

DAN HUISJEN TO ALL
Discussing: Organic material names - ON 01/04/95
Replied To: Friday, January 6, 1995 00:00


H> I always liked the term "biomass"  myself.

H> Vague as it is, it seems to describe quite a variety of materials
H> according to
H> their potential use, rather than their source.  

Hi Dan,

Biomass has been one of my favorite words to describe organic matter 
too. However, our department of energy and the Great Lakes Council of 
Governors have published so much material on "biomass utilization" 
which is strictly related to combustion, that the term is now thought 
of as an energy source, to the exclusion of other values.

I noticed once that organic matter sources and forms can be lumped 
generally into four "F" categories, fuel, feed, fiber, and fertilizer.
It is hard, aside from Biomass before it was associated with just 
fuel, to find a word that describes all four uses and categories.

H> When viewing an ecosystem, one can also use the term to encompas
H> all of the material before specifying smaller parts, as in: 52 -
H> 55% of the biomass in an
H> old growth forest is composed of fungi, while only a third of the
H> total biomass is visable above the level of the forest floor.

A good friend of mine, a composting and permaculture expert from 
Sprout Acres in Laguna Beach, CA, Dr. Bill Roley, coined the term 
"humusphere" to describe the soil ecosystem. I like the sound of the 
phrase, as it connotes a respiration cycle or a systems approach to 
the soul, rather than any one humus aspect.

Reminds me of the refrain from Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock"

We are stardust
We are golden
Billion year old carbon
Locked in the Devil's bargain
And we've got to find a way
Back to the garden


To me, that just about sums it all up.

Mr Compost~~~

Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org






 * RM 1.3 02460 * A belief in anything is better than a doubt of everything

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------




  FUNGI AND MYCORRHIZAE

  FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

    Dr. James Traquair


   1. What are fungi and how do they differ from bacteria ?

   2. What is the ecological role of fungi in soil and on plant surfaces
   ?

   3. How do agricultural practices affect the fungi in soil ?

   4. What are mycorrhizae and what is their role in agriculture ?

   5. What is biological control in the context of plant disease
   management ?

   Special Topics

   Key Words

   Selected References

   Other Related WEB Links

    Special Topics:
     * Microbiology of Composting
     * Rhizosphere Microbiology
     * Nutrient Cycling
     * Non-target Effects of Pesticides
     * Allelochemistry
     * Crop Residue Management

   Return to Top of Document


   Return to FAQ Table of Contents

   Return to PMRC HomePage
     _________________________________________________________________


   1. eukaryote, filamentous, yeast, chitinous walls, glucans, conidia,
   spores, sclerotia

   2. saprophyte, parasite, pathogen, biotroph, necrotroph, mildew, root
   rot, damping off ,antibiosis, mutualism, symbiosis, Rhizoctonia
   solani, Cylindrocarpon destructans, Pythium spp., Thielaviopsis
   elegans, nutrient cycling

   3. crop rotation, selection pressure, amendment, enrichment,
   anaerobic, tillage, pesticide residue, drainage,host specificity,
   propagule survival, dispersal

   4. Glomus spp.. Gigaspora spp., vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae,
   endomycorrhizae, ectomycorrhizae, growth promotion, mutualism,
   nutrient absorption, fertility, phosphorus azygospore, chlamydospore,
   disease suppression, drought tolerance,carrier, agarose beads,
   pelletization, peat-based potting medium, obligate symbiont, colonized
   root fragments

   5. rhizosphere, mycorrhizosphere, rhizosphere competence, competitive
   saprophytic ability, actinomycete, antibiotic, toxic fungal
   metabolites, Sporothrix spp., Tilletiopsis spp., hyperparasites,
   antagonists, competition, allelopathy, chelation


    Brief Responses to FAQs:

   1. The Fungi

   Several diverse microorganisms are classified within the broad group
   of protists called the fungi. However, they do share some typical
   features that distinguish them as fungi different from other microbes.
   These distinguishing features are based on the physiology and
   morphology of cells. The fungal cell is distinguished from the
   bacterial cell by its size (generally greater than 1-2 um in diameter)
   and its eukaryotic structure similar to that of plant and animal cells
   (cells having distinct membrane-bound organelles such as nuclei,
   mitochondria). Bacterial cells which lack these organelles are termed
   prokaryotic. Fungal cells divide by mitosis (asexual reproduction) and
   by meiosis (sexual reproduction); bacterial cells divide by binary
   fission.

   Like animals, the fungi are heterotrophic organisms that cannot
   manufacture their own food by photosynthesis as plants and algae can.
   They require oxygen for growth (aerobic) and generally prefer an
   acidic environment (below pH of 7) unlike the bacteria which are
   anaerobic and aerobic and generally grow in basic environments ( at or
   above pH of 7). Fungi utilize preformed organic material from other
   organisms as sources of energy and building blocks for their cellular
   sysnthesis. Soluble nutrients are absorbed from the growth substrate
   following the breakdown of complex polymers by extracellular enzymes
   (proteinases, cellulases, pectinases etc.) secreted by fungal cells.

   The fungi have diverse morphologies especially in spore production
   which is the basis for identification. But, they are commonly
   recognized as the yeasts (single-celled thallus), the molds
   (filamentous thallus called a mycelium consisting of tubular cells in
   long, branched, thread-like structures called hyphae) and the
   mushrooms (macroscopic fungi with considerable differentiation of
   tissues and hyphae in the mushroom, the sporulating portion of the
   thallus, which is fed by a massive underground mycelium). The fungi
   like bacteria, are very susceptible to drying and, therefore, are
   generally found in very most, if not aquatic habitats. They can resist
   desiccation by producing thick, melanized walls which are often seen
   in aerial spores, in hyphal strands, and in sclerotia that enable the
   fungus to survive suboptimal growing conditions in the soil for
   several years. The fungal wall usually consists of layers of chitin, a
   linear polysaccharide polymer of N-acetylglucosamine, embedded in and
   often cove ed by glucans, branched polymers of glucose and other
   sugars. Some species of fungi in the Class Oomycetes such as
   Phytophthora and Pythium have cellulose walls rather than chitin. The
   melanin components consist of branched polymers of phenolic material
   similar to the lignins of plant cell walls.
   Return to Top of Document


   2. Ecological role of the fungi

   The fungi are ubiquitous in nature andconstitute about 85-90 % of a
   typical organic soil biomass. Saprophytic fungi are the decomposers
   and live on dead organic material. They play a major role in the
   re-cycling of nutrients. Decay by fungi is usually considered in a
   negative context as the rotting of wood products and textiles or the
   mold or mildew on paint or bathroom tiles. But, fungal decomposition
   is benefial as can be seen in the thermophilic composting process in
   the backyard or the barnyard. Think of the incredible build-up of
   organic leaf litter in the forest without the saprophytic activity of
   the fungi.

   Fungi as parasites cause serious diseases (pathogenic) to animals,
   plants and other fungi. As obligate or biotrophic parasites such as
   wheat rust, they must obtain nutrients from living cells. They are
   very host specific and do not kill their hosts right away. As
   faculative or necrotrophic parasites they kill the host by toxins
   prior to or at the time of invasion and then continue to live as
   saprophytes on the decaying tissues. Some fungi such as the rusts
   attack weed species and are fine candidates for biological control of
   unwanted plants. Still other fungi attack insect pests and other
   pathogenic fungi in the soil or on plant surfaces. They are important
   sources of biological control for insect problems and plant disease in
   forestry, agricultural and horticultural crops.

   We are well aware of the mutualistc association between fungi and
   algae or fungi and cyanobacteria in the lichen thallus on rocks, trees
   and the forest floor. Fungi can be beneficial also to the growth of
   plants by forming mutualistic symbiotic associations with roots called
   mycorrhizae. There are numerous kinds of mycorrhizal associations.
   Mycorrhizae of different types are ubiquitous on most herbaceous
   plants and tree species in a wide variety of habitats including
   agricultural systems.
   Return to Top of Document


   3. Agricultural impact on fungi

   Because fungi are everywhere, agricultural practices have profound
   effects on their growth, distribution and survival. The impact may be
   positive or negative. The amendment of soil with organic material will
   enhance the activity of decomposer fungi in the soil. Some of these
   fungi may also be antagonistic to fungal pathogens of plants and lead
   to suppression of disease. In any event, the community structure of
   fungi will be changed through this enrichment process. However,
   excessive deep plowing may separate the organic material from the
   fungal decomposers which occur in the top few centimeters of the soil.
   This tillage will lead to a general decline in fungal biomass. The
   addition of pesticides to the soil will also affect the survival of
   selected fungi.

   Specific fungicides used to destroy specific pathogens may also
   destroy close relatives of these fungi that may be beneficial as
   saprophytes. This non-target effect is a particular concern in the use
   of broad-spectrum biocides such as the fumigant, methyl bromide, which
   destroys all biological activity. So, using this fumigant to kill
   plant pathogenic nematodes in greenhouse soil will also kill
   pathogenic fungi and kill the mycorrhizal fungi that are beneficial to
   plants. Use of a specific nematicide on the other hand, will kill
   nematodes but not the mycorrhizal fungi. Non-target effects on fungi
   in the soil are now being identified for herbicides used to kill weeds
   in conservation tillage practices.

   Crop rotation can also influence the distribution of fungi in soil
   because of the known host specificity of certain species of fungi.
   Rotation of susceptible and non-susceptible crops is a
   well-established means of managing disease in crop plants. This
   technique fails, however, for the control of fungi that produce
   sclerotial structures or spores that survive for long periods in the
   soil as portentially infective propagules. Moisture manipulation
   through irrigation and drainage, or compaction of the soil can affect
   the activity of fungi. Poor drainage can encourage the growth of
   soil-borne water molds that cause root rot of some crops. Similarly,
   dense plantings create humid environments that encourage the growth of
   foliar fungi that cause leaf disease and mildews.


   4. Mycorrhizae and their significance

   Mycorrhizae are mutualistc associations between plant roots and fungi.
   These beneficial symbioses are ubiquitous in nature and almost all
   plant species have some form of mycorrhizal association with fungi.
   Herbaceous and tree species, both deciduous and coniferous, are
   receptive to infection by mycorrhizal fungi. A few crop plants in the
   cabbage family (Brassicae) and goose-foot families (Chenopodiaceae)
   are less likely to be mycorrhizal except in very stressful
   environments low in soil fertility.

   The types of mycorrhizal fungi and the associations they form with
   roots are varied. These associations are classified as endotrophic
   (fungus inside roots) or ectotrophic (fungus outside the root forming
   a sheath of mycelium over the root surface). Still other associations
   in some forest trees are ectendotrophic or combinations of these
   types. Other forms exist such as the unique mycorrhizal association
   with Rhizoctonia-like fungi inside the roots of orchids.

   The endomycorrhizal fungi generally associated with the roots of
   agricultural crops are in the Class Zygomycetes to which the common
   black bread mold belongs. However, these fungi are obligate symbionts
   and cannot be cultivated outside the living roots of plants. Their
   colonization is internal to the root and cannot be seen without
   staining and microscopy. The common genera are Glomus and Gigaspora
   producing large, distinctive azygospores that can be wet sieved from
   the soil. These spore germinate in the presence on plant roots and
   infect the outer cortical cells. However, the cell is not killed and
   although the plant cell wall is penetrated the cell membrane is not
   disrupted. The endomycorrhizal fungus produces a highly branched
   hyphal structure called an arbuscule within the plant cell by
   invaginating its cell membrane. This infection creates an absorptive
   structure with a very high surface area of transfer for nutrients
   between the plant and the fungus.

   The plant usually has few root hairs in this area and the fungus
   provides the intimate contact with the soil through fine extraradical
   hyphae which extend several millimeters beyond the root. This
   extensive hyphal network enhances absorption of water and nutrients,
   particularly phosphorus, and promotes growth of the plant. In exchange
   for the phosphorus which is transferred to the plant, the fungus
   obtains sugars and other organics vital to its growth and
   reproduction. These exchanges have been verified by various
   histochemical studies and the use of nutrients labelled with
   radioisotopes. As the association begins to senesce, the fungus
   produces vesiculate storage bodies on and within the root cells and
   produces the distinctive asexual spores. Sexual reproduction has
   rarely been observed for these fungi.

   The ectomycorrhizal fungi are in the Class Basidiomycetes and Class
   Ascomycetes, the fungi that we usually identify as wild mushrooms in
   various forest environments. Genera such as Russula, Lactarius,
   Laccaria, Amanita, Boletus, and Tuber (truffle) or Cenococcum (false
   truffle) to name a few, are all ectomycorrhizal. They are facultative
   symbionts of the roots of forest trees and their colonization can seen
   with the naked eye. These fungi can be cultivated in the laboratory on
   special nutrient media. They have limited saprophytic abilities and
   prefer to grow in association with plant roots. The mutual benefits
   are similar to those described for the endomycorrhizae. The
   ectomycorrhizal fungus froms a sheath or mantle of densely packed
   hyphae on the surface of tree roots. This mantle is often black or
   brightly colored. The mantle is connected to highly branched hyphae
   that penetrate the root and grow between but not into the bost cells.
   This network of hyphae (hartig net) forms the absorptive structur that
   is the site of nutrient exchange. The sheath is connected to
   extraradical hyphae that permeate the soil and absorb water and
   nutrients for the ectomycorrhizal root.

   Other benefits of mycorrhizal associations that are of interest to
   plant pathologists include biological control and the various growth
   promotion effects that enhance establishment of plants in the field.
   Mycorrhizal roots are generally more drought tolerant. The general
   vigour of mycorrhizal plants makes them more tolerant of limited root
   loss due to diseases. Another mechanism of biocontrol by mycorrhizal
   fungi is the competiton for nutrients and space on the root against
   the pathogenic soilborne fungi. The ectomycorrhizal fungi have the
   added advantage of being able to produce antibiotic substances that
   inhibit the fungal pathogens. Prior colonization by mycorrhizal fungi
   may also stimulate the root to produce natural defensive wall
   structures and chemicals (chitinases and phytoalexins) that protect
   the root from attack by pathogens. The mycorrhizosphere (or area on
   and around the root of mycorrhizal roots) also contains communities of
   helpful microorganisms including fungi and bacteria that are anta
   onistic to pathogens and that solubilize nutrients such as rock
   phosphate.

   There is a great potential for the use of mycorrhizal fungi and
   associated microorganisms as inoculants especially in the production
   and protection of high-value greenhouse-grown crops or transplanted
   vegetable crops such as tomatoes and other bedding plants. The
   challenge is to produce the inoculum of endomycorrhizal fungi that
   cannot as yet be grown in artificial culture. Various stabilization
   and embedding or pelleting methods are being developed for coating
   seeds or inoculating potting media with root fragments and spores.
   These have been adapted from the technology used to develop Rhizobium
   inoculum for leguminous crops. Peat-based potting media with
   mycorrhizal inoculum are being developed in Canada by companies such
   as Premier Peat Moss (Riviere-du-Loupe, Quebec). The production of
   ectomycorrhizal inoculum for forest nurseries based on solid-substrate
   fermentation and amendment of potting media is well-underway in The
   United States of America and Australia.


   5. Biological control of plant disease

   Biological control of plant disease is the suppression of disease
   symtoms and disease incidence by the application of a biological
   agent, usually a microorganism. It is welcomed as a safe and
   environmentally acceptable alternative to the use of chemical measures
   for disease control. Various mechanisms exist including the use of
   microbial antagonists that produce antibiotics or lytic enzymes, that
   compete for nutrients with the pathogen, that directly invade and kill
   the pathogen as hyperparasites, that invade and transmit viral
   avirulence (hypovirulence) factors, or that are non-pathogenic but
   trigger or stimulate natural defence mechanisms in the host (induced
   ressistance and cross protection). Another biological mechanism is the
   use of microbial agents to modify the chemical environment
   (allelopathic biocontrol) through the breakdown of organics in the
   soil to release antimicrobial compounds such as phenolics or to
   enhance the chelation of essential nutrients for the pathogen such as
   iron.

   Selection of previous or companion crops may affect the availability
   of these allelopathic compounds that bring about biological control.
   More than one mechanism may function at the same time in any
   biocontrol system. The desireable approach is to integrate biological
   controls with other control measure including limited chemical
   applications, culture practices (crop rotation, tillage, etc) and host
   resistance. This approach reduces the rate at which disease resistance
   can develop. In general, resistance to biological agents develops very
   slowly because of the complex control mechanism involving numerous
   biochemical systems and associated genes.
   Return to Top of Document


    Selected References:

   Allen, M.F. (Editor). 1992. Mycorrhizal Functioning: An Integrative
   Plant-Fungal Process. Chapman and Hall, London

   Altman, J.(Editor) 1993. Pesticide Interactions in Crop Production:
   Beneficial and Deleterious Effects. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL

   Carlile, M.J., and Watkinson, S.C. 1994. The Fungi. Academic Press,
   Inc. New York.

   Cook, R.J., and Baker, K.F. (2nd edition). 1983. The Nature and
   Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. The American
   Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul MN.

   Harley, J.L. and Smith, S.E. 1983. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Academic
   Press, London.

   Jones, D.G. (Editor) 1993. Exploitation of Microorganisms. Chapman and
   Hall, London.

   Metting, F.B. Jr.(Editor). 1993. Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications
   in Agricultural and Environmental Management. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New
   York.

   Pfleger, F.L., and Linderman, R.G.(Editors) 1994. Mycorrhizae and
   Plant Health. American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, MN .


  OTHER RELATED WEB LINKS


   WFCC World Data Center for Microorganisms (WDCM) provides a
   comprehensive directory of culture collecions, databases on microbes
   and cell lines, and the gateway to biodiversity, molecular biology and
   genome projects. Try the STRAINS - fungi Search Interface

   California State University Biological Sciences WWW Server. The
   purpose of this server is to consolidate existing WWW Biological
   Science teaching and research resources and to create and distribute
   original multimedia resources for the teaching of biology. Try the
   FUNGI-related links

   Symptoms of Disease - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

   Root Biology and Mycorrhiza Research Group, Department of Botany,
   University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

   Mycological Resources on the Internet - Cornell University

<li><A HREF="http://www.wdcm.riken.go.jp/">WFCC World Data Center for Microorga
nisms (WDCM)</A>
<li><A HREF="http://www.wdcm.riken.go.jp/htbin/STRAINS-fungi.pl">STRAINS - fung
i Search Interface</A>
<li><A HREF="http://130.17.2.215/index.html">California State University Biolog
ical Sciences WWW Server</A>
<li><A HREF="http://arnica.csustan.edu/FU.html">FUNGI-related links</A>
<li><A HREF="http://www.gov.ab.ca/%7eagric/htmldocs/600/63000101.html">Symptoms
 of Disease</A>
<li><A HREF="http://www.uoguelph.ca/CBS/Botany/roots.html">Root Biology and Myc
orrhiza Research Group</A>
<li><A HREF="http://muse.bio.cornell.edu/taxonomy/fungi.html">Mycological Resou
rces on the Internet</A>

     _________________________________________________________________


        Last Revised: Thursday, August 10, 1995

From jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu Thu Nov  3 10:40:11 EST 1994
Article: 4302 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu (Joel B Gruver)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: info request
Date: 3 Nov 1994 04:11:02 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 11
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411022215.A17546-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Thanks to everyone that sent me info concerning hog composting. I am 
familiar with Joel Salatin's system and the Nordell system. If anyone 
knows of any other farmers using hog composting systems, I would
like to hear about them.

I am interested in hearing about mechanical and cultural cover crop 
suppression techniques. Grazing, mowing, flaming, scalding with hot 
water, undercutting, strip tilling... are some exaamples.
Joel Gruver
jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu



From kkelleher@ucdavis.edu Tue Nov  8 09:57:59 EST 1994
Article: 4390 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: kkelleher@ucdavis.edu (Kristen Kelleher)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Animals in Ag Systems: Hogs
Date: 8 Nov 1994 01:21:31 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 24
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199411080007.QAA25441@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Joel Gruver:

In response to your question about integrating animals into agricultural
systems, specifically hogs, the Western region USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education program, SARE, supported a research project by Kent
Fleming of the University of Hawaii at Manoa on hog farming integrated with
market gardening and orchard production.  The climate was obviously
tropical. Contact Dr. Fleming for specific information about his research. 
His phone number is (808) 322-9136.

If you have any additional questions, or would like more information about
Western SARE-funded research and education projects, please feel free to
contact me.

Sincerely,

Kristen Kelleher
Public Information, Western U.S.
USDA SARE/ACE
c/o University of California
(916) 752-5987
kkelleher@ucdavis.edu




From d.richardson@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU Wed Nov  2 21:25:50 EST 1994
Article: 4286 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: d.richardson@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU (Dick Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: hogs in composting
Date: 2 Nov 1994 17:36:41 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 27
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199411021610.KAA15330@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Joel, you asked about

>Specifically, I am now looking for information concerning the use of hogs in
>composting systems. I would appreciate any information concerning
>alternative integrations of animals into ag. systems.

Have you made contact with Joel Salatin near Staunton, Virginia?  He's not
on the Internet, but has written a series of six articles in the The
Stockman Grassfarmer, beginning in September 1993.  Their phone is
601-981-4805.  In addition, Joel Salatin's address can be obtained from The
Stockman Grassfarmer.

In a nutshell, he's had the hogs doing essentially all the work turning the
compost while they grew and got fat.  He's got a win-win combination,
unless you ask the pig in the end.  He also uses chickens in portable pens
for pasture maintenance, and has people traveling over 100 miles to buy
meat and produce from him at the farm.



=========================================================================
R. H. (Dick) Richardson               *    (512) 471-4128  (w)
Zoology Department                    *    (512) 471-9651  (FAX)
University of Texas                   *    (512) 476-5131  (h)
Austin, TX  78712                     *    d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu




From jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu Wed Nov  2 21:29:12 EST 1994
Article: 4285 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jbgFC@hamp.hampshire.edu (Joel B Gruver)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: (none)
Date: 2 Nov 1994 14:14:35 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 8
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411020736.A12472-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I am investigating alternative uses of 
animals in agricultural systems. For example, weeder geese, grazing 
management of covercrops, fly control...
Specifically, I am now looking for information concerning the use of hogs in 
composting systems. I would appreciate any information concerning 
alternative integrations of animals into ag. systems.
Joel Gruver (413) 582-5348
jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu


From jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Wed Nov  2 21:29:39 EST 1994
Article: 4299 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Meade)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: 3 Nov 1994 01:54:13 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 19
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411021832.D157504-0100000@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411020736.A12472-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Joel,

Joel Salatin has some good ideas on using hogs in composting systems.  
Are you familiar with his work?

He feeds his cattle at a hay bunker, and buries some grain in the 
bedding.  When the bedding is several feet thick, he turns in hogs who 
root and turn the bedding thoroughly to get at the grain.

You received a reference to Salatin in another post, so I won't repeat 
his address here.

Good luck.


Jim - Farmer - Iowa City, IA, 
jnmeade@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu




From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduWed Mar 15 22:50:54 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus 

 Abstract:  Response to post about the role of humus in Nature 
            Farming and S.A.
 Keywords:  humus, microbes, Nature Farming, the Luebke
            method, soil test
 
 Jim McNelly,
 
 I saw your posting (below) on sustag-public concerning the 
 concept of humus as the basis for sustainable agriculture 
 as versus designer microbes, companion planting, etc.  
 [Sustag-public is a gateway for Usenet news to be posted on
 an Internet mailing list, and vice versa].  Thanks for bringing this 
 issue to light.  A couple of comments:
 
 Firstly, it was revealed on sanet-mg that the NatureFarm posting 
 was a working draft by folks associated with this project.
 It was posted onto sanet-mg by a third party without prior
 notice or approval from the authors. 
 
 Secondly, here are my two cents on the matter of humus in 
 Nature Farming and S.A.:
  
 In the 1994 Proceedings of the Oklahoma Horticulture 
 Industries Show, I compared Nature Farming, traditional organic 
 farming, biodynamic farming, and Reams biological farming as
 viable sustainable farming 'methods' that conventional 
 veggie growers may want to adopt during a transition to
 low-input sustainable agriculture.  
 
 Here is an excerpt on Nature Farming:
 
   "Nature Farming was developed in Japan in the 1930s by 
 Mokichi Okada, who later formed the Mokichi Okada
 Association (MOA).  Nature Farming parallels organic farming
 in many ways but includes special emphasis on soil health
 through composts rather than organic fertilizers, when
 possible.  Kyusei Nature Farming, a branch group, emphasizes
 use of microbial preparations in addition to traditional
 Nature Farming.  Nature Farming is most active in the
 Pacific rim, including California and Hawaii."  
 
   "Since the late 1980s, Nature Farming has gained wider
 recognition in the United States through the coordinated
 efforts of MOA and the Rodale Institute in the formation of
 the World Sustainable Agriculture Association (WSAA).  The
 WSAA and MOA sponsor annual conferences on Nature Farming
 and sustainable agriculture.  Kyusei Nature Farming conducts
 on-farm research in California." 
 
 One MOA worker in Hawaii explained that in fact they 
 even make special composts for different purposes.  Thus, 
 in terms of how the foundation of Nature Farming is laid,
 it appears that humus indeed forms the basis of production.
 Likewise, while not being familiar with all the particulars
 of Effective Microorganisms (EM) used in Nature Farming, 
 on viewing the number of research papers available through 
 Kyusei Nature Farming that deal specifically with microbes,
 it appears that these microbial additions to soils are 
 important also for the role they play in the formation of 
 humus.  
 
 All of this stuff on humus is important, just as is the advanced 
 work being done on biological controls by Dietrick, Grossman, BIRC, 
 Kyusei Nature Farming, etc.
 
 More on humus, the Luebke influence: 
 
 The Luebke farm family of Austria have infused a reawakening
 amongst farmers and landgrant workers as to the importance of 
 humus through their seminars and conference appearances. 
 
 The Luebkes teach a 3-day seminar on humus management, and a
 4-day seminar on Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC).  The
 Luebke system is based on the use of forage- and
 covercrop-based crop rotations, green manures microbially 
 incoculated at plowdown, CMC compost prepared with microbial 
 inoculants and rock dusts, and proper tillage (spade plow). 
 
 Whether a farmer is financially capable of purchasing a 
 Sandberger compost turner and adopting the whole CMC compost 
 preparation method is secondary to the fact that they come
 away with a deeper understanding of the vital role soil microbes 
 play in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, and how they can 
 manage their soils to increase this effect.  
 
 For example, the Luebkes improved a clay soil on their farm
 from 2% O.M. to 15% O.M. in a ten year period using humus 
 management techniques. 
 
 Most interesting to me as a farm advisor and sanet
 participant, are the soil health evaluation procedures the
 Luebkes employ.  These include percent O.M., the colorimetric 
 humus test, the circular chromatography test, and the buffered
 pH test.  
 
 One of these in particular, the colorimetric humus test,
 has merit for wider adoption, and indeed has already been 
 adopted by several commercial soils labs in the U.S. after
 it was re-introduced by the Luebkes.  In fact, this method 
 was developed in the U.S. decades ago but fell out of usage.  
 
 The colorimetric humus test is done by extracting a soil or
 compost sample with a weal alkali solution (sodium
 hydroxide), filtering the solute, and then comparing the
 color of the extract against a colorimetric scale of 
 standardized liquid-filled test tubes.  The result is a 
 relative number from 0-100.  
 
 The idea behind this test is that it gives an indication of
 the degree and amount to which organic matter in soil has 
 entered a humified state.  When the humus number is compared 
 against percent O.M., it provides a ratio that can be evaluated.
 Ideally, the ratio will be 1 part O.M. to 3 parts humus.
 Too little or too high humus readings provide an indication
 of a soil out of balance.  
 
 This test is especially insightful in combination with 
 the chroma and buffered pH test.  In one instance, 
 it was apparent the soil was constipated...plenty of soil 
 humus, but no microbial activity to make the goodies available 
 through mineralization. 

 At the very least, it demonstrates that sustainable 
 farmers are getting useful information about the condition
 of their soils via other methods of soil evaluation in
 addition to or as an alternative to standard university soils 
 tests.  
 
 So, McNelly, you have a good point and I think farmers,
 landgrant workers, and s.a. advocates should be thinking about 
 humus.  That's why I've summarized these few ideas and
 post them here for others to 'mull' over.   :-)   
 
 Steve Diver
 steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
  
  
 Jim McNelly wrote:
 
 > After a long and informative note on Naturfarm, I was surprised to find 
 > no reference concerning the organic matter concentration in the soil. 
 > Is this typical of many of the new generation of sustainable farmers?
 >
 > Forage and dairy farmers I have met at sustainable ag conferences speak 
 > longingly about organic matter levels, and how to import organics from 
 > off farm to build up soils to native levels around 7% humus, or at least 
 > to a more sustainable level around 3% to 5%,
 > 
 > If I read many of the early proponents of both organic and sustainable 
 > farming correctly, compost, humus, and natural ecosystems were stressed 
 > over other influences such as pest control, disease suppression, 
 > watering and so forth. The (older?) model held that if the soil was 
 > improved, other values would follow. Perhaps it is just me, but does it 
 > not seem that more and more farmers on the sustainable front are talking 
 > about companion planting, beneficial insects, designer microbes, drip 
 > irrigation and other techniques.
 
 .....................Stuff Deleted................................
 
 > This is not to put down such practices, but more to make the observation 
 > that these efforts might be considered to be a substitute for humus and 
 > organic matter.
 >
 > Does anyone else think that organic matter levels in the soil are being 
 > neglected in much of the sustainable agriculture discussion? 
 > 
 > Mr Compost~~~
 > Affordable In-vessel Composting
 > PO Box 7444
 > Saint Cloud, MN 56302
 > 
 > Jim~ McNelly
 > jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
 > 
 > 
 >  * RM 1.3 02460 * A bird in the hand craps on the wrist.
 > 
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
 >    Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
 >    Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
  
From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduFri Mar 24 11:11:15 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:24:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: re: soils for class presentation (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:27:59 EST
From: WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: re: soils for class presentation


You may wish to check out Vol. 7, No. 1-2 of American Journal of Alternative 
Agriculture (1992), which devoted a double issue to the subject of soil 
quality.  This is closely related to what you inquired about.  The issue has 
10 articles by a distinguished international panel of authors, and addresses 
most aspects of the topic, including soil organisms (both microorganisms and 
invertebrates), physical and chemical soil characteristics, management 
effects, and so forth.

William Lockeretz

P.S. In the interest of full disclosure in this ethics-conscious era, to 
avoid apperanace of conflict-of-interest I should mention that I am technical 
editor of the journal that published that exhaustive, definitive and 
exceptionally well-done treatment of the subject.


From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAFri Mar 24 11:20:02 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:57:06 EDT
From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural

Responding to Dick R. on the issue of composting.  Just curious about 
the comment that it is better if composting occurs in the soil.  Just 
finished an M.Sc. student doing a study on composting and we didn't 
come across this idea in the lit.  I'd be interested in learning what 
it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil -
 as against ahead of time.  Evidence from the literature?  
Conventional organic wisdom hereabouts sees placement of raw manure 
directly into the soil as a net negative, because of a) rapid release 
of N which destabilizes cycling, b) VFA's which can be caustic, and 
c) potential for anaerobic decomposition when high moisture substrate 
(whether animal manure or direct cut red clover) is plowed into the 
soil.  As an example, they recommend cutting and wilting red clover 
plowdown before plowing it in, to avoid this problem.  

Good points on "waste" management at landfills!  Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX:  519 763-8933

From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Mar 24 11:36:06 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:02:26 -0500 (EST)
From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: Sanet List <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Soil Quality Ref.


Here is a publication on Soil Qualtity, sorry if it duplicates
a pervious post.

Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment
SSSA Special Publication Number 35
ISBN 0-89118,807-X
$32 from
SSSA,ASA Headquarters Office
Attn: Book Order Department
677 South Segoe Rd. 
Madison Wisconsin 53711-1086



From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Mar 24 11:37:06 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 16:51:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: HUMUS (fwd)

Forwarded message:
>From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!news Wed Mar 22 22:14:15 1995
To: sustag-public@ces.ncsu.edu
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:05:00 +0600
>From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Message-Id: <36.1697.1470@granite.mn.org>
Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372
Sender: london@sunsite.unc.edu
References: <48782.hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: HUMUS

Thomas Hansmeyer writes:
References: <48782.hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> 

HH> This is a very interesting debate.  In thinking about and discussing
HH> soil quality, organic matter is usually mentioned within the
HH> research circles.  (stuff deleted)

HH> I guess I am asking if the
HH> Luebkes needed to import Carbon from other sources?  Which gets into
HH> further debate as to whether enough carbon exists within the current
HH> system to allow all of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy
HH> levels, 5% or so.  

Thomas, 

I operate under the assumption that native soil levels were much higher 
than the current averages, so that some of the atmospheric CO2 which 
stimulates the global warming debate was once in the form of soil 
carbon. It seems rather ludicrous to debate whether or not we 
"should" decrease atmospheric CO2 in order to increase soil humus 
levels. Many of the forgotten pages of debate over atmospheric warming 
deal with "carbon banks" such as the biosphere and humusphere as "sinks" 
which are capable of reducing global CO2.

The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments
HH> with the local village to use the carbon, in the form of organic
HH> waste, as a cost effective amendment to their soil.  Would all
HH> farmers need to compete for these contracts, or could the carbon be
HH> produced on-farm.

If you are looking at the long term mass balance of available carbon 
such as residuals from the public sector, I am afraid that the volume of 
organic material landfilled, about one wet ton per capita, is inadequate 
for the demand of our acreages of soil needing organic matter. It is 
doubtful that even half of the landfilled organic waste can be recovered 
into a usable form without carrying with it all manner of pollutants and 
undesirable particulates. The composting process itself converts up to 
1/3 of its volume into heat and CO2, so even 50 million tons of organic 
matter to be recovered annually is a liberal estimate.

My numbers may be off, but it is my understanding that we have upwards 
of 350 million acres of farmland, so this represents about 1/7th of a 
ton per acre. Sustainable compost demand would be more in the 5 to 10 
tons per acre annual range. To bring soil humus up to ambient, which I 
claim is a sustainable level, would require upwards of 200 tons per 
acre. This represents a "topsoil debt" as high as 7 trillion tons of 
compost. 

Focusing on recovering the wasted organic fraction which is 
thoughtlessly landfilled seems a reasonable place to begin development 
of a carbon management infrastructure in modern agriculture. This 
material is capable of being subsidized in the form of transportation, 
landfill and disposal fees whereas on-farm organics must pay their own 
way. I look at diverting urban organic matter from landfills to farms 
as an important first, and more than symbolic step toward increased 
interdependence between agricultural producers and consumers.

But you are correct, Thomas, in pointing out that ultimately farms must 
eventually be responsible for their own carbon debt and annual carbon 
requirement. This may occur within various bio-regions where certain 
farms might become biomass cultivators capable of supplying the carbon 
requirements for farms within their region. But unless our mentality 
concerning renewable carbon gets some infusions of entepreneurism, the 
fossil carbon commodity infrastructure will continue to supply the 
chemical dependency addiction with few compunctions.

I am intrigued by the discussion related to types of microbes and other 
means of determining the organic fertility of a soil. I would add to 
the discussion some questions concerning phosphorus limits which are 
increasingly becoming an environmental driver (revenue source) related 
to non point water pollution. 

The synergistic interactions of a healthy soil ecosystem including 
microbes, fungi, earthworms, and the various other organisms which 
thrive in a healthy humusphere may have values related to soil tilth, 
water holding capacity, pH buffering, nutrient availability, and cost of 
tillage. Unknown or currently unquantified values such as growth 
hormones, pheromes, anti-biotics, disease suppression, and pest 
retardation may be unexpected but indicated assets resulting from humus 
rich environments.

In summary, other values of humus such as water quality, energy, waste 
disposal, and atmospheric warming might increasingly become economic 
levers in which to wean agriculture from the dependency on fossil carbon 
and help make the transition to renewable carbon based farming. To me, 
the focus on renewable carbon should be at the heart of the sustainable 
agriculture debate.

Mr Compost~~~

Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org


 * RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil?

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------

From fmagdoff@moose.uvm.eduFri Mar 24 11:45:09 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 06:58:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Frederick R. Magdoff" <fmagdoff@moose.uvm.edu>
To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca>
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural

Ann,

	The issue of composting vs. adding directly to the soil is an 
interesting one and there is at least one article  that discusses some of 
the chemical differences (Chromec, FW, and FR Magdoff. 1984. Alternative 
methods for using organic materials: Composting vs. adding directly to 
soil. J. Environ. Sci. and Health 19:697-711). However, it is an area 
that could use some more work.

FRED

Fred Magdoff
tel:802-656-0472
fax:802-656-4656

From hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.eduFri Mar 24 11:46:07 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:02:18 CST
From: Thomas Hansmeyer <hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: HUMUS (fwd)




I operate under the assumption that native soil levels were much higher 
than the current averages, so that some of the atmospheric CO2 which 
stimulates the global warming debate was once in the form of soil 
carbon. It seems rather ludicrous to debate whether or not we 
"should" decrease atmospheric CO2 in order to increase soil humus 
levels. Many of the forgotten pages of debate over atmospheric warming 
deal with "carbon banks" such as the biosphere and humusphere as "sinks" 
which are capable of reducing global CO2.

My concerns were not directly related to the benefit or detriment of 
placing more atmospheric carbon into the "humusphere/soil".  In fact, I 
think the majority would agree that to remove carbon from the atmosphere, 
banking it in the soil, would only benefit all cylces involved.  My main 
concern is to assert that one could build soil organic carbon by 13% in 
10 years without importing carbon from an off-farm source.  I am totally 
in agreement that those off-farm sources of carbon should be cycled back 
through the soil.  The merits of the Luebke soil management system was 
partially based on their ability to increase organic matter.  I felt that 
more information was needed regarding the source of their carbon and scale 
of operation.  To increase the soil organic matter of 200 acres by 
promoting soil life and crop rotation is much different than a heavily 
managed garden.   



The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments
HH> with the local village to use the carbon, in the form of organic
HH> waste, as a cost effective amendment to their soil.  Would all
HH> farmers need to compete for these contracts, or could the carbon be
HH> produced on-farm.

If you are looking at the long term mass balance of available carbon 
such as residuals from the public sector, I am afraid that the volume of 
organic material landfilled, about one wet ton per capita, is inadequate 
for the demand of our acreages of soil needing organic matter. It is 
doubtful that even half of the landfilled organic waste can be recovered 
into a usable form without carrying with it all manner of pollutants and 
undesirable particulates. The composting process itself converts up to 
1/3 of its volume into heat and CO2, so even 50 million tons of organic 
matter to be recovered annually is a liberal estimate.

My numbers may be off, but it is my understanding that we have upwards 
of 350 million acres of farmland, so this represents about 1/7th of a 
ton per acre. Sustainable compost demand would be more in the 5 to 10 
tons per acre annual range. To bring soil humus up to ambient, which I 
claim is a sustainable level, would require upwards of 200 tons per 
acre. This represents a "topsoil debt" as high as 7 trillion tons of 
compost. 

Focusing on recovering the wasted organic fraction which is 
thoughtlessly landfilled seems a reasonable place to begin development 
of a carbon management infrastructure in modern agriculture. This 
material is capable of being subsidized in the form of transportation, 
landfill and disposal fees whereas on-farm organics must pay their own 
way. I look at diverting urban organic matter from landfills to farms 
as an important first, and more than symbolic step toward increased 
interdependence between agricultural producers and consumers.

But you are correct, Thomas, in pointing out that ultimately farms must 
eventually be responsible for their own carbon debt and annual carbon 
requirement. This may occur within various bio-regions where certain 
farms might become biomass cultivators capable of supplying the carbon 
requirements for farms within their region. But unless our mentality 
concerning renewable carbon gets some infusions of entepreneurism, the 
fossil carbon commodity infrastructure will continue to supply the 
chemical dependency addiction with few compunctions.

I am intrigued by the discussion related to types of microbes and other 
means of determining the organic fertility of a soil. I would add to 
the discussion some questions concerning phosphorus limits which are 
increasingly becoming an environmental driver (revenue source) related 
to non point water pollution. 

The synergistic interactions of a healthy soil ecosystem including 
microbes, fungi, earthworms, and the various other organisms which 
thrive in a healthy humusphere may have values related to soil tilth, 
water holding capacity, pH buffering, nutrient availability, and cost of 
tillage. Unknown or currently unquantified values such as growth 
hormones, pheromes, anti-biotics, disease suppression, and pest 
retardation may be unexpected but indicated assets resulting from humus 
rich environments.

In summary, other values of humus such as water quality, energy, waste 
disposal, and atmospheric warming might increasingly become economic 
levers in which to wean agriculture from the dependency on fossil carbon 
and help make the transition to renewable carbon based farming. To me, 
the focus on renewable carbon should be at the heart of the sustainable 
agriculture debate.

Mr Compost~~~

Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org


 * RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil?

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
-- 
              Thomas Hansmeyer
              St. Paul MN
              hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu

From d.richardson@mail.utexas.eduFri Mar 24 20:59:47 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 18:18:02 -0600
From: Dick Richardson <d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu>
To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca>
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural

Ann, you pose the question:

I'd be interested in learning what
>it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil -
> as against ahead of time.  Evidence from the literature?

