Mark;
At first blush I thought you a cad, but now I surmise that you are in fact a
gentleman, maybe just a tad upset. In that vein, I apologise if you found my
retort unkind.
Those of us who have been on this site for a while, have grown accustomed to
Tim's mannerisms. Tim has contributed a great deal to this site, and indeed
we are privileged to have him give of his time and energy, and spread his
understanding of the tools and concepts he uses. While he doesn't have the
grounding in academia that you learned members of this elite fraternity
have, he nevertheless has taught us undergraduates a great deal. We have had
many of your learned colleagues conduct research which has, quite frankly,
appalled us with its lack of understanding of compost teas and even compost.
I hope you can contribute to this site, and if you cross swords with Tim
intellectually, maybe you can do so in a manner that is considerate and kind
- like a Grand Master teaching a student. Maybe the student also has
something to teach the Grand Master- who knows. We will be hanging on every
word.
Kind Regards
SS
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pawlett, Mark
Sent: 17 February 2011 11:33
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
SS
You rightly state that many who use this site are hobbyists, therefore it is
important that they are not "led up the garden path" with pseudo science.
It's also important not to criticise people who have tried to do some
research. I've given Tim the chance to debate, so let the debate begin.
Remember the Red Queen Hypothesis. If you relax then you travel backwards.
Mark
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Steyn
Sent: 17 February 2011 08:44
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Mark;
You gotta relax man.
I regard myself as a well balanced individual (I have a chip on each
shoulder) and try and take a holistic view of this site. Remember that our
peers on this site, who are reviewing every comment, are hobbyists, not
professionals. That does not mean that the points we raise are invalid. In
the context of our experience, the points raised by Tim are valid enough.
You obviously are highly qualified in this field, so contribute by giving us
the benefit of your knowledge.
SS
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pawlett, Mark
Sent: 16 February 2011 12:36
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Dear Tim
So, let's open the debate regarding methods used in the world of soil
microbiology.
In terms of methods. There are many other methods , and in my opinion,
better methods for example PLFA, 16S rDNA transcriptome analysis, RNAi
technology, molecular matchmaking, RAPD, T-RFLP and FT/MS. Torsvik (1990)
estimated that in 1g of soil there are 4000 different genomic units, based
on DNA-DNA reasociation. It is also estimated that 5000 bacterial species
have been described ((Pace 1997 1999). Only approximately 1% of the
bacterial population can be cultured by standard laboratory practices, and
it is not know (in my opinion unlikely) that this 1% represents the
bacterial population (Torsvik 1999). An estimated 1, 500, 5000 fungi
species exist in the world (Giller 1997) but fungi are much harder to
culture in the lab than fungi. This information was retrieved from a review
written by Kirk et al 2004 (Journal of Microbial Methods 58: 169-188). Some
of these methods are expensive, however some (e.g. PLFA) is certainly not
too expensive to anyone already using the other methods of analysis. It may
be cheaper, and would provide more useful information.
Catabolic profiles are culture independent methods. As such they are not
subject to the same biases. Of course it is important to remember that all
methods have bias. The important thing it to recognise that bias. The
methods described in the report that you refer to not only give microbial
biomass, but in addition give a culture-independent method of measuring the
catabolic functional profile of the soil microbial community. The method is
used considerably globally in the world of soil microbiology (refer to the
series of papers started by Degens and Harris starting I think in 1999).
Simple methods are only important if they are relevant. It is worthwhile
noting that study that involves only microscopy or culture based techniques
would not be published in any reputable peer reviewed journal of soil
microbiology To test this just have a search and let me know whether you
come up with any in the last 10 years.
I'd would prefer it if you didn't criticise student (undergrad or MSc)
projects that are both limited in time and money. If this continues I will
discontinue the debate. Lets now stick to published, peer reviewed, facts
and see where it goes. In the above I have referenced the published
articles, and you can assume that anything that is not referenced is my
opinion.
