PDA

View Full Version : Micro rhizae inocculants


upidstay
04-21-2006, 11:20 AM
I am looking to add some beneficial fungi to the soil of some trees that were (of course) planted in miserable soil. I'm inheriting this problem, and want to fix it. I was pondering deep root feeding them (mostly maples, 2"-5" trunks) with some home brew compost tea and adding a micro rhizae (spelling?) supplement to the mix. What is a good brand? I am familiar with Roots products, but wasn't sure if any of you folks new a good brand.

muddstopper
04-22-2006, 11:42 AM
You can find Mycorrhizae innocultants in a lot of places. Plant Health Care sales some of the best products available. They also have a discussion forum http://www.planthealthcare.com/discussion/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2 where you can actually have questions answered by Dr Micheal Kenan Phd and Dr Don Marxx Phd that specializes in mycorrhrizea fungus. You cant get better answers that what they can give you.

tadhussey
10-08-2007, 12:39 PM
Go to www.mycorrhizae.com They are the foremost experts on mycorrhizal fungi.

Gerry Miller
10-09-2007, 06:20 PM
I like these people. Check the prices as they do vary a lot:
MYCORRHIZA FUNGI
http://www.fungi.com/mycogrow/index.html

Drew Gemma
10-09-2007, 10:44 PM
is their a product that is cost effective for large areas of tur anywhere

tadhussey
10-09-2007, 11:05 PM
What are you plans with the compost tea? You mention homemade....can you describe your system, inputs, etc....?

Also, don't forget that mycorrhizae is only effective if applied directly to the root system. Only mix it in the compost tea if you're going to be applying directly to the root surface.

mkroher
10-10-2007, 05:16 AM
What are you plans with the compost tea? You mention homemade....can you describe your system, inputs, etc....?

Also, don't forget that mycorrhizae is only effective if applied directly to the root system. Only mix it in the compost tea if you're going to be applying directly to the root surface.

Could one apply it after an aeration?

Smallaxe
10-10-2007, 07:47 AM
They, (the websites) are saying that mycorrhizae occurs naturally in a rural natural setting, but it is the harsh urban artificial man-made environment that that reduces its population.
If that is true: What sort of lawn practices do you change in order to not kill your new supply?

Gerry Miller
10-10-2007, 09:17 AM
Well, don't use any synthetic chemical fertilizers, and in particular, fungicides or chemical pesticides, herbicides.

Gerry Miller
10-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Yes, for established turf, you apply after core aeration. You apply to the soil if you are reseeding or before you lay sod. The spores need to make contact with the roots for the inoculation to be most successful.

mkroher
10-10-2007, 11:22 AM
Well, don't use any synthetic chemical fertilizers, and in particular, fungicides or chemical pesticides, herbicides.

I would think that only the fungicides would have an effect on it. no?

Gerry Miller
10-10-2007, 12:16 PM
No. Actually lots of things cause damage. Any disturbing the soil either by digging or tilling, compaction, construction practices, removal of top soil, site preparation, and leaving soil bear can cause damage, in addition to high nitrogen synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides can reduce or eliminate these soil organisms.

tadhussey
10-10-2007, 12:45 PM
Could one apply it after an aeration?

Yes, this is your best option if in already established turf. Even better is to apply when seeding or laying sod.

Did you check out that website? Most commercial mycorrhizae products originate from this company and are just re-branded. They don't deal in small quantities, so you may need to find a distributor if you're looking for a small amount. They come recommended by Dr. Elaine Ingham, who is one of the top soil microbiologists in the field when it comes to studying the soil food web.

tadhussey
10-10-2007, 12:47 PM
I would think that only the fungicides would have an effect on it. no?

I agree with Gerry that most pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc... have a non-target effect, meaning they will kill other organisms besides the intended ones.

mkroher
10-10-2007, 12:54 PM
So mycorrhizae applied at the end of a year won't replenish what I've killed off during the spring and summer with pesticides, and add more than what there was to begin with?

tadhussey
10-10-2007, 01:18 PM
So mycorrhizae applied at the end of a year won't replenish what I've killed off during the spring and summer with pesticides, and add more than what there was to begin with?

These questions are best directed to a mycorrhiza expert, but I can explain the basics.

Benefits of mycorrhizal fungi:

-Eliminate the need for high levels of P fertilization.
-Increase crop nutrient uptake.
-Increase water uptake.
-Decrease watering needs.
-Disease and pathogen suppression.

Mycorrhizal fungi have many other benefits, this is just off the top of my head. I know many people who have seen amazing results from adding mycorrhizal fungi to their plants. You know it works when growers like Monrovia are using it on all their container plants.

The way it works is the fungi form a symbiotic relationship with the roots of your plant. It then extends the root system and also provides the benefits I listed above. When you use ~cides (pesticides, herbicides, etc..) you are potentially damaging the mycorrhizal fungi, in which case adding more to your plant's roots could provide a substantial benefit. There are 2 types of mycorrhizal fungi, endo and ecto. You need to talk to an expert to find out:

1. If your plant has a mycorrhizal relationship (most do, but there are a few exceptions).

2. What type of mycorrhizal fungi would work best for the plant in question (there are differences).

Mycorrhizae are one of the most researched aspects of soil biology today. You should be able to find good information and data relating to whatever you're trying to accomplish.

Smallaxe
10-11-2007, 05:10 AM
How can we 'know' how well established our soil is with beneficial organisms?
Is there a test that shows that?
Right now I am just assuming which lawns may or may not have adequate populations.

Gerry Miller
10-11-2007, 08:19 AM
How can we 'know' how well established our soil is with beneficial organisms?
Is there a test that shows that?
Right now I am just assuming which lawns may or may not have adequate populations.

You don't know what the biology is in ANY soil without a lab test. You can't assume anything. SoilFoodWeb.com performs all the lab test you need.

Lawns that have not been exposed to synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides or other exotic material (like 'Muck') for over 5 years would be one indicator of potential good soil biology. But even this can be tainted if your neighbor uses these chemicals, some of this crap is going to land on your soil as well. Not to mention the farmer 5 miles away spraying his fields and you are down wind. These things will all have an impact on soil biology.

Looks are deceiving. For example, the use of high nitrogen fertilizer artificially feeds the grass directly through it's roots. But it's like lawn crack. Take the lawn off the chemicals, and the lawn will deteriorate quickly and you will see withdrawal effects. The soil is not healthy and is subject to various fungal diseases and insect infestation and then weeds.

So, without having a soil biology test performed, if you use organic practices and by applying properly made Actively Aerated Compost Tea (AACT) in conjunction with protein meals, you will get your soil in balance in short order. The AACT supercharges your soil with biology it needs and the protein meals feeds all those critters. Of course, adding the biology can be accomplished with good topdressing of good aerobic compost (No Muck), but it's more costly, labor intensive and much, much more expensive. By using AACT, you have 1000's times more biology than what you would find in compost, if it's made properly with the correct aeration, you be adding only aerobic biology to your soil, and that's what you want. A good diet of various protein meals like alfalfa, corn meal, soybean meal, corn gluten meal and feather meal will not only provide the food for the soil biology, but you are also adding organic matter to your soil.

But again, you neighbor or your local farmer are using chemicals, you'll need to reapply the AACT periodically during the year. More application in soils that are in need in the beginning of an organic practice.

Here are couple of web sites for more info:

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html

These two sites should be manditory for anyone in the lawn care business.

tadhussey
10-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Great post Gerry, and good resources. I think that Soil Food Web link is the BEST starting point for anyone learning about the organics.

Kiril
10-13-2007, 10:16 AM
You can spray/add as much "biology" as you want to a soil, but without a food source it will not do a lick of good. To build a healthy sustainable soil you need a continuous OM (eg. carbon) input.

Strive to create a balanced sustainable system, and the rest will take care of itself.

Here's a good place to start.

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilmgmt.pdf

Gerry Miller
10-13-2007, 12:04 PM
You can spray/add as much "biology" as you want to a soil, but without a food source it will not do a lick of good. To build a healthy sustainable soil you need a continuous OM (eg. carbon) input.

Strive to create a balanced sustainable system, and the rest will take care of itself.

Here's a good place to start.

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilmgmt.pdf

I think that is what I said. You need to feed the soil biology and you do that with protein meals. Protein meals in conjunction with AACT and then you'll be on your way.

Protein meals ARE a source of carbon. It's a source of organic material. You don't need to add topdressing to you soil IF you use AACT with protein meals.

Here is a post from David Hall:

"The stuff that goes in to compost is typically very low in protein because, typically, the humans or animals have already eaten the protein out of the carcass you discarded into the pile. Protein is important to the soil because it feeds the microbes. Protein carries the nitrogen molecules around in the soil. Just like us terrestrials, all the little microbes have muscles, hair, fingernails, and skin, made from protein. When they die, the protein is eaten by other microbes which carry it elsewhere. Eventually some of the microbes excrete Nature's own brand of plant food. Bringing the nitrogen-carrying protein to the soil is what provides the [delayed] fertilization effect. So the ground up grains and other ingredients that go into animal protein feeds are also what go into organic fertilizers. What we are doing by sending y'all to the feed store is cutting out the expensive bag and showing you where to get the same organic fertilizer ingredients for 1/6 the price."

The secret that certainly nobody knew about, or at least we gardeners didn't know about, was that the microbes need to eat protein to become healthy enough to protect themselves, the plants, and other beneficial creatures (including insects). Now we know what to do. Having an organic soil is not nearly enough. You have to feed protein to the microbes in the soil. I use various protein meals for fertilizer during the course of the year, such as corn gluten meal, alfalfa meal, soybean meal, fish meal and fish/seaweed liquid fertilizers. Adding organic matter alone is not enough.

Of course, we are talking about lawns here and not farming. But it also works under those condtions as well.

Gerry Miller

Kiril
10-13-2007, 06:56 PM
I think that is what I said.

Well, not really. I see a sustainable system as one that requires little or no supplemental inputs. If your applying any supplement (AACT, protein meals, fertilizer, etc...) on a regular basis, then the system is not really self sustainable.

I would also point out that landscapes (turf, etc...) is nothing more than small scale farming.

Nature seemed to get along fine without our interference (soil manipulating) for a very long time, perhaps we should take notice.

Gerry Miller
10-13-2007, 07:45 PM
Well, not really. I see a sustainable system as one that requires little or no supplemental inputs. If your applying any supplement (AACT, protein meals, fertilizer, etc...) on a regular basis, then the system is not really self sustainable.

I would also point out that landscapes (turf, etc...) is nothing more than small scale farming.

Nature seemed to get along fine without our interference (soil manipulating) for a very long time, perhaps we should take notice.

Actually, turf is nothing like small scale farming. There is no tilling, no removal of crops, and no rotation of crops. As a lawn is a monoculture and is nothing like prairie grass.

While it's true that nature sustained the soil before man, we also had herds of animals crossing the prairies, leaving behind their manure, urine and dead bodies to feed the soil to make it self sustaining. Since we don't have herds crossing our lawns anymore, and having dead animals sit and decompose on our lawns and gardens is frowned on today, we have to work with nature.

If you are lucky enough to have mature trees on your property, you can mulch these leaves into your soil to add organic matter to your soil. This along with proper watering and mulch mowing is all that is needed for a lawn to be sustainable. But having your lawn be sustainable or having it thrive are two different things. If you don't have trees, then you are going need to add protein to your soil to keep the biology well fed and happy. There is nothing wrong with adding protein meals to your lawn or AACT...it's working with nature, not against it. I don't think I would say that doing these practices are 'manipulating' the soil, but working in harmony with nature. I have taken notice, that's why I practice organic methods on my soil, lawn and garden.

The problem start when people use synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides. These things work AGAINST nature. Those are the things people need to take notice of..!

Gerry Miller

NattyLawn
10-14-2007, 07:30 AM
We started using and producing raw Leonardite last year as a carbon source. It works well, especially on low OM soil tested properties, and when combined with AACT and a low analysis fert the lawns exploded when we finally got some rain this fall.

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 10:27 AM
We started using and producing raw Leonardite last year as a carbon source. It works well, especially on low OM soil tested properties, and when combined with AACT and a low analysis fert the lawns exploded when we finally got some rain this fall.

Yes, a good source of organic matter and carbon.

Humic acids (HAs) are termed polydisperse because of their variable chemical features. From a three dimensional aspect these complex carbon containing compounds are considered to be flexible linear polymers that exist as random coils with cross linked bonds. On average 35% of the humic acid (HA) molecules are aromatic (carbon rings), while the remaining components are in the form of aliphatic (carbon chains) molecules. The molecular size of humic acids (HAs) range from approximately 10,000 to 100,000. Humic acid (HA) polymers readily bind clay minerals to form stable organic clay complexes. Peripheral pores in the polymer are capable of accommodating (binding) natural and synthetic organic chemicals in a lattice (clathrate) type arrangements.

I use humic acid to complex the chlorine in my water supply that I use to apply my AACT. It also will complex with chloramines in the water as well. This complexing will make these chemicals harmless to the organisms in your AACT.

Humic acids (HAs) readily form salts with inorganic trace mineral elements. An analysis of extracts of naturally occurring humic acids (HAs) will reveal the presence of over 60 different mineral elements present. These trace elements are bound to humic add molecules in a form that can be readily utilized by various living organisms. As a result humic acids (HAs) function as important ion exchange and metal complexing (chelating) systems.

http://www.humate.info/

"The ability of the humates to poise or regulate water-holding capacity or content is probably their most significant property so far as agriculture is concerned, since from a quantitative point water is the most important plant material derived from the soil. In conjunction with this water regulating effect, the humates possess extremely high ion exchange capacities, and it is this property that makes possible better retention and utilization of fertilizers by preventing excessive leaching away from the root zones and ultimately releasing them to the growing plants as needed. The humates reduce soil erosion by increasing the cohesive forces of the very fine soil particles. The desirable friable character of fertile soils is maintained through the formation of colloidal mineral complexes, which assist in aeration and the prevention of large clods and stratification. Very low concentrations of purified humates have been shown to stimulate seed germination and viability, root growth, especially lengthwise. Significantly increased yields have been reported for many crops, such as cotton, potatoes, wheat, tomatoes, mustard, and nursery stock. They have also been shown to stimulate growth and proliferation of desirable soil microorganisms as well as algae and yeasts. A number of workers have been reported that the humic acids can solubilize and make available to plants certain materials that are otherwise unavailable, such as rock phosphates. The humates seem to play an important roles in plant utilization and metabolism of the phosphates. The humic acids apparently can liberate carbon dioxide from soil calcium carbonates and thus make it available to the plant through the roots for photosynthesis. The humates are know to stimulate plant enzymes. The humates....are nature's soil conditioners par excellence." (Humate materials are also known as Leonardite.)"

Everett M. Burdick in Economic Botany

Kiril
10-14-2007, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure how we got stuck on turf only, the original thread was about trees and there is more to landscapes than turf.

Actually, turf is nothing like small scale farming. There is no tilling, no removal of crops, and no rotation of crops. As a lawn is a monoculture and is nothing like prairie grass.

Let me explain. Landscapes and turf can be directly correlated to farming in several different ways.

1) Products used in landscaping are either directly used in agriculture, have been packaged for retail/commercial use from an agricultural product, or is directly a result of research done for agriculture.

2) In a typical landscape, more is going out than in. Typical landscape management practices remove clippings, be it grass, branches, leaves, etc.. This is no different than harvesting a crop because the end result is the same, you are removing OM from the site/system.

3) Coring a lawn can be loosely correlated to tilling. While coring is not as destructive, it is turning the soil over on a smaller scale.

4) Some lawns are maintained with one type of grass in the summer, and another in the winter. This can be loosely correlated to crop rotation, even though the primary reasons for crop rotation have little to do with improving soil fertility.

5) In some cases turf grass might be a monoculture. More likely it is made up off several different species and varieties within a species. For example, a very common turf used in my region is comprised of several different species of fescue mixed with bluegrass.

While it's true that nature sustained the soil before man, we also had herds of animals crossing the prairies, leaving behind their manure, urine and dead bodies to feed the soil to make it self sustaining. Since we don't have herds crossing our lawns anymore, and having dead animals sit and decompose on our lawns and gardens is frowned on today, we have to work with nature.

I don't see how this is relevant? The planet is not made up of 100% prairies, now or in the past. Furthermore, even if it was, the "inputs" you referred to were not spread equally across the entire region/planet.

If you are lucky enough to have mature trees on your property, you can mulch these leaves into your soil to add organic matter to your soil. This along with proper watering and mulch mowing is all that is needed for a lawn to be sustainable.

Agreed (proper watering and mulch mowing), assuming minimal or no other supplemental inputs are required. However I should point out here that water is also an input if it is not being provided by rain. I don't know why the trees need to be mature, other than how it relates to volume of leaf litter.

But having your lawn be sustainable or having it thrive are two different things. If you don't have trees, then you are going need to add protein to your soil to keep the biology well fed and happy.

Define "thrive". If you mean maintaining unnatural growth rates given local environmental conditions, then that is most certainly not a sustainable system. IMHO, turf is far from being environmentally friendly, be it organically managed or not, and should be strictly regulated or prohibited on residential and commercial sites.

There is nothing wrong with adding protein meals to your lawn or AACT...it's working with nature, not against it.

There is nothing wrong with it, I never said there was, however beware of the "miracle products" that do little more than waste your money. AACT and protein meal alone will not fix a soil that is lacking sufficient organic matter of variable C:N.

Sound management practices dictate you try to match your outputs with comparable inputs, otherwise your doing nothing more than mining your soil. It is unlikely you will achieve this goal with AACT and protein meals alone in a typically managed landscape. IMHO, if all someone has done is replace conventional product A with organic product A, then they missed the boat.

I don't think I would say that doing these practices are 'manipulating' the soil, but working in harmony with nature.

I would argue that it absolutely is manipulation of the soil. Any "artificial" input that is intended to change the properties of the soil is manipulation. What I mean by artificial is anything made or done by humans, be it "organic" or not, that changes the properties of the soil in a manner that would not have otherwise naturally occurred.