The direction I'm speaking about in management of manure may be different
in the "north country" where you're working.  I'm referring to the role of
dung beetles, earthworms, and such.  The dung beetles can bury 6000 lbs
fresh manure per acre per day, from the estimates of Walt Davis, a
colleague in southern Oklahoma, when he begins managing his livestock to
avoid poisoning the invertebrates in the soil -- grazing plans that break
lifecycles of parasites without pesticides -- and the dung beetle
populations build up as the soil  temperature reaches 50 degrees F or
thereabouts.  There are no piles of manure after two days!  The result is
that the soil health and vegetation really jump, and toxicity is not found.


We also tested raw sewage and the dung beetles went for it with great
vigor, but the treated sewage (biosolids) was not palatable.  This is no
surprise, since the treatments required for "health reasons" are partly for
reduction of smell and attraction of flies.  For treatment of sewage, most
of the proteins have been converted to ammonia, and the same loss holds for
readily available carbon.  Further, composting causes a net loss of organic
matter that soil organisms can use, but the organisms have to be present in
the soil in suitable numbers and have conditions favorable for matching
their growth and utilization with the amounts of uncomposted materials
applied.  This requires good management, matching the supply with the
demand, so to speak.

If we look at the sewage as microbial and invertebrate food, and we are
trying to increase these populations in the soil, then there surely will be
some balances needed to avoid over-doing the application, which you pointed
out.  If we dump even good stuff on at the wrong time or in the wrong
amounts, then we certainly can expect problems.  The direct metering out by
livestock as they are grazing helps stay "within the window".  Bringing
urban equivalents to the rural sites doesn't have such a built-in meter.

In Austin we have had land applications of biosolids for several years, and
other locations, such as near St. Paul, MN have injected biosolids before
de-watering.  It's been fine for corn and great for the land in general.
However, it seems to me that the key is blending the return process of such
resources into the needs of the soil organisms.

In another recent post, Karen Grobe commented
"... All farmland should not receive compost.  Some farmland is used to
produce cattle, and it would not be appropriate to use compost ... on
grazing land."

I would disagree to the point that sometimes compost (or biosolids) may be
needed to "jump start" to get grazing land into a good state of health.
The importance for the soil health may be less in terms of the production
of "food" products than in the fact that it is watershed.  If land managers
are able to increase infiltration rates and water holding capacity
sufficiently, we see springs return to perennial flows, and watertables
high enough to maintain perennial vegetation (grasses and others) in
healthy states even during drouth conditions.  However, if properly
managed, grazing land (pasture or rangeland) seems capable of improving and
remaining healthy through the recycling of organic matter from the
livestock alone.  Certain minerals in certain soils, however, may be
another matter.


R. H. (Dick) Richardson                 Office: 512-471-4128
Zoology Dept.                           Home:   512-476-5131
Univ. of Texas                          FAX:    512-471-9651
Austin, TX 78712


From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CASat Mar 25 09:48:04 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 03:30:57 EDT
From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be

Dick:  thanks for your usual insightful response.

I had heard about dung beetles etc. from Australia and the southern 
US, and I very clearly recall an undergrad field trip (this is from 
several centuries ago when I **was** an undergrad) at UC Davis to a 
tomato processing plant that was irrigating their wastewater onto a 
nearby hayfield which had been "seeded" with specific microbes to 
break down and clean up the water sufficiently for it to drain into 
municipal tiles.  The notion that the soil can and should be managed 
to accept/process/cycle the "returns" from human ingestion is valid 
and appropriate.

What I am not clear on is how doing this in situ, in the field, is 
more advantageous than doing it in a compost windrow on an organic 
dairy or beef farm.  I am trying to recall a study reported by 
Herbert Koepf (biodynamic, German, most recently with the Michael 
Fields Institute) when he came up and spoke here several years ago.  
If recollection serves, the study involved the same quantity of 
manure, land applied in two ways - one as raw manure and the other 
after composting.  Composting lost about half of the C and N, I 
think, prior to land application, which is typical.  I don't recall 
for how many years this was done.  But the take home message was the 
the soil was "healthier" - in various measured parameters - when the 
manure had been applied composted rather than raw.  I think this 
included soil OM, but can't remember what all else, or when it was 
measured.  

    Koepf's composted manure had, I think, been treated with a 
biodynamic preparation as well.  I recall another most amazing study, 
Swedish I think, that tested the effect of the biodynamic preparation 
on composting and soil quality thereafter.  It was an old paper, and 
unreplicated I think, but surprisingly to me, the biodynamic 
preparation did something distinctly different than other treatments. 
It was a soil study, and involved detailed measurements at multiple 
locations within unreplicated plots.  

    The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the 
composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil 
improving properties of livestock manure.  As noted by one respondant 
in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research, 
because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and 
economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the 
field.  It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits 
outweigh the pre-application benefits.  Ann

ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX:  519 763-8933

From benbrook@hillnet.comSat Mar 25 09:50:44 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:30:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
To: sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Another Question re Soil Quality

I must say I am impressed with the recent dialogue/exchanges re soil 
quality and am learning a lot.  But to inspire you all to rise to the 
occassion of educating those of us trained in the less than relevant 
disciplines, I have a basic question.  Is the amount of carbon in the 
world fixed?  Do humans simple move it around by what they do with 
biomass and soils?  How is carbon different from nitrogen?

	I would welcome some general discussion of carbon, 
supply-uses-balances-fluxes, and how these are impacted by agricultural 
management practices.  

	I have been spending serious chunks of time in recent days 
writing re soil quality and its importance in protecting water quality 
and in assuring a sustainable, profitable, fulfilling future for American 
agriculture, and society as a whole.  I need to understand carbon better 
to take my discussions to the next level.  

From d.richardson@mail.utexas.eduSat Mar 25 21:06:31 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:13:25 -0600
From: Dick Richardson <d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be

Ann, you've nailed the issue!

>    The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the
>composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil
>improving properties of livestock manure.  As noted by one respondant
>in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research,
>because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and
>economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the
>field.  It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits
>outweigh the pre-application benefits.  Ann

I find that what I think is "healthy soil" is probably a long way from what
"healthy" potentially can mean.  Therefore, I claim at least 95% ignorance
on what the advantages/disadvantages of composting are for general
recommendations.  the research is needed, for sure.  Furthermore, in the
meantime, just clear thinking, careful observations, and trial and error
are the way's I'm TRYING to proceed.  For my contexts, formal research is
too resource demanding to try on these questions, so I'll join the cheering
section for those who can do it.  In my practice, I'm composting, and
letting the cattle directly apply manure.  I use the compost in the "bad
spots" to the extent I have it.  (VERY limited quantities are available to
me at present, but I'm hoping to get the local towns to give me the chipped
tree clippings rather than put them in the land fill.  Chipping is too
expensive if I have to pay for it.)

I wonder if the feeding of antibiotics to livestock is related to the
improvement seen in composting.  This gives a chance for recovery of the
microbial community if it has been modified by the antibiotics.


R. H. (Dick) Richardson                 Office: 512-471-4128
Zoology Dept.                           Home:   512-476-5131
Univ. of Texas                          FAX:    512-471-9651
Austin, TX 78712


From jxl161@email.psu.eduMon Mar 27 21:34:53 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:38:28 -0500
From: Jeannie Leggett <jxl161@email.psu.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Another Question re Soil Quality

At 10:30 PM 3/24/95 -0800, Charles Benbrook wrote:
>I have a basic question.  Is the amount of carbon in the
>world fixed?  Do humans simple move it around by what they do with
>biomass and soils?  How is carbon different from nitrogen?
>
>
I suggest that you read a basic book on soil microbiology, such as
"Introduction to Soil Microbiology" by Martin Alexander.  It has a chapter
on the carbon cycle and a chapter on the nitrogen cycle, as well as an
overview of the soil environment. It is basic enough to understand with
little or no biology background.  Good Luck.


Jeannie Leggett
246 Agricultural Engineering Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-7710
FAX (814)863-1031

From iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk Wed Mar 29 23:15:31 EST 1995
Article: 5893 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!inet!iaotb
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural
Date: 27 Mar 1995 18:31:10 GMT
Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education.
Lines: 36
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3l709e$t38@news.uni-c.dk>
References: <v01510102ab94e5bef5cc@[128.83.136.86]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: inet.uni-c.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Dick Richardson (d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:

: Composting is fine, and avoids lots of problems that have regulations tied
: to them, but actually, it's even better if the composting occurs in the
: soil.  Lots of benefits are lost in having the composting first as a
: "treatment" of the organic materials in order then to produce a soil
: amendment.  The microbes in the compost pile are also needed in the soil.

The way of nature is composting on the topsoil (sheet composting). If you
bring down compostable material in the soil, it may harm the soil, because
the process could go anaerobic. The products from  such a process 
(fermentation) are not good for a soil and are harmful to the crop. 
Remember that composting is strictly an aerobic process. I think that 
composting for agricultural purposes should be done in controlled piles, 
and the products spread on the topsoil.

Sheet composting on the topsoil is allright, but inefficient.

The microbes that are responsible for the composting process in a pile
are not the same microbes, as those that inhabit the soil. I don't 
believe, that is a need or use for bringing special microbes to the soil. 
The soil breeds it's own microbes.


Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch


--
;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';
; Torsten Brinch               If you understand nothing but chemistry, ;
; iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk          you do not really understand chemistry.  ;
; 6640, Ferup, Denmark                   G.C. Lichtenberg  (1742-1799)  ;
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;



From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduWed Mar 15 22:50:54 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus 

 Abstract:  Response to post about the role of humus in Nature 
            Farming and S.A.
 Keywords:  humus, microbes, Nature Farming, the Luebke
            method, soil test
 
 Jim McNelly,
 
 I saw your posting (below) on sustag-public concerning the 
 concept of humus as the basis for sustainable agriculture 
 as versus designer microbes, companion planting, etc.  
 [Sustag-public is a gateway for Usenet news to be posted on
 an Internet mailing list, and vice versa].  Thanks for bringing this 
 issue to light.  A couple of comments:
 
 Firstly, it was revealed on sanet-mg that the NatureFarm posting 
 was a working draft by folks associated with this project.
 It was posted onto sanet-mg by a third party without prior
 notice or approval from the authors. 
 
 Secondly, here are my two cents on the matter of humus in 
 Nature Farming and S.A.:
  
 In the 1994 Proceedings of the Oklahoma Horticulture 
 Industries Show, I compared Nature Farming, traditional organic 
 farming, biodynamic farming, and Reams biological farming as
 viable sustainable farming 'methods' that conventional 
 veggie growers may want to adopt during a transition to
 low-input sustainable agriculture.  
 
 Here is an excerpt on Nature Farming:
 
   "Nature Farming was developed in Japan in the 1930s by 
 Mokichi Okada, who later formed the Mokichi Okada
 Association (MOA).  Nature Farming parallels organic farming
 in many ways but includes special emphasis on soil health
 through composts rather than organic fertilizers, when
 possible.  Kyusei Nature Farming, a branch group, emphasizes
 use of microbial preparations in addition to traditional
 Nature Farming.  Nature Farming is most active in the
 Pacific rim, including California and Hawaii."  
 
   "Since the late 1980s, Nature Farming has gained wider
 recognition in the United States through the coordinated
 efforts of MOA and the Rodale Institute in the formation of
 the World Sustainable Agriculture Association (WSAA).  The
 WSAA and MOA sponsor annual conferences on Nature Farming
 and sustainable agriculture.  Kyusei Nature Farming conducts
 on-farm research in California." 
 
 One MOA worker in Hawaii explained that in fact they 
 even make special composts for different purposes.  Thus, 
 in terms of how the foundation of Nature Farming is laid,
 it appears that humus indeed forms the basis of production.
 Likewise, while not being familiar with all the particulars
 of Effective Microorganisms (EM) used in Nature Farming, 
 on viewing the number of research papers available through 
 Kyusei Nature Farming that deal specifically with microbes,
 it appears that these microbial additions to soils are 
 important also for the role they play in the formation of 
 humus.  
 
 All of this stuff on humus is important, just as is the advanced 
 work being done on biological controls by Dietrick, Grossman, BIRC, 
 Kyusei Nature Farming, etc.
 
 More on humus, the Luebke influence: 
 
 The Luebke farm family of Austria have infused a reawakening
 amongst farmers and landgrant workers as to the importance of 
 humus through their seminars and conference appearances. 
 
 The Luebkes teach a 3-day seminar on humus management, and a
 4-day seminar on Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC).  The
 Luebke system is based on the use of forage- and
 covercrop-based crop rotations, green manures microbially 
 incoculated at plowdown, CMC compost prepared with microbial 
 inoculants and rock dusts, and proper tillage (spade plow). 
 
 Whether a farmer is financially capable of purchasing a 
 Sandberger compost turner and adopting the whole CMC compost 
 preparation method is secondary to the fact that they come
 away with a deeper understanding of the vital role soil microbes 
 play in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, and how they can 
 manage their soils to increase this effect.  
 
 For example, the Luebkes improved a clay soil on their farm
 from 2% O.M. to 15% O.M. in a ten year period using humus 
 management techniques. 
 
 Most interesting to me as a farm advisor and sanet
 participant, are the soil health evaluation procedures the
 Luebkes employ.  These include percent O.M., the colorimetric 
 humus test, the circular chromatography test, and the buffered
 pH test.  
 
 One of these in particular, the colorimetric humus test,
 has merit for wider adoption, and indeed has already been 
 adopted by several commercial soils labs in the U.S. after
 it was re-introduced by the Luebkes.  In fact, this method 
 was developed in the U.S. decades ago but fell out of usage.  
 
 The colorimetric humus test is done by extracting a soil or
 compost sample with a weal alkali solution (sodium
 hydroxide), filtering the solute, and then comparing the
 color of the extract against a colorimetric scale of 
 standardized liquid-filled test tubes.  The result is a 
 relative number from 0-100.  
 
 The idea behind this test is that it gives an indication of
 the degree and amount to which organic matter in soil has 
 entered a humified state.  When the humus number is compared 
 against percent O.M., it provides a ratio that can be evaluated.
 Ideally, the ratio will be 1 part O.M. to 3 parts humus.
 Too little or too high humus readings provide an indication
 of a soil out of balance.  
 
 This test is especially insightful in combination with 
 the chroma and buffered pH test.  In one instance, 
 it was apparent the soil was constipated...plenty of soil 
 humus, but no microbial activity to make the goodies available 
 through mineralization. 

 At the very least, it demonstrates that sustainable 
 farmers are getting useful information about the condition
 of their soils via other methods of soil evaluation in
 addition to or as an alternative to standard university soils 
 tests.  
 
 So, McNelly, you have a good point and I think farmers,
 landgrant workers, and s.a. advocates should be thinking about 
 humus.  That's why I've summarized these few ideas and
 post them here for others to 'mull' over.   :-)   
 
 Steve Diver
 steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
  
  
 Jim McNelly wrote:
 
 > After a long and informative note on Naturfarm, I was surprised to find 
 > no reference concerning the organic matter concentration in the soil. 
 > Is this typical of many of the new generation of sustainable farmers?
 >
 > Forage and dairy farmers I have met at sustainable ag conferences speak 
 > longingly about organic matter levels, and how to import organics from 
 > off farm to build up soils to native levels around 7% humus, or at least 
 > to a more sustainable level around 3% to 5%,
 > 
 > If I read many of the early proponents of both organic and sustainable 
 > farming correctly, compost, humus, and natural ecosystems were stressed 
 > over other influences such as pest control, disease suppression, 
 > watering and so forth. The (older?) model held that if the soil was 
 > improved, other values would follow. Perhaps it is just me, but does it 
 > not seem that more and more farmers on the sustainable front are talking 
 > about companion planting, beneficial insects, designer microbes, drip 
 > irrigation and other techniques.
 
 .....................Stuff Deleted................................
 
 > This is not to put down such practices, but more to make the observation 
 > that these efforts might be considered to be a substitute for humus and 
 > organic matter.
 >
 > Does anyone else think that organic matter levels in the soil are being 
 > neglected in much of the sustainable agriculture discussion? 
 > 
 > Mr Compost~~~
 > Affordable In-vessel Composting
 > PO Box 7444
 > Saint Cloud, MN 56302
 > 
 > Jim~ McNelly
 > jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
 > 
 > 
 >  * RM 1.3 02460 * A bird in the hand craps on the wrist.
 > 
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
 >    Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
 >    Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
 > ------------------============<>=============-----------------
  
From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Mar 24 11:08:46 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:02:26 -0500 (EST)
From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: Sanet List <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Soil Quality Ref.


Here is a publication on Soil Qualtity, sorry if it duplicates
a pervious post.

Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment
SSSA Special Publication Number 35
ISBN 0-89118,807-X
$32 from
SSSA,ASA Headquarters Office
Attn: Book Order Department
677 South Segoe Rd. 
Madison Wisconsin 53711-1086


From pivotmac@aol.com Mon Nov 28 15:17:44 EST 1994
Article: 2263 of sci.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: pivotmac@aol.com (PivotMac)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Land application of waste
Date: 27 Nov 1994 23:05:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 7
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3bbku3$im3@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <37e968$rtl@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <37e968$rtl@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>, aplante@uoguelph.ca (Alain
F Plante) writes:

We have done some work with food processors and the application of waste
products through center pivot irrigation systems. Drop me a note and give
me an idea of what your project covers and I will see if I can put you in
contact with some more clever than I.


   .        ..    0 'BioCycle-and-other-compposting-journals    Biocycle      0Science.and.Engineering.of.Compost-Harry.Hoitink                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth Fri Apr 15 23:27:55 EDT 1994
Article: 29743 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth
From: snorth@acs.ucalgary.ca (Sheldon North)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Diatomacious Earth
Message-ID: <Apr12.054723.13066@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:47:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <9404111709.PN14247@LL.MIT.EDU>
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 23

Mike Killoran (killoran@ll.mit.edu) wrote:


: I read somewhere that it is just crushed shells of some ancient 
: crustacean but I'm not sure about this.  If it is just crushed

Yes, just the endoskeltons of diatoms.  It is primarily silicon
dioxide (aka glass, sand) and was also used to stabilize
nitroglycerine (Nobel dynamite).

: shells, I would think it would be OK to dump it in the compost
: pile or sprinkle it around in the woods.  I'd rather not have
: it hauled away to a landfill if it is benign enough for the 
: backyard.


I would expect that it would be great for soil/compost because it
has a lot of surface area and thus should help drainage and
gas-exchange.  I doubt it would help nutrient holding capacity,
but it isn't likely to hurt it either.


Sheldon


From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth Fri Apr 15 23:27:55 EDT 1994
Article: 29743 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!pirates!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!snorth
From: snorth@acs.ucalgary.ca (Sheldon North)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Diatomacious Earth
Message-ID: <Apr12.054723.13066@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:47:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <9404111709.PN14247@LL.MIT.EDU>
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 23

Mike Killoran (killoran@ll.mit.edu) wrote:


: I read somewhere that it is just crushed shells of some ancient 
: crustacean but I'm not sure about this.  If it is just crushed

Yes, just the endoskeltons of diatoms.  It is primarily silicon
dioxide (aka glass, sand) and was also used to stabilize
nitroglycerine (Nobel dynamite).

: shells, I would think it would be OK to dump it in the compost
: pile or sprinkle it around in the woods.  I'd rather not have
: it hauled away to a landfill if it is benign enough for the 
: backyard.


I would expect that it would be great for soil/compost because it
has a lot of surface area and thus should help drainage and
gas-exchange.  I doubt it would help nutrient holding capacity,
but it isn't likely to hurt it either.


Sheldon


From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduSat Mar 23 12:11:53 1996
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:00:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: compost (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:24:08 -0600
From: Richard Egg <r-egg@tamu.edu>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Cc: jasbatt@usit.net
Subject: Re: compost (fwd)

>> From: James Battle <jasbat@use.usit.net>

>> Sirs:
>> I am at present trying to sell the city commisioners of the city of
>> Lawrenceburg,TN on the idea of co-composting msw and sewer sludge to make
>> compost for sustainable agriculture. So far 2 yes and 3 no. Not good.
>> Do you have information you can share about how many tons of compost to
>> grow 100+bu corn per acre on a continuing basis? How many more to produce 2
>> bales of cotton, etc?
>> I would appreciate anything you have. Please E-mail me at jasbat@usit.net

James:

There is a review article in the April, 1993, Biocycle (vol 34, no 4) that
discusses the application of msw compost to agricultural soils. The authors
suggest that the greatest benefit is in the imporvement of physical and
chemical properties of the soil (organic matter, water holding capacity,
bulk density, pH, cation exchange capacity) rather than the fertilizer
value.

If you add compost to supply all the nitrogen the crop needs, you may be
overapplying phosphorous and soluble salts. However, the article suggests
that 10-30 tons/acre of MSW compost improved the properties of most soils
without any phytoxicity effects.

If you don't have access to 'Biocycle' call or e-mail me and I'll send you
a copy. Biocycle has had a number of articles on composting during the last
5 years or so.

