Tad, I agree with you. IN NO WAY am I trying to undermine the importance an=
d relevance of working with a microscope. It is vital. I'm simply trying to=
point out exactly what you stated: "...frankly I don't know what all the d=
ifferent species and sub-species do in the rhizosphere anyway."
That's it. We don't know. It is my opinion that we need to couple what we a=
re seeing under a scope directly with how it works with growing plants. Nob=
ody to my knowledge is doing this.
I also think we need to entertain a seperate metric of "microbial strength"=
into our analysis here. Without accounting for the reletaive strength of t=
he same microbe from different sources, we are acting as if they are all th=
e same. This may make testing easier, but it does no justice to the end res=
ult we all seek --> healthy biologically active soil that grows nutrient de=
nse plants without pest & disease.
I too am appreciateive of being part of this group...peace & light
evan
www.VortexBrewer.com
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tad" <tadhussey_at_...> wrote:
>
> Evan and Tim,
>
> This discussion jumps around quite a bit, but I wanted to chime in on a f=
ew things.
>
> First of all, I think the importance of testing is largely understated an=
d many commercial manufacturers of brewers don't do proper testing before s=
elling their brewers or making claims as to efficacy. One SFI test is not =
sufficient in my opinion, but is a good starting point. Successive microsc=
ope work is better, even if it is qualitative in nature.
>
> Ethan, you talk about "true diversity" as something we cannot see or unde=
rstand without DNA testing. I have to agree with Tim here in that direct m=
icroscopy is really the most effective methodology we have for evaluating m=
icrobial teas and extracts at this time. DNA testing would really not give=
me much more information and is not realistic, as each brew would be diffe=
rent, and frankly I don't know what all the different species and sub-speci=
es do in the rhizosphere anyway.
>
> However, I can tell the difference better a ciliate and a flagellate. I =
can see that they're both present in my tea and in good ratios. I can see =
different morphology in the bacteria and whether it's motile or forming lar=
ge areas on the slide of biomass. This is the diversity I'm talking about.=
It gives me data that I can then use to determine the quality of my produ=
ct.
>
> Every brew I've ever taken for longer than a few days lacks this diversit=
y. DNA testing is not going to show anything surprising in this regard. I=
f I'm unable to find fungal hyphae through direct microscopy, it's not goin=
g to magically show up through other means of testing.
>
> Our solution to this issue was to have hydro shops brew 1-2 times a week,=
and customers just knew that if they wanted ACT, they would have to come i=
n on a Weds or a Saturday and those would be the days it's available for pu=
rchase.
>
> Some manufacturers claim you can refrigerate their tea or store it for a =
period of time. I find this irresponsible and have yet to see anyone provi=
de data to show otherwise. And personally, I don't see how they ever could=
. With a properly made ACT, you've created an unsustainable amount of aero=
bic microbes at it's peak (avg 24-36 hours). I don't believe there is a wa=
y to maintain the diversity and concentrations of organisms over time.
>
> As Tim stated, it would be relatively easy to test Evan's theory about pl=
ant available nutrients being more accessible in longer brews by just testi=
ng for nutrients say at 24 hours and again a week later from the same liqui=
d, without any additions.
>
> I guess my point is that let's not throw out direct microscopy as the sta=
ndard to evaluating teas, just because it doesn't answer every question we =
might have. Spend enough time behind a microscope and I think you'll find =
that you can learn quite a bit about how your teas change over time. For i=
nstance, I can make a bacterial dominated tea, fungal dominated tea, or fla=
gellate dominated tea all from the same material, simply by adjusting the l=
ength of the brewing cycle.
>
> In order for out industry to continue to grow and gain legitimacy, I thin=
k it's important that we move away from testimonials, quasi-science, and un=
substantiated claims, and towards direct microscopy and methodology that ca=
n be replicated in a variety of environments and with different brewers.
>
> I think these discussions are beneficial as well. There's a lot of diffe=
rent knowledge and experience floating around in here and I'm glad to be a =
part of the group!