I would also point out that introduction of microbes into an area where populations of that microbe would not have naturally occurred is anything but natural. Organic purists would frown on such a practice.

Working in harmony with nature would require landscapes that are suitable for the region (i.e. creating natural habitats using native plants). As soon as you add irrigation or any other supplemental input into the equation, you are no longer working in harmony with nature, but instead trying to manipulate to suit your needs.

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 12:17 PM
While I agree, using native plants in the landscape require no input or help from man. Using native plants in your yard adds to a natural scene. But most properties where people live, this isn't the case. Most people prefer the look of a well manicured lawn, bushes and trees. In fact it can increase up to 15% the value of the property.

But you are correct that it does require inputs that you are not going to need in the wild or natural setting.

But lawns do offer a functional benefits as well. Lawns will regulate soil temperature around you home. It will keep soil from eroding. Removes CO2 from the air and produces oxygen. The same for native plants, but you need to give credit to lawns as they do as well.

And you will need to remove broken branches, and trees and dead animals from your lawn as this takes away from the beauty of lawn, where in a natural setting, all these things add organic matter to the soil. So you will have to put back these things. I use protein meals, mulched leaves from the sheer volume of mature trees, fish hydrolysate (not from the farm, but from the ocean or fresh water fish). While these are indeed inputs, they are from an organic source which allows them to work with nature and not against it, like synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides.

Did you know that one of the largest contributor of organic matter within a lawn is it's dead root systems? Each year, mostly during the summer months, lots of root material from your grass is added back to the soil's organic matter. This is sustainable, I'm sure you would agree.

And by adding AACT to one's soil will supercharge the soil biology, it does need to be fed. This is accomplished with the use of protein meals, which do originate from the farm, unless is fish meal or fish hydrolysate. This is all you need to have your lawn thrive. The addition of soil fungi helps decrease the amount of moisture from watering and helps to make it more sustaining. But if drought conditions occur, it will need some water to keep it green or it will go dormant. I don't believe you'll find this with native plants, so this is an advantage for them.

By adding soil biology, you reduce and can even remove the amount of inputs required. I don't know anyone in an organic practice that removes their lawn clippings as this adds to the organic matter as well.

Also the use of small branches are used to add organic matter to the soil. Ramial Wood Chips are part of an organic system as well. But we do mulch them so they break down faster than they do in the wild or natural state.

But like I stated before, you do not have to add topdressing to you soil every year for your lawn to thrive. The use of AACT and protein meals is ALL you need. This is a proven fact, not a theory. If you are lucky enough to have mature trees on your property and you mulch them back into the soil, you can reduce the amount of input from other means. Malcolm Beck who is like the 'Godfather' of compost in Texas has stated that on his own property, he's only topdressed his lawn twice. Once when he first moved there and it needed it. He did again 20 years later, not because it needed it, but because he had it available for free!

Adding compost to farm soil I believe is needed and is different than required in organic lawn care.

So while sustainable native plants has it's advantages, not everyone likes that look, and prefer the look of KBG instead.

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure how we got stuck on turf only, the original thread was about trees and there is more to landscapes than turf.



Let me explain. Landscapes and turf can be directly correlated to farming in several different ways.

1) Products used in landscaping are either directly used in agriculture, have been packaged for retail/commercial use from an agricultural product, or is directly a result of research done for agriculture.

2) In a typical landscape, more is going out than in. Typical landscape management practices remove clippings, be it grass, branches, leaves, etc.. This is no different than harvesting a crop because the end result is the same, you are removing OM from the site/system.

3) Coring a lawn can be loosely correlated to tilling. While coring is not as destructive, it is turning the soil over on a smaller scale.

4) Some lawns are maintained with one type of grass in the summer, and another in the winter. This can be loosely correlated to crop rotation, even though the primary reasons for crop rotation have little to do with improving soil fertility.

5) In some cases turf grass might be a monoculture. More likely it is made up off several different species and varieties within a species. For example, a very common turf used in my region is comprised of several different species of fescue mixed with bluegrass.



I don't see how this is relevant? The planet is not made up of 100% prairies, now or in the past. Furthermore, even if it was, the "inputs" you referred to were not spread equally across the entire region/planet.



Agreed (proper watering and mulch mowing), assuming minimal or no other supplemental inputs are required. However I should point out here that water is also an input if it is not being provided by rain. I don't know why the trees need to be mature, other than how it relates to volume of leaf litter.



Define "thrive". If you mean maintaining unnatural growth rates given local environmental conditions, then that is most certainly not a sustainable system. IMHO, turf is far from being environmentally friendly, be it organically managed or not, and should be strictly regulated or prohibited on residential and commercial sites.



There is nothing wrong with it, I never said there was, however beware of the "miracle products" that do little more than waste your money. AACT and protein meal alone will not fix a soil that is lacking sufficient organic matter of variable C:N.

Sound management practices dictate you try to match your outputs with comparable inputs, otherwise your doing nothing more than mining your soil. It is unlikely you will achieve this goal with AACT and protein meals alone in a typically managed landscape. IMHO, if all someone has done is replace conventional product A with organic product A, then they missed the boat.



I would argue that it absolutely is manipulation of the soil. Any "artificial" input that is intended to change the properties of the soil is manipulation. What I mean by artificial is anything made or done by humans, be it "organic" or not, that changes the properties of the soil in a manner that would not have otherwise naturally occurred.

I would also point out that introduction of microbes into an area where populations of that microbe would not have naturally occurred is anything but natural. Organic purists would frown on such a practice.

Working in harmony with nature would require landscapes that are suitable for the region (i.e. creating natural habitats using native plants). As soon as you add irrigation or any other supplemental input into the equation, you are no longer working in harmony with nature, but instead trying to manipulate to suit your needs.

Organics

In nature, plants are provided with most of the nutrients they need from the soil food web, the complex ecosystem of microorganisms that makes up living soil. The healthier the soil, the healthier the plants. An organic approach to plant health uses products such as compost teas and organic fertilizers to promote and feed the living organisms in the soil. By optimizing soil health we optimize plant health.

Organics is also a preventative approach that promotes sustainability. As we are learning today with our own health, prevention is the best medicine. Organic methods focus on promoting the insusceptibility of plants to diseases and pests rather than just on killing pests. A healthy plant produces compounds called allelochemicals that actually ****** insect feeding and inhibit disease development. The leaf surface of a healthy plant has its own microbial ecosystem that provides a coating that protects the plants.

Chemical fertilizing, however, takes a different approach. It is based on determining the major nutrients required for each type of plant to grow and then produce a fertilizer that supplies those nutrients. What sounds like a simple solution actually creates a dynamic of problems.

Although the plants initially look fine after chemical fertilizing, what is going on within the soil is not. The salt content of chemical fertilizers is toxic to microbial life. Regular chemical use continues to deplete the soil of vital microorganisms and begins a cycle of problems. Soil compaction, less vigorous growth and fewer flowers, susceptibility to insects and diseases are some of the more obvious symptoms. Some are more hidden and go unnoticed by the untrained eye.

Chemical use begins a vicious cycle of dependency. The chemicals strip the soil of life and leave the plants dependent on their fertilizer "fix" for any nutrients. When the chemical fertilizers wear off or leach out of the soil, they leave nothing behind to create or supply nutrients to the plants. The plants then start to show signs of stress or die and more chemical fertilizers are added to give the plants another chemical "fix".

Chemical pesticides are often introduced to combat diseases or pests taking advantage of the plant's weakness. These sprays strip the plant's natural microbial protective coating leaving it susceptible to more disease. These problems create extreme stress on the plants that the fertilizers & pesticides cannot cure. In the end the result is poor quality plant materials, high plant mortality, poor soil conditions and poor water quality.

In order to truly look at the chemical approach it is important that we also look at the incredible evidence of harm created downstream from the use of these products. Toxic compounds not only harm our ground water, streams, oceans, and wildlife, they harm our children, our pets, and our own health. A World Resources Institute study has determined that the fresh water systems around the world are so environmentally degraded that they are losing their ability to support human, animal and plant life. 93% of fresh water is used by agriculture that produces runoff that degrades water quality with silt and chemicals.

http://www.soildynamics.com/organics.htm

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 05:09 PM
I'm not sure how we got stuck on turf only, the original thread was about trees and there is more to landscapes than turf.



Let me explain. Landscapes and turf can be directly correlated to farming in several different ways.

1) Products used in landscaping are either directly used in agriculture, have been packaged for retail/commercial use from an agricultural product, or is directly a result of research done for agriculture.

2) In a typical landscape, more is going out than in. Typical landscape management practices remove clippings, be it grass, branches, leaves, etc.. This is no different than harvesting a crop because the end result is the same, you are removing OM from the site/system.

3) Coring a lawn can be loosely correlated to tilling. While coring is not as destructive, it is turning the soil over on a smaller scale.

4) Some lawns are maintained with one type of grass in the summer, and another in the winter. This can be loosely correlated to crop rotation, even though the primary reasons for crop rotation have little to do with improving soil fertility.

5) In some cases turf grass might be a monoculture. More likely it is made up off several different species and varieties within a species. For example, a very common turf used in my region is comprised of several different species of fescue mixed with bluegrass.



I don't see how this is relevant? The planet is not made up of 100% prairies, now or in the past. Furthermore, even if it was, the "inputs" you referred to were not spread equally across the entire region/planet.



Agreed (proper watering and mulch mowing), assuming minimal or no other supplemental inputs are required. However I should point out here that water is also an input if it is not being provided by rain. I don't know why the trees need to be mature, other than how it relates to volume of leaf litter.



Define "thrive". If you mean maintaining unnatural growth rates given local environmental conditions, then that is most certainly not a sustainable system. IMHO, turf is far from being environmentally friendly, be it organically managed or not, and should be strictly regulated or prohibited on residential and commercial sites.



There is nothing wrong with it, I never said there was, however beware of the "miracle products" that do little more than waste your money. AACT and protein meal alone will not fix a soil that is lacking sufficient organic matter of variable C:N.

Sound management practices dictate you try to match your outputs with comparable inputs, otherwise your doing nothing more than mining your soil. It is unlikely you will achieve this goal with AACT and protein meals alone in a typically managed landscape. IMHO, if all someone has done is replace conventional product A with organic product A, then they missed the boat.



I would argue that it absolutely is manipulation of the soil. Any "artificial" input that is intended to change the properties of the soil is manipulation. What I mean by artificial is anything made or done by humans, be it "organic" or not, that changes the properties of the soil in a manner that would not have otherwise naturally occurred.

I would also point out that introduction of microbes into an area where populations of that microbe would not have naturally occurred is anything but natural. Organic purists would frown on such a practice.

Working in harmony with nature would require landscapes that are suitable for the region (i.e. creating natural habitats using native plants). As soon as you add irrigation or any other supplemental input into the equation, you are no longer working in harmony with nature, but instead trying to manipulate to suit your needs.

You know when I read your comments again, I couldn't believe just how many absurd statements you made! There are so many of them, the first time through, I just ignored them all. But on second thought, I have to comment on at least some of the most glaring absurdities:


2) In a typical landscape, more is going out than in. Typical landscape management practices remove clippings, be it grass, branches, leaves, etc.. This is no different than harvesting a crop because the end result is the same, you are removing OM from the site/system.

Not everyone removes grass clippings. In fact in an organic lawn care practice, mulched grass clippings are returned to the soil. The same is true with leaves in the fall and with small branches. They are all mulched up and returned to the soil. It is nothing like growing a crop that is removed from the soil, if due to no other fact, the amount of biomass and roots of crops. So this statement is incorrect making an inaccurate assumptions.

3) Coring a lawn can be loosely correlated to tilling. While coring is not as destructive, it is turning the soil over on a smaller scale.

This is absurd. Core aeration is nothing like tilling. It does not destroy soil fungi or earthworms as tilling does. Period.

4) Some lawns are maintained with one type of grass in the summer, and another in the winter. This can be loosely correlated to crop rotation, even though the primary reasons for crop rotation have little to do with improving soil fertility.

This one is a bit of stretch in regards to sowing two different types of grass. While this practice does exists, it's hardly a common practice, and certainly can't be considered crop rotation. That's absurd. It also seems you not familiar with the term 'crop rotation' as it does involved improving the soil and it's fertility. Crop rotation or Crop sequencing is the practice of growing a series of dissimilar types of crops in the same space in sequential seasons for various benefits such as to avoid the build up of pathogens and pests that often occurs when one species is continuously cropped. Crop rotation also seeks to balance the fertility demands of various crops to avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients. A traditional component of crop rotation is the replenishment of nitrogen through the use of green manure in sequence with cereals and other crops. It is one component of polyculture. Crop rotation can also improve soil structure and fertility by alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants.

Originally Posted by Gerry Miller
While it's true that nature sustained the soil before man, we also had herds of animals crossing the prairies, leaving behind their manure, urine and dead bodies to feed the soil to make it self sustaining. Since we don't have herds crossing our lawns anymore, and having dead animals sit and decompose on our lawns and gardens is frowned on today, we have to work with nature.

I don't see how this is relevant? The planet is not made up of 100% prairies, now or in the past. Furthermore, even if it was, the "inputs" you referred to were not spread equally across the entire region/planet.

You don't see how this is relevant? You're kidding right?? What I described is exactly how nature becomes self sustaining...by the waste products of herds of animals that cross the prairies, forest, woods, whatever, it doesn't matter. Animals that die on part of it's migratory activities, leave behind organic matter to feed the soil organisms. That's part of sustainability! Good Grief! Now where I live, the buffalo doesn't roam anymore as I haven't seen any on my lawn or that of my neighbors, so it's safe to assume that aspect of sustainability is missing from urban landscapes. And since it is missing, it needs to be replaced. By using protein meals, fish, mulched leaves, and grass clippings are all adding back to soil, organic material. AACT adds the soil biology that may be missing due to acts of God by flooding or what have you. Of course, replacing soil organisms can be accomplished by using compost or other organic material, it is by far much harder, more expensive and much more labor intensive than using AACT. And AACT will have 1000 times more biology than compost. Now this practice, while may not be in strict adherence to rules of sustainability, is certainly an accepted organic practice and not frowned upon by people who practice organic lawn care management. I find the use of protein meals and other practices described here much more to my liking than urinating all over my lawn and plants!

Define "thrive". If you mean maintaining unnatural growth rates given local environmental conditions, then that is most certainly not a sustainable system. IMHO, turf is far from being environmentally friendly, be it organically managed or not, and should be strictly regulated or prohibited on residential and commercial sites.

Man, you have so many things wrong with this statement, it's amazing that you actually posted it! Using organic methods on turf does not produce unnatural growth rates of plants. Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you make it up as you go along??? For my lawn to thrive, I add organic items to produce not only a dark green colored lawn, but one that never has a problem with grubs, or fungal diseases, is healthy and in balance with nature. Soil microbes need to eat protein to become healthy enough to protect themselves, the plants, and other beneficial creatures (including insects). Now we know what to do. Having an organic soil is not nearly enough. You have to feed protein to the microbes in the soil. I use various protein meals for fertilizer during the course of the year, such as corn gluten meal, alfalfa meal, soybean meal, fish meal and fish/seaweed liquid fertilizers. Adding organic matter alone is not enough.

To say that turf isn't environmentally friendly, well that's inaccurate as well. It depends on how you manage your turf. If you only use organic practices, turf certainly is environmentally friendly. It reduces soil temps around you home so it will cut drop the usage of your homes air conditioning, helps stop soil erosion, filter's the rains, takes CO2 from the air and replaces oxygen. Sounds mighty environmentally friendly to me! If you want to regulate anything, regulate the sale and use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides. That's where the problem lies. Not with the organic practitioner. Good Grief.

There's more, but this is enough for now.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with using sustainable practices, there is certainly nothing wrong with using organic practices either. It's absurd to suggest that their is a problem and needs to be regulated. Unbelievable!

mkroher
10-14-2007, 07:54 PM
Gerry, what are you feeding your lawn with? compost tea? topdressing? organic fertilizers?

growingsolutions.com has a nice brewer, but holy crap is it expensive. I wonder if I can make my own.

How are you preventing grubs, preventing crabgrass, and killing dandelions in your lawn?

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 08:28 PM
Hi mkroher;

For broadleaf weeds, you may want to try watering in some non-sulfured molasses. When it comes to these type of weeds, molasses is great because most broadleaf weeds need high nitrate levels. When you add molasses, you get bacteria, and some fungi growing, but mostly bacteria. These organisms take up nitrate and turn it into biomass, so the weeds will be less able to compete with the desired plant.

When you have sour grasses, like quack grass, crab grass, foxtail, nutgrass, goosegrass, johnsongrass and barnyard grass, those are a lack of a signal, a lack of the calcium signal.

I use various protein meals on my lawn and flower beds, corn gluten meal in the spring and late summer. Also soybean meal and alfalfa meal along with Schafer Organic Fish Fertilizer that is a hydrolysate that is made from fresh water fish and has a Ca content of 12% for those of you that need to add Calcium to your soil.
http://www.schaferfish.com/fertilizer.html

The use of corn gluten meal in conjunction with proper cultural practices of mowing high and watering deeply but infrequently controls 95% of most weed problems. With most weeds, their sensitive growing part is the tip or top of the plant. Repeated mowing is like cutting their heads off and after a period of time, the plants eventually weaken and then die off. The use of a weed hound will make short order of existing dandelion plants!

I also highly recommend using KIS compost tea brewers. I use their 5 gallon brewer on my plants. By having the right soil biology, you will not have and grub problems, period. As well as with a balanced soil, any weed problems will disappear as well. But don't forget, weeds are telling you what's missing in your soil. Some people have gone to the trouble of having their weeds tested, and have found to be high in some trace mineral. And then having the soil tested, it is found that the soil is lacking the trace mineral that was high in the weed. The weed is accumulating the mineral for you and trying to make it biological available for the soil.

Unless you soil has been damaged by chemical use or by flooding, you may not have to add topdressing to your soil. The use of AACT in conjunction with protein meals and fish, you have all you need for your soil to be healthy and look great. I also add seaweed and humic acid periodically through the course of the year to bring out the best in my plants and make them more stress resistant.

mkroher
10-14-2007, 09:30 PM
Gerry, I'm a commercial applicator, so the 5gal brewer wouldn't be enough. So far I'm trying to get my high end customers to go with an organic fertilizer. I still see the needs for pesticides though; I don't think my customers would want to pull weeds by hand, let alone pay me to do it. I agree with you that an existing weed is an indication of a decline in the soil. I don't understand how you can keep a grub from chomping on a nice juicy lawn without pesticides, or even BT. Even chinch bugs favor a delicious lawn. You seem very knowledgeable in this field, I'm just skeptical in making a profitable business and keeping the results I have already by switching. I have lawns that are gorgeous. Why fix it if it's not broken?

Gerry Miller
10-14-2007, 11:14 PM
When you make good compost tea, and use a good compost to make the tea, you grow organisms in the tea which will attack and consume the root grubs.

Most likely, you will see the root grubs decline in numbers after each tea application to the lawn, until they are not longer detectable, or only rarely found, without adding anything more to the tea.

Of course, the organisms that control root grubs are aerobic organisms, so it is important to maintain aerobic conditions in the compost and compost tea.

You could hedge your bets a bit, and bolster the sets of organisms that attack root grub.

Bacillus subtilis as a group of bacteria are well-known for being repugnant to root and foliar insects.

Beauvaria, a genus of several hundred species of fungi, are well known for consuming soft-bodied insects, especially larval stages of things like root grub.

Chitinase containing bacteria and fungi eat through the outer cuticle of insects like root grub and destroy them. These bacteria are carried by Heterorhabditus, a nematode the happily disperses these insect-destroyers through your lawn, into your neighbor's lawn, and on down the street (where the problem probably came from to begin with).

KIS make other size tea brewers as well. Any size you would need for commercial use. They make a 28 gallon, a 55 gallon, a 100 gallon, a 500 gallon and a 1,000 gallon brewers. Here is there web site:
http://www.simplici-tea.com/product_page.htm

Call and ask for Tad he can tell you what would be best for your needs. Not only are they great brewers, but you get all their expertise to make sure you get the most out of your brewer. They make available all the materials you need as well to make the best AACT available.

When you start using AACT, your need for pesticides will diminish over time. You may want to spend some time at this site:
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
This site has all you need to know about making and using AACT and why you should be using ANY synthetic chemical fertilizers, zero!

Pesticides kill off many non-targeted soil organisms that normally help keep plants healthy and then create even more problems after there use. If you are using pesticides, those lawns are not as healthy as you may think. You weaken the plants and soil natural defense systems by using pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. A fundamental dilemma in pest control is that tillage and insecticide application have enormous effects on non- target species in the food web. Intense land use (especially monoculture, tillage, and pesticides) depletes soil diversity. As total soil diversity declines, predator populations drop sharply and the possibility for subsequent pest outbreaks increases.

Here is another bit of information you may want to read before you use any pesticides in the future:
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html

I hope this helps answer your questions.

Gerry Miller
10-15-2007, 10:39 AM
I wanted to post some of the benefits of having a healthy lawn and how it does in fact add favorably to the environment.

Climate is controlled at ground level by turf grasses as they cool temperatures appreciably, thus working as exterior "air conditioners".

Eight healthy front lawns have the cooling effect of 70 tons of air conditioning – enough for 16 average homes.

Dust and smoke particles from the atmosphere are trapped by turf which helps make the air cleaner.

Fire ******ation buffer areas of well maintained lawngrasses around buildings is good insurance.

Groundwater is enhanced in two ways by a dense turf. Turfgrasses increase infiltration of water and also clean the water as it passes so that underground water supplies are recharged for use by us all.

Health of humans is enhanced by turfgrasses as they function in cushioning, cleaning air, generating oxygen and creating a serene landscape.

Lawns are estimated to occupy an area of between 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 acres in the United States (the size of the 5 New England states) and as the population increases so too will the amount of turfgrass acreage.

Noise is absorbed by grass areas which cut down on the excessive sound, a growing problem in urban areas. Grassed slopes beside lowered expressways reduce noise by 8-10 decibels.

Oxygen generation by turfgrasses has a major impact in making our environment habitable. A 50x50 lawn produces enough oxygen for a family of four.

In addition, a well maintained lawn will add value to your property.

Kiril
10-15-2007, 12:03 PM
You know when I read your comments again, I couldn't believe just how many absurd statements you made! There are so many of them, the first time through, I just ignored them all. But on second thought, I have to comment on at least some of the most glaring absurdities:

I think you need to read them again, because you either complete misread what I said or are putting words in my mouth.

Not everyone removes grass clippings. In fact in an organic lawn care practice, mulched grass clippings are returned to the soil. The same is true with leaves in the fall and with small branches. They are all mulched up and returned to the soil. It is nothing like growing a crop that is removed from the soil, if due to no other fact, the amount of biomass and roots of crops. So this statement is incorrect making an inaccurate assumptions.

Where did I say everyone removes clippings? I said, (and underlined) typical landscape management practices, not typical organic landscape management practices. Don't put words in my mouth.

Beyond that, consider Joe homeowner, who uses a compost tea on his lawn, pats himself on the back for being organic, but manages the rest of his landscape the same way he always has? It happens. I suppose Joe homeowner also owns a chipper to take care of plant material that is too large to compost effectively on site.

This is absurd. Core aeration is nothing like tilling.

Tilling turns the soil over, coring does the same thing on a plug by plug basis. The more passes you make, the more it resembles tilling.

It does not destroy soil fungi or earthworms as tilling does. Period.

I believe I stated it is not as destructive. Once again putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, you should be careful when speaking in absolutes.

Explain to me how taking soil to a 4-6" depth, and bringing it to the surface is not similar to tilling. Do you think the microbiology in that core is not subject to nearly the same conditions as an equal volume of tilled soil?

This one is a bit of stretch in regards to sowing two different types of grass. While this practice does exists, it's hardly a common practice, and certainly can't be considered crop rotation. That's absurd.

Once again, I stated loosely correlated and some lawns, and if you assume turf is the crop (which it is in landscapes), why is it absurd? What I find absurd is your refusal to see the forest through the trees.

It also seems you not familiar with the term 'crop rotation' as it does involved improving the soil and it's fertility. Crop rotation or Crop sequencing is the practice of growing a series of dissimilar types of crops in the same space in sequential seasons for various benefits such as to avoid the build up of pathogens and pests that often occurs when one species is continuously cropped. Crop rotation also seeks to balance the fertility demands of various crops to avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients. A traditional component of crop rotation is the replenishment of nitrogen through the use of green manure in sequence with cereals and other crops. It is one component of polyculture. Crop rotation can also improve soil structure and fertility by alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants.

Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation) without giving credit. :nono:

You also might want to read more than the first section. I said the primary reasons for crop rotation have little to do with improving soil fertility. In fact, your Wikipedia cut and paste lends support to my statement.

1) Avoid the build up of pathogens and pests
2) Avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients

Where in the above 2 primary objectives of crop rotation do you see soil fertility being improved?

Strictly speaking a crop is harvested for sale, a green manure "crop" is not. When planting out a field with only a green manure crop, this is known as letting your field lay fallow.

Now polyculture (or more specifically intercropping) is a completely different thing, and is not synonymous with crop rotation, however it can be used in conjunction with crop rotations. Since your a Wikipedia commando, intercropping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercropping) on Wikipedia and from ATTRA (http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdf)

You don't see how this is relevant? You're kidding right?? What I described is exactly how nature becomes self sustaining...by the waste products of herds of animals that cross the prairies, forest, woods, whatever, it doesn't matter. Animals that die on part of it's migratory activities, leave behind organic matter to feed the soil organisms.

No I'm not kidding and your statement is nothing short of silly.
...exactly how nature becomes self sustaining... :laugh:

The amount of OM contributed to soil fertility by plants vs. animals is not even comparable. In fact, if you consider that animals are eating plants, animals are eating animals that are eating plants, then the OM contributed to soil fertility from animals is derived from plants.

Your statement directly implies that natural systems are sustainable as a direct result of animals with nary a mention of plant contributions, this is simply wrong. Without plants there would be no animals. Also consider the geologic periods where animal life was limited, plant life abundant. Point is, you do not need the animal OM contributions you referred to in order to have a sustainable system.

That's part of sustainability!

Now that is a somewhat more accurate statement.

Man, you have so many things wrong with this statement, it's amazing that you actually posted it!

You say there are so many things wrong with this statement yet you have not provided one example of what is.

You conveniently ignore the primary component that is required to sustain a healthy lawn/landscape, or for that matter any biological entity; Water.

In areas where landscapes are not completely supported by rainfall, this water generally comes from potable sources, which in case you haven't noticed, is quickly becoming a scare resource. If your irrigating your lawn, adding fertilizer (organic or otherwise), then you are supporting growth rates that cannot be naturally sustained. Remove irrigation from the picture in areas that require it, your lawn/landscape dies. Simple as that. The drought on the east coast this year is a perfect example of this.

Using organic methods on turf does not produce unnatural growth rates of plants. Where do you come up with this stuff?

With statements like this I have to wonder where you come up with this stuff. So based on your statement, when you add an organic fertilizer you don't observe an increase in growth rates?

If I'm not mistaken a fertilizer (link to your favorite resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer)) is defined as a compound used to promote growth in plants.

We have already established that human inputs are not naturally sustainable, so how can you apply something (organic or not) that promotes growth and not have it be unnatural?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. :nono:

Bottom line, remove the human inputs, your typical landscape will suffer if not die.

I use various protein meals for fertilizer during the course of the year, such as corn gluten meal, alfalfa meal, soybean meal, fish meal and fish/seaweed liquid fertilizers. Adding organic matter alone is not enough.

I believe corn gluten meal, alfalfa meal, soybean meal, fish meal, and fish/seaweed are organic matter, are you saying they are not?

How about we stop calling it protein and just call it organic matter.

To say that turf isn't environmentally friendly, well that's inaccurate as well.

With respect to irrigation, regardless of how you manage your other inputs, it is spot on accurate. And unless your using a push reel mower.....

It reduces soil temps around you home so it will cut drop the usage of your homes air conditioning

Now this is a good example of an absurd statement.

helps stop soil erosion, filter's the rains, takes CO2 from the air and replaces oxygen.

So do trees, shrubs, perennials, etc... and in some cases more efficiently.

The biggest problem in most residential/commercial landscapes (beyond irresponsible use of fertilizers and pesticides) is the need for supplemental water to maintain a level of acceptability. This my friend, organic or not, is where the biggest problem lies. It would appear you do not understand the magnitude of the problems associated with irrigation, because it goes far beyond irresponsible use of a dwindling natural resource.

Furthermore you conveniently ignore the natural resources required to produce and distribute the products you are plugging use of. I suppose if you only consider the end use of these products, then I guess it is environmentally friendly, but lets not fool ourselves.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with using sustainable practices, there is certainly nothing wrong with using organic practices either.

Why are you attempting the separate the two? The goal of any organic program should be sustainability with minimal or no supplemental inputs.

To be perfectly honest, given the ridiculous number of AACT and "protein meal" references you make in your posts, and your inability to talk about anything other than turf, the only thing missing is a link to a product you sell.

When the environment plays second fiddle to profit margin, the environment losses.

Gerry Miller
10-15-2007, 12:59 PM
I was right, you are either totally clueless of the truth or refuse to see the truth. You must be from the far left cause you have a knack of twisting what other people say to mean something else that fits your agenda. It's the old slight of hand and misdirection. That's what happens when you can't fight the truth with your absurdities. LOL!

And I'm not selling any product or services, so another item you're way off base on, again! And like I said before, I'm not an advocate of sustainability outside of using organic practices only and how that assists in sustainability.

I don't know many people that want that type of landscape. Makes no difference to me. But the big problem is with the use synthetic chemicals on their soils and I do have a problem with that. You seem to overlook the real problem here. Perhaps you need to get your head out of your.....sustainable property and see what the real problem lies. People using chemicals, not organic practices. Good Grief! People using chemicals when they aren't necessary is the problem, not 'Joe homeowner' that doesn't own a chipper. That is another absurd statement! What the hell does that mean anyway....LOL!

I've had enough of your silly and absurd statements. You can't be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Good luck with your sustainability agenda!

Gerry Miller
10-15-2007, 03:13 PM
I wanted to post some of the benefits of having a healthy lawn and how it does in fact add favorably to the environment.

Climate is controlled at ground level by turf grasses as they cool temperatures appreciably, thus working as exterior "air conditioners".

Eight healthy front lawns have the cooling effect of 70 tons of air conditioning – enough for 16 average homes.

Dust and smoke particles from the atmosphere are trapped by turf which helps make the air cleaner.

Fire ******ation buffer areas of well maintained lawngrasses around buildings is good insurance.

Groundwater is enhanced in two ways by a dense turf. Turfgrasses increase infiltration of water and also clean the water as it passes so that underground water supplies are recharged for use by us all.

Health of humans is enhanced by turfgrasses as they function in cushioning, cleaning air, generating oxygen and creating a serene landscape.

Lawns are estimated to occupy an area of between 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 acres in the United States (the size of the 5 New England states) and as the population increases so too will the amount of turfgrass acreage.

Noise is absorbed by grass areas which cut down on the excessive sound, a growing problem in urban areas. Grassed slopes beside lowered expressways reduce noise by 8-10 decibels.

Oxygen generation by turfgrasses has a major impact in making our environment habitable. A 50x50 lawn produces enough oxygen for a family of four.

In addition, a well maintained lawn will add value to your property.

Before I get accused of taking credit for something I found elsewhere on the net, let me post my source of this information:
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/lawben.asp

And these are not opinions, but rather facts. Facts are stubborn things!

Gerry Miller
10-15-2007, 03:35 PM
When you make good compost tea, and use a good compost to make the tea, you grow organisms in the tea which will attack and consume the root grubs.

Most likely, you will see the root grubs decline in numbers after each tea application to the lawn, until they are not longer detectable, or only rarely found, without adding anything more to the tea.

Of course, the organisms that control root grubs are aerobic organisms, so it is important to maintain aerobic conditions in the compost and compost tea.

You could hedge your bets a bit, and bolster the sets of organisms that attack root grub.

Bacillus subtilis as a group of bacteria are well-known for being repugnant to root and foliar insects.

Beauvaria, a genus of several hundred species of fungi, are well known for consuming soft-bodied insects, especially larval stages of things like root grub.

Chitinase containing bacteria and fungi eat through the outer cuticle of insects like root grub and destroy them. These bacteria are carried by Heterorhabditus, a nematode the happily disperses these insect-destroyers through your lawn, into your neighbor's lawn, and on down the street (where the problem probably came from to begin with).

KIS make other size tea brewers as well. Any size you would need for commercial use. They make a 28 gallon, a 55 gallon, a 100 gallon, a 500 gallon and a 1,000 gallon brewers. Here is there web site:
http://www.simplici-tea.com/product_page.htm

Call and ask for Tad he can tell you what would be best for your needs. Not only are they great brewers, but you get all their expertise to make sure you get the most out of your brewer. They make available all the materials you need as well to make the best AACT available.

When you start using AACT, your need for pesticides will diminish over time. You may want to spend some time at this site:
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
This site has all you need to know about making and using AACT and why you should be using ANY synthetic chemical fertilizers, zero!

Pesticides kill off many non-targeted soil organisms that normally help keep plants healthy and then create even more problems after there use. If you are using pesticides, those lawns are not as healthy as you may think. You weaken the plants and soil natural defense systems by using pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. A fundamental dilemma in pest control is that tillage and insecticide application have enormous effects on non- target species in the food web. Intense land use (especially monoculture, tillage, and pesticides) depletes soil diversity. As total soil diversity declines, predator populations drop sharply and the possibility for subsequent pest outbreaks increases.

Here is another bit of information you may want to read before you use any pesticides in the future:
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html

I hope this helps answer your questions.

I also wanted to point out that using AACT is not some kind of magic potion nor a silver bullet. It's but one item to be used to keep your soil in balance and disease free and productive. People who think that AACT is some kind of gimick just have no understanding of soil biology, the soil foodweb. Without the proper soil organisms, you can not have healthy soil nor healthy plants. By having the correct soil biology reduces the amount of other inputs, including moisture, fertilizers, and removes the need for aeration. With the proper watering and mowing of a lawn and with the right biology, you may never need core aeration again as the fungi organisms keeps the soil from compaction as well as finding moisture deep in the soil. Yea, the right biology is a must.

Once again, these are not opinions, but facts.

Neal Wolbert
10-17-2007, 03:12 AM
Mr. Miller,
Since you are polarized regarding pesticides (BTW insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and other "cides" are all pesticides, you should use proper terminology since you are claiming to be an authority) I'm assuming you mean synthetic pesticides and not organic pesticides, or do you consider organic pesticides taboo as well...i.e. corn gluten meal as a pre-emergence herbicide and mineral oil as an insecticide.

It seems the term "sustainable agriculture" of any kind is a misnomer in light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) is it not? A simple definition of this law is "any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time". Without input of some sort all of nature continues to decline (which means the earth is ultimately doomed and we won't stop that process, in my opinion). Certainly some synthetic chemicals could play a role somewhere in the process don't you think? Examples would be the fungicide Heritage derived from wood decaying mushrooms and the miticide Hexagon, an ovicide whose only function is to prevent damaging mite eggs from hatching.
Your thoughts? Anyone else wish to comment?
Neal

Gerry Miller
10-17-2007, 10:06 AM
Mr. Miller,
Since you are polarized regarding pesticides (BTW insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and other "cides" are all pesticides, you should use proper terminology since you are claiming to be an authority) I'm assuming you mean synthetic pesticides and not organic pesticides, or do you consider organic pesticides taboo as well...i.e. corn gluten meal as a pre-emergence herbicide and mineral oil as an insecticide.

