Re: [compost_tea] Additives, A step back: Some advice from experience
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:27:39 -0700, Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net> wrote:
> I have come to realize that growing bacteria and fungi can be mutually
> exclusive events in some ways. This is because of the rapid bacterial
> growth and slow fungal growth. There are a lot of other factors too but I
> developed the idea that I was growing bacteria and extracting fungi. This
> is especially true when brewing times are low. Higher order animals are a
> different story and take a long time to grow so I developed a technique
> where I brewed separately and mixed before application. But more on this
> later.
I think that this is incorrect, though it is probably just a sematic
difference of opinion instead of a factual difference of opinion. You
seem to be using "grow" to mean reproduce instead of increase in size.
You are extracting and propagating the bacteria, you really aren't
"growing" the bacteria beyond their nominal size.
You are extracting and "growing" the fungi, but there is minimal
propagation in the time frame of a normal batch of CT. It is my
understanding from reading this list that brewing CT increases the
fungal mass, but not the count of individual organisms. Fungi "grow"
incredibly fast, so there is value in giving them the right conditions
and feeding them.
Why do you consider fungal and bacterial to be mutually exclusive? I
would think that the selection between these two would be better done
at the compost pile stage than at the tea additives stage.
The additives can encourage (or not) fungal growth, but I don't see
how it would be possible to brew a fungal tea without also having high
bacterial growth. In most cases the limiting factors are O2 and
food, and there is almost nothing that fungi eat that does not also
support bacteria.
> 2. If it increases biomass in my tea, why can't I just make a dilution of
> the stuff and apply it directly to the biology in my soil?
You can, and probably should. Tea is meant to be an ideal breeding
ground, and delivery system to the critters you are breeding.
You can put dog food in the dog bowl, or you can go in the back yard
and scatter it around. The dog will still get fed either way, but one
way is far more efficient in the amount of food that gets into the
dog.
> I have come to see CT as a very powerful tool in soil restoration. It is
> powerful and effective but it is slow. My turf expermints give a time line
> of about three years to restore soil to a point where it is significantly
> different and self-sustainable over a large area. Smaller areas may react
> faster but I think with proper care, a lawn can be completely free of any
> fertilizer input in just about three years.
Really? Every grass lawn I have ever owned has been free of fertilizer
input the entire time that I owned it. Join the turf haters club and
you will never have to worry about how it looks again.
Other than my smart ass comment, I found this observation to be one of
the most interesting and truthful that I have come across about ACT.
I really think that there needs to be more honest information
available about what to expect and how long it will take.
I'm not saying that anyone is necessarily being dishonest, but let's
face it, you can not walk into a back yard in a new development with
even a perfect batch of compost tea, spray the soil, and grow veggies
like on the alaska giant website the first year.
ACT is not Miracle Grow (thank God!) and selling it like it is
doesn't do the industry any favors.
> My feeling is that the simpler one keeps the process the more success one
> will have. If recipies such as the ones given in the Compost Tea Manual or
> found on my web site www.earth-wise.com or from other reliable sources are
> used, beginners and experienced users can brew consistently good tea with
> high bacterial numbers. Fungal extraction and diversity are reflective of
> the compost they use. Beyond that, I don't think there is definitive data
> that shows that additives, however attractive they may look, significantly
> add to the end result of the tea. In other words, more may not be better in
> this case.
I agree with you here, at least to a point. But I do think that
everyone should continue careful experimenting if they want to. If
everyone just stuck to the basic recipes, we would still be hanging
burlap sacks of manure in a rain barrel for a week.
> Have fun.
Would it be worth doing if it wasn't? ;-)
Dave
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
 | |
 |
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Mon Oct 11 2004 - 18:49:05 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:31 EST