>
> Cheers,
> Tad
>
>
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Tim, I'm not trying to overcomplicate compost tea. I'm simply trying to=
speak to its complexity. The reality is that the only way to illustrate ac=
tual diversity is through DNA testing. I work loosely with a local lab who =
sepcializes in E.coli testing. We live at the end of the Caope Fear river i=
n NC and there are more hogs than people in this state. They track contamin=
ation sources to outbreaks in water ways and are able to reverse engineer w=
here it comes from. Pretty cool. Of course, they cannot tell this without D=
NA testing. That's my point. Not that you cannot get valuable information o=
ut what you are doing. That is not my point.
> >
> > Bottom line, if we assume we can get what we need from a visual observa=
tion we end up like Justis von Liebig (the man who gave us the NPK and crip=
pled agriculture forever) identifying "essential nutrients" from an ashing =
experiment. After all, he went to his grave regretting that:
> >
> > "Unfortunately the true beauty of agriculture with its intellectual and=
animating principles is almost unrecognized. The art of agriculture will b=
e lost when ignorant, unscientific and short sighted teachers persuade the =
farmer to put all his hopes in universal remedies, which don't exist in nat=
ure. Following their advice, bedazzled by an ephemeral success, the farmer =
will forget the soil and lose sight of his inherent values and their influe=
nce." Source: Fauna in soil ecosystems, by Gero Benckiser (p 6)
> >
> > Now I'm not trying to compare you to von Liebig, or suggest that you ar=
e ignorant or unscientific, simply trying to illustrate the power and folly=
of humanity when they attempt to define the natural world strictly through=
visual and quantifiable means.
> >
> > evan
> > www.VortexBrewer.com
> >
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since it is Sunday http://www.microbeorganics.com/index.html#My_DVD
> > >
> > > Evan; I really believe you are way over complicating the microbial pe=
rspective as it relates to compost tea and extract. Of course you need noth=
ing like DNA testing to see the diversity I described.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely no labelling required whatsoever to say that a de=
vice is capable of extracting and multiplying bacteria/archaea, protozoa an=
d fungal hyphae. Where does that come from?
> > >
> > > PGPR = plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, which is what you have=
been describing. They are all over the market; some good, some not so good=
. They definitely are restricted to what they say on the label.
> > >
> > > I'll read your citation concerning humus creation re: jelly pockets b=
ut I will try to post a relatively scientific paper in the files section he=
re which was an eye opener for me on humus. Humus still remains undefined. =
[Even though some cat in New Mexico claims to create his own]
> > >
> > > Glad to hear the good DO2 rate. I suppose there is great potential fo=
r various nutrients uptaken in natural growing to be non-detectable but for=
now I'm going to concern myself with those that can be for production of d=
ata if possible. My data, which you will discover by seeing my webpage cons=
ists of video recordings of microbial populations.
> > >
> > > Adios Amigo,
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 perp=
etual brew that's been spinning for over a month and it was 7.8.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless of how informed one is in recognizing biological diversi=
ty, true diversity cannot be attained without DNA testing. That is not to s=
ay that it is not valuable to have scope experience in identifying differen=
t categories 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 reasons. One, we don't propose we can know all the microbes in our biol=
ogicals. They are created on a farm that has been in the same family for 35=
0 years and have a complexity we cannot know. Second, according to labeling=
laws, only certain strains (Bacillus, mycchorizae) are accepted. This leav=
es people to believe they are the only ones that are important. Some on thi=
s list may take issue with that, but you should deal with the general publi=
c every day. Most people simply believe what they are told. It's the same w=
hen 99% of this country believes Miracle Gro is sufficient to maintian heal=
th in an ecosystem. Most of the time they don't even know what an ecosystem=
is, they think microbes are the reason for hand sanitizer. Not trying to b=
e ugly, its simply the truth. Not being able to claim biological existence =
on a label cripples people's ability to know about them. This has happened =
with "essential nutrients" with plants. Plants can use 50-60 elements direc=
tly or indirectly (microbes all of them as co-factors), yet the "experts" s=
peak of 17 at the most.
> > > >
> > > > It is my belief that the onset of degenerative disease in modern so=
ciety is a direct (with no smoking gun) result of growing plants (and micro=
bes) for what they have to have, not what they want, or, better, what we ne=
ed from them.
> > > >
> > > > Most importantly, however, assuming we can identify microbes, is wh=
at function those microbes perform. We know very little about this consider=
ing estimates that only 1/4 of the fungal species have even been identified=
, for example.
> > > >
> > > > Potential NEW microbe species: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/12/136207=
874/a-new-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=
basketball player (digester), but one cannot tell this by looking at us un=
der a microscope. If you purchase a microbe grown in a Petri dish with no n=
atural stress or predator, the organism is weaker. This is another simple s=
tatement of truth. They lack life experience and have not worked with other=
organisms. These are not tiny programed machines, they are living life for=
ms.
> > > >
> > > > What are "PGPR products"?
> > > >
> > > > There is even thought that certain species of microbes, outside of =
individual ability, are "smarter" than others. Check out this article on a =
"smart community" or vortex bacteria ;)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dynamicyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=a=
rticle&id=1748:social-iq-score-of-bacteria&catid=79:research&Itemid=8=
9
> > > >
> > > > It would make sense to most, I imagine, that much of the benefit fr=
om microbes comes in their complexity (diversity). Meaning that often it is=
the assistance of a microbe that has no interaction with a plant directly =
towards a microbe that does, that accounts for the incalculable work done b=
y microbes 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 a=
nymore, microbes cannot cycle Aluminium in our intestines. This has been im=
plicated in Alzheimers and other degenerative diseases, especially with peo=
ple eating so much Al in pharmaceuticals and using it in their underarms. T=
his is the importance of using ALL elements as tools for microbes. Read "Mi=
nerals for the Genetic Code", by Dr. Olree.
> > > >
> > > > Nature barely ever works directly. Therefore we don't know as much =
as we think we know. Given this innate complexity, how is a human supposed =
to know how to create a proper biological inoculant? What if the coach (hum=
an) 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 f=
rom the point guard to dunk the ball.
> > > >
> > > > To put it another way, to realize the importance of biological team=
work, what 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 may be no way to prove the lab grown weakness hypothesis directly ex=
cept out of subjective experience and intuition. We can't set up an obstacl=
e course and let them run through it. :) This, of course, is what prevents =
people from gravitating towards concepts like BioDynamics due to us being t=
rained to expect hard quantifiable data to even consider entertaining poten=
tial truths.
> > > >
> > > > Arguably, the most important aspects of living systems are unmeasur=
eable and unobservable.
> > > >
> > > > The scientific method, while allowing us to advance as a species, c=
ripples us. It says that a hypothesis can only be a theory and then a law i=
f it happens the same way every time. Remember that Nature does not work th=
is way, by design. She works in chaos and spirals. The consepquence of the =
anthropocetric concept of the scientific method, again, while not worthless=
, is making "laws" for humans that do not jive with the laws of Nature. In =
fact, they are counterintuitive. Newton pondered gravity by getting hit in =
the head by the apple, or so the fable goes, but we spend no time discussin=
g how the apple got up there to begin with.
> > > >
> > > > Without acknowledging the unobservable and unmeasureable life force=
involved in natural systems, we are only considering half the story.
> > > >
> > > > In regards to the shredder part, yes, that is what I'm referring to=
o. Read Podolinski for his descriptions of humus. He describes it as the gu=
ts of microbes that form jelly pockets in the soil. becasue "plant food" is=
contained 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 solu=
ble artificial nutrients there is no jelly pocket, "food" is found througho=
ut teh soil and the drinking roots of plants cannot help but eat as well. T=
his accounts for initial higher yields, but is actually only obesity. His d=
escription resonates with me.
> > > >
> > > > You should also read Steiner on the concept of "You are what you ea=
t". It's easy to think of microbes cycling nutrients through their poop, bu=
t we again can easily oversimplify things. Some may not see the connection =
here, but "nutrition" is a relative thing from a non-materialistic perspect=
ive:
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/NutHealth/19240731p01.html
> > > >
> > > > In the end, organic matter does not just melt. I consider microbes =
to be responsible for ALL end results in healthy soil. Just as they are for=
us in our gut, or worms and bacteria in theirs, or termites and fungi in t=
heirs. This is why microbes are so important. They help plants, but most im=
portantly they make plant food in the cycle of life.
> > > >
> > > > If plant food is not kept in solution after being created, where do=
es it go? I too believe that this can be documented, but it will not be dir=
ectly, I presume. There is a disconnect between articially created nutrient=
s and natural. For instance, I can spray a 2000ppm solution of Earth TOnic =
on a plant and it will love it. If I do the same with an artificial nutrien=
t it will murder the plant. Nature has a way of balancing things that a hum=
an can never know. We must be humble to this.
> > > >
> > > > We have people using natural nutrients in our retail store all the =
time with an NPK that is 2-1-1 who get MUCH better results than when they u=
ised an artifical nutrient with a 15-10-10. I'm sure everyone is aware on s=
ome level the difference of nutrition from Nature versus a factory.
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious to hear the thoughts of the lab we find to this work. A=
re 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_> wrot=
e:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 an=
d fungi genera. The type of diversity I am talking about is bacteria/archae=
a, flagellates, naked amoebae, testate amoebae, ciliates, rotifers, fungal =
hyphae. These are easily discerned microscopically; as simple as looking ou=
tdoors to see the types of animals and birds in your backyard. There are al=
so differences which can be discerned inter species. If I see entirely diff=
erent shapes and motility within bacterial/archaeal species I can assume th=
ey are of different genera but this is not hard and fast with this group. L=
ikewise with fungal hyphae if they grow differently, produce different spor=
es and throw down septate at different distances, have different membranes,=
etc. I can conclude they are of different genera. With flagellates, ciliat=
es and amoebae 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 =
diversity I'm looking for in a compost tea, soil or compost sample. Have yo=
u seen my DVD?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2/ Shredders;
> > > > > You mention shredders as providers of plant food and I believe hu=
mus creators if I'm not mistaken. I presume you are speaking of the predato=
rs like protozoa and nematodes. My understanding of how nutrients are cycle=
d to plants microbially is protozoa consume bacteria/archaea and utilize on=
ly 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 w=
hich 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 i=
t 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 organ=
ic material is no longer recognizeable and it is a unique molecular structu=
re (humic polymers or covalent bonded) OR where some aspect of the originat=
ing organic matter is detectable and it forms a molecular aggregate structu=
re (supramolecular aggregates or non-covalent bonded).
> > > > >
> > > > > As we have discussed, it is my thought that if a compost tea woul=
d '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 nutr=
ients are in solution, it should be relatively easy to detect them through =
'dependable' laboratory testing. I do believe the testing would need to be =
done without any extraction processes but that is my uneducated hypothesis.
> > > > >
> > > > > The specialty or talented bacteria which you mentioned may have s=
omeplace in compost tea but presently I see them more as something which ma=
y be specifically 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 o=
therwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have tracked DO in the past with a perpetual brew, but nothi=
ng I can regurgitate. I have tasked my guys to track that with a fresh brew=
starting the beginning of next week along with what we are adding daily fo=
r reference and will report back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will admit that the quality of the microbe, and possibly the =
diversity, is compromised when brewing perpetually. Who's determining ACTUA=
L diversity anyway wihtout DNA testing? However, that is of relative import=
ance. Put it this way, ANY living solution is better than none as long as i=
t is not aerobic. In other words, when people take a perpetual brew from a =
garden store they cannot buy the equivalant from a shelf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I realize that this is a compost tea forum mostly interes=
ted in the biological aspects of living solutions, and rightfully so. But t=
he aspect of compsot tea that gets perpetually glossed over is the fact tha=
t microbes 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 i=
n their own right. The shredders spill the guts of bacteria and create humu=
s, or plant food. Arguably, the more shredding you have going on, the more =
plant food you have. The people in the testimonial video may simply be reac=
ting to the perfect plant food beenfit, not the biological influence. I lik=
e to think the living microbes have a direct influence, but how can one kno=
w for sure?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It all depends on the application. For instance, an indoor grow=
er who is planning on throwing his potting soil away in 3-4 months is not n=
ecessarily trying to establish a soil food web in his container. His intere=
sts may be more on the plant food emphasis, therefore perpetual brewing mak=
es more sense to him. We have many growers who keep perpetual brews going a=
nd use on every watering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In another context there may be a farmer who is interested in t=
he long term biological balance in his soil who may benefit more by batch b=
rewing and 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 mi=
crobes in those applications, then establishing food sources and brew times=
that encourage those microbes needed most effectively. This research has n=
ot 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 disc=
overed that there is actually a bacteria responsible for frost damage in pl=
ants. In other words, its not the temperature, but an excretion on the leaf=
surface by a certain microbe that makes the plants vulnerable and crstaliz=
es the moisture. What if we could determine a predator for this microbe and=
use a food source and brew time that encouraged it? The mind races at the =
potetnial applications, but this is the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are also variables involved that throw a monkey wrench in=
to these ideas. For example, the strength of microbes. We discuss microbes =
as if they are all the same, but this is not true. Keep in mind that you ca=
nnot see biological strength under a microscope. In other words, a lab anal=
ysis can only get you so far in regards to how the specific microbe influen=
ces growing plants. I don't know of any labs connecting biological assays a=
nd sourcews with plant growth...and this is the most important thing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One way to think about this is biodynamics. In the biodynamic m=
ethod compost is not turned. In other words, the microbe is challenged to o=
perate in an aerobic/anaerobic capacity, as Dr. Ingham referenced in a post=
a couple of weeks ago. The result is that the mcirobes are challenged more=
, they develop more life experince, so to speak. If you coddle your childre=
n are they going to end up as accomplsihed adults? You get the idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, food for thought. When we get some results I'll report =
back...peace
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 interested in the tracked dissolved oxygen than the testimonials (BTW =
I don't know if anyone told you advertising is on Sundays only) I do believ=
e that a semi-perpetual brew is possible but do not know whether it is more=
beneficial than starting a brew over. Some of the longterm brews I've carr=
ied out have wound up with a predominence of ciliates and/or fungal hyphae =
quite devoured by bacteria.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you have tracked the microbial development and/or DO2 I'd =
be interested in hearing/seeing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was asked recently to put on a seminar for a college growin=
g program and they did not have a brewer. I threw together a 5 gallon airli=
ft brewer 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 semi=
nar. I checked the brew at 11 hours and it blew my mind. It was complete. B=
acteria/archaea, flagellates & mega fungal hyphae. The DO2 was 8.2 ppm. Nex=
t morning 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 were beginning to show chewed down hyphae and quite an abundance of c=
iliates and less flagellates. Now does that mean the ACT is not as function=
al? I don't know. But it was on its way to being overun by ciliates. We've =
been told by some in the field, this is a bad sign. I believe ciliates cycl=
e nutrients 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 Vor=
tex Brewer. Here is a video of many happy customers using compost tea creat=
ed in this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNWyTqUUN0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it is important to refresh teh solution at least once per w=
eek. In other words, if you are distributing 10 gallons a wekk using a 60 g=
allon unit the inputs compound on themselves. We suggest adding a certian a=
moutn of input for every 5 gallons of water added to the unit. It works gre=
at.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This not only makes sense on a convenience level, but also =
on a "plant food" level. We all know microbes make perfect plant food. When=
attaining a shredder dominance after 48 hours it makes sense that this pro=
cess creates more plant food the longer the tea is brewed. After all, the g=
uts of bacteria make up humus, i.e. plant food.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We are not suggesting that this provides a replicable biolo=
gical product, only that it is a living solution that cannot be purtchased =
from a shelf. Depending on the application, the plant food aspect may be mo=
re important than the biological aspect. Consider container gardening or in=
door gardening where the goal is not necessarily to establish an operating =
soil food web.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have distributed compost tea from a Vortex Brewer to eve=
ry gardening situation imagineable over the last 5-6 years, sometimes with =
a brew that has been spinning for up to 6 months without cleaning the unit,=
and never have we had a negative response.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would not receommend using other compost tea units in thi=
s capacity, 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 c=
ompost tea, but perpetual brewing sure makes sense from our perspective.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evan
> > > > > > > > www.VortexBrewer.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "RTS Friction - Carruth=
ers" <home_at_> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would seem you run the risk of outside contamination i=
f you continue to use your base stock, much the same as using your yeast ag=
ain and again in beer making. Look forward to other comments good question.=
> > > > > > > > > If you trail through the archives you will see the discus=
sions on adding extra food/nutrient, many members believe it is not necessa=
ry. Thanks to good advice I now rely on the release of nutrients in the com=
post/vermicast 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 ha=
ven't found 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, dr=
aining off 1/2 the tea and replacing with water & food as one would with a =
sourdough starter, or is it necessary to replenish the castings as well? As=
an urban farmer, I'm trying to get as much mileage out of my castings as p=
ossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Received on Fri Jul 01 2011 - 10:53:02 EDT