It seems the term "sustainable agriculture" of any kind is a misnomer in light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) is it not? A simple definition of this law is "any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time". Without input of some sort all of nature continues to decline (which means the earth is ultimately doomed and we won't stop that process, in my opinion). Certainly some synthetic chemicals could play a role somewhere in the process don't you think? Examples would be the fungicide Heritage derived from wood decaying mushrooms and the miticide Hexagon, an ovicide whose only function is to prevent damaging mite eggs from hatching.
Your thoughts? Anyone else wish to comment?
Neal

Neal;

Of course I know that all the 'cides' are pesticides, I was simply explaining in detail. If you missed that simple explanation, well, what can I say. I have never claimed to be an 'authority', so I don't know where you get that one.

You seem to be confused further about my meaning of synthetic chemicals. It's pretty simple, but let me spell it out for you, all synthetic chemicals, period. I've never said anything against the organic herbicide, corn gluten meal, as I use it myself and have posted elsewhere on this list.

And the "sustainable agriculture" is hardly a misnomer, but the way all agriculture should be practiced, in my opinion.

What is an incorrect assumption on your part is that the world is 'doomed'! LOL! I had to laugh at that one! Our world, our climate, is in constant change and has been since the beginning of our planet's history. Now I'm going to make an assumption here, that with your comments, that you believe in the Global Warming Scam? Since their success depends on the use of fear tactics and ignoring of the scientific fact that climate change cannot be stopped.

And from my point of view, which is one of organic lawn care and not farming nor sustainable agriculture, but just home lawn care, I can't think of any reason to use any synthetic chemical for any reason. There is a natural, organic way to correct any imbalance. No need for synthetic chemicals.

Now I am in favor of using DDT in 3rd world countries where Malaria kills millions of people every year. Of course, we know now that we used too much DDT in the past where only a very small amount is needed to be effective. However, I don't see the need for it's use here in the states.

I had to laugh at your whole post. It was nothing less that burn post. Did you post make you feel better? Did this post give you the false impression of superiority? LOL! Just had to laugh.

Kiril
10-17-2007, 12:25 PM
Let me get one thing straight here. I applaud you and anyone else who makes any attempt at being organic. It most certainly is better than the conventional alternative. That being said, my original posts were not provocative in any way, it was you who came after me for posting a dissenting opinion on the goals of an organic program. So if your going to resort to personal insults then I guess the gloves come off.

You can accuse me of being a left wing crackpot (FYI I have no political affiliations or interest in politics), but the "problem" is not JUST fertilizers and pesticides, it fundamentally is how we approach building landscapes. You also accuse me of not seeing the big picture (or the "truth"), but in fact I spent a considerable amount of time and money educating myself so I could see the big picture. One "truth" I do see here is your inability to grasp it.

The solution to the "problem" is not simply replacing conventional inputs with organics. The whole concept and design of residential/commercial landscapes needs to be rethought. The only viable solution that I see to this fundamental problem with landscapes is to shift focus towards creating environmentally friendly sustainable landscapes. One approach is to consider our landscapes as habitats, not as a "status symbol", or something to fill up some open space, or an initially cheap way to cover bare soil (turf). Xeriscaping (if done properly) is one way to create a sustainable landscape.

Guess what Gerry, the EPA has a site dedicated to creating sustainable landscapes, so don't take my word on it, unless you consider them left wing crackpots too.

Environmental Protection Agency:

GreenScapes Program (http://www.epa.gov/greenscapes/)

And yet more left wing fanatics attempting "the old slight of hand and misdirection".

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service):

Improving Urban Landscapes (http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/NPMFactSheets/UrbanConservation/UrbanConservation-FactSheet-Aug2007.pdf)

University of Minnesota:

Sustainable Urban Landscape Information Series (SULIS) (http://www.sustland.umn.edu/index.html)

Oregon State University Extension Service:

Plant Selection for Sustainable Landscapes (http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/ec/ec1534/)

Building Green:

Natural Landscaping: Native Plants and Planting Strategies for Green Development (http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?filename=140701a.xml&printable=yes)

What the heck, why not throw in a couple for habitats...

National Wildlife Federation:

Create a Certified Wildlife Habitat (http://www.nwf.org/backyard/index.cfm)

University of Maine:

Principles for Creating a Backyard Wildlife Habitat (http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/7132.htm)

State of Illinois:

Creating Habitats and Homes For Illinois Wildlife (http://www.dnr.state.il.us/OREP/c2000/guide/habitats/)

The "agenda" here, if there is one, is an attempt to replace (to some degree) what we have destroyed in our infinite wisdom (or is that ignornace).

I was right, you are either totally clueless of the truth or refuse to see the truth.

What is the truth, your narrow minding version of it? Given many of your posts in this thread are cut and paste, it is difficult extracting your words from someone else's. Also given some of your "facts" are pulled from sites that DO have an agenda, I question them, as should everyone.

Let us recap some of Gerry's indisputable facts/truths for everyone to see.

Any disturbing the soil either by digging or tilling, compaction, construction practices, removal of top soil, site preparation, and leaving soil bear can cause damage,

whoops -> contradiction:

Core aeration is nothing like tilling. It does not destroy soil fungi or earthworms as tilling does. Period.

Which is it? As I warned, be careful when speaking in absolutes.

While it's true that nature sustained the soil before man, we also had herds of animals crossing the prairies, leaving behind their manure, urine and dead bodies to feed the soil to make it self sustaining.

This is nothing short of laughable. It is obvious you need to review how soils are formed.

Factors Of Soil Formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology (http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010159.Jenny.pdf)

Before I get accused of taking credit for something I found elsewhere on the net, let me post my source of this information:
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/lawben.asp

And these are not opinions, but rather facts. Facts are stubborn things!

Oh my, nice example of a list of unsubstantiated "facts" distributed by a company in the business of selling lawn maintenance equipment. And you speak of agenda's. :nono: You do you understand what a credible source is, right?

BTW, nice work cut & paste commando. Gee, sure is easy to simply cut and paste someone else's words in order to give the illusion of intelligence. Here's another example of your cut & paste wizardry.

A fundamental dilemma in pest control is that tillage and insecticide application have enormous effects on non- target species in the food web. Intense land use (especially monoculture, tillage, and pesticides) depletes soil diversity. As total soil diversity declines, predator populations drop sharply and the possibility for subsequent pest outbreaks increases.

Taken verbatim from The Soil Biology Primer - Chapter 7 Section Control Pests (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/arthropods.html)

While you did provide a link to the home page of the primer, you did not indicate in any way you had quoted it. If your going to quote a source, at the VERY least you should give some indication of the quoted content (quotes, italics, bbcode quote) and a DIRECT link to the source content. Your indirect reference, which was presented in a way that has no direct correlation to the content you quoted, doesn't cut it. I wonder how many more of these exist in your posts?

...fungi organisms keeps the soil from compaction

This is a "fact"? If I drive a 1000 pound lawn tractor on my lawn are the "fungal organisms" going to prevent soil compaction? Perhaps you need to review the laws of physics because your "fact" just violated them, that is, unless your maintaining that soils are incompressible.

You know Gerry, there is ALOT more to a landscape than turf, and there are more factors involved in creating a healthy soil than just AACT and protein meals. In fact you have stated more than once that AACT and protein meals are all you need to build a healthy soil. What about the importance of spatial distribution of SOM?

I also wanted to point out that using AACT is not some kind of magic potion nor a silver bullet.

Correct, and with respect to soils, it is a shortcut to the preferred method.

People who think that AACT is some kind of gimick just have no understanding of soil biology, the soil foodweb.

Another unsubstantiated "fact", not to mention the predominant use of compost teas is foliar disease control and secondarily as a soil drench. The "fact" of the matter is Gerry, there is no conclusive or replicable scientific evidence to support your claims.

So how about we provide some real information on compost teas so the readers of this thread can make an informed decision, not one based on marketing hype. If you only choose to read a couple of these links, then the two from Washington State University would be my recommendation.

Washington State University:

Compost Tea: Miracle Cure or Marketing Gimmick? (http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/FactSheets/Compost%20tea%20fact%20sheet.pdf)

The Myth of Compost Tea Revisited (http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Compost%20tea%20again.pdf)

National Organic Standards Board:

Compost Tea Task Force - Final Report (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/meetings/CompostTeaTaskForceFinalReport.pdf)

University of Vermont:

Compost Tea To Suppress Plant Disease (http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/composttea.html)

Ohio State University:

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program (http://vegnet.osu.edu/library/res04/orgsqa.pdf)

Oregon State University:

OSU/Lane County Extension Service Compost Specialist Tea Trial (http://extension.oregonstate.edu/lane/horticulture/documents/teatrial.pdf)

Should I move on to some of your other "facts"? You throw around the terms "facts" and "truths", however I believe the general consensus among the scientific community is the dynamics of soil ecology/biology are not very well understood. Perhaps you know something they don't? If you want, I'll pick apart your statements to the point where the majority your "facts" will be called into question.

And I'm not selling any product or services, so another item you're way off base on, again!

I simply pointed out that based on your posts it would appear YOU have an agenda (eg. pushing a product) by coming back to the same topic over and over again like a broken record -> Turf, AACT, "protein" meals -> Turf, AACT, "protein" meals -> Turf, AACT, "protein" meals.

I'm not an advocate of sustainability outside of using organic practices only and how that assists in sustainability.

And that would make you a hypocrite. How can you be an advocate of organic practices without also advocating sustainability? Do you realize how absurd a statement that is? So basically your like Al Gore, preaching about global warming while driving around in a Hummer, or in your case, preaching use of organics while promoting continued use of resource intensive, unsustainable landscapes.

But the big problem is with the use synthetic chemicals on their soils and I do have a problem with that. You seem to overlook the real problem here.

What is the real problem here Gerry? Is it use of environmentally damaging products, or landscape designs and industries that promote the use of those products? If the landscapes we build have no use for those products to begin with, why would there be any reason or need to produce them? Furthermore, where are the vast majority of those products used? Does TURF ring a bell!

The fundamental problem is with continued construction and use of unsustainable landscapes. If you cannot see this you are truly blind.

Some more links for those interested.

NC State University:

Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South (http://www.ncsu.edu/sustainable/index.html)

University of California:

Soil Fertility Management for Organic Crops (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7249.pdf)

Soil Management and Soil Quality for Organic Crops (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7248.pdf)

Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/)

Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm)

University of Vermont SERA-17:

Referenced Publications From SERA-17 (http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/SERA_17_Publications.htm)

Colorado State University:

Xeriscaping: Creative Landscaping (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07228.html)

Organic Materials as Nitrogen Fertilizers (http://www.greenhouse.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00546.pdf)

Texas A&M University:

Landscape Water Conservation...Xeriscape (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/xeriscape/xeriscape.html)

State of California:

Coyote Creek Watershed Management Plan. Green Infrastructure Site Design Guidelines (http://www.rmc.ca.gov/plans/coyote_creek/Appendix%20G%20-%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Site%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf)

The following are articles/studies published in Applied Soil Ecology from Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09291393)

You need to go to Elsevier (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/P09.cws_home/main) and navigate to the Science Direct Site using their link in order to gain guest access to their holdings. The below articles (full text with guest access) are from Applied Soil Ecology Volume 35, Issue 1 (pp. 1-260 (January 2007)) may be of interest to some. The guest access may or may not work, but you can still read the abstracts.

Interaction among free-living N-fixing bacteria isolated from Drosera villosa var. villosa and AM fungi (Glomus clarum) in rice (Oryza sativa)

Influence of organic and mineral amendments on microbial soil properties and processes

Effects of compost addition on extra-radical growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Acacia tortilis ssp. raddiana savanna in a pre-Saharan area

Population dynamics of Trichoderma in fumigated and compost-amended soil and on strawberry roots

Kiril
10-17-2007, 12:45 PM
Now I am in favor of using DDT in 3rd world countries where Malaria kills millions of people every year. Of course, we know now that we used too much DDT in the past where only a very small amount is needed to be effective. However, I don't see the need for it's use here in the states.

Your kidding right? Does the term bio-accumulation mean anything to you? I suppose you also support dumping toxic wastes into our water supplies, just as long as it is only "small amounts'.

Gerry Miller
10-17-2007, 01:06 PM
Talk about cut and pasting, good grief. Unfortunately, most people don't care about sustainable landscaping. It doesn't fit into the lifestyle they want or what is in demand.

Once again I go back to what I have been talking about is what is the 'big picture' is home lawn care and the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers that homeowners over use, in particular pesticides, or rather over use of them. The millions of people who do have lawns and misuse chemicals is the big picture, not some idealistic landscape that few people own or even want. So the current problem, not some fantasy vision of sustainable landscaping, is to deal with the current problem that exists.

All I have talked about is organic lawn care practices, nothing more. You choose to twist thing I say out of context to try and make some absurd point. Turf is not the problem. All the advantages I listed about turf you say is not the truth but part of some agenda of big business. Give me a break. If you don't like the facts, you try to change them.

You keep twisting things I say to fit your rants, you call me a hypocrate???


You have no clue to the advantages of using AACT, you think it's some kind of 'miracle cure'....where do you come up with this stuff??? You think it makes a difference to have a chipper in your yard for large branches that may fall???? What??? What kind of sense does that make???? None, like most of your post. Look where you get you information from on the AACT?? Someone who didn't have a clue how to make it properly and has been subject to ridicule for her lack of knowledge, much like yourself. There is plenty of data to back up the benefits of AACT. You just need to look at the right place, like Soilfoodweb.com Your posts and comments just show that you dont' know much about soil biology.

Gerry Miller
10-17-2007, 01:07 PM
Your kidding right? Does the term bio-accumulation mean anything to you? I suppose you also support dumping toxic wastes into our water supplies, just as long as it is only "small amounts'.

So you would rather have millions of people die instead of the proper use of this chemical? Get real. More absurdities!

tadhussey
10-17-2007, 01:14 PM
I realized this thread was originally on micorrhizal inocculants, wow, it's really gone off to other topics.

I was reading the post on AACT, and how it is unsubstantiated in laboratory tests. I hear this statement quite frequently, and it always leads back to Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott's article on compost tea. However, when you dig a little deeper, you will discover a couple of interesting facts.

Yes, Dr. Scott did review a bunch of studies relating to compost tea. Have you taken the time to go and look at these studies? Are they really using AACT? The answer is definitively "NO!" Many did not measure DO levels consistently through the brew. They did not use appropriate inputs (ie. compost and nutrients). They did not provide adequate aeration within the brewer. So did their version of compost tea work in suppressing disease? Of course not! That's hardly a shocking find.

Let's face it, everyone who works in this industry has an agenda. These "university studies" need funding and their research money has to come from somewhere. Dr. Chalker-Scott has a long standing academic feud with Dr. Ingham. Both can produce data to support their claims. Sometimes you have to look at more than just the numbers they throw at you or the fancy letters after their names.

I agree that there is not enough scientific literature out there regarding compost tea. There are a large number of successful field trials though, and people like Gerry who have learned about the soil food web and seen wonderful results in their own yards. There are currently a good study being put together by I believe the University of Maryland that should be published in the next year or so.

As for published articles supporting the use of microbes in disease suppression or remediation, I will be including them in my next post (this one was too long).

~Tad

tadhussey
10-17-2007, 01:16 PM
I realize not all of these are published studies, but they all relate to the topics we have been discussing and are in support of the use of beneficial microbes.

References:

Abawi, G.S. and Widmer, T.L. (2000). Impact of soil health management practices on soilborne pathogens, nematodes, and root diseases of vegetable crops. Applied Soil Ecology. 15:37-47.

Abbasi, P.A., Al-Dahmani, J., Sahin, H.A., Hoitink, A.J. And Miller, S.A. (2002). Effect of compost amendments on disease severity and yield of tomato in conventional and organic production sysems. Plant Disease. 86:156-161.

Albiach, R., Canet, R., Pomares, F. and Ingelmo, F. (2000). Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil. Bioresource Technology. 75:43-48.

Adl, Sina M., Coleman, David C., Read, Frederick. (2006). Slow recovery of soil biodiversity in sany loam soils of Georgia after 25 years of no-tillage management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 114: 323-334.

Aldahmani, J.H., Abbasi, P.A., Hoitink, H.A.J., miller, S.A. (2005) Reduction of bacterial leaf spot severity on radish, lettuce, and tomato plants grown in compost-amended potting mixes. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 27:186-193

Amaranthus, M. and Steinfeld, D.(2005). Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation following biocide treatment improves Calocedrus decurrens survival and growth in n ursery and outplanting sites. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-35:103-108

Atiyeh, R.M., Edwards, C.A., Subler, S. and Metzger, J.D. (2001). Pig manure vermicompost as a component of a horticultural bedding plant medium: effects on physiochemical properties and plant growth. Bioresource Technology. 78:11-20.

Atkinson, C.F., Jones, D.D. and Gauthier, J.J. (1996). Biodegradability and microbial activities during composting of poultry litter. Poultry Science. 75:608-617.

Atkinson, C.F., Jones, D.D. and Gauthier, J.J. (1996). Putative anaerobic activity in aerated composts. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 16:182-188.

Bailey, K.L. and Lazarovits, G. (2003). Suppressing soil-borne diseases with residue management and organic amendments. Soil Tillage Research. 72:169-180.

Barker, A.V. and Bryson, G. M.(2002). Bioremediation of heavy metals and organic toxicants by composting. The Scientific World Journal. 2: 407-420.

Baur, A.J. (1934). Effect of composting on the chemical and biological changes in peat and wheat straw. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 820-830.
Bell, T., Newman, J.A., Silverman, B.W., Turner, S.L. And Lilley, A.K. (2005). The contribution of species richness and composition to bacterial services. Nature. 436:1157-1160
Black, B.L., Swartz, H.J., Millner, P. and Steiner, P. (2003) Pre-plant crop rotation and compost amendments for improving establishment of red raspberry. Journal American Pomological Society. 57:149-156.

Borrero, C., Trillas, I. M., Ordovais, J., Tello, J. C., and Avile, M..(2004). Predictive factors for the suppression of fusarium wilt of tomato in plant growth media Phytopathology. 94: 1094-1101..

Brito-Alvarez, M.A., Gagne, S. and Antoun, H. (1995). Effect of compost on rhizosphere microflora of the tomato and on the incidence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 61:194-199.

Brown, M.W. and Toworski, T. (2004). Pest management benefits of compost mulch in apple orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. {Online}.

Boulter, J.I., Boland, G.J., and Trevors, J.T. (2002). Evaluation of composts for suppression of dollar spot(Sclerotinia homoeocarpa) of turfgrass. Plant Disease. 86:405-410.

Boulter, J.I., Boland, G.J. and Trevors, J.T. (2002). Assessment of compost for suppression of Fussarium Patch (Microdochium nivale) and Typhula Blight (Typhula ishikariensis) snow molds of turfgrass. Biological Control. 25:162-172.

Brown, P.E. and Smith, F.B. (1928). The production of artificial manure from oats straw under control conditions. Journal of the American society of Agronomy. 310-322.

Boulter, J.I., Boland, G.J. and Trevors, J.T. (2002). Valuation of composts for suppression of dollar spot (Sclerotinia homeocarpa) of turfgrass. Plant Disease. 86:405-410.
Burke, A. (2006). Greenwashing and the debate on pesticide use. Classic Nursery & landscape Company.

Carpenter-Boggs, L., Kennedy, A.C. and Reganold, J.P. (1998). Use of phospholipid fatty acids and carbon source utilization patterns to track microbial community succession in developing compost. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 64:4062-4064.

Carpenter-Boggs, L., Kennedy, A.C. and Reganold, J.P. (2000). Organic and biodynamic management effects on soil biology. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 64:1651-1659.

Carpenter-Boggs, L., Kennedy, A.C. and Reganold, J.P. (2000). Effects of biodynamic preparations on compost development. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture: an International Journal. 17:313-328.

Chaoui, H.I., Zibilske, L.M. and Ohno, T. (2003). Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial activity and plant nutrient availability. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 35:295-302.

Churchill, D.B., Alderman, S.C., Mueller-Warrant, G.W., Elliot, L.F. and Bilsland, D.M. (1996). Survival of weed seeds and seed pathogen propagates in composted grass seed straw. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 12:57-63.

Cole, M. A. ed. (1998). An analysis of composting as an environmental remediation technology. EPA530-R-98-008. www.epa.gov/osw

Cole, M.A. (1997). Innovative uses of compost: bioremediation and pollution prevention. EPA530-F-97-042. www.epa.gov/osw

Cole, M.A. (1997). Innovative uses of compost: composting of soils contaminated by explosives. EPA530-F-97-045. www.epa.gov/osw

Conservation Institute. ( 2005). Dead zones. Conservation Science Institute, www.consevationinstitute.org/deadzones.htm

La Times-Washington post News Service. (1997) Dead zone woes. Lubbock Avalanche Journal, www.lubbockonline.com/news/092997/deadzone.htm

Deacon, J. (2005). Microbial world: thermophilic microorganisms. Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh.

Dees, P.M. and Ghiorse, W.C. (2001). Microbial diversity in hot synthetic compost as revealed by PCR-amplified rRNA sequences from cultivated isolates and extracted DNA. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 35:207-216.

Dissanayake, N. and Hoy, J.W. (1999). Organic material soil amendment effects on root rot and sugarcane growth and characterization of the materials. Plant Disease. 83:1039-1046.

Egelkraut, T.M., Kissel, D.E. and Cabrera, M.L. (2000). Effect of soil texture on nitrogen mineralized from cotton residues and compost. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1518-1522.

Eiland, F., Klamer, M., Lind, A.M., Leth, M. and Baath, E. (2001). Influence of C/N ratio on chemical and microbial composition during long term composting of straw. Microbial Ecology. 41:272-280.

Elorrieta, M.A., Suarez-Estrella, F., Lopez, M.J., Vargas-Garcia, M.C. and Moreno, J. (2003). Survival of phytopathogenic bacteria during waste composting. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 96:141-146.

Deacon, J. (2005). Microbial world: thermophilic microorganisms. Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh.

Fermor, T.R., Smith, J.F. and Spencer, D.M. (1979). The microflora of experimental mushroom composts. Journal of Horticultural Science. 54:137-147.

Fogarty,A.M., and Tuovinen, O. H. (1991). Microbial degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. Microbiological Reviews.55:225-233

Fokemma, N.J. (1993). Opportunities and problems of control of foliar pathogens with microorganisms. Pesticide Science. 37:411-416.

Forge, T.A., Hogue, E., Neilsen, G. and Neilsen, D. (2003). Effects of organic mulches on soil microfauna in the root zone of apple: implications for nutrient fluxes and functional diversity of the soil food web. Applied Soil Ecology. 22:39-54.

Galli, E., Pasetti, L., Fiorelli, F. and Tomati, U. (1997). Olive-mill wastewater composting: microbiological aspects. Waste Management & Research. 15:323-330.
Glanville, T.D., Persyn, R.A., Richard, T.L., Laflen, J.M.and Dixon, P.M. (2004). Environmental effects of applying composted organics to new highway embankments: Part 2, water quality. Tarnsactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 47:471-478.

Gunadi, B., Edwards, C.A. and Arancon, N.Q. Changes in trophic structure of soil arthropods after the application of vermicomposts. European Journal of Soil Biology. 38:161-165.

Hadas, A., Kautsky, L. and Portnoy, R. (1996). Mineralization of composted manure and microbial dynamics in soil affected by long-term nitrogen management. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 28:733-738.

Hassen, A., Belguith, K., Jedidi, N., Cherif, S., Cherif, M. and Boudabous, A. (2001). Microbial characterization during composting of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology. 80:217-225.

Heerden, I. van, Cronje, C., Swart, S.H. and Kotze, J.M. (2002). Microbial, chemical and physical aspects of citrus waste composting. Bioresource Technology. 81:71-76.

Hinsinger, P. (2001). Bioavailability of soil inorganic P in th rhizosphere as affecred by root-induced chemical changes: a review. Plant and Soil 237: 173-195

Insam, H., Armor, K., Renner, M. and Crepaz, C. (1996). Changes in functional abilities of the microbial community during composting of manure. Microbial Ecology. 31:77-87.
Hoitink, H.A., Inbar, Y. and Boehm, M.J. (1991). Status of compost-amended potting mixes naturally suppresive to soilborne diseases of floricultural crops. Plant Disease. 75:869-873

Hutchinson, D. (2003). Brewing up. Grower. May:23-24

Ingham, E.R., and Rollins, C.A. (2006). Adding biology. Nature Technologies, LLC.

Janzen, R.A., Cook, F.D. and McGill, W.B. (1995). Compost extract added to microcosms may simulate community-level controls on soil microorganisms involved in element cycling. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27:181-188.

Janzen, R.A. and McGill, W.B. (1995). Community-level interactions control proliferation of Azospirillium brasilense (Cd.) in microcosms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27:189-196.

Keeling, A.A., Cook, J.A. and Wilcox, A. (1998). Effects of carbohydrate application on diazotroph populations and nitrogen availability in grass swards established in garden waste compost. Bioresource Technology. 66:89-97.

Kim, K.D., Nemec, S. and Musson, G. (1997). Control of Phytophthora root and crown rot of bell pepper with composts and soil amendments in the greenhouse. Applied Soil Ecology. 5:169-179.

Kim, K.D., Nemec, S. and Musson, G. (1997). Effects of composts and soil amendments on soil microflora and Phytophthora root and crown rot of bell pepper. Crop Protection. 16:165-172.

Klamer, M. and Erland, B. (1998). Microbial community dynamics during composting of straw material studied using phospholipid fatty acid analysis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 27:9-20.

Kuepper, G. (2005). Thrips management alternatives in the field. Posted on ATTRA Pest Manegement Technical note. www.attra.org/attra-pub/thrips.html

La Times-Washington post News Service. (1997) Dead zone woes. Lubbock Avalanche Journal, www.lubbockonline.com/news/092997/deadzone.htm

Linderman, R.G., and Davis, E.A. (2001). Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza and plant growth response to soil amendment with composted grape pomace or it's water extract. Hortechnology. 11: 446-450

Lodha, S., Sharma, S.K. and Aggarwal, R.K. (2002). Inactivation of Macrophomina phaseolina propagules during composting and effect of composts on dry root rot severity and on seed yield of clusterbean. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 108:253-261.

Loschinkol, C., and Boehm, M.J. (2001). Composted biosolids incorporation improves turfgrass establishment on disturbed urban soil and reduces leaf rust severity.Hortscience. 36:790-794

Lowenfels, J. and Lewis, W. (2006). Teaming with microbes a gardener's guide to the soil food web. Timber Press, Inc.

Luoma, D. L., Eberhart, J. l., Molina, R., and Amaranthus, M. P. (2004). Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 337-354.

MacCormack, H., Tracey, D., Kapuler, A.M. (1993). Transition document toward an environmentally sound agriculture 3rd ed.. Oregon Tilth.

tadhussey
10-17-2007, 01:19 PM
Maloney, K., Pritts, M., Wilcox, W. and Kelly, M.J. (2005). Suppression of phytophthora root rot in red raspberries with cultural practices and soil amendments. Hortscience. 40:1790-1795.

Michel, F. C. Jr., Reddy, C. A., Forney, L. J. (1995) Microbial degradation and humification of the lawn care pesticide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid during the composting of yard trimmings. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 61: 2566-2571.

Mondini, C., Contin, M., Leita, L. and De Nobili, M. (2002) Response of microbial biomass to air-drying and rewetting in soils and compost. Geoderma. 105:111-124.

Nelson, E.B., and Craft, C.M. (1992). Suppression of dollar spot on creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass turf with compost amended topdressings. Plant Disease. 76:954-957.

Pascual, J.A., Hernandez, T., Garcia, C. and Ayuso, M. (1998). Carbon mineralization in an arid soil amended with organic wastes of varying degrees of stability. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 29:835-846.

Persyn, R.A., Glanville, T.D., Richard, T.L., Laflen, J.M. and Dixon, P.M. (2004). Environmental effects of applying composted organics to new highway embankments: Part 1, interrill runoff and erosion. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 47:463-469.

Peters, S., Koschinsky, S., Schwieger, F. and Tebbe, C.C. (2000). Succession of microbial communities during hot composting as detected by PCR-single-strand-conformation polymorphism-based genetic profiles of small-subunit rRNA genes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 66:930-936.

Pharand, B., Carisse, O. and Benhamou, N. (2002). Cytological aspects of compost-mediated induced resistance against Fusarium crown and root rot in tomato. Phytopathology. 92:424-438.

Prescott, C.E. And Zabek, L.M. (1997) Growth response and nutrient availability in western redcedar plantations following amendment with fish-wood compost and straw. Can. J. For. Res . 27: 598-602.

Reuveni, R., Raviv, M., Krasnovsky, A., Freiman, L., Medina, M. and Orion, D. (2001). Compost induces protection against Fusarium oxysporum in sweet basil. Crop Protection. 21: 583-587

Rose, S., Parker. M. and Punja, Z.K. (2003). Efficacy of biological and chemical treatments forcontro of fusariumroot and stem rot on greenhouse cucumber. Plant Disease. 87:1462-1470

Ruffle, R. and Miller, J.(2002). Digging for alternatives: an analysis of potato pest management research at two northwest land grant universities. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. November:1-20.

Scheuerell, S. J. and Mahaffee, W. F. (2004). Compost tea as a container medium drench for suppressing seedling damping-off caused by Pythium ultimum. Phytopathology. 94: 1156-1163.

Scholss P.D., Hay, A.G., Wilson, D.B. and Walker, L.P. (2003). Tracking the temporal changes of bacterial community fingerprints during initial stages of composting. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 46:1-9.

Shi, W. and Norton, J.M. (2000). Microbial control of nitrate concentrations in an agricultural soil treated with dairy waste compost or ammonium fertilizer. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 32:1453-1457

Sidhu, J., Gibbs, R.A., Ho, G. E. and Unkovich, I. (2001). The role of indigenous microorganisms in suppression of salmonella regrowth in composted biosolids. Water Research. 35: 913-920.
Singer, A.and Crohn, D. (2002). Persistence and degradation of pesticides in composting.California Integrated Waste Management Board. 442-00-015

smh.com.au. (2004). Ocean 'dead zone' alert. Www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080544412449.html

Sogin, M.I., Morrison, H.G., Huber, J.A., Welch, D.M., Huse, S.M., Neal, P.R., Arrieta, J.M., and Herndl, G.J. (2006) Microbial Diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “ rare biosphere”. PNAS. 103:12115-12120
Reiten, J. and Salter, C. (2002). Compost tea for suppression of Xanthomonas in carrot production.

Swnason, C.L.W. (1949). Preparation and use of composts, night soil, green manures, and unusual fertilizing materials in Japan. Agronomy Journal. 41:272-282.

Tang, J., Kanamori, T., Inoue, Y., Yasuta, T., Yoshida, S. and Katayama, A. (2003). Changes in the microbial community structure during thermophilic composting of manure as detected by the quinone profile method. Process Biochemistry. {Online}.

Testler, C.F., Sikora, L.J., Taylor, J.M. and Parr, J.F. (1979). Decomposition of soil sludge compost in soil: III. carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus transformations in different sized fractions. Journal of Environmental Quality. 8:79-89.

Thambirajah, J.J., Zulkali, M.D. and Hashim, M.A. (1995). Microbial and biological changes during composting of oil palm empty-fruit-bunches: effect on nitrogen supplementation on the substrates. Bioresource Technology. 52:133-144.

Tiquia, S.M. (2002). Evolution of extracellular enzyme activities during manure composting. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 92:764-775.

Todar, K. (2005) Genus Bacillus. Todar's Online Textbook of Bacteriology: University of Wisconsin-Madison Dept. of Bacteriology.

Trigiano, R.N. and Fergus, C.L. (1978). Extracellular enzymes of some fungi associated with mushroom culture. Agronomy Journal. 908-918.

Tsor(Lahkim), L. (1999). Biological control of early blight in tomatoes.Proceedings 6th Int. Symp. On the Processing Tomato. 1:271-273

Tuomela, M., Vickman, A., Hatakka, A. and Itavarra, M. (2000). Biodegradation of lignin in a compost environment: a review. Bioresource Technology. 72: 169-183.

Ueno, Y., Haruta, S., Ishii, M. and Igarashi, Y. (2001). Microbial community in anaerobic hydrogen-producing microflora enriched from sludge compost. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 57:555-562.

Valdrighi, M.M., Pera, A., Agnolucci, M., Frassinetti, S., Lunardi, D., and Vallini, G. (1996). Effects of compost-derived humic acids on vegetable biomass production and microbial growth within a plant (Chichorium intybus)-soil system: a comparative study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 58:133-144.

Vallad, G.E., Cooperband, L., and Goodman, R.M. (2003). Plant foliar disease suppression mediated by composted forms of paper mill residuals exhibits molecular features of induced resistance. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology. 63:65-77

van Os, G.J. and van Ginkel, J.H. (2001) Suppression of Pythium root rot in bulbous Iris in relation to biomass and activity of the soil microflora. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 33: 1447-1454.

Viji, G., Uddin, W., and Romaine, C.P. (2002) Suppresion of gray leaf spot(blast) of perennial rygrass turf by Pseudomonas aeruginosa from spent mushroom substrate. Biological Control. 26:233-243

Vuorinen, A.H. and Saharinen, M.H. (1997). Evolution of microbiological and chemical parameters during manure and straw composting in a drum composting system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 66:19-29.

Wyatt, I.J. (1969). A laboratory method for studying the biology and control of pests in mushroom compost. Annals of Applied Biology. 64:441-448.

Yadav, J.S. and Reddy, C.A. (1993). Degradation of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) by the lignin-degrading basidiomycete Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 59: 756-762

Yadav, J.S. And Reddy, C.A. (1993) Mineralization of 2,4-dichlorophenyoxacetic acid (2,4-D) and mixtures of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid by Phanerochaete chrysosprium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 59: 2904-2908

Zhang, M.K., He, Z.L., Stofella, P.J., Calvert, D.V., Yang, X.E., Xia, Y.P. And Wilson, S.B. (2004). Solubility pf phosphorus and heavy metals in potting media amended with yard waste-biosolids compost. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33:373-379

Zhongqui, H., Griffin, T.S. And hoeycutt, C.W. (2004). Enzymatic hydrolysis of organic phosphorus in swine manure and soil. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33:367-372.

Gerry Miller
10-17-2007, 02:07 PM
Try getting your facts straight before you open you mouth and look like even a bigger clown:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2007/09/22/malaria_atonement_and_forgiveness?page=1

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2005/12/14/human_life_vs_the_earth

Kiril
10-17-2007, 02:40 PM
Tad, I could expand that list almost indefinitely. What is your point in posting it? Do you want to see who can fill up the most pages with journal publication listings? I just did a search on the key word "compost" in the AGRICOLA database and got 4581 hits, should I post them?

Lets not mention none of references you posted appear to have anything to do with compost teas. Now they do have something to do with compost (66 occurrences in the list), but then Gerry has already established his position on compost (eg. expensive, labor intensive, and not needed to build a healthy soil).

The links I posted are to documents you can read, and I spent a good deal off time chasing them down. The articles you posted probably all require either a subscription to the journal, or the article to be purchased separately, and took you all of 2 minutes to post.

Furthermore, have I stated or inferred anywhere that microbes do not play an important role in soil ecology? I also never stated that compost teas are not beneficial, I merely pointed out the inaccuracies in Gerry's supposed "facts". You also need to review the other compost tea studies because their findings are also inconclusive.

Review all the credible data available to you before you make a decision on how best to manage your property. Regardless of what Gerry wants everyone to believe, there is no such thing as the "one solution fits all scenarios" when your talking about biological systems.

