[compost_tea] Thoughts on peer-review
Two issues have been revealed as not being understood properly by some on
this list serve.
One issue is what is meant by "peer-review". There seems to be someone who
thinks that there's a magical award given out that allows something to be
rated as "peer-reviewed". Like an Academy Award, a special approval obtained
from some authority.
Incorrect. There's no one handing out a seal that says, "peer-reviewed".
What peer-review means is that something has been looked over and has met
with the approval of the peer group. But there is no "review board" that
somehow puts a stamp of approval on science.
If something is published in a scientific journal, then it has been
peer-reviewed, but all that means is that a minimum of one, more typically two,
editors, or reviewers, have read the paper over. Any scientist knows that garbage
still gets into the "peer-reviewed" literature.
But there are other ways to obtain this peer-review. Peer-review and
publication in a scientific journal are not one and the same.
That's where some on this list serve clearly don't understand what is meant
by "peer-review".
Consider Charles Darwin's book on evolution. It was not peer-reviewed when
first published. But his writings certainly opened up lots of thoughts,
discussion, and changed the way people, including scientists, looked at life on
this planet. You can still get people saying the Theory of Evolution hasn't
been scientifically accepted. How do you experimentally support, or
not-support, evolution? The evidence for evolution is based on observation, not on
experimentation.
Given that example, you can't accept what one person claims "has not been
peer-reviewed" as the truth. Nor can you accept what another says is
peer-reviewed. It can also depend on who you accept as "peers".
When many have read, and are using a publication, or a body of knowledge,
and are finding it to be useful, and helping people achieve their goals, does
that not mean, indeed, that this work has met the definition of peer-reviewed?
Peers have reviewed it, and are using it. The proof is in the fact that use
is successful.
With respect to my work, I have many "peer-reviewed" scientific
publications. No one can argue with the facts that my scientific papers show that by
improving biology, we can improve plant growth markedly. Many of those papers
were written by me, or in conjunction with teams of people.
The science has been clearly presented, and is in scientific journals. By
getting bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes and microarthropods in the soil,
on plant surfaces, plant production is improved in a variety of ways. The
mechanisms for this improvement have been clearly set forth in those, and other
publications.
No one can presume to say that the science has not been done, and published.
Only if someone can't read would they be able to make a statement that I
have not published the basis for the work I am doing.
The lab studies, the greenhouse work, have been done.
How dare anyone say that I claim that I did all this work myself. Just go
look at the list of my publications on my website: I have always worked with
teams of people.
To have someone represent that I claim as my work something that I did in
conjunction with someone else is preposterous. As an example, working with
Hendrikus Schraven on landscape situations where slopes were failing, Hendrikus
was able to prevent those slopes from sliding into lakes, or road ways. As I
always present this work as being done by Hendrikus Schraven. On all the
slides I show about that work, I always give credit to Hendrikus. If any one
would care to go to Hendrikus' websites, either soildynamics.com, or his
landscaping company website, more data on the studies done by Hendrikus are on
those websites. I helped in that work a little. We measured the biology in the
soil, compost and compost tea. I have spent hours of my life driving to
and from Issaquah, to be able to work with Hendrikus on those studies.
There can be no question that slope failures have been prevented by getting
the proper biology back into, and functioning properly, in the soil.
Oh, wait, because that work was not reported in the scientific literature
means they didn't really happen? They aren't real because they weren't
scientifically assessed? The fact that the slopes are still in place isn't proof of
success?
The basic science has been done, written up in the scientific literature.
The EXAMPLES of applying biology properly are not the subjects of scientific
studies. Hendrikus doesn't have the money to do replicated field studies.
Where would he find three "replicated sites" of a slope falling into a lake,
where slope failure was due to the same pesticide being applied, in the same
year, in the same conditions?
In the Compost Tea Brewing Manual, quite a few scientific studies are
given, showing what compost tea CAN do. The manual has been peer-reviewed,
because hundreds of people use it, and have given glowing endorsements of the
work. It is useful information. The Manual does not purport to be a
scientific paper, because it is a manual. There are scientific studies within it.
Will the studies be reported in the scientific literature? No, because the
data have been published, in the manual. Any scientist that wants to read
the manual can see that the studies were done properly.
In my talks, I give examples of where, by application of the proper biology
to soil or plant surfaces, growers have been taken from conditions where they
face loss of their farms, to now being successful. I show examples of what
is working. We all know that conventional ag is not working. How do we
change? My CDs and lectures help people do that. They have all been
peer-reviewed.
Not published in the scientific literature. That's a different thing than
peer-reviewed. All scientific journal articles have been peer-reviewed, but
many things beyond journal articles have been peer-reviewed. Get the
definition correct before leveling false criticism.
The second issue I have is with people mis-representing what I say.
When people do not follow directions, when they refuse to do the minimal
biological testing required, when they can't even bother to test the compost, or
the compost tea they are using, to make sure the biology is present, and
then they have the gall to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about,
because they aren't getting the results I talk about BEING POSSIBLE, then shame on
them.
To level criticism at what I have developed, when they won't listen to what
I am saying, and won't follow directions, is just beyond sane.
To pretend, as more than one person on the list serve is doing, that I have
somehow promised that all problems will be fixed by applying biology, that I
claim that everything is going to be made right by waving compost tea at it,
then we all know that they have never actually listened to what I say.
Clearly, people making statements like this aren't even aware that different
biology is required in different conditions. They haven't listened to what
I say.
I talk about what CAN occur if you get the biology correct. Since these
people are clueless about what biology is actually present, much less what
biology is lacking, and what biology is needed, don't blame me for their failures.
But, the rest of us - which includes me in the group - will continue to
improve our knowledge and understanding.
The fact that so many people are being successful, getting the proper biology
in the soil and on plant surfaces, and improving plant production without
using the toxic chemicals, means that the academic world is starting to pay
attention.
There have been a couple abstracts presented at scientific meetings this
summer, showing that ACT worked well, but non-aerated CT (have we all agreed
that NCT is the accepted abbreviation?) did not perform well. There were
presentations that showed that a couple of the machines that claim to make ACT, but
do not in fact stay aerobic during the brew cycle, did not have benefits to
plant growth, nor did they suppress disease.
Do those few studies mean we give up on NCT? Of course not, just means we
need to do to NCT what is being done with ACT. DEFINE the parameters for
production so the results are more consistent. If you think that ACT parameters
are many, it is even greater with ACT.
And I have a hard time calling something that has the word compost in it if
the product doesn't contain the organisms that you would find in the compost.
But, can NCT have some interesting results? Sure, never said they couldn't.
But we KNOW (if you don't believe that, please go read the scientific
literature, check out some of the references on my list of publications on my
website) that we have to get the FULL set of organisms back in the soil to get
ALL the benefits I talk about being possible.
If you want to buy a machine that only gives you part of the biology that is
needed, it's not my fault when you can't get all the benefits I talk about.
Don't blame me when you don't achieve what is possible.
Still, some improvement is better than nothing. Can you get part of the
benefit, by getting part of the biology back? Sure. But do you really want a
semi-sustainable system? Why not get everything that is possible?
The full foodweb, with maximum diversity, is needed. Make sure the foodweb
present fits the needs of the plant you want to grow. Different foodwebs are
needed for different plants.
And if you don't get the full biology back, you aren't going to get the full
benefit. Partial benefits are possible. But don't blame me, or attack me,
if you can't be bothered to measure the biology and find out that you are
lacking a critical part of the foodweb, and therefore, not getting the full
benefits possible.
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
Received on Wed Jan 19 2005 - 06:33:11 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST