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

From: Tim Wilson <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:37:45 -0000

Mary,

Don't worry about the terminology; biotic = living components of the soil=
 like fungi, bacteria/archaea, protists, nematodes, worms, arthropods, etc =
:: abiotic = so called non-living componenents like minerals, sand, clay,=
 water, O2, some include nutrients, etc. [to the best of my understanding]

All this hodge podge of modern old fashioned conventional smoke and mirrors=
 horticultural mumbo jumbo (just having fun) is overcome with lots of organ=
ic matter....well usually. (and maybe ACT & LCE)

What it means in this context is that when applied ACT microbes are faced w=
ith overcoming the existent microbial population and other possible living =
contraries as well as a potentially unsuitable soil structure. Well, in man=
y cases, those potential obstacles are the reason for applying compost tea =
to begin with. If I am faced with a compacted soil possibly compounded with=
 previous heavy chemical applications, I'm inclined to apply some EM fermen=
tations prior to using ACT and to try boosting the organic matter content w=
ith
(vermi)compost or sphagnum peat moss or mulch if affordable.

We can always hear from some folks actually walking the walk in their every=
day work like Matt. Too bad we don't hear from Charles anymore but I think =
Brad(?) from Alberta just posted. He uses compost tea on his farm. Let's he=
ar some practical stories. Does it work for you? How?

I'm no longer on the farm but you've heard my accounts from there.

Tim

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Mary McCanta <mary_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark -
>
> On a practical level, is there any way for a home compost tea maker to
> do any of these tests, like PFLA, or are these all assays that require
> extensive lab equipment? I'm afraid I *don't* understand the abiotic and=
 
> biotic constraints of the soil (yet) but I do want my compost tea to
> work! Do you have any ideas about tests I could do at home that would
> help ensure that the tea I'm making will work for my particular soil?
> Right now microscopy is the only way I know of to inexpensively check
> the contents of the tea, and I can do pH tests on my soil, but if you
> have other tests that would be useful in this context (my "lab" is my
> basement) then I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> Thanks! - Mary
>
>
>
> On 2/17/2011 2:58 AM, Pawlett, Mark wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tim
> >
> > The PLFA method (there are others but this one is relatively cheap)
> > will give you a phenotypic fingerprint of the microbial community (or
> > as you say the players in the party), without the need to look down a
> > microscope (I gave that up years ago). It will not give species level=
 
> > but groups, e.g. fungi:bact, G+ve:G-ve, methanotrophs, AM fungi,
> > stress indicators and some others. Protozoa and nematodes would
> > require another method, microscopy is only one method. Another method=
 
> > called tRFLP (terminal restriction length polymorphism) will enable
> > you to study in more detail, such as ammonia oxidising bacteria.
> >
> > But what is the most important thing here. To define what is there or=
 
> > the function (I'm not taking about the whole food web, rather the
> > bacterial and fungal component). You can make a spectacular compost
> > tea, but if you don't understand the abiotic and biotic constraints of=
 
> > the soil that you are going to apply it to the microbiology will not
> > survive or genes will not function, thereby the compost tea will not
> > work. This is about function, but of course the phenotypic signature
> > is important. Yes the 2 are linked, but there are important
> > situations where the phenotypic fingerprint of the soil microbial
> > community does not change, but the function does, and visa versa. You=
 
> > cannot do this stuff using a microscope.
> >
> > Check out the journal Soil Biology and Biochemistry. You will be hard=
 
> > pushed to find any microscopy based techniques to describe soil
> > microbial communities in the last 10 years. Horticulturalists use the=
 
> > microscopy techniques as they are easily accessible to them. Not
> > because they are the best methods. Yes, of course the methods that
> > you describe would be useful to a horticulturalist, I'm sure nobody
> > would deny that. But there are more tools in the tool kit of soil
> > microbiology than the ones that you describe. The bridge between the
> > academic and the horticulturalist does need crossing, but that's a
> > wider issue.
> >
> > Of course, if you want to put your money where your mouth is why don't=
 
> > you fund a MSc student to compare methods, and at the same time answer=
 
> > some fundamental questions that are still unanswered regarding compost=
 
> > tea application. Go on, you know you want to do it. Of course you
> > will be more than happy with the quality of research that we conduct
> > within the department that I work.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > *From:*compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Tim Wilson
> > *Sent:* 16 February 2011 19:15
> > *To:* compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > *Subject:* [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I agree and believe that I already stated that it is important to have=
 
> > more than one method of microbial analysis so you have no argument ther=
e.
> >
> > To repeat what I actually said, "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 necessary to actually see what players, microbially speaking
> > are at the party. It is a simple thing to peer (pun intended) into a
> > sample down a microscope tube to SEE if there are indeed
> > bacteria/archaea, fungal hyphae and/or conidia, various protozoa and
> > nematodes. One can view this in soil/compost samples as is or after
> > applying various foodstocks to see what microbes are emergent.
> >
> > I'm glad that you have quoted one of my dear friends <GRIN> Vigdis
> > because, I believe, it was she who originally stressed the importance
> > of direct microscopy in combination with more detailed methods, which
> > you have outlined adequately in your remarks. I believe that E.
> > Ingham, Bryan Griffiths, Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski and
> > Wilhelm Foissner would likely accord with this approach to microbial
> > estimations/analysis of soil samples. [if you really want I'll dig up
> > the citations]
> >
> > For the purpose of horticultural activities, one can usually depend on=
 
> > the microscope alone as a tool to evaluate the general microbial
> > population of one's soil, compost and compost tea. This, however, as
> > you have pointed out is not up to par with the measurements required
> > to publish an article. My point still bears out that microbially
> > related studies of compost, soil, compost tea etc. are just as much
> > not up to par if microscopy is not included unless some other
> > technique utilized reveals the 'at least general' populations of ALL
> > related microbial groups. [bacteria/archaea; protozoa; nematodes; fungi=
]
> >
> > So when does the debate begin? <enormous grin>
> >
> > BTW, you will note, I did not attack the student but criticize
> > the instructors for failing to provide better guidance. As noted
> > previously, the use of a microscope can be far from expensive and even=
 
> > less expensive than the methods named. I assume Yale can afford some
> > microscopes(?)
> >
> > Salutations,
> > Tim
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>, "Pawlett, Mark"
> > <m.pawlett_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > > Sent: 16 February 2011 00:21
> > > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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><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%40yahoogroups=
.com>
> > [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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><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-int=
erns/
> > > >
> > > > 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 her=
e)
> > > > * 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 - 22:04:30 EST

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