Mark;
My view is that the ACT system need not be so minutely described to
determine if the ACT is any good or not. We don’t have the tools that all=
ow
the gardener to describe his tea at the species level in sufficient detail.
As long as we can satisfy ourselves that the methodology we use will grow
the microbes in the compost after having stripped large numbers from the
compost, and that we can get these onto the leaf without too much mortality=
,
and get them to stay viable on the leaf for a reasonable amount of time,
then we are satisfied. We believe that, by having a large number of a large
number of viable species on the leaf, then we have an environment that will
help the plant in resisting attacks from disease vectors.
Of course it would be nice to know exactly what we are applying, and to kno=
w
what is attacking the plant, and to know the dynamics of the system on the
leaf surface. I don’t feel it is essential to have this knowledge before
applying ACT. Arguing about the most accurate method is beyond most of us,
and arguing just to argue is puerile. We just need a cost effective method
that will give us an indication of the numbers of active biology in the ACT=
.
SS
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of garyrnorman_at_yahoo.com
Sent: 19 February 2011 00:44
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Jason,
Just remember that your plants know what they want. Just give them the whol=
e
menu and the plant will pick and choose who it invites to the table.
Also, remember not to buy into any bartlett bs.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect
_____
From: Jason Kalka <shortstop42000_at_yahoo.com>
Sender: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:55:17 -0600
To: <compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Mark,
I think you bring up excellent points about testing. I think before even
attempting these tests you must realize what the results will mean for your
plants. I see a lot of these posts and wonder if the posters realize what
the various microbes will actually do for their crops. I think results in
the garden outweigh anything done in the lab.
Just my two cents.
Jason Kalka
Amature gardener
_____
From: Pawlett, Mark <m.pawlett_at_cranfield.ac.uk>
Sent: February 18, 2011 5:56 AM
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Hi
Ok, the debate as I see it is whether the methods that many compost tea
enthusiasts use at the moment are sufficient. Due to the complexity of the
soil microbial system it is my opinion that microbial and culture based
methods are insufficient in describing the interactions of CT and the soil
microbial community. The microscopy method used do go some way towards
describing the compost tea, but do little if anything in terms of describin=
g
the interactions with the soil.
All method have weaknesses. The important thing is to recognise the
weaknesses. I wonder if the CT community understands the weaknesses of
using microscopy as their main technique?
How about that as a starting point J
The link looks great, but unfortunately its not in my neighbourhood. I’m=
in
UK.
Please keep me informed regarding your research. I’d be very interested =
if
you publish anything. Also, if you require collaboration from us then
please contact me (m.pawlett_at_cranfield.ac.uk) and we’ll try and work
something out.
Enjoy Seattle.
Mark
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Tim Wilson
Sent: 17 February 2011 18:28
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Compost Tea 'Data' from Yale
Mark,
I still do not see where the debate is. I have no argument with what you
have stated and it is not much different than what I have stated.
In particulr though you have not really addressed the weakness I pointed ou=
t
except to say; "Protozoa and nematodes would require another method,
microscopy is only one method"
With my microscopes I can view the active protozoa and nematodes in soil or
compost, etc. so indeed it is another tool in the kit for the
horticulturist. From some of the studies I've read from USDA and other
institutes, which did not include evalution of protists and nematodes of an=
y
kind, a microscope would have easily solved this. To the best of my
knowledge, the microscope is the favoured tool for seeing protozoa and
nematodes in soil and water at the University of British Columbia, the
University of Toronto,Institut für Zoologie, Technische Universität
Darmstadt, Washington State University, etc. etc.
You might be interested in attending this if you can afford it. It is in my
neighborhood.;
http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/2009/public.php?page=companies
Your questioning applications of compost tea and the microbes contained
therein surviving in the soil into which they enter, is quite valid. It is =
a
crap shoot but informally I have observed soil microbial populations change=
d
over a period of time with repeated applications. Along with this, I believ=
e
soil properties such as pH have been altered by these (microbes)
applications. However, this is all anecdotal information. I'm not saying
that I will have published works on the subject but I intend to do some
research on this subject (survival of ACT microbes in the soil) over the
next 2 years. Right now I'm in the midst of constructing a new laboratory
space.
This is going to likely be my last response to you until March as I'm
leaving for Seattle to set up a soil microscopy exhibit at a garden show an=
d
I'm going mad with preparations.
I am sponsoring a student doing a self-determined study through a Washingto=
n
institution, with donations of a microscope and resource materials. I don't
believe he has a masters but degrees don't mean much to me. I find that man=
y
people with degrees sometimes have tunnel vision as a result of imprinting
by their favourite instructor/supervisor.
Salutations,
Tim
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Pawlett, Mark" <m.pawlett_at_...> 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 goin=
g
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 cours=
e
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 canno=
t
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 yo=
u
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%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com> =
]
On Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> Sent: 16 February 2011 19:15
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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 there.
>
> 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 observ=
e
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 dow=
n
a microscope tube to SEE if there are indeed bacteria/archaea, fungal hypha=
e
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 th=
e
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>
<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 specie=
s
exist in the world (Giller 1997) but fungi are much harder to culture in th=
e
lab than fungi. This information was retrieved from a review written by Kir=
k
et al 2004 (Journal of Microbial Methods 58: 169-188). Some of these method=
s
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 no=
t
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 worthwhil=
e
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%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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>
<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 a=
s
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 nake=
d
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 th=
e
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><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 flaw=
s
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%40yahoogroups.com=
>
[mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.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><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 perfor=
m
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 Sat Feb 19 2011 - 06:22:24 EST