[compost_tea] Re: can a brew continue by simply adding nutrients?

From: evanfolds <evan_at_progressearth.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:01:34 -0000

Thanks for your response, Tim. I have no seen your DVD, how can I?

by the way, just took a DO reading from the Vortex Brewer on a perpetual br=
ew that's been spinning for over a month and it was 7.8.

Regardless of how informed one is in recognizing biological diversity, true=
 diversity cannot be attained without DNA testing. That is not to say that =
it is not valuable to have scope experience in identifying different catego=
ries of microbe, simply a statement of the obvious truth.

For instance, we get people confused about our biological products all the =
time because we do not claim microbes on the label. We do this for two reas=
ons. One, we don't propose we can know all the microbes in our biologicals.=
 They are created on a farm that has been in the same family for 350 years =
and have a complexity we cannot know. Second, according to labeling laws, o=
nly certain strains (Bacillus, mycchorizae) are accepted. This leaves peopl=
e to believe they are the only ones that are important. Some on this list m=
ay take issue with that, but you should deal with the general public every =
day. Most people simply believe what they are told. It's the same when 99% =
of this country believes Miracle Gro is sufficient to maintian health in an=
 ecosystem. Most of the time they don't even know what an ecosystem is, the=
y think microbes are the reason for hand sanitizer. Not trying to be ugly, =
its simply the truth. Not being able to claim biological existence on a lab=
el cripples people's ability to know about them. This has happened with "es=
sential nutrients" with plants. Plants can use 50-60 elements directly or i=
ndirectly (microbes all of them as co-factors), yet the "experts" speak of =
17 at the most.

It is my belief that the onset of degenerative disease in modern society is=
 a direct (with no smoking gun) result of growing plants (and microbes) for=
 what they have to have, not what they want, or, better, what we need from =
them.

Most importantly, however, assuming we can identify microbes, is what funct=
ion those microbes perform. We know very little about this considering esti=
mates that only 1/4 of the fungal species have even been identified, for ex=
ample.

Potential NEW microbe species: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/12/136207874/a-ne=
w-somewhat-moldy-branch-on-the-tree-of-life

Further, in regards to biological strength and ability, we are both humans.=
 You may be a better soccer player (N cycler) and I may be a better basketb=
all player (digester), but one cannot tell this by looking at us under a mi=
croscope. If you purchase a microbe grown in a Petri dish with no natural s=
tress or predator, the organism is weaker. This is another simple statement=
 of truth. They lack life experience and have not worked with other organis=
ms. These are not tiny programed machines, they are living life forms.

What are "PGPR products"?

There is even thought that certain species of microbes, outside of individu=
al ability, are "smarter" than others. Check out this article on a "smart c=
ommunity" or vortex bacteria ;)

http://www.dynamicyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i=
d=1748:social-iq-score-of-bacteria&catid=79:research&Itemid=89

It would make sense to most, I imagine, that much of the benefit from micro=
bes comes in their complexity (diversity). Meaning that often it is the ass=
istance of a microbe that has no interaction with a plant directly towards =
a microbe that does, that accounts for the incalculable work done by microb=
es for plants and Nature. To use a basketball analogy, what if the starter =
cant come out of the game and there's no 6th man? Further, what if there is=
 no trainer or assistant coach?

Consider a plant, we can grow them with ionic minerals, but we all know the=
 benefit of having a microbe help.

Consider a human, there are microbes in our gut that use Yttrium to help us=
 digest our food. Yttrium has no direct use by humans that we know, but if =
it is not found in our diet, and it is not found in most people's anymore, =
microbes cannot cycle Aluminium in our intestines. This has been implicated=
 in Alzheimers and other degenerative diseases, especially with people eati=
ng so much Al in pharmaceuticals and using it in their underarms. This is t=
he importance of using ALL elements as tools for microbes. Read "Minerals f=
or the Genetic Code", by Dr. Olree.

Nature barely ever works directly. Therefore we don't know as much as we th=
ink we know. Given this innate complexity, how is a human supposed to know =
how to create a proper biological inoculant? What if the coach (human) puts=
 the wrong players (microbes) on the court? Five point guards can't beat a =
well balanced basketball team, and the center must get the assist from the =
point guard to dunk the ball.

To put it another way, to realize the importance of biological teamwork, wh=
at if a trapeze artist picked someone out of the crowd to catch her on her =
pass?

Unfortunately, due to the dynamic nature of what we are discussing, there m=
ay be no way to prove the lab grown weakness hypothesis directly except out=
 of subjective experience and intuition. We can't set up an obstacle course=
 and let them run through it. :) This, of course, is what prevents people f=
rom gravitating towards concepts like BioDynamics due to us being trained t=
o expect hard quantifiable data to even consider entertaining potential tru=
ths.