Richard Egg
Agricultural Engineering Dept,
Texas A&M University

(409) 845-7686


From ccof@igc.apc.org Sun Feb 19 12:26:21 EST 1995
Article: 5403 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!rutgers!koriel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!ccof
From: Brian Baker <ccof@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Regs to Raise Compost Costs
Message-ID: <APC&1'0'67a2752c'7ce@igc.apc.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:31:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Gateway: notes@igc.apc.org
Lines: 26

The California Integrated Waste Management Board is 
considering regulations that CCOF estimates will increase
the price of compost by $2-$3/ton. That's as much as 15%
in some areas. These regulations will do nothing to prevent
adverse environmental effects of uncomposted manure or yardwaste.
The proposed regulations are a clear attempt by large 
waste-haulers to undermine competition from established 
agricultural composters. 

The last day for public comment is tomorrow, February 14.
Please let the Waste Board know what you think about 
regulations that discourage the making and use of compost.

Address your comments to Caren Trgovcich, Ass't. Director,
Policy & Analysis Office, 8800 Cal Center Drive, Sacramento, CA 95826
and fax them to 916-255-2227. For more information, call
them at 916-255-2423.
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   Brian Baker, Technical Coordinator                |
|   California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)       |
|   1115 Mission St., Santa Cruz, CA  95060           |
|   phone: 408-423-2263   fax: 408-423-4528           |
|   internet: ccof@igc.apc.org                        |
|   "All great truths begin as blasphemies."          |
|      --George Bernard Shaw                          |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+


From llengnic@asrr.arsusda.govThu Feb 23 20:13:04 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:22:21 -0500 (EST)
From: llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: sals@rain.org
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Org. N loss was Re:Soil Quality Attributes


Thought I'd respond to your question about organic vs.
conventional N sources.  I did my PhD on exactly that
question.  So, while its only one project, in one location
(central Pennsylvania), I did do a lit. review on the
subject and found *no evidence* for the conventionally held
point of view.  In fact, there's been little research
designed to test this theory.  I think it is a reasonable
idea that if mineralization occurs after crop harvest the
nitrate is at risk for leaching losses, but there is little
research out there that supports this argument.  My
research, in corn cropping systems, no till and till,
alfalfa in rotation, dairy manure or ammonium nitrate
supplying N, found no evidence that the organic sources
of N increased N leaching risks.  In fact, the corn
following alfalfa treatment had lower fall soil nitrate
levels than corn supplied the economic optimum rate of
ammonium nitrate (and grain yields in these two treatments
were the same and high - 10 Mg/ha on average all three years
of the study).  Guess I ought to get around to writing that
up, huh?!  

The issue of taking land out of a pasture (ley) is
different.  Lots of nitrate can be released and lost in this
case.  But as you say, organic management is more than just
*one* practice, and the *system* of covering the land all
year helps to prevent N losses that may occur through
mineralization of organic N during periods of no crop
uptake.

Reasons for no N mineralization after crop harvest in
systems supplied with organic N?  My best guess is that in
Central Penn., fall is dry, crops have pulled all the
moisture out of the soil, low microbial activity.  Once
precip. begins in Nov/Dec,soils too cold to support
mineralization/nitrification.

The project I was working in also directly measured N
leaching in these systems with lysimeters at 1 meter depth
(ie below corn rooting depth) and corroborate my findings. 
That work has continued at Penn State.  The project is now 6
years old.

By the way, the argument that your colleagues present is
also strongly argued by British soil scientists....but I
could find no studies to support the view in the British
literature, either.  Curious, isn't it?

Laura

From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzFri Mar 31 21:25:59 1995
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 95 07:33:27 +1200
From: Valerie Cowperthwaite <Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nz>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info?


In article , jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes:
> 
> 
> I concur with the earlier posting that suggested the article
> "Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative 
Agriculture."
> H. Kirchmann, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1994, 
7(2)
> 17 3-187. The abstract states in part:
> 
> "...(Steiner's) instructions were based on insights and inner 
visions
> from spiritualistic exercises and not on agricultural 
experiments...
> many of his statements are not provable simply because 
scientifically
> clear hypotheses cannot be made as his descriptions were unclear and 

> not stringent. Those predictions that can be tested scientifically 
have
> been found to be incorrect. It was concluded (in the article) that
> Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot 
contribute
> to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture."
> 
> Jonathan Haskett
> 
What a pity the author of this article did not do some up-to-date 
research.  Here in New Zealand many farmers are farming 
biodynamically.  They are successful and sustainable. The farm I am 
involved with of 1,000 acres  supports sheep, beef cattle and is 
involved in building up a sizeable dairy herd as a source for its 
planned milk products programme. They also run small scale pig and 
poultry operations, plus grazing for race and show horses.  Commerical 
vegetable growing and an extensive tree raising and planting programme 
are also included.

Other farmers are contributing in the areas of dairying particularly 
and biodynamic growers are successfully holding their own in citrus 
and avocado growing to name just the higher profile areas.  One of our 
leading winemakers who consistently wins international gold medals 
also grows his grapes biodynamically.

Pfeiffer's early work on microbes and composts gives the lie to the 
statement that there is no scientific basis for biodynamics as does 
the paper in Science April 1993 by Reganold et al showing the 
sustainability of biodynamics especially with regard to soil 
conservation.

Our farm has also been the site of various other scientific 
investigations including work on the dung beetle, blow flies and fish 
farming - we have a unique mullet farm.

I would not point anyone to Steiner's works as an introduction.  The 
Biodynamic Farm by H.H. Koepf and the Coming Revolution in Agriculture 
by Dr Harold Willis offer more practical perspectives on biodynamic 
farming - there is some controversy in bd circles over Willis' view.   
Soper's book on gardening is also, as I remember, relatively free of 
the mystic elements.

Kirchmann's conclusion reminds of a MAF scientist critical of 
biodynamics who featured in a TV programme on this topic - "Yes, well 
we see that it DOES work, but we don't see why it SHOULD work."  So 
therefore it is dismissed!
From Greg.Berry@geog.utas.edu.auWed Jun 28 14:41:58 1995
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 23:17:24 +1000
From: Greg Berry <Greg.Berry@geog.utas.edu.au>
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: address request & advice

Hello, I've just begun PhD research into the use of on site composting of
human waste and its use as a fertiliser.  If anybody is working in the same
area I would be glad to hear from them.  Also, would anyone know the
address, E-mail or otherwise, of the 'International Reference Centre for
Waste Disposal'?  Thanks.    
  
Greg Berry, Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Box
252C, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 7001.
Phone 002- 202834
From jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org Wed Dec 21 22:22:47 EST 1994
Article: 49310 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!mr.net!bardeen.physics.csbsju.edu!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
X-Apparently-to: AGRAWAL@GRACIE
Subject: compost: tilling fall lea
From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Message-ID: <36.5559.2599@granite.mn.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:04:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372
Lines: 48

AGRAWAL@GRACIE TO ALL
Discussing: compost: tilling fall lea ON 12/06/94
Replied To: Wednesday, December 14, 1994 01:10


A> Well, our instructor said that tilling leaves under is a no-no! By
A> tilling them in the soil the bacteria that decomposes them requires
A> nitrogen and it will take it away from the soil leaveing it less
A> fertile . I didn't notice any soil problem with mine garden.

Greetings,

Many studies have shown that tilling in leaves at a loading rate of about 
40 dry tons per acre, approximately 1" wet and compacted, 3" dry, is 
beneficial to food crops. The most recent and best study was by Dr. Art 
Peterson at the University of Wisconsin, Madison in 1992.

The issue of nitrogen starvation which your so called expert alludes to 
is being proven to be largely over-stated and not the problem that was 
once suspected. New studies from Asia are demonstrating that high wood 
fiber compost is quite beneficial to soils.

Your composting expert seems to be taught in the chemical process of 
feeding soils and might benefit from a more interdisciplinary perspective 
on the value of the soil ecosystem, which is supported by humus, 
decomposing organic matter, and annual applications of fresh organic 
materials.

The soil is self balancing in relation to diseases and fertilizer 
balance once the beneficial soil ecosystem is in place. Natural anti-
biotics are being shown to be more beneficial in controlling disease than 
the heat of the composting process. In the absence of N, high carbon 
feedstocks are often colonized by fungi and other microbes not associated 
with thermophyllic composting. They are excellent in decomposing high 
carbon materials and leaving rich humus in its place.

Nature and earthworms till in raw leaves.  You can too.


Mr Compost~~~


 * RM 1.3 02460 * What's all this fuss about endangered feces?

------------------============<>=============-----------------
   Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
   Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------


From pbb_rm@wye.ac.ukThu Oct 19 22:16:43 1995
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:20:00 +0100
From: Rodrigues_Mario_Sergio <pbb_rm@wye.ac.uk>
To: AGRIC-L@UGA.BITNET, AG-EXP-L@VM1.NODAK.EDU, HORT-L@VTMVM1.BITNET,
    SUSTAG-L@listproc.wsu.edu, ECOL-AGRIC@mailbase.ac.uk,
    sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: COMOPOSTING

Please forward:

Dr. J.M. Lopez Real, from Wye College/University of London, is offering 
places for training courses in composting systems and methodology, postgraduated studies (MsC, MPhill or PhD) or postdoctoral studies on composting of organic wastes and microbiology of composting. Candidates must be self funded. Bench fees = L 500.00 per calendar month (US$ 750.00) for training courses. Post-doc fees = L 6,000 per year.
For more information, please send an e-mail to: sbs-jlr@wye.ac.uk
or write to: Dr. J.M. Lopez-Real
             Dept. of Biological Sciences              
             Wye College/University of London 
             Wye, Ashford, Kent
             TN25 5AH, U.K.
             Fax: (1233) 813140




From jenab@sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int Wed Nov  9 00:00:36 EST 1994
Article: 47251 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!nntp.sita.int!sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int!jenab
From: jenab@sunshine.ps.atl.sita.int (Jena B)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Vermicomposting
Date: 3 Nov 1994 19:34:25 GMT
Organization: SITA
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <39be01$mt6@ash.es.atl.sita.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunshine.es.atl.sita.int
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]

Hello all,
I was the lucky MG chosen to become the 'worm expert' in the Atlanta area.
I have already printed two post from a week or two ago, and have even
started a little 'worm box'.  Now, I would really appreciate any help,
comments, funny stories, success stories, etc. that any of you would be
willing to share with me.  I will have to compile all information into
a pamplet for the extension service, and will give credit where credit
is due.  I am also scheduled to speak at our Gwinnett County Master
Gardners meeting in March '95.  And some schools have expressed an interest
in having me come and speak about vermicomposting, and perhaps getting
the children started on their own project.  (won't their parents love
that!)

