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

From: Jason Austin <jason.austin_at_shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:45:55 -0800

I was pleased to see Stephen's wise remarks because in the past there
have been challenges between some members which, while issued in the
pursuit of knowledge, became so personal and divisive that they did more
harm than good.

I am one of those who has been on this list for many years and has seen
the depth of knowledge expand to the point where we are finally
beginning to comprehend how little we know. I have seen how this
knowledge flourishes best in an environment where all opinions are
considered with respect, and where those opinions found valuable are
built upon and developed further. And I have seen how as products like
ACT are used in new and different setting that experience brings more
observations and fresh ideas that may be different from the established
wisdom up to that point, so we must continually reopen our minds to
absorb it.

It seems to me the primary lesson we should have learnt so far, is that
soil biology is so complex, so variable, and so adaptable, that there
is seldom a single right answer on any issue, and that what may seem
like conflicting opinions are often just partially true answers of the
same issue. To expand our knowledge we need to encourage ideas that are
as varied and as diverse as the soil biology we attempt to understand.

I am 63 and can say this with some authority: in life there are two
ways to look tall - by the size of one's own accomplishments, or to
attack the accomplishments of others. Soil biology is a wide open field
when more remains to be learnt than is known now. This is where I urge
people to put their energy - in developing new knowledge, not going
after others who have been trail blazing.

Sincerely

Jason



>
>
> 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 - 14:53:12 EST

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