[compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale

From: Tim Wilson <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:21:02 -0000

Well, I thought about shutting up but....

I skimmed through the student's paper and yes it is a student project and n=
ot a journal article. That is no excuse for not including microscopy as par=
t of the methodology. I am consulting a student at a minor western college =
who is conducting a similar study with much more detail applied.

Your statement "Indeed microscopy would NOT be a suitable method for such w=
ork. Catabolic profiles are a very important and valid way of describing t=
he functional component of the soil microbial community."

seems to me off base. Sure there is value in measuring microbial respiratio=
n for overall mass but if one is studying the effects of compost tea in soi=
l, one would think this implies studying the microbial nutrient loop. (it i=
s unfortunate that the one Ingham quote used is not wholly accurate) To ass=
ertain the optimum efficacy of a 'compost tea' or a multiplied microbial ex=
tract in liquid one HAS TO observe the existence/numbers of bacteria/archea=
 and the predatory flagellates and naked amoebae. This is what drives the m=
icrobial nutrient loop. [true that nematodes and arthropods contribute this=
 in the soil but are virtually impossible to maintain in compost tea]. To n=
ot include microscopy and related microbial counts in such a study is ridic=
ulous and I'll easily debate anyone on this issue. There is no great expens=
e involved in this. If you set up the study, I'll provide the microscope an=
d counting wells. Don't get me wrong. This should be included with CO2 effl=
ux and respiration related staining as well. The expensive part comes in wh=
en we want to ID the microbes to species.

I am ranting but I get so sick to death with these studies that do not even=
 encompass the simplest things. Look at the studies conducted by the USDA a=
nd Canadian Min of Ag where they did not even consider the protozoa populat=
ion when they determined that e-coli can grow in compost tea (only after in=
oculating it with e-coli of course). Protozoa eat e-coli. Hello.

 Looking down a microscope tube to see if there are bacteria/archaea and fl=
agellates and naked amoebae is so simple that even a caveman can do it.

I don't know why it is considered expensive to evaluate whether there are n=
ematodes in ones compost or soil. It is as tough as looking to see if there=
 are robins in the back yard.

BTW, Peter of Compostwerks LLC is hardly unamed.

Salutations,
Tim Wilson
www.microbeorganics.com

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Pawlett, Mark" <m.pawlett_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Just to make this clear. I can't see any evidence that this was actually=
 published. Published scientific papers are all subject to peer review exa=
mination by fellow scientists in the field. This appears to be a student r=
esearch project report. Nothing more and nothing less. For an undergrad o=
r MSc research project this report is fit for this purpose. Only the very =
top students at either undergraduate or MSc level produce work of sufficien=
t quality to publish in a scientific journal.
>
> You are quite correct in some of your statements, there are some flaws in=
 the experiment. The compost tea, soil and compost are inadequately descr=
ibed. Replication is unclear, and there are some problems with the statist=
ical design. The results and conclusion sections could be clearer. This p=
roject is not perfect by a long shot, however I certainly would NOT describ=
e this as shocking.
>
> Student projects have limited time and money. As such they cannot cover =
all analysis (e.g. nematodes). In order to gain both it is necessary to ha=
ve some form of financial investment from the users. I personally (as a Re=
search Fellow of Soil Microbial Ecology) have had an interest in compost te=
as research for some time. Despite numerous attempts to find funds for com=
post tea research from the users and research councils, I have had very lit=
tle in terms of financial assistance for research into compost teas. Of co=
urse if anyone has any suggestions as to where I can find funds then I will=
 certainly follow it up. It is my intention to supervise a PhD student res=
earch programme on compost teas. Such a programme would allow a student to=
 research compost teas for 3 years, but of course financial investment is r=
equired to have scientifically robust data that can withstand the peer revi=
ew process necessary for scientific papers.
>
> I would also like to stress that the methods used were also suitable. In=
deed microscopy would NOT be a suitable method for such work. Catabolic pr=
ofiles are a very important and valid way of describing the functional comp=
onent of the soil microbial community. There are numerous per reviewed pap=
ers that are available that demonstrate this. Microscopy has inherent flaw=
s in terms of bias.
>
> The methods DO NOT only give data on bacteria. The data does not differe=
ntiate between bacteria and fungi, but rather gives a functional profile of=
 the soil microbial community as a whole. Thus data includes both bacteria=
 and fungi. A more detailed study would allow the research to use the meth=
ods to differentiate between fungi and bacteria. But the substrates used i=
n the method are suitable, would be utilised fungal community, and have bee=
n published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
>
> I wonder whether the un-named writer of the below had the courtesy to sen=
d his questions to the authors of the work to give them a chance to respond=
 before sending into the group.
>
> Dr Mark Pawlett
> Research Fellow of Soil Microbial Ecology at Cranfield University.
>
>
>
>
> From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On=
 Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: 15 February 2011 00:22
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [compost_tea] Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
>
>
>
> Hi folks;
>
> I just came across a published paper entitled "Closing the Loop: Alternat=
ive Land Management at Yale". The paper's root is located at http://enviro=
nment.yale.edu/hixon/student-research/student-research-interns/
>
> The paper is located here; http://environment.yale.edu/hixon/files/pdf/20=
10_Emily_Stevenson.pdf
>
> Does anyone else find this paper a bit shocking? Here's another case of f=
lawed methodology and misunderstanding on how biological systems perform in=
 the real world.
>
> There seems to be a complete disconnect on how compost tea is made.
>
> * Too many foods (certainly an anerobic tea they're referencing here)
> * No testing of compost tea
> * No mention of brewer design aside from a 'bubbler'
> * No DO data
>
> No testing on their 'food waste' compost.
>
> No mention of microscopy...at all.
>
> Flawed methodology in before/after soil testing. Only bacteria are measur=
ed using narrow range of foods. Where's the data on fungi, nematodes and pr=
ots??
>
> There's a misunderstanding of organic matter accumulation in soils. Can w=
e expect appreciable increase in OM using 1,500 grams of compost, making te=
a, diluting 1:1 and applying multiple times in a 6 X 6 meter area?
>
> There's a major disconnect as to how to apply CT on a large scale and eve=
n the basics of equipment involved. It reads as though they're quite resist=
ant to changing there current chemical system.
>
> I see lots of logarythmic scatter gram but not much in the way of science=
.
>
> I'd expect to see somthing more substantial. This is a dissapointment fr=
om an institution as fine as Yale.
>




Received on Tue Feb 15 2011 - 20:47:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:04 EST