Arguably, the most important aspects of living systems are unmeasureable an=
d unobservable.

The scientific method, while allowing us to advance as a species, cripples =
us. It says that a hypothesis can only be a theory and then a law if it hap=
pens the same way every time. Remember that Nature does not work this way, =
by design. She works in chaos and spirals. The consepquence of the anthropo=
cetric concept of the scientific method, again, while not worthless, is mak=
ing "laws" for humans that do not jive with the laws of Nature. In fact, th=
ey are counterintuitive. Newton pondered gravity by getting hit in the head=
 by the apple, or so the fable goes, but we spend no time discussing how th=
e apple got up there to begin with.

Without acknowledging the unobservable and unmeasureable life force involve=
d in natural systems, we are only considering half the story.

In regards to the shredder part, yes, that is what I'm referring too. Read =
Podolinski for his descriptions of humus. He describes it as the guts of mi=
crobes that form jelly pockets in the soil. becasue "plant food" is contain=
ed in certian zoes in the soil the plant can choose to drink or eat at will=
 depending on if the sun is out or teh time of day. When using soluble arti=
ficial nutrients there is no jelly pocket, "food" is found throughout teh s=
oil and the drinking roots of plants cannot help but eat as well. This acco=
unts for initial higher yields, but is actually only obesity. His descripti=
on resonates with me.

You should also read Steiner on the concept of "You are what you eat". It's=
 easy to think of microbes cycling nutrients through their poop, but we aga=
in can easily oversimplify things. Some may not see the connection here, bu=
t "nutrition" is a relative thing from a non-materialistic perspective: htt=
p://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/NutHealth/19240731p01.html

In the end, organic matter does not just melt. I consider microbes to be re=
sponsible for ALL end results in healthy soil. Just as they are for us in o=
ur gut, or worms and bacteria in theirs, or termites and fungi in theirs. T=
his is why microbes are so important. They help plants, but most importantl=
y they make plant food in the cycle of life.

If plant food is not kept in solution after being created, where does it go=
? I too believe that this can be documented, but it will not be directly, I=
 presume. There is a disconnect between articially created nutrients and na=
tural. For instance, I can spray a 2000ppm solution of Earth TOnic on a pla=
nt and it will love it. If I do the same with an artificial nutrient it wil=
l murder the plant. Nature has a way of balancing things that a human can n=
ever know. We must be humble to this.

We have people using natural nutrients in our retail store all the time wit=
h an NPK that is 2-1-1 who get MUCH better results than when they uised an =
artifical nutrient with a 15-10-10. I'm sure everyone is aware on some leve=
l the difference of nutrition from Nature versus a factory.

I'm curious to hear the thoughts of the lab we find to this work. Are tehy =
set up to assay ionic minerals or biological plant food. I suspect there is=
 a difference, and maybe one we cannot detect readily.

Let me know on that DVD..