Thanks
Mark
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Tim Wilson
Sent: 16 February 2011 00:21
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Well, I thought about shutting up but....
I skimmed through the student's paper and yes it is a student project and
not a journal article. That is no excuse for not including microscopy as
part 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
work. Catabolic profiles are a very important and valid way of describing
the functional component of the soil microbial community."
seems to me off base. Sure there is value in measuring microbial respiration
for overall mass but if one is studying the effects of compost tea in soil,
one would think this implies studying the microbial nutrient loop. (it is
unfortunate that the one Ingham quote used is not wholly accurate) To
assertain the optimum efficacy of a 'compost tea' or a multiplied microbial
extract in liquid one HAS TO observe the existence/numbers of
bacteria/archea and the predatory flagellates and naked amoebae. This is
what drives the microbial nutrient loop. [true that nematodes and arthropods
contribute this in the soil but are virtually impossible to maintain in
compost tea]. To not include microscopy and related microbial counts in such
a study is ridiculous and I'll easily debate anyone on this issue. There is
no great expense involved in this. If you set up the study, I'll provide the
microscope and counting wells. Don't get me wrong. This should be included
with CO2 efflux and respiration related staining as well. The expensive part
comes in when 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 and
Canadian Min of Ag where they did not even consider the protozoa population
when they determined that e-coli can grow in compost tea (only after
inoculating it with e-coli of course). Protozoa eat e-coli. Hello.
Looking down a microscope tube to see if there are bacteria/archaea and
flagellates 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
nematodes 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 <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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
examination by fellow scientists in the field. This appears to be a student
research project report. Nothing more and nothing less. For an undergrad or
MSc research project this report is fit for this purpose. Only the very top
students at either undergraduate or MSc level produce work of sufficient
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
described. Replication is unclear, and there are some problems with the
statistical design. The results and conclusion sections could be clearer.
This project is not perfect by a long shot, however I certainly would NOT
describe 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 have
some form of financial investment from the users. I personally (as a
Research Fellow of Soil Microbial Ecology) have had an interest in compost
teas research for some time. Despite numerous attempts to find funds for
compost tea research from the users and research councils, I have had very
little in terms of financial assistance for research into compost teas. Of
course 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
research programme on compost teas. Such a programme would allow a student
to research compost teas for 3 years, but of course financial investment is
required to have scientifically robust data that can withstand the peer
review process necessary for scientific papers.
>
> I would also like to stress that the methods used were also suitable.
Indeed microscopy would NOT be a suitable method for such work. Catabolic
profiles are a very important and valid way of describing the functional
component of the soil microbial community. There are numerous per reviewed
papers that are available that demonstrate this. Microscopy has inherent
flaws in terms of bias.
>
> The methods DO NOT only give data on bacteria. The data does not
differentiate 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 methods to differentiate between fungi and bacteria. But the substrates
used in the method are suitable, would be utilised fungal community, and
have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
>
> I wonder whether the un-named writer of the below had the courtesy to send
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%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: 15 February 2011 00:22
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [compost_tea] Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
>
>
>
> Hi folks;
>
> I just came across a published paper entitled "Closing the Loop:
Alternative Land Management at Yale". The paper's root is located at
http://environment.yale.edu/hixon/student-research/student-research-interns/
>
> The paper is located here;
http://environment.yale.edu/hixon/files/pdf/2010_Emily_Stevenson.pdf
>
> Does anyone else find this paper a bit shocking? Here's another case of
flawed 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
measured using narrow range of foods. Where's the data on fungi, nematodes
and prots??
>
> There's a misunderstanding of organic matter accumulation in soils. Can we
expect appreciable increase in OM using 1,500 grams of compost, making tea,
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 even
the basics of equipment involved. It reads as though they're quite resistant
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 from
an institution as fine as Yale.
>
Received on Thu Feb 17 2011 - 12:53:12 EST