Thanks in advance!  Post it here, or e-mail me and I will keep everyone
up to date on the progress.

--
Jena Buttimer
jenab@es.atl.sita.int


From GEOFF.SEAVERS@bbsrc.ac.ukThu Apr  4 12:33:50 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:16:22 +0000
From: SEAVERSG <GEOFF.SEAVERS@bbsrc.ac.uk>
To: Non Receipt Notification Requested <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Weed Suppressive Soils

If anyone out there is working on this area we would be very interested in 
hearing from you. This area overlaps with our research interests at IACR-Long 
Ashton and the whole idea of CRP in the USA sounds very like our set-aside 
system here in the UK. If anyone who receives this would be interested in some 
form of collaborative work in this subject area we would be pleased to discuss 
any ideas you may have.

Geoff Seavers/Nick Peters
IACR-Long Ashton Research Station
Department of Agricultural Sciences
University of Bristol
Long Ashton
Bristol
UK
BS18 9AF

Tel: +44 1275 392181
Fax: +44 1275 394007
GEOFF.SEAVERS@BBSRC.AC.UK
From benbrook@hillnet.comSat Mar 23 12:03:34 1996
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 11:10:22 -0500
From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Weed Suppressive Soils Research Opportunity

To:  SANET-mg

        Try number 2, I did the address wrong the first time.  Sorry.  chuck

>Cc: dave@mortsun.unl.edu, BUHLER@NSTL.GOV, drkeeney@iastate.edu, ken@ewg.org,
>        bake@ccof.org, hansmi@consumer.org, goodmanR@macc.wis.edu,
>        hoppin+r%WWFUS@mcimail.com, RRJANKE@KSUVM.KSU.EDU,
>        76372.2132@compuserve.com, wcliebhardt@ucdavis.edu, mdlip@aol.com,
>        asorensen@niu.edu, werner@zzyx.ucsc.edu, liebman@maine.maine.edu,
>        jddoll@facstaff.wisc.edu, bjacobsen@reeusda.gov,
>        merrigan@access.digex.com, benbrook@hillnet.com,ccox@sies.wsc.ag.gov
>
>To:  Students/faculty, Dept. Heads in soils, biology/ecology, microbiology,
>agronomy, plant path. and relate disciplines:
>
>Re: Research Opportunity to Explore Biological Basis of Weed Suppressive Soils
>
>        There is growing evidence that weed-seed viability and survival is
>influenced by a range of biological processes including predation by a wide
>range of beetle species, microbial breakdown of the seed as it rests in the
>soil profile, and upon germination, attack by indigenous organisms that
>prefer foxtail (or whatever weed species) roots to anything else around.
>Together, these processes can create what some people refer to as "weed
>suppressive soils".  There is intriguing evidence from some recent Practical
>Farmers of Iowa trials that these mechanisms can play a powerful role in
>lessening weed management problems in fields and management systems where
>conventional "wisdom" would predict a very tough and ongoing battle with weeds.
>        Over the next couple of years the nation has a unique opportunity to
>test the boundaries of bioligcal/microbial weed management, as some 15 plus
>million acres return from the CRP to crop production.  Such land will be
>loaded with weed seeds, high in organic matter, and if managed correctly,
>will be exceptionally high in arthropod and microbial activity.  
>        Most of the land coming out of the CRP will unfortunately be managed
>in ways that will greatly reduce beetle and microbial acitivity, since
>conventional wisdom will say the ground has to be either heavily tilled or
>sprayed with burn-down herbicides plus heavy doses of grass/broadleaf
>products.  Already, farm magazines are scaring farmers about the high
>populations of insects that will be living in all the trash, and urging a
>preventive application of some soil insecticides.  And of course, to break
>down all that organic matter, farmers will need to apply susbtantial
>quantities of N, which if applied in common hot fertilize forms, will
>dramatically skew microbial populations in the soil, and reduce the chances
>that there will be sufficient microbial biodiversity in the soil profile in
>the key 4-8 week period in the spring and early summer when microbial
>biocontrol processes must either be in full-gear, or not happen.  These
>management -- herbicides, soil insecticides, heavy fertilizer applications,
>tilage --are likely to all work contrary to the biological processes that
>create weed suppressive soils.
>        So, the research opportunity is to work with some farmers converting
>CRP ground back to crops, develop a set of alternative management systems on
>a portion of fields, using combinations of reduced tillage, manure,
>cultivation, planting patterns/methods to control weeds with no herbicides
>and/or reduced rates.  In each of the reduced or no herbicide plots, a 100
>foot section of a couple of rows should then be fumigated or treated with
>some pesticide material that will knock back soil microbial activity and
>arthropods, but leave weed seeds unharmed.  The hypothesis would be that
>weed germination, survival, and growth would be significantly greater in the
>pesticide treated section of the rows than the untreated.  If this
>experiment, and variations on the theme, were run in several states over the
>next few years as more CRP gound returns to production, the collective
>results could markedly influence thinking about future directions in weed
>management research and management.  It will also lend key insights into the
>role of predation and microbial control of weeds in adjusting economic
>thresholds for weeds in the context of IPM systems. 
>        I would appreciate periodic updates from anyone carrying out such
>work in the next couple of years.  I am sure others on SANET would also like
>to be kept appraised of developments.  
>
>
From esact@selway.umt.edu Sun Nov 27 22:03:51 EST 1994
Article: 4624 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: esact@selway.umt.edu (Tony Tweedale)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: wood chip-digesting fungi and ground nuts
Date: 28 Nov 1994 01:56:53 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 12
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.941127182952.16311A-100000@selway.umt.edu>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411271828.B20889-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

the usfs wood science lab in madison, wi (1 gifford pinchot drive) puts 
out a lot of papers on fungal degradation (applications include paper 
pulping, wood protection and toxics degrafation). the stars seem to be the
white rot family, tho the brown rot family is also studied.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
tony tweedale            |TEMPERATE BUT ENDANGERED PLANET.
recycle missoula, inc.   |ENJOYS WEATHER, NORTHERN LIGHTS,
224 e. pine st (2)       |CONTINENTAL DRIFT. SEEKS CARING
missoula mt 59802-4541   |RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLIGENT LIFE
tel.: 406-542-1709       |FORM. (Friends of the Earth)
internet: esact@selway.umt.edu



From kluson@chuma.cas.usf.edu Wed Dec  7 00:01:53 EST 1994
Article: 4718 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: kluson@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Robert Kluson BIO)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: wood chip-digesting fungi and ground nuts
Date: 6 Dec 1994 16:10:05 -0000
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 66
Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941206095050.8071A-100000@chuma>
References: <Pine.3.89.9411271828.B20889-0100000@hamp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblue.oit.unc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Greetings, Joel.  Sorry for the delay in sharing my information on your 
request below.  Nevertheless, I think that you would be very interested 
in the following references:

 1) Solbraa, K., M.D. Sant, A.R. Selmer-Olsen, and H.R. Gislerod.  1983.  
Composting soft and hardwood barks.  BioCycle, Vol. July/August:44-48,59.

 2) Hoitink, H.A.J., E.B. Nelson, and D.T. Gordon.  1982.  Composted bark 
controls soil pathogens of plants.  Ohio Report 67(1):7-10.

 3) Wood Products for Fertilizer.  1945.  Bulletine No. 7, NE Wood 
Utilization Council, New Haven, Conn.

 4) Composting section of the Appropriate Technology Microfiche Library, 
Volunteers in Asia, Stanford, CA, 1-800-648-8043.  Their information 
describes some very interesting successes in East Africa with applying 
sawdust to field soils as a fertilizer!  I too had questions of possible 
nitrogen immobilization but I suppose their successess can partially be 
explained by research such as the following:

 5) Hill, N.M, and D.G. Patriquin.  1990.  Evidence for the involvement 
of Azospirillum brasilense and Helicomyces roseus in the aerobic 
nitrogen-fixing/celluloytic system from sugarcane litter.  Soil Biol. 
Biochem. 22(3):313-319.

Joel, I noticed that someone did suggest using the references from Paul 
Staments for specific fungal inoculants, and I agree wholeheartedly on 
that.  He probably is one of our most kowledgeable resources persons on
this subject.  If you are interested too in more ideas about results from 
microbial screening trials on woody substrates, check out the following 
reference:

 6) Kirk, T.K., T. Higuchi, H.M. Chang (eds.).  1980.  Lignin 
Biodegradation: Microbiology, Chemistry and Potential Applications.  CRC 
Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Good luck on your trials.  I too feel that wood-based compost is an 
under-utilized resource.  I would be very interested in hearing about 
your experiences.  Later...

 On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, 
Joel B Gruver wrote:

> I have 2 info requests. 
> First, I have access to large volumes of roughly 
> chipped hardwood limbs with a small amount of foliage and coniferous 
> limbs mixed in. (These materials were chipped by a road maintenance crew.)
> Black cherry is probably the dominant hardwood constituent.
> I am looking for a method of accelerating the decomposition of  
> these materials so that I can use them as a soil amendment. I am 
> wondering if there is a species of fungi that I can innoculate or 
> encourage to accelerate the break down of such high lignin materials. 
> Where can I find good information on the biochemistry of fungal digestion of 
> high ligno-cellulosic materials ? Is there an edible species of mushroom 
> that I can culture on this material ?
> 
> Where can I find information on the cultivation of the wild edible 
> plant (Apios americana, common name: ground nut) ? Who is researching the 
> economic potential of this plant ? Where can I obtain seeds, cuttings... of 
> groundnuts selected for desirable traits ?
> 
> Joel Gruver
> Hampshire College Farm Center
> (413) 582-5348
> jgruver@hamp.hampshire.edu
> 


From LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU Tue Apr 18 13:17:02 EDT 1995
Article: 63959 of rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!cronkite.ocis.temple.edu!VM.TEMPLE.EDU!LEAPDJWV
From: LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Compost, Yarrow Helps?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 13:31:08 EDT
Organization: Temple University
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <1737DBE23S86.LEAPDJWV@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
References: <1995Apr9.103510.3081@hartwick.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vm.temple.edu

I started some Yarrow seeds this weekend.  Planning to add this
to our small herb garden after reading how beautiful it would be
in bloom.  I'm not familiar with Yarrow, but my wife read of grand
things it leaves could do in out compost.  One leaf can take on
a wheelbarrow of material?  Based on that review I planted more seeds
and can't wait for true growth.
 
Can this be true?  Yarrow a compost helper?
 
Dave Vanderhoof