evan
www.VortexBrewer.com


--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi Evan;
>
> Two things jumped at me from your post;
>
> 1/ Diversity; The type of diversity which is qualified/quantified by DNA =
testing is the species (genera?) difference in bacteria, archaea and fungi =
genera. The type of diversity I am talking about is bacteria/archaea, flage=
llates, naked amoebae, testate amoebae, ciliates, rotifers, fungal hyphae. =
These are easily discerned microscopically; as simple as looking outdoors t=
o see the types of animals and birds in your backyard. There are also diffe=
rences which can be discerned inter species. If I see entirely different sh=
apes and motility within bacterial/archaeal species I can assume they are o=
f different genera but this is not hard and fast with this group. Likewise =
with fungal hyphae if they grow differently, produce different spores and t=
hrow down septate at different distances, have different membranes, etc. I =
can conclude they are of different genera. With flagellates, ciliates and a=
moebae it is quite simple to discern different genera visually. And you don=
't need to know their name to know they are different. That is the diversit=
y I'm looking for in a compost tea, soil or compost sample. Have you seen m=
y DVD?
>
> 2/ Shredders;
> You mention shredders as providers of plant food and I believe humus crea=
tors if I'm not mistaken. I presume you are speaking of the predators like =
protozoa and nematodes. My understanding of how nutrients are cycled to pla=
nts microbially is protozoa consume bacteria/archaea and utilize only 30 to=
 40 percent of the energy derived for sustenance. What they excrete is the =
60 to 70 percent in bioavailable (ionic form - soluble) nutrients which can=
 be directly uptaken by plants.
>
> I believe (as far as I know today) that the creation of humus is somewhat=
 still in unknown territory but I had not heard the hypothesis of it being =
formed from the guts of bacteria (microbes). There are two (that I know of)=
 schools of thought on what comprises humus as to whether the organic mater=
ial is no longer recognizeable and it is a unique molecular structure (humi=
c polymers or covalent bonded) OR where some aspect of the originating orga=
nic matter is detectable and it forms a molecular aggregate structure (supr=
amolecular aggregates or non-covalent bonded).
>
> As we have discussed, it is my thought that if a compost tea would 'hold'=
 nutrients in solution as a factor of predation having taken place, then it=
 would seem a perpetual brew would make better sense. If these nutrients ar=
e in solution, it should be relatively easy to detect them through 'dependa=
ble' laboratory testing. I do believe the testing would need to be done wit=
hout any extraction processes but that is my uneducated hypothesis.
>
> The specialty or talented bacteria which you mentioned may have someplace=
 in compost tea but presently I see them more as something which may be spe=
cifically fermented or purchased ready to use, as is much the case with the=
 PGPR products.
>
> Salutations,
> Tim
>
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the product plug, Tim, hard to get the point across otherwise=
.
> >
> > We have tracked DO in the past with a perpetual brew, but nothing I can=
 regurgitate. I have tasked my guys to track that with a fresh brew startin=
g the beginning of next week along with what we are adding daily for refere=
nce and will report back.
> >
> > I will admit that the quality of the microbe, and possibly the diversit=
y, is compromised when brewing perpetually. Who's determining ACTUAL divers=
ity anyway wihtout DNA testing? However, that is of relative importance. Pu=
t it this way, ANY living solution is better than none as long as it is not=
 aerobic. In other words, when people take a perpetual brew from a garden s=
tore they cannot buy the equivalant from a shelf.
> >
> > Also, I realize that this is a compost tea forum mostly interested in t=
he biological aspects of living solutions, and rightfully so. But the aspec=
t of compsot tea that gets perpetually glossed over is the fact that microb=
es make perfect plant food. What I think is happening over time is that the=
 longer you brew the more plant food you have.
> >
> > Tim, you reference that you think ciliates are nutrient cyclers, and I =
would agree. I would argue that ALL microbes are nutrient cyclers in their =
own right. The shredders spill the guts of bacteria and create humus, or pl=
ant food. Arguably, the more shredding you have going on, the more plant fo=
od you have. The people in the testimonial video may simply be reacting to =
the perfect plant food beenfit, not the biological influence. I like to thi=
nk the living microbes have a direct influence, but how can one know for su=
re?
> >
> > It all depends on the application. For instance, an indoor grower who i=
s planning on throwing his potting soil away in 3-4 months is not necessari=
ly trying to establish a soil food web in his container. His interests may =
be more on the plant food emphasis, therefore perpetual brewing makes more =
sense to him. We have many growers who keep perpetual brews going and use o=
n every watering.
> >
> > In another context there may be a farmer who is interested in the long =
term biological balance in his soil who may benefit more by batch brewing a=
nd ensuring the sanctity of the microbes involved.
> >
> > The point is, we don't know for sure.
> >
> > The future is defining applications and the need for certain microbes i=
n those applications, then establishing food sources and brew times that en=
courage those microbes needed most effectively. This research has not been =
done, and is barely even discussed.
> >
> > Without a baseline of what soil "should" be, we're pretty much shooting=
 in the dark. However, there are certain applications that warrant progress=
. I saw the other day a reference from a Australian farmer who discovered t=
hat there is actually a bacteria responsible for frost damage in plants. In=
 other words, its not the temperature, but an excretion on the leaf surface=
 by a certain microbe that makes the plants vulnerable and crstalizes the m=
oisture. What if we could determine a predator for this microbe and use a f=
ood source and brew time that encouraged it? The mind races at the potetnia=
