[compost_tea] Re: Findin' out

From: John Cowan <vivax_at_northlink.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:24:36 -0700
Ted,

Have you found plants that showed a high brix in the leaves and other structures and tested adequate with a chemical leaf analysis to have disease problems or heavy insect problems?

It seems that you take your job more seriously than most manufacturers and advisers in the ag field. The word "control" seems to be used a lot instead of the word eliminate or eradicate. This vagueness by the industry seems to be acceptable to most. There have been hundreds if not thousands of products that were purported to be silver bullets- DDT being one of the first products for getting amazing results for awhile. To me the concept of a silver bullet implies a limited understanding of the situation. But of course we are all coming from a place of limited understanding to some degree.

The first spring after using compost tea on my roses they had no aphids. Well, yes, I did find two under a leaf on one bush but absolutely none on the buds. It was not a fluke of weather as aphids were on other roses in our area. Were they perfectly healthy? No but they did grow and flower like never before. Sorry I did not test anything.
New Page 1

________________________

John Cowan

Verde Valley Agri-Lab

Sedona, Arizona

928-300-8824

www.verdevalleyagri-lab.com

john@verdevalleyagri-lab.com

 



Ted Peterson wrote:
Folks:
 
There was a study done by Allen (I am not 100% on the name. I'll look it up and post the reference.) in the 1950's in Kansas in regard to production quantity vs quality.  His assumption was that the quality or nutritional value of food was less as the yield rose.  The higher yield was possible because of fertilizers and I don't recall the impact of pesticides but I will research that and post it. 
 
So we have higher yield but is the quality of the food also improved? 
 
The study showed that while chemical fertilizers (I don't think "organic" fertilizers were even available on a commercial basis.) can increase yield, the nutritional value of the food sampled from the yield showed a lower nutrient value. 
 
In the 50's there was very little work or understanding of the role of soil biology.  Remember that most of the farming practices we have now were developed during WWII to increase production.  Little care was given to long term harm to the land because we had to feed troops and a population of civilians. If you read any of Buckminster Fuller's work as a logistics analysts for the gummint during WWII, you will get a pretty good understanding of the mind set people were working under. 
 
Well, what happened? It worked. Production increased ten-fold.  The chemical dependent farmer and industrial farming was born and the traditional family farm and the Grange associations that held a lot of that structure together died off.  Some remained but they filled niche markets. 
 
At the same time, Ag programs in universities started courses all across the country.  Texas A&M, Cal. Poly, Pierce and a bunch of schools started Ag programs to get the technology of farming spread to all levels of Ag.  This has translated to turf, ornamentals and virtually all plants grown in the US.  Even in grammar schools, small horticulture courses are defined around fertilization and pesticides.  So, it starts early. 
 
There were always "organic" farmers like the Kloss family and others but these people were considered eccentric oddballs (I know it's a tautology but. . .) and nuts of the highest order.  Everybody knew that plants needed fertilizer to grow.  Even compost was considered "esoteric" in the world of industrial farming. 
 
So over the years of using this approach, we have pretty much decimated the soil biology which many farm and soil scientists are starting to view anew.  There are lots of companies that sell EM and this is another path of the industrial arm.  CT is a different approach to revitalize the biology in the soil.  However, there are some problems with CT. We have touched on some of them on this list but others are emerging. 
 
Testing is one.  Testing is mostly based on chemical based agriculture and as such, test must be interpreted when using CT.  Soil test will give one reading and the plant assay and brix analysis give another.  So the soil might test, traditionally, like it needs nutrients and the plants test as if they have enough nutrient.  Salt is another issue and I don't think definitive work has been done yet to clearly establish the link between CT and salts in the soil.  This is expecially true for soil that has been chemically or organically fertilized for a number of years.  There a lot's of theories but I don't think a statement can be made with certainty at this time.
 
CT can and does effectively transmit biology from compost to the soil in a different form and does provide some small amount of food.  The food is not enough for long term sustainability but is enough to give the biology a chance to thrive and wake up dormant biology in the soil.  Over time, with careful observation and control, the soil can be completely reestablished.  It takes time on several levels and many still find that it's simpler to use a fertilizer that fits into a knowledge base they have rather than try to relearn a technology that is still emerging. 
 
CT has shown pest control properties in certain cases.  It has shown that it can control and slow down the spread of powdery mildew in grapes and roses.  As far as I know, there is no definitive study that show a direct relation between CT and pest eradication.  There is lots of tantilizing anecodal information but no controled tests. However, CT has effectively slowed the spread of mildew for lot's of people.  However, and this is a big however, I don't think it is stable enough as a concept to replace fungicides or pesticides at this time.  As a preventative program, I think there is enough anecodal data to safely say it can be used as a preventative with varying levels of success.  An added bonus is that while it may prevent the spread of certain pests, it also helps the plants feed, through leaves, and brix is improved as a result. 
 
Where is CT going?  There is still a lot that isn't known about CT and biology and the interworkings of the soil, plants, weather, yield, maturation rates, germination and a host of other information.  CT hasen't been consistently used long enough in AG with enough testing to give absolute answers like chemically based farming has. 
 
I will give an example:
 
When do you spray for mildew and how much do you spray depending on mildew pressure?  This is a question that has been answered by the chemical industry.  A computer program exists that analyzes weather, air mositure, ground moisture and three or four other factors to provide a profile for a vinyard or ornamental grower a systematic, controlled program to combat mildew.  This program costs a lot of $$ and it works 100% of the time.  Growers who use this program say that it costs almost nothing once it is up an running and pays for itself in one year. (This of course depends on the market and farm management and a host of other things.  It's a generalized statement.)   But I have found not one person out of the many I have talked with that has a bad thing to say about this program.  The ones who can't afford it wheedle the information from adjacent farm managers if they can.  You see, if one farm gets infected and doesn't cure the problem, it makes controlling is on an adjacent farm far more difficult.
 
CT isn't so certain. If the program says spray sulfur now and the growers sprays CT instead, the grower will have to monitor his fields every day and respray a lot of CT to ensure the leaves have enough biology to outcompete the mildew.  If he gets an outbreak, what does he do then?  And local outbreaks will occur.  The CT can be working perfectly but the person spraying may decide to move faster and get less coverage.  A nozzle may get clogged. They may forget to spray.  The sprayer could have residue fungicide that kills off a lot of the biology of the tea, the plants get coverage but the mildew gets hold anyway.  And there are a bunch of other pests that attack plants that there is absolutely no data or anecdotal stories of CT doing anything.  So we have a very long way to go to develop the certainty we need. 
 
So what does CT do?  What can we do to promote it without overselling?  I would ask one question: Would you be willing to reimburse a person who followed your advice or hired you to solve a problem based on what you state about CT if it failed?  Before you state what CT can do, put yourself in that position.  If someone stated that they had mildew on their roses would you advise CT instead of a chemical or organic fungicide?  If someone wanted to plant new seedlings would you promote CT over compost or mulch?  Have you really figured out where CT fits into a large scale farm program?  Does it fit in every case? Are you willing to take soil tests and actually find out what the little numbers under the letters represent?  Do you know how to read and interpret basic ag reports?  Do you even know the kinds of reports and testing and sampling done?  What about the old farmer who does everything by feel: He can feel and smell the ground and knows when there are problems.  He knows his crops and can walk through his fields and sample his stuff and know whether he is going to have a good or bad year.  How do you tell this guy that CT will solve any problem he may have?  Do you feel qualified to do so?  What would you be willing to do if it failed?
 
I have read lots of statements on this list.  I have done lots of experiments, written reports, gotten contracts and used tea in a bunch of innovative ways but I still can't make a definitive statement that it will work every time. I think it will based on tests but I am not certain. I have proven that CT can revitalize turf and save water.  Will it work every time?  I still don't know. It should but I don't have absolute data that shows that it work every time. I do know that I can significantly reduce fertilzer input, control stream pollution because fertilizer runoff is less, extend turf root growth and mass and create a turf area that uses little or now extra inputs to stay healthy.  But I am in the process of replicating that and I still can't say it will work every time.  Also, it takes more man hours to get a turf area converted.  So in the long run, the fertilizer savings may be eaten by the man hour expenses and the whole thing could be unfeasible from a management point of view.  There are still unknowns.  I have shown that CT can control the growth of pathogens in composted sludge.  Will it work every time? I think so but don't have a data stream that will prove that.  I have three other contracts now based on the first work done and the testing looks promising. 
 
There has been a lot said about snail/slug control.  I read all the emails and have conducted experiments.  Lots of experiments with snails.  I haven't found snail control one single time.  Not once.  In fact, tea that the plants like seems to be tea the snails like.  I read that some people have effectively controlled snails and slugs. So should I state that CT can control snails/slugs based on what I have read here?  What should I be willing to do if someone sprays CT and their garden gets eaten?  What if I recommend that someone call or contact one of the people touting snail/slug control and it doesn't work?  Am I ethically responsible when I cannot replicate the control myself? Should I reimburse them for the food?  What if they are making a living off of their produce?  Should I be responsible for their loss of income if the snails so damage their crop that they are impacted financially? 
 
So where CT is right now is still foggy.  We know it can do certain things but there's a lot we don't know.  Steve Diver probably knows as much as anybody and you never see any grandiose statements from him.  Tom Jazewski manages a multi-million dollar resort and you don't see grandiose statements from him.  There are others too who don't post and who use tea regularly and as part of their programs.  Lawnjockeynick up in Seattle has made a fantastic business using CT.  He has designed all kind of equipment and is actually "doing" the work and being successful.  Yet, you never hear grandiose statements from him about all the wonderful things he can do with tea.  He is actually making a profit implementing the technology. 
 
So on this last day of the year, I would hope that this post gives readers some things to ponder.  I think CT can be a valuable part of any program but I don't think it is Erlich's Magic Bullet.  There was a good movie about a couple of guys who get mistaken as gay pagent producers in a small town.  The town sheriff turns out to be a closet gay and comes on to one of the guys.  The guy rebuffs him because he is actually straight.  The sheriff's line was "Well, that's what life is all about: findin' out. Right?"  That's kind of what we are doing here with CT. Findin' out. 
 
Happy New Year To All,
 
Ted Peterson
Earth-Wise/Spirit of the Earth
www.earth-wise.com
ted.peterson@earth-wise.com
ted.peterson@tcsn.net
(805) 534-9605 
 
 


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Jan 01 2005 - 00:14:30 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:41 EST