Try getting your facts straight before you open you mouth and look like even a bigger clown:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2007/09/22/malaria_atonement_and_forgiveness?page=1

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2005/12/14/human_life_vs_the_earth

More "credible facts" from the cut and paste commando. Your hypocrisy is boundless.
Gee Gerry, why is it not OK to use pesticides in this country, but OK in others?

FYI, there are better alternatives to controlling malaria outbreaks than DDT.

http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/mosquito_control.htm

http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/vector_control.htm

http://www.malaria.org/howcontrolled.html

Gerry, your ignorance is astounding. Talk about misdirection you back peddling ----.

tadhussey
10-17-2007, 03:32 PM
Kiril,

I have done a lot of research on compost teas, and have read many many articles both in support and against their efficacy. What I've found is that the data refuting the beneficial properties of compost tea all relates to studies where the researchers used poorly made tea. Either they did not use adequate controls or methodology, or they did not look at the biology in the tea before applying it.

Dr. Chalker-Scott's article does not take this into account. All she did was compile all the published studies and base her results on that. If she had done a little more work in her research, her finding might have differed considerably.

As for the list I posted. I received those articles directly from Soil Food Web, and specifically stated that they did not all relate to compost tea. I said they related to microbial remediations and the use of beneficial biology (whether through compost, specific microbes, or AACT). My point in posting the list was to show you that there is other data out there that supports the use of biology in gardening and that data is just that.....data.

As for the "one solution fits all" comment. Well, that why you use AACT. To introduce a high diversity of beneficial organisms into your soil. This allows the plant to choose (based on the exudates it puts out), what the most beneficial organisms will be for it to be successful. These organisms then occupy the infections sites, both on the leaf suface and in the rhizosphere, and outcompete the pathogens for that space.

Now is AACT the only way to get the biology out there if it is currently lacking? No, but it is the easiest way.

How do I know it works? Well, I have been around the industry for over 5 years (my father was a pioneer in developing and inventing effective brewers). I look at my AACT under a microscope to determine diversity and quality of the tea, and we have spent thousands of dollars in testing with soil labs in the process of discovering how to make AACT correctly. When made correctly and applied, the results are amazing. We've had both personal success in combating foliar and soil diseases, and have gotten excellent feedback from a variety of sources ranging from giant pumpkin growers, commercial landscapers, organic vineyards, etc....

I feel like I have reviewed the credible data out there, and have also done a chunk of research on the subject myself. If I'm missing something, please point it out to me. I have yet to read a credible study discounting compost tea.

~Tad

Kiril
10-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Tad, thank you for an intelligent reply. :)

With respect to Dr. Chalker-Scott, I believe she limited her review of published data to studies that were scientifically credible (eg. peer reviewed). Based on that, you cannot dismiss her findings as they are valid given the restraints of her review. Any holes in the methodology of these studies should have been exposed during the review process, and if found, would have been rejected for publication.

Information that originates on manufacturers websites (with questionable or no references), are based on hearsay or studies that are not scientifically rigorous, is information one should be wary of.

I agree with you on most all other points, however I am confused why you think my position is that soil biology is not important. In fact I do use and recommend compost teas in some situations.

It however should be pointed out (as you did in a related thread), that compost teas are no substitute for a high quality compost. Given a choice, in most cases I would choose compost (preferably generated on-site) over a compost tea because it will contribute far more to good soil structure and biological diversity than compost tea alone. I have also used a combination of the two with soils that were essentially biologically dead. Every site is unique and needs to be evaluated with that in mind.

I support continued study and responsible use of compost teas, however I feel there is still much research to be done before any reasonably valid conclusions can be drawn on its effectiveness as a foliar disease control alternative.

Gerry Miller
10-17-2007, 05:17 PM
Kiril,

I have done a lot of research on compost teas, and have read many many articles both in support and against their efficacy. What I've found is that the data refuting the beneficial properties of compost tea all relates to studies where the researchers used poorly made tea. Either they did not use adequate controls or methodology, or they did not look at the biology in the tea before applying it.

Dr. Chalker-Scott's article does not take this into account. All she did was compile all the published studies and base her results on that. If she had done a little more work in her research, her finding might have differed considerably.

As for the list I posted. I received those articles directly from Soil Food Web, and specifically stated that they did not all relate to compost tea. I said they related to microbial remediations and the use of beneficial biology (whether through compost, specific microbes, or AACT). My point in posting the list was to show you that there is other data out there that supports the use of biology in gardening and that data is just that.....data.

As for the "one solution fits all" comment. Well, that why you use AACT. To introduce a high diversity of beneficial organisms into your soil. This allows the plant to choose (based on the exudates it puts out), what the most beneficial organisms will be for it to be successful. These organisms then occupy the infections sites, both on the leaf suface and in the rhizosphere, and outcompete the pathogens for that space.

Now is AACT the only way to get the biology out there if it is currently lacking? No, but it is the easiest way.

How do I know it works? Well, I have been around the industry for over 5 years (my father was a pioneer in developing and inventing effective brewers). I look at my AACT under a microscope to determine diversity and quality of the tea, and we have spent thousands of dollars in testing with soil labs in the process of discovering how to make AACT correctly. When made correctly and applied, the results are amazing. We've had both personal success in combating foliar and soil diseases, and have gotten excellent feedback from a variety of sources ranging from giant pumpkin growers, commercial landscapers, organic vineyards, etc....

I feel like I have reviewed the credible data out there, and have also done a chunk of research on the subject myself. If I'm missing something, please point it out to me. I have yet to read a credible study discounting compost tea.

~Tad

Ankle-biters

This is a response from Dr. Elaine Ingham that is from a yahoo list, that goes into detail how Dr. Chalker-Scott's article is in error from start to finish. Of course, Dr. Chalker-Scott is tied into the Washington State University system and has, over the years, lost her credibility.

Here is that post:

Hi folks -

As the person that Tom Jaszewski keeps attacking as having said "something" at "some time" that these nebulous other people have serious questions about, I'd like to "call him on the carpet" about those statements he says the "scientific community" claims I've made.

Because, of course, I have done no such thing. And in fact, most of the scientific community supports what I am working on. It's just a few "scientists" whose jobs or main source of income is threatened by what I am showing works that are extremely, and unfairly, critical.

- I've not made claims that manure put in buckets and swirled around can cure disease. The "experiments" done by Linda Chalker-Scott are pure bogus with respect to testing aerated compost tea efficacy.

- I have not made claims that compost to which huge numbers of E. coli have been added will result in complete death of E. coli in 24 hours in a compost tea brew.

- I have clearly shown that when you have billions of E. coli in the starting material, the system is overwhelmed, and you'll have E.coli at the end of the brew, regardless of aerobic or not.

- I have said, over and over, that the compost used has to be good compost, properly made, no E. coli present. If the compost is made correctly, that compost will have no E. coli. We have data to show that, we've even published some of that data. Tom J, Linda-Chalker Scott and those of that ilk clearly are not able to read the scientific literature when they say there is no data to support E. coli-free compost or compost tea

- I have not made claims that compost tea can solve all problems, all diseases, all pests, everywhere. I don't have the data to make that claim, so I cannot have made it.

- I have not made claims that compost or compost tea are silver bullets. Silver bullets kill vampires, and as far as I'm aware, we are NOT trying to kill vampires here. Absolutely no data on that one.

As I always say, you have to have the biology in the compost or tea, you have to make sure that biology survives transfer to the soil, or leaf surfaces.

If these other researchers would monitor those things which must be monitored, then I and most other scientists might believe that there are problems with properly made tea. But they don't monitor or document the biology in their teas, and therefore the credibility of Linda-Chalker Scott and others in that camp is in serious question.

There are "camps" in the world of science. Which camp are you listening to? Where is "their" data showing that they made ACT? Where is their data that shows that if they get the proper biology on the leaf surface, or in the soil, that disease, pests and nutrient cycling are not taken care of?

"They" have not presented data showing their negativity is true. Whereas there are now several scientific papers showing that, if you get the biology right, ACT works to suppress disease, pests and improves nutrient cycling.

The small camp of "Linda-Chalker Scotts" and those of her ilk claim that ACT doesn't work, but they've never made ACT.

Linda is un-aware of the scientific literature. When she claims that there are no scientific papers published showing ACT works, then you know that she is not aware of the scientific literature.

When someone cannot manage to make a compost tea that even comes close to having the proper biology in it, and then wants to "question Dr. I's science", what are you all actually experiencing here?

If you start to improve part of the biology in your soil, you will see part of the improvement that is possible.

But you can't achieve everything I talk about as being possible, if you don't get the whole foodweb right. Get the foodweb right and every time that I have data for, we get the full set of benefits.

If you want to argue about that, show me the data that documents something different.

No data? Don't waste my time, and everyone else's time.

Someone out there says they have no biology in their soil, but have trees? Sorry, that's not what I'm talking about. I can dig a hole, and have a tree in the dirt. But it is not healthy, it is not growing, it will soon be diseased, full of pests and won't survive.

You don't have the fungi in your soil, but you say your trees are growing? Define growing. Cause I am safe in betting that the trees in that no-fungi situation require serious chemical support in order to be "growing". Without the fungicide inputs, that tree would be dead.

I get tired of the ankle-biters. They twist what I actually say, to try to make opportunities for themselves. We all know there are opportunists out there, and I think it is easy to pick them out. They attack the person they view as having the greatest credibility, but their attacks are without data, without any solid evidence to back up their attacks.

I can waste my time trying to respond to each one, but then I will never manage to do another useful thing in my life. What a waste!

So, as of this point, I again won't read Tom J's e-mails, it is a waste of my time. He has no data to support what he says. He only presents nastiness and innuendo. A few times, he has copied some things from the internet that are of interest. But all of us can go to the internet and find information on our own. You still have to judge whether that information is solid, or just opinion, or just pure blather.

There are many people who have gotten all of the benefits from a healthy soil foodweb and who, therefore, are not using pesticides or inorganic fertilizers. Call SFI and find out where those folks are who are growing the plants you want to grow, in the area closest to you. Talk to them.

There are many folks still moving their soils in the right directions. I'm happy to help those folks, where we are all learning together.

Amazingly, I don't know everything (big shock, huh?). But I think you've all heard me say that many times before.

We are still learning. I hope to still be learning things until the day I die, and I'm absolutely certain that will be the case.

Elaine

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/message/15727

greenjeans_il
10-17-2007, 05:37 PM
OMG...I read the WHOLE THING! My brain hurts.

I don't come here often since my initial aspirations toward a lawn care business have waned, but Tad said he'd become a member and that I should stop in.

It would appear that a couple of members on the same side of the fence here have gotten off on the wrong foot. In Gerry's defense, Kiril, I did read your first statement regarding his post as a little deragatory and if you disagreed I think you could have been a bit less condescending. You may not have meant it that way but that is how it was perceived.

To further Gerry's defense I must say that there is a difference between organic lawn care practice and a self sustaining lawn. While a self sustained lawn does encompass many aspects of organics (I said "many", not "all"), in my opinion organic practices need not always encompass all things self sustaining. It would be nice if they could but like it was mentioned it's not always practical nor is it the "norm".

There are many aspects of organic lawn care that can include self sustaining practice; like on-site composting, mulch mowing, incorporating clover into the turf (one of my favorites but outside the "norm") and watering deeply only when needed as opposed to the frequent 15 minute showers most irrigation systems are programmed for. Yes, the watering can (pun intended) be called an additional input that isn't self sustaining BUT, it is also one of the few cultural practices that can lead to less input. The deeper the water, the deeper the roots (obviously depending on the plant) and the less additional water the plant will need in the future.

I'm a big believer in self sustained landscapes, and I think we've turned our focus to turf because in MOST landscapes turf is the largest living organism. Which brings to light another method of furthering the movement and that would be to decrease the area of turf in a landscape as much as possible. But in all fairness, and again in Gerry's defense, this is "lawnsite.com", so why wouldn't we discuss lawns?

Folks like their lawns. It's hard for the kids to play on hardwood mulch and bushes and trees make a decent game of tag-football darn near impossible. I believe the focus of Gerry's statements are that of making those games of tag-football a more pleasant experience for the kids by eliminating the potentially dangerous pesticides that a synthetically cared for lawn calls for. If one goes to the trouble to create a synthetic fertilizer free lawn; why would that same person want to apply a synthetic pesticide? History shows it's the "safe" pesticides that have created birth defects and destroyed ecosystems. The same ecosystems that many of us rely on for our day to day life. Like electricity we don't notice until they don't work anymore and suddenly we're wondering; "Who forgot to pay the electric bill?" & "Why'd all the fish in my pond die?" If anyone is satisfied that their pesticide of choice is "safe"; please stop to consider all the possibility's that were potentially overlooked or, even worse, ignored.

I can talk about this for hours, it's been known to happen, but let me summarize by saying; first reach the average homeowner by imploring them to adapt to a more organic approach to lawn care. They will soon want to approach a self sustained lawn after they realize it's attainable by applying many of the principles they've learned through their organic practices. They will start to adapt to the style of thinking that let's them ignore the occasional weed and maybe even plant a little clover. I know this because I'm one of those people.

Greenjeans

NattyLawn
10-18-2007, 07:58 AM
One of the downsides to organics is everyone has this "I'm right, you're wrong attitiude", and that gets us nowhere because the person trying to learn doesn't know who to believe. Too many times that leads them back to the old reliable chemicals.

My best advice is learn from experience if possible. I know that I don't put all my eggs in the soil foodweb basket or any singular way of thinking. I used to be combative and argumentative (and still am at times), but I don't have the time or energy for that anymore.

Smallaxe
10-19-2007, 02:02 AM
One of the downsides to organics is everyone has this "I'm right, you're wrong attitiude", and that gets us nowhere because the person trying to learn doesn't know who to believe. Too many times that leads them back to the old reliable chemicals.

My best advice is learn from experience if possible. I know that I don't put all my eggs in the soil foodweb basket or any singular way of thinking. I used to be combative and argumentative (and still am at times), but I don't have the time or energy for that anymore.

Amen :)

There is no body language in a post. Short and to the point for a quick read. In theory, just a non-emotional bit of 'knowledge' , 'question' or 'new idea'.

Organics used to be as simple as imitating nature and supplement the deficiencies as much as possible without unnatural 'cides'.

Can we who live in areas with extremely sorted soils ever build it up to the level of the flatlanders with a great mix of soil?
Just how much N does grass need anyway?

We here in the industry look at the hundreds of homeowners who want their lawn to exceed the 'Jones's' and have a tendancy to forget about the thousands of 'Joe sixpacks' who barely mow their lawns. The best turf I know is on a farm that doesn't even have weeds. The only unnatural things done to it was the initial cultivating of dead dry ground, spring raking, and semi-regular mowings. Its a good stand of the 'naturalized bluegrass' for this area. We call it Junegrass, but it is the European 'poa' - a cousin to KBG.

There are lots of ways to think about 'organics or natural' , even an agenda to saving the planet, or neighborhood is nothing new. The Earth is full of symbiotic relationships, including us. I believe we are either stewards, controllers, or trashers.

Fighting about a belief system doesn't help the overall understanding of what the reality of our world is about.

Kiril
10-19-2007, 08:00 AM
Fighting about a belief system doesn't help the overall understanding of what the reality of our world is about.

Agreed. :clapping: To that end, I will repost resource links with a few additions and without the commentary.


Sustainable Landscapes & Habitats


Environmental Protection Agency:

GreenScapes Program (http://www.epa.gov/greenscapes/)

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service):

Improving Urban Landscapes (http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/NPMFactSheets/UrbanConservation/UrbanConservation-FactSheet-Aug2007.pdf)

University of Minnesota:

Sustainable Urban Landscape Information Series (SULIS) (http://www.sustland.umn.edu/index.html)

Oregon State University Extension Service:

Plant Selection for Sustainable Landscapes (http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/ec/ec1534/)

Building Green:

Natural Landscaping: Native Plants and Planting Strategies for Green Development (http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?filename=140701a.xml&printable=yes)

National Wildlife Federation:

Create a Certified Wildlife Habitat (http://www.nwf.org/backyard/index.cfm)

University of Maine:

Principles for Creating a Backyard Wildlife Habitat (http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/7132.htm)

State of Illinois:

Creating Habitats and Homes For Illinois Wildlife (http://www.dnr.state.il.us/OREP/c2000/guide/habitats/)


Compost Tea Trials and Information


University of California:

North Coast Apple Scab Trials 1993/1994 Organic And Conventional Materials Comparison (http://www.uckac.edu/ppq/PDF/95apr.pdf)

The Effects of Compost Tea on Golf Course Greens Turf and Soil: Presidio Golf Course, San Francisco CA (http://www.presidio.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4E22E42D-F215-4648-80E9-191526FA4323/0/CompostTurfTrial.pdf%20)

Washington State University:

Compost Tea: Miracle Cure or Marketing Gimmick? (http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/FactSheets/Compost%20tea%20fact%20sheet.pdf)

The Myth of Compost Tea Revisited (http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Compost%20tea%20again.pdf)

National Organic Standards Board:

Compost Tea Task Force - Final Report (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/meetings/CompostTeaTaskForceFinalReport.pdf)

University of Vermont:

Compost Tea To Suppress Plant Disease (http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/composttea.html)

Ohio State University:

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program (http://vegnet.osu.edu/library/res04/orgsqa.pdf)

Oregon State University:

OSU/Lane County Extension Service Compost Specialist Tea Trial (http://extension.oregonstate.edu/lane/horticulture/documents/teatrial.pdf)

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program (http://vegnet.osu.edu/library/res04/orgsqa.pdf)


Misc Related Information


NC State University:

Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South (http://www.ncsu.edu/sustainable/index.html)

University of California:

Soil Fertility Management for Organic Crops (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7249.pdf)

Soil Management and Soil Quality for Organic Crops (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7248.pdf)

Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/)

Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm)

University of Vermont SERA-17:

Referenced Publications From SERA-17 (http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/SERA_17_Publications.htm)

Colorado State University:

Xeriscaping: Creative Landscaping (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07228.html)

Organic Materials as Nitrogen Fertilizers (http://www.greenhouse.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00546.pdf)

Texas A&M University:

Landscape Water Conservation...Xeriscape (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/xeriscape/xeriscape.html)

Duke University:

Long-Term Soil-Ecosystem Studies (LTSEs) (http://ltse.env.duke.edu/user/1)

State of California:

Coyote Creek Watershed Management Plan. Green Infrastructure Site Design Guidelines (http://www.rmc.ca.gov/plans/coyote_creek/Appendix%20G%20-%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Site%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf)

ATTRA (http://attra.ncat.org/):

Sources of Organic Fertilizers and Amendments (http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/orgfert.php)

USDA-NAL (http://www.nal.usda.gov/):

Soil And Water Management (http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=2&tax_level=1&tax_subject=293)

Organic Gardening: A Guide to Resources
(http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/org_gar.htm)
USDA-SARE (http://www.sare.org/index.htm):

Building Soils for Better Crops, 2nd Edition (http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/bsbc.pdf)

Holistic Agriculture Library (http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/01aglibwelcome.html):

Factors Of Soil Formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology (http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010159.Jenny.pdf)

tadhussey
10-19-2007, 02:45 PM
Kiril,

Are you serious? Did you actually read those links on compost tea that you posted? They're ridiculous! I feel like you're just proving my point right now.

North Coast Apple Scab Trials 1993/1994 Organic And Conventional Materials Comparison - THESE GUYS BREWED FOR 21 DAYS BEFORE APPLYING, NO ONE IN THE INDUSTRY BREWS MORE THAN 72 HOURS. I'VE LOOKED AT TEA AFTER 72 HOURS AND IT NO LONGER CONTAINS A HIGH DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS.

The Effects of Compost Tea on Golf Course Greens Turf and Soil: Presidio Golf Course, San Francisco CA - THIS IS THE MOST REPUTABLE TEST ON YOUR LIST. IT CLEARLY SHOWS SOME IMPACT FROM USING THE TEA. HOWEVER, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THEIR CLEANING METHODS, OR MUCH ABOUT THEIR INPUTS. ALSO, IT DOES DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE BENEFITS.

Washington State University:

Compost Tea: Miracle Cure or Marketing Gimmick?

The Myth of Compost Tea Revisited - I ALREADY EXPLAINED THESE. SHE'S LOOKING AT THE SAME TESTS THAT YOU'RE POSTING. NOT AACT!!!

University of Vermont:

Compost Tea To Suppress Plant Disease - THIS ISN'T A STUDY AT ALL, BUT RATHER A GUY MAKING REFERENCES TO OTHER STUDIES THAT HE'S READ. MOST OF THE INFO. IS ACCURATE, BUT SOME IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN USE COMPOST THAT IS MORE THAN 12 MONTHS OLD. SOME OF THE COMPOST WE USE WE PURPOSELY LET MATURE FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME.

Ohio State University:

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program- THIS ONE YOU LISTED 2X ON YOUR LIST. IT'S THE WORST STUDY OF THEM ALL. THEY USED A SOIL SOUP BREWER. SOIL SOUP!!! THEIR BREWERS PRODUCE ABSOLUTELY NO FUNGI IN THEIR TEA. IN FACT THEY CLAIM YOU CANNOT GROW FUNGI IN TEA, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. WE'VE DONE BLIND LAB TESTS WITH THEIR TEAS AND SEEN MANY OTHER RESULTS, ALL WHICH SPEAK TO A POORLY DESIGNED BREWER.

OSU/Lane County Extension Service Compost Specialist Tea Trial - THIS STUDY DID NOT USE AN COMMERCIAL BREWER AND THEIR ONLY TESTING ON THE TEA WAS TO LOOK AT IT UNDER A MICROSCOPE. YOU NEED TO DO BIOLOGICAL TESTING WITH A LAB TO TRULY DETERMINE THE QUALITY OF THE TEA.

Gerry Miller
10-19-2007, 03:15 PM
Again, this lists that contains some very erroneous information as posted in these three items in particular:

Washington State University:

Compost Tea: Miracle Cure or Marketing Gimmick?

The Myth of Compost Tea Revisited

National Organic Standards Board:

Compost Tea Task Force - Final Report

It's obvious that these reports contain serious flaws and cannot be considered credible.

This Bozo is an ankle biter!

I will post again, remarks made by Dr. Elaine Ingham that as she is the leading authority on AACT. It was completely ignored by Bozo since he doesn't know what he's talking about on this, and unfortunately, many other subjects. Bozo has problem with all the facts I have presented and choses to ignore them. Facts are stubborn things.l

Ankle-biters

This is a response from Dr. Elaine Ingham that is from a yahoo list, that goes into detail how Dr. Chalker-Scott's article is in error from start to finish. Of course, Dr. Chalker-Scott is tied into the Washington State University system and has, over the years, lost her credibility.

Here is that post:

Hi folks -

As the person that Tom Jaszewski keeps attacking as having said "something" at "some time" that these nebulous other people have serious questions about, I'd like to "call him on the carpet" about those statements he says the "scientific community" claims I've made.

Because, of course, I have done no such thing. And in fact, most of the scientific community supports what I am working on. It's just a few "scientists" whose jobs or main source of income is threatened by what I am showing works that are extremely, and unfairly, critical.

- I've not made claims that manure put in buckets and swirled around can cure disease. The "experiments" done by Linda Chalker-Scott are pure bogus with respect to testing aerated compost tea efficacy.

- I have not made claims that compost to which huge numbers of E. coli have been added will result in complete death of E. coli in 24 hours in a compost tea brew.

- I have clearly shown that when you have billions of E. coli in the starting material, the system is overwhelmed, and you'll have E.coli at the end of the brew, regardless of aerobic or not.

- I have said, over and over, that the compost used has to be good compost, properly made, no E. coli present. If the compost is made correctly, that compost will have no E. coli. We have data to show that, we've even published some of that data. Tom J, Linda-Chalker Scott and those of that ilk clearly are not able to read the scientific literature when they say there is no data to support E. coli-free compost or compost tea

- I have not made claims that compost tea can solve all problems, all diseases, all pests, everywhere. I don't have the data to make that claim, so I cannot have made it.

- I have not made claims that compost or compost tea are silver bullets. Silver bullets kill vampires, and as far as I'm aware, we are NOT trying to kill vampires here. Absolutely no data on that one.

As I always say, you have to have the biology in the compost or tea, you have to make sure that biology survives transfer to the soil, or leaf surfaces.

If these other researchers would monitor those things which must be monitored, then I and most other scientists might believe that there are problems with properly made tea. But they don't monitor or document the biology in their teas, and therefore the credibility of Linda-Chalker Scott and others in that camp is in serious question.

There are "camps" in the world of science. Which camp are you listening to? Where is "their" data showing that they made ACT? Where is their data that shows that if they get the proper biology on the leaf surface, or in the soil, that disease, pests and nutrient cycling are not taken care of?

"They" have not presented data showing their negativity is true. Whereas there are now several scientific papers showing that, if you get the biology right, ACT works to suppress disease, pests and improves nutrient cycling.

The small camp of "Linda-Chalker Scotts" and those of her ilk claim that ACT doesn't work, but they've never made ACT.

Linda is un-aware of the scientific literature. When she claims that there are no scientific papers published showing ACT works, then you know that she is not aware of the scientific literature.

When someone cannot manage to make a compost tea that even comes close to having the proper biology in it, and then wants to "question Dr. I's science", what are you all actually experiencing here?

If you start to improve part of the biology in your soil, you will see part of the improvement that is possible.

But you can't achieve everything I talk about as being possible, if you don't get the whole foodweb right. Get the foodweb right and every time that I have data for, we get the full set of benefits.

If you want to argue about that, show me the data that documents something different.

No data? Don't waste my time, and everyone else's time.

Someone out there says they have no biology in their soil, but have trees? Sorry, that's not what I'm talking about. I can dig a hole, and have a tree in the dirt. But it is not healthy, it is not growing, it will soon be diseased, full of pests and won't survive.

You don't have the fungi in your soil, but you say your trees are growing? Define growing. Cause I am safe in betting that the trees in that no-fungi situation require serious chemical support in order to be "growing". Without the fungicide inputs, that tree would be dead.

I get tired of the ankle-biters. They twist what I actually say, to try to make opportunities for themselves. We all know there are opportunists out there, and I think it is easy to pick them out. They attack the person they view as having the greatest credibility, but their attacks are without data, without any solid evidence to back up their attacks.

I can waste my time trying to respond to each one, but then I will never manage to do another useful thing in my life. What a waste!

So, as of this point, I again won't read Tom J's e-mails, it is a waste of my time. He has no data to support what he says. He only presents nastiness and innuendo. A few times, he has copied some things from the internet that are of interest. But all of us can go to the internet and find information on our own. You still have to judge whether that information is solid, or just opinion, or just pure blather.

There are many people who have gotten all of the benefits from a healthy soil foodweb and who, therefore, are not using pesticides or inorganic fertilizers. Call SFI and find out where those folks are who are growing the plants you want to grow, in the area closest to you. Talk to them.

There are many folks still moving their soils in the right directions. I'm happy to help those folks, where we are all learning together.

Amazingly, I don't know everything (big shock, huh?). But I think you've all heard me say that many times before.

We are still learning. I hope to still be learning things until the day I die, and I'm absolutely certain that will be the case.

Elaine

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/c.../message/15727

And you can see what camp Bozo resides.

As far the rest of those links, from the few that I have read, sounds pretty much like using organic practices, as it is stated several times about using organic or natural fertilizers and employing cultural practices.

But when you read those post relating to compost tea and see the baloney that is trying to be passed of as 'scientific study or peer review', since they have that info wrong, you have to question the credibility.

Dr. Ingham has credibility in her statements with data to back up what she writes. You, on the other hand Bozo, have NO credibility. You are a joke, a clown!

Gerry Miller
10-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Kiril,

Are you serious? Did you actually read those links on compost tea that you posted? They're ridiculous! I feel like you're just proving my point right now.

North Coast Apple Scab Trials 1993/1994 Organic And Conventional Materials Comparison - THESE GUYS BREWED FOR 21 DAYS BEFORE APPLYING, NO ONE IN THE INDUSTRY BREWS MORE THAN 72 HOURS. I'VE LOOKED AT TEA AFTER 72 HOURS AND IT NO LONGER CONTAINS A HIGH DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS.

The Effects of Compost Tea on Golf Course Greens Turf and Soil: Presidio Golf Course, San Francisco CA - THIS IS THE MOST REPUTABLE TEST ON YOUR LIST. IT CLEARLY SHOWS SOME IMPACT FROM USING THE TEA. HOWEVER, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THEIR CLEANING METHODS, OR MUCH ABOUT THEIR INPUTS. ALSO, IT DOES DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE BENEFITS.

Washington State University:

Compost Tea: Miracle Cure or Marketing Gimmick?

The Myth of Compost Tea Revisited - I ALREADY EXPLAINED THESE. SHE'S LOOKING AT THE SAME TESTS THAT YOU'RE POSTING. NOT AACT!!!

University of Vermont:

Compost Tea To Suppress Plant Disease - THIS ISN'T A STUDY AT ALL, BUT RATHER A GUY MAKING REFERENCES TO OTHER STUDIES THAT HE'S READ. MOST OF THE INFO. IS ACCURATE, BUT SOME IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN USE COMPOST THAT IS MORE THAN 12 MONTHS OLD. SOME OF THE COMPOST WE USE WE PURPOSELY LET MATURE FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME.

Ohio State University:

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program- THIS ONE YOU LISTED 2X ON YOUR LIST. IT'S THE WORST STUDY OF THEM ALL. THEY USED A SOIL SOUP BREWER. SOIL SOUP!!! THEIR BREWERS PRODUCE ABSOLUTELY NO FUNGI IN THEIR TEA. IN FACT THEY CLAIM YOU CANNOT GROW FUNGI IN TEA, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. WE'VE DONE BLIND LAB TESTS WITH THEIR TEAS AND SEEN MANY OTHER RESULTS, ALL WHICH SPEAK TO A POORLY DESIGNED BREWER.

OSU/Lane County Extension Service Compost Specialist Tea Trial - THIS STUDY DID NOT USE AN COMMERCIAL BREWER AND THEIR ONLY TESTING ON THE TEA WAS TO LOOK AT IT UNDER A MICROSCOPE. YOU NEED TO DO BIOLOGICAL TESTING WITH A LAB TO TRULY DETERMINE THE QUALITY OF THE TEA.

This guy, who likes to brag that he has all this college education, (I'm beginning to think it's one of those universities you see on the back of a match book)especially dealing the soil science and plant biology, and in one post even claims he's used AACT, now claims that compost tea is a myth or doesn't work??? HUH? You can't have it both ways. You've switched from one side to the other with you slight of hand and misdirection. Not only are you a Bozo, you're a phony as well. When I see your post, it reminds me of what Albert Einstein said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

greenjeans_il
10-19-2007, 03:53 PM
Tad and Gerry,
Don't waste your time. He's only an English major with a large vocabulary, chip on his shoulder and a handy search engine. The more you address him the more ammo it gives him to spin and feel better about himself. Even his EPA Greenscapes sight is full of holes regarding the soil foodweb and its ability to produce "self-sustaining" landscapes. The information they have right is common knowledge and the things they have wrong most people on this site know little about.

I think this is a group of "professional" landscapers trying to jump on the organic bandwagon and passing themselves off as tree-huggers while it didn't occur to them to address the needs of the soil until David Hall and others brought it to their attention. Their self-proclaimed professional status makes them unable to grasp the basic science without developing arrogance toward those they view as inferior. Instead of chosing to learn from a statement they feel better about beating it down to justify or meet their own interpretation or needs.

Piss on 'em if they don't know how to listen without berating and condescending. They don't yet know how to ask a question but only feel good about themselves when having the answers. In another time and another place they'll respond to others queries with the same data that you've given them, but for now they're unable to admit you may be right.

Greenjeans

Gerry Miller
10-19-2007, 05:13 PM
:hammerhead: Mr. Greenjeans, you've got it right! Clearly, most of these people have no clue about soil biology. Anyone who can ignore the soil foodweb and the use of AACT is a clear indication that they are living in the past, using information that is at least 10 - 15 old and have not evolved to what is current. The links they have provided is prove enough.

Kiril
10-19-2007, 08:44 PM
Tad,

I'm only posting what information is out there that is the most likely to be unbiased. I didn't do these trials, I didn't write the reports, I didn't mix the brews.

I stress NONE of these studies are scientifically rigorous, nor are they peer reviewed, nor ar they published in a journal.

I have no agenda here (eg. I don't not sell a product), I am just posting links to trials/experiments that I can find, nothing more, nothing less.

Second, at least two of these trials sent their tea to soilfoodweb for testing.

How about providing links to the peer reviewed journal studies that have shown conclusive evidence that compost teas work under the experimental conditions of the study.

You need to rethink your comment because you have yet to produce one study to support your argument.

Just to be clear, my position is composts teas may or may not work, it is a coin toss at this point.

BTW Tad, since you stress the importance of the proper biology in the tea, I have problems with dollar spot in my lawn, tell me the EXACT biology I need in my compost tea to eliminate it.

Kiril
10-19-2007, 08:52 PM
Tad and Gerry,
Don't waste your time. He's only an English major with a large vocabulary, chip on his shoulder and a handy search engine. The more you address him the more ammo it gives him to spin and feel better about himself. Even his EPA Greenscapes sight is full of holes regarding the soil foodweb and its ability to produce "self-sustaining" landscapes. The information they have right is common knowledge and the things they have wrong most people on this site know little about.

I think this is a group of "professional" landscapers trying to jump on the organic bandwagon and passing themselves off as tree-huggers while it didn't occur to them to address the needs of the soil until David Hall and others brought it to their attention. Their self-proclaimed professional status makes them unable to grasp the basic science without developing arrogance toward those they view as inferior. Instead of chosing to learn from a statement they feel better about beating it down to justify or meet their own interpretation or needs.

Piss on 'em if they don't know how to listen without berating and condescending. They don't yet know how to ask a question but only feel good about themselves when having the answers. In another time and another place they'll respond to others queries with the same data that you've given them, but for now they're unable to admit you may be right.

Greenjeans

:laugh: You just spot on described Gerry. :clapping:

Kiril
10-19-2007, 09:18 PM
This guy, who likes to brag that he has all this college education, (I'm beginning to think it's one of those universities you see on the back of a match book)especially dealing the soil science and plant biology, and in one post even claims he's used AACT, now claims that compost tea is a myth or doesn't work??? HUH? You can't have it both ways. You've switched from one side to the other with you slight of hand and misdirection. Not only are you a Bozo, you're a phony as well. When I see your post, it reminds me of what Albert Einstein said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

You claimed I have no credibility, so I gave you my qualifications, how is that bragging? BTW, I graduated from University of California-Davis not clown school and worked out of the soil science department.

I never claimed ACT doesn't work, I did claim there is no conclusive evidence out there that shows it does work.

Does that mean I won't use it, absolutely not. I however DOES mean that I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that all the B.S. claims many of these manufacturers websites make are true. It's time for you guys to get real, stop with the opinionated garbage and provide some unbiased sources of information.

Kiril
10-19-2007, 09:21 PM
Here's a couple more links to compost tea trials for you to digest.

This published study applies to greenhouse production of cucumbers, and did have some positive results depending on how the tea was produced.

Compost Tea as a Container Medium Drench for Suppressing Seedling Damping-Off Caused by Pythium ultimum (http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1156)

Another published study on geraniums, inconclusive results

Variability Associated with Suppression of Gray Mold (Botrytis cinerea)
on Geranium by Foliar Applications of Nonaerated and Aerated Compost Teas (http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1094/PD-90-1201)

Another project on pumpkins, inconclusive results

Aerated compost tea and other alternative treatments for disease control in pumpkins (http://ofrf.org/funded/reports/kelley_03f18.pdf)

greenjeans_il
10-20-2007, 08:08 AM
Kiril,
It's not that your info doesn't hold some light and that it wouldn't make for good discussion; it's just that you're so damn irritating. Not because you're right about any of it but because you're so condescending. Doesn't someone with your credentials have anything better to do than to come here and talk in circles? Every other post contradicts previous ones. At least Gerry sticks to an issue and doesn't sway one way or the other.

In one post you'll put up links saying ACT is crap science; then in the next post "Oh, well I never said it." No, you didn't say it but you certainly implied it in a desperate attempt to discredit someone else. Stop being such a jerk.

Greenjeans

Kiril
10-20-2007, 10:25 AM
Kiril,
It's not that your info doesn't hold some light and that it wouldn't make for good discussion; it's just that you're so damn irritating. Not because you're right about any of it but because you're so condescending. Doesn't someone with your credentials have anything better to do than to come here and talk in circles? Every other post contradicts previous ones. At least Gerry sticks to an issue and doesn't sway one way or the other.

In one post you'll put up links saying ACT is crap science; then in the next post "Oh, well I never said it." No, you didn't say it but you certainly implied it in a desperate attempt to discredit someone else. Stop being such a jerk.

Greenjeans

If your going to make statements like the above, please provide a quote to the content where I did as you claim, implied or not. I would also request you reread Gerry's posts directed at me because they are more than inflammatory, and in some cases, downright offensive.

As I said before, and will say again, I simply provided links to discussion and studies on compost tea that I could find and link to, whether they be negative, positive, or neutral with respect to results. Just because I posted links to documents that Tad and Gerry say are anti-ACT does not imply that I am against ACT.

Let me remind you that this whole discussion started because I feel an organic program is only one part of creating a sustainable landscape. Gerry maintains it is not. From that point, it degraded quickly, and the topic has changed several times due to accusations directed toward myself that were unfounded.

Finally, this is a forum where people should be able to get unbiased, objective information. I have done my best to provide links to sources that meet that criteria.

greenjeans_il
10-20-2007, 01:04 PM
Kiril,
I'm not going back to find it or to re-read through 7 pages of this dribble; not worth my time. I read it once and it gave me a headache. Anyone that's gotten this far in the conversation has definitely received what you've implied.

I'd like to see where "...an organic program is only one part of creating a sustainable landscape. Gerry maintains it is not." you collected that info. I believe Gerry's position is that an organic program need not be sustainable in order to be considered organic. You implied, or said, or somehow have led me to believe at this point in the conversation; that a lawn care program needs to be sustainable in order to be organic. My position, and that of many others, is that is not the case.

Simply abstaining from synthesized chemical inputs to address the needs of the plant is considered organic to many. Others hold the position that all inputs should merely address the soil and bunk on the plants. Others hold the position that if you're using a gasoline powered mower to trim the turf you're a scab on the face of organics everywhere.

I'm of the thought process that if you're attempting to make a better environment and a healthier soil while decreasing inputs and maintenance that you're of the organic mindset and started down the right path.

You insist this forum should hold unbiased information then you should cease to give your opinion on what you consider to be organic. You should also cease to provide links that, in your opinion, are un-biased. The links you provided I'm certain were read prior to posting and don't think we're so naive as to believe that you didn't omit some results which may have been contrary to your argument.

Incidentally, I KNOW Gerry; I don't mean I occasionally run across him on the forums or have heard of him, I mean I've been to his house, worked in his yard, and seen the results of his efforts and knowledge. Gerry does not attack others unless provoked. You people on this forum have intentionally banded together with the intention of condescending one whom you thought inferior to yourselves. So if he offended you; you had it coming. I respect that he's not afraid of the letter's behind your name or the piece of paper on your wall. Those things don't earn you respect in the real world; only amongst your study chums and we're not those people. We're the people that show respect to those that give it and I'm afraid you've failed to do that here. Gerry, I respect; Tad, I respect; Dr. Elaine Ingham, I respect; you, I'm not seeing you earning much.

Greenjeans

P.S. None that was cut and paste with the exception of your quote, of which I give due credit.

Kiril
10-20-2007, 04:08 PM
I'd like to see where "...an organic program is only one part of creating a sustainable landscape. Gerry maintains it is not." you collected that info.

And like I said before, I'm not an advocate of sustainability outside of using organic practices only and how that assists in sustainability.

I think it is fair to say that the fundamental purpose of the organic approach, be it farming or landscapes, is to create a sustainable system. As I pointed out, how can you advocate one without advocated the other.

I believe Gerry's position is that an organic program need not be sustainable in order to be considered organic. You implied, or said, or somehow have led me to believe at this point in the conversation; that a lawn care program needs to be sustainable in order to be organic. My position, and that of many others, is that is not the case.

This is what I said.

The goal of any organic program should be sustainability with minimal or no supplemental inputs.

A well written approach to that end.

Ecologically Sound Lawn Care for the Pacific Northwest (http://www.seattle.gov/util/lawncare/LawnReport.htm)

I'm of the thought process that if you're attempting to make a better environment and a healthier soil while decreasing inputs and maintenance that you're of the organic mindset and started down the right path.

I believe I said the same thing.

Let me get one thing straight here. I applaud you and anyone else who makes any attempt at being organic. It most certainly is better than the conventional alternative.

The links you provided I'm certain were read prior to posting and don't think we're so naive as to believe that you didn't omit some results which may have been contrary to your argument.

The majority of links I did not read, how much free time do you think I have? The exception would be the compost tea links, which I did read in whole or part with the time I had available. I did not filter these other than making sure they came from a credible source, regardless of the findings in the study. If you don't believe me then do your own search.

If you read the compost tea trials/studies you would see there are a variety of results, ranging from positive to negative and everything in between. I'm curious how that constitutes omitting results contrary to my argument?

Here are some more studies I have found.

2003 research report on grapes in greenhouse/lab, some positive results under controlled conditions, generally inconclusive.

Suppression of grapevine diseases with compost tea in the greenhouse (http://fpath.cas.psu.edu/GREENHOUSE/GHreport1.pdf)


1999 Report on various fresh market vegetables, results inconclusive.

Effectiveness of Compost Extracts as Disease Suppressants in Fresh Market Crops In BC. (http://ofrf.org/funded/reports/welke_99-31.pdf)


2006 published study, positive results observed under controlled conditions, generally inconclusive.

Inhibition of the apple scab pathogen Venturia inaequalis and the grapewine downy mildew pathogen Plasmopara viticola by extracts of green waste compost (http://orgprints.org/10317/01/larbi-etal-2006-orbit_conference.pdf)


2007 published study on Telfairia occidentalis (fluted pumpkin), variable positive results found with respect to the control.

The Use of Compost Extract as Foliar Spray Nutrient Source and Botanical Insecticide in Telfairia occidentalis (http://www.idosi.org/wjas/wjas3(5)/14.pdf)


2006 A rather large study contaning multiple objectives. Source (http://orgprints.org/6694/)

Effects of composting manures and other organic wastes on soil processes and pest and disease interactions (http://orgprints.org/6694/01/Final_Report.pdf)

A review of the effects of uncomposted materials, composts and manures on soil health and quality, soil fertility, crop development and nutrition (http://orgprints.org/6694/02/Annex_Effects_on_soils_and_crops.pdf)

A review of the effects of uncomposted materials, composts, manures and compost extracts on beneficial microorganisms, pest and disease incidence and severity in agricultural and horticultural crops (http://orgprints.org/6694/03/Annex_Effects_on_microorganisms.pdf)

A review of the effects of different composting processes on chemical and
biological parameters in the finished compost or compost extract (http://orgprints.org/6694/07/Annex_Effects_of_different_composting_processes.pdf)

Documentation of the standards, regulations and legislation relevant to recycling, compost and manure preparation and application and a review of common UK practices relating to the preparation and application of uncomposted materials, manures, composts and compost extracts (http://orgprints.org/6694/05/Annex_Documentation_of_Standards.pdf)

Glossary (http://orgprints.org/6694/06/Appendix_1_Glossary.pdf)


Read the available studies and you will find the overwhelming majority of them are inconclusive, and almost all state additional research needs to be conducted.

What is my argument/position?

1) Creating a sustainable system is the desired goal of any organic program.

2) While compost teas have a lot of potential, there is still much research that needs to be done in order to better understand how they can be used as an alternative to conventional pesticides.

Perhaps I'm way off base here, but I believe Dr. Ingham and those in the field would agree with the above two statements.

Gerry Miller
10-20-2007, 04:38 PM
I have posted not once but twice, comment made by the leading authority on compost teas, Dr. Elaine Ingham, and twice you chose not to respond to her post and comments. Why is that? Difficulty in dealing with the facts?

You keep posting this garbage that there is no evidence to the effectiveness of compost teas. That just isn't true, in fact that's another one of your lies. Soil Foodweb, among other labs, have, in fact, the data that supports the positive results from using AACT. But if you choose to only look at flawed data by people who have either never made AACT or made it incorrectly. Where is the credibility in that? But these links you provide would only be good for one thing, that would be to put in a compost pile because it's mostly manure!

Like I have posted before, Dr. Ingham is know worldwide, is in demand for her expertise, besides being the leading authority on the subject. I'll take her views on AACT before any comments you make on the subject. She knows what she is doing, where you certainly don't based on your posts.

Then I read your current post and amazed at all your back peddling and flip-flopping. No credibility at all!

Let's see you try and twist this one around.

Kiril
10-20-2007, 06:11 PM
Gerry,

I have not responded to that post because it has nothing to do with this discussion. You and Tad have wrongly assumed I am in the "camp" of Linda-Chalker Scott, I am NOT. In fact the only thing I know about her is what she wrote in her review of the literature. It is quite obvious the feud between Linda-Chalker Scott and Elaine Ingham goes FAR deeper than a simple review.

The fact of the matter is, you are simply refusing to see what is right in front of you, and continually attempt to make my statements something they are not. How many times do I have to state my position on compost tea before you will actually read what I am writing?

With respect to the studies, they are what they are, and your dismissal of them is wrong. You invalidate a study because they didn't mix a brew according to Tad's or Soilfoodweb specifications? Dare I ask how you think we came to the level of understanding we enjoy at this time with regard to mixing a compost tea? Furthermore, both you and Tad have chosen to completely ignore the other 3 types of teas listed on the SoilFoodWeb site, why is this?

Lastly, to imply that Dr. Ingham is the ONLY authority in this field of study is simply wrong. Yes, she is a leading authority, but her work, just like every other scientist out there, is derived in part, from past studies of other scientists.

In science, experiments are done, data is collected, findings are published. As each study is done, our knowledge and understanding of the subject being studied increases. New studies are then created based on the knowledge we gained from previous studies in order to continue the learning process.

Modern science is a collective effort, not the effort of one. The findings of a single researcher have little merit in the scientific community until those findings can be reproduced and corroborated by other scientists. This is how the scientific process works. The sooner you and Tad understand this, the better off we all will be.

I strongly suggest you stop wasting your time here and go post your statements regarding the scientific process and your scientific knowledge in a forum that is primarily populated by scientists in the field and see how far you get. Perhaps that yahoo list where Dr. Ingham posted might qualify.

Gerry Miller
10-20-2007, 06:46 PM
Wrong again. That Dr. Ingham post has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It just must threaten your livelihood. It certainly puts your credibility at risk, but then again, so do most of your posts. You are an ankle biter!

It's a waste of time to respond to your posts. I have no interest to hear any more of your responses since it's clear you don't know what you are talking about. Your opinions are NOT facts, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. I'm not interesting in your limited view of the world. Seems like you need to start these arguments to draw attention to yourself. Just like you started this argument, although I'm sure you'll try to turn that around as well. The good thing is, there is professional help available. I urge you to seek it out.

Kiril
10-20-2007, 09:17 PM
Wrong again. That Dr. Ingham post has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It just must threaten your livelihood. It certainly puts your credibility at risk, but then again, so do most of your posts.

Please provide me and everyone else with direct quotes to statements I have made and clearly show the relationship to statements Dr. Ingham made in her post. I also would like to know how it threatens my livelihood considering I consult on matters related to sustainable landscape management, which is one of her primary goals.

http://sustainablestudies.org/index.shtml

I have clearly and logically presented my position and provided links to back up my statements. On the other hand, you have yet to respond to a single item where I have shown the information you provided was simply wrong, nor have you provided credible documentation to support your statements when they have been questioned. Instead of intelligent discussion of the topic, I was met with unfounded accusations and personal attacks on my character.

This whole thread started to degrade when you came after me in this post.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=1996169&postcount=29

From that point on, it went south. Furthermore, I am not the only person you have personally attacked on this forum for disagreeing with something you wrote or for expressing a dissenting opinion.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=1999579&postcount=40

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2000172&postcount=4

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=1994909&postcount=22

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2002721&postcount=13

Put the blame where it belongs Gerry.

Kiril
10-21-2007, 02:11 AM
I'm going to be the bigger person here and step away from this silly discussion now. My only hope is that people who visit this forum verify the information Gerry provides that is not cut and paste from SoilFoodWeb.

FIMCO-MEISTER
10-21-2007, 06:44 AM
Interesting discussion. Plan to look into the listings deeper as time goes on. The single most important job of any landscaper or landscape designer is to minimize the need for water to sustain their creation. Kiril has lead me into adding soil moisture sensors as a part of my irrigation service work. I keep a file on my desk titled stuff from Kiril. He is purely scientific in his approach and I never worry that he is pushing anybodies agenda except that of water conservation.

Gerry Miller
10-22-2007, 05:53 PM
I'm going to be the bigger person here and step away from this silly discussion now. My only hope is that people who visit this forum verify the information Gerry provides that is not cut and paste from SoilFoodWeb.

What a shameful back-tracking and parsing of words. The exaggerations and outright falsehoods made by Kiril is a classic deflection of personal responsibility.

In the numerous examples of false and misleading assertions documented by Kiril's posts, who refuses to personally accept responsibility for his exaggerations and falsehoods, tries to justify the exaggerations and falsehoods by twisting and taking out of context my statements. The old slight of hand and misdirection, again. Shame on you for your decision to deliberately distort what I have posted and for your ongoing decision to parse words and deflect responsibility for your exaggerations and lies.

FIMCO-MEISTER
10-22-2007, 06:27 PM
The argument had to end sometime Gerry. You guys were just going in circles.:dizzy:

Gerry Miller
10-23-2007, 07:40 PM
Mycorrhizal fungi—naturally occurring, beneficial soil organisms—have been helping farmers for thousands of years by improving water and nutrient use efficiency and suppressing diseases in the plants they colonize. Applying certain chemicals to the soil during the last half century-while increasing crop yields and fighting diseases-has likely inhibited these important fungi.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/may04/fungi0504.htm

tadhussey
10-24-2007, 01:53 PM
"With respect to the studies, they are what they are, and your dismissal of them is wrong. You invalidate a study because they didn't mix a brew according to Tad's or Soilfoodweb specifications? Dare I ask how you think we came to the level of understanding we enjoy at this time with regard to mixing a compost tea? Furthermore, both you and Tad have chosen to completely ignore the other 3 types of teas listed on the SoilFoodWeb site, why is this?"

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to respond. First off, I don't think you're in Dr. Chalker-Scott's camp and wasn't trying to imply that by my emails. I just wanted to make you aware as to the quality of the studies that she reviewed. When I went back over the list of studies you posted, I gave clear reasons why these couldn't be considered good compost teas. Yes, I do invalidate a study if I feel that the methodology they used was flawed. How do I know it was flawed? Because I've made many batches of both good and bad compost teas over the years. Now I can look at them under a microscope and see for myself if the organisms are present. If the tea was poorly made, the organisms won't be present, and there will be no benefit dervied from application. I don't need a study to tell me that. As for ignoring the other 3 types of teas on the SFI website, I assume you're referring to things such as plant tea, manure tea, non-aerated compost tea, and such.... The reason I discount these types of teas is because they are inconsistent in providing a high diversity of beneficial organisms, and in many cases can actually damage your plants. There's information directly on that website that states the problems with brewing these types of teas. We're at the point scientifically where we've confirmed (in my opinion, I realize there's data on both sides which you've listed previously) that actively aerated compost teas are the BEST way to provide a diversity of beneficial microorganisms.

mdlwn1
10-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Seems like every thread involving Gerry become heated and childlike. Stop posting if your that bad at communicating with other people.

Gerry Miller
10-24-2007, 02:45 PM
Who are you to be posting that? If you don't like the post, then don't read them. No one is twisting your arm. Like I said before, this list is loaded with arrogant and pompous people that like to tell everyone else what to do. Hey, I got two words for you and it ain't 'happy motoring'.

mdlwn1
10-24-2007, 02:52 PM
I didn't and I won't.

Kiril
10-24-2007, 02:55 PM
I just wanted to make you aware as to the quality of the studies that she reviewed. When I went back over the list of studies you posted, I gave clear reasons why these couldn't be considered good compost teas. Yes, I do invalidate a study if I feel that the methodology they used was flawed.

I'm curious how you determined what studies she reviewed? When I initially skimmed over the reviews, one thing that bothered me was she didn't list the studies she reviewed, so your basically left taking her word that she only considered published and peer reviewed studies.

I can see how and why you can invalidate a study, I was only pointing out that knowledge is built over time with multiple studies, be they valid or not. A study may be not be valid now given what we know, but they can still be used to validate or invalidate current studies, therefore must be considered when looking at the sum total of the current knowledge base.

You also might want to look into those other studies I posted. The 2003 research report on grapes in greenhouse/lab had some interesting results and the 2007 report as well.

tadhussey
10-24-2007, 02:57 PM
Seems like every thread involving Gerry become heated and childlike. Stop posting if your that bad at communicating with other people.

Are you referring to my posts? I'm not sure what I've written that is particularly antagonistic. As for Gerry, while he has had some heated arguments with certain people, that doesn't discount the quality of the information relating to the soil food web.

~