Language and testing and thought (was Re: [compost_tea] metal chelates
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Jaszewski
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [compost_tea] metal chelates
As usual you comment without understanding! CHELATE NOT SULPHATE!!!
Folks:
You know, this whole thread gets me thinking. I have been misread a number=
of times. Maybe it is because of my convoluted writing that requires that=
one actually read and digest my sentences before responding or maybe it's =
just because I can't write. It doesn't matter. For example chelate/sulpha=
te. I think it would be a good idea to assemble a glossary of terms and pu=
t it somewhere on the yahoo site so that it can be downloaded and reference=
d. There have been several discussion about total amounts and available am=
ounts of several minerals (mostly.)
Maybe Elaine could make a glossary of say 20 technical terms per week or ap=
prove such a list compiled by someone else. The famous founder of the scho=
ol of General Semantics, Korzybsky thought that many communication problems=
and misunderstandings occur because people have different understanding of=
that the same word means in a specific context. For example Chelate or ch=
ellated material in relation to smelting is a lot different than a chemical=
chelate even though both are arrived at similarily in some cases. Chelate=
in an alloy is different than chelate in a salt like a N mix.
Also, it's easy to get terms mixed around. Florine is an extremely toxic m=
aterial yet floride helps prevent cavities and is quite safe. Sulfides and=
sulfates and nitrites and nitrates are different manifestations of the sam=
e chemistry but operate totally differently in combination with other mater=
ials. One can be fixed and one is a fixer. These things can be confusing =
and daunting to people trying to simply brew tea.
So what is compost tea?
You know for the life of me I can't get over the simple fact that brewing c=
ompost tea is no more difficult that adding compost to water and aerating. =
That's it. It's simple. All the rest is designed to increase the favorab=
le elements in the compost. Any other additive such as yucca or aloe or an=
y of the other myriad of inputs may actually change the concept of compost =
tea into the concept of an "extract." Extracts are different from tea but =
a similar process may be used in both cases. So again we are at a language=
problem that I think must be resolved before any kind of common experiment=
ation can take place and before we can come to agreement in procedures. =
It appears we have put the water into a brewer below ground level then expe=
ct somehow that gravity will be a solution to get the water out of the brew=
er onto ground level. In other words, we are missing something fundamental=
. It's like the list people have taken a tangent from a vector and forgott=
en that the primary purpose was to bisect the angle.
On chlorine/chloramine. I would have thought that Elaine would have had th=
is figured out a long time ago. I don't know how testing can be valid if t=
he constituents of the water being brewed is not determined first. My brew=
ing methods might be great and my brewer might be first rate but if I don't=
have the right water, it may all go for naught. Similarly, my brewer may =
stink but because I use purified water or water that is somehow more conduc=
ive to brewing my results may look great in comparison. So now it seems we=
have these parameters.
1. Water quality and chemical constituents
2. Compost quality and diversity
3. Aeration capacity and pattern
4. Inputs
5. Temperature
6. Brewing times
7. Elevation
It seems to me that unless all these things are tested, test results will b=
e suspect. Generalities can be made but unless each batch starts with exac=
tly the same materials and the same altitude with the same water quality an=
d the same brewing time, a test can only trend. On top of that, there is n=
o guarantee that even tea that tests great works in the field without a who=
le different set of tests that show the soil before application and after a=
nd show the plant health (brix and such) before and after application. (Yo=
u know that's a lot of testing for something that is fundamentally simple.)=
If enough "extracts" are used, the compost tea 'biology' part may actually=
have little to do with the overall success of the stuff applied.
I don't currently lab test tea and haven't for some time. I do use a micro=
scope and can track biomass and look at bacillus rods and such and try to e=
stimate numbers based on sample size. I do lab test the soil before and du=
ring and after and test plants before and during and after. I think that i=
f I keep the brewing process simple enough and follow the parameters of the=
soil food web and try to create in my closed system a semblance of how bio=
logy operates in soil, I will be getting as close an approximation as I can=
to compost tea. But you know, when people ask me how to brew compost tea,=
I tell them: Get a 2 gallon bucket. Get some fish tank aerators some air =
hose and a small pump. All this should cost about $20 or less. Then fill =
the bucket about 3/5 to 5/6 with water aerate it for a while then dump in a=
couple of handfuls of compost. Let is brew for about 6 to 8 hours and you=
have compost tea. I don't try to sell them a brewer or convince them that =
after they brew that they need a test and, in fact, need a test for each ba=
tch to meet some criteria which would do nothing more than drive them away =
from ever wanting to have anything to do with brewing.
I was talking with someone today and the subject of posting to lists came u=
p. The gist was that groups contain a lot of members but few posters. I c=
hecked this out for the compost tea group and found over 500 members listed=
but only a few really post with any kind of regularity. Maybe if we chang=
e the focus of this group into a group study kind of thing and get our lang=
uage sorted out first we may have a chance to get some of these 500 + to ge=
t involved. Maybe they are just business looking to rip off any trend they=
see but I doubt it. I think most are just struggling to make sense out of=
an emerging field that still may prove to be more BS than substance.
Anyway, this is what the Chelate/Sulfate situation made me think of.
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 03:28:09 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:15 EST