l applications, but this is the future.
> >
> > There are also variables involved that throw a monkey wrench into these=
 ideas. For example, the strength of microbes. We discuss microbes as if th=
ey are all the same, but this is not true. Keep in mind that you cannot see=
 biological strength under a microscope. In other words, a lab analysis can=
 only get you so far in regards to how the specific microbe influences grow=
ing plants. I don't know of any labs connecting biological assays and sourc=
ews with plant growth...and this is the most important thing!
> >
> > One way to think about this is biodynamics. In the biodynamic method co=
mpost is not turned. In other words, the microbe is challenged to operate i=
n an aerobic/anaerobic capacity, as Dr. Ingham referenced in a post a coupl=
e of weeks ago. The result is that the mcirobes are challenged more, they d=
evelop more life experince, so to speak. If you coddle your children are th=
ey going to end up as accomplsihed adults? You get the idea.
> >
> > Anyway, food for thought. When we get some results I'll report back...p=
eace
> >
> > evan
> > www.VortexBrewer.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was hoping you would speak up on this subject Evan. I'd be more int=
erested in the tracked dissolved oxygen than the testimonials (BTW I don't =
know if anyone told you advertising is on Sundays only) I do believe that a=
 semi-perpetual brew is possible but do not know whether it is more benefic=
ial than starting a brew over. Some of the longterm brews I've carried out =
have wound up with a predominence of ciliates and/or fungal hyphae quite de=
voured by bacteria.
> > >
> > > If you have tracked the microbial development and/or DO2 I'd be inter=
ested in hearing/seeing.
> > >
> > > I was asked recently to put on a seminar for a college growing progra=
m and they did not have a brewer. I threw together a 5 gallon airlift brewe=
r to donate, using the 2 CFM Hailea. Because of time constraints we started=
 the brew at my place so it would be on about 36 hours for the seminar. I c=
hecked the brew at 11 hours and it blew my mind. It was complete. Bacteria/=
archaea, flagellates & mega fungal hyphae. The DO2 was 8.2 ppm. Next mornin=
g shut it down, drove about 2 hours, then started the brew back up again. I=
 did not take the O2 meter but samples under the scope at 36 to 40 hours we=
re beginning to show chewed down hyphae and quite an abundance of ciliates =
and less flagellates. Now does that mean the ACT is not as functional? I do=
n't know. But it was on its way to being overun by ciliates. We've been tol=
d by some in the field, this is a bad sign. I believe ciliates cycle nutrie=
nts but I think the lack of diversity is not great.
> > >
> > > On an upnote; What an incredible little brewer I stumbled on.
> > >
> > > *Evan; I'm working on the testing thing.
> > >
> > > Salutations,
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have been brewing perpetually for many years using a Vortex Brew=
er. Here is a video of many happy customers using compost tea created in th=
is way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNWyTqUUN0
> > > >
> > > > it is important to refresh teh solution at least once per week. In =
other words, if you are distributing 10 gallons a wekk using a 60 gallon un=
it the inputs compound on themselves. We suggest adding a certian amoutn of=
 input for every 5 gallons of water added to the unit. It works great.
> > > >
> > > > This not only makes sense on a convenience level, but also on a "pl=
ant food" level. We all know microbes make perfect plant food. When attaini=
ng a shredder dominance after 48 hours it makes sense that this process cre=
ates more plant food the longer the tea is brewed. After all, the guts of b=
acteria make up humus, i.e. plant food.
> > > >
> > > > We are not suggesting that this provides a replicable biological pr=
oduct, only that it is a living solution that cannot be purtchased from a s=
helf. Depending on the application, the plant food aspect may be more impor=
tant than the biological aspect. Consider container gardening or indoor gar=
dening where the goal is not necessarily to establish an operating soil foo=
d web.
> > > >
> > > > We have distributed compost tea from a Vortex Brewer to every garde=
ning situation imagineable over the last 5-6 years, sometimes with a brew t=
hat has been spinning for up to 6 months without cleaning the unit, and nev=
er have we had a negative response.
> > > >
> > > > I would not receommend using other compost tea units in this capaci=
ty, not because it will not work, but becasue I have not personally tested =
it. There is still MUCH work to do to determine the potentials of compost t=
ea, but perpetual brewing sure makes sense from our perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Evan
> > > > www.VortexBrewer.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "RTS Friction - Carruthers" <ho=
me_at_> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It would seem you run the risk of outside contamination if you co=
ntinue to use your base stock, much the same as using your yeast again and =
again in beer making. Look forward to other comments good question.
> > > > > If you trail through the archives you will see the discussions on=
 adding extra food/nutrient, many members believe it is not necessary. Than=
ks to good advice I now rely on the release of nutrients in the compost/ver=
micast to multiply the MO's, I do add a little barley malt if using the tea=
 for getting the compost heap going or doing a lawn drench.
> > > > > Ian C
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul M Moriarty To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:03 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > New guy here. I've searched through the archives and haven't fo=
und an answer to my question. Hopefully, one of you can help me out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible to just keep a batch of tea going by, draining o=
ff 1/2 the tea and replacing with water & food as one would with a sourdoug=
h starter, or is it necessary to replenish the castings as well? As an urba=
n farmer, I'm trying to get as much mileage out of my castings as possible.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




Received on Sun Jun 26 2011 - 16:37:32 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:11 EST