Great more bandying about of results with questionable
validity. Nelson at Cornell and Ingham have pretty clearly shown inhibition
assays are not very reliable indicators. Representing tea as an “icide” is
precisely why we need standards. Too many folks are representing CT in the same
light as chemicals. CT use is a change in paradigm, a different gardening
methodology. Personally I’m glad some states are not allowing tea producers to
make unfounded claims. My workplace is constantly being referred to as an
example of tea curing disease. No
diseases were cured. We embraced sustainable practices. Careful monitoring of
soil biology, elimination of agri- horticultural chemicals and incorporation of
tested composts and APC (humus purchased form Alaska), are a PART of the
program. As a result we have better nutrient cycling, soils with structure and
improving set of organisms able to keep the pathogens at bay. Tea is an elixir
when made a PART of a complete revamping of our gardening methodologies. A patent for disease suppression if it
exists, and I can’t find any such patent, would be criminal from my view. CT
when combined with sustainable methods brings a balance back and creates an
environment where diseases and pest insects have difficulty dominating. All of the
Monsanto programs I have attended were professional, but we’ve learned that
hype and presentation are not necessarily akin to reliable, sustainable
results. Tom Jaszewski www.livesoil.com 702-595-7012 -----Original
Message----- In a
message dated 1/30/2003 5:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, jeff@gardener.com
writes: Where is the proof on vermicompost?
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: compost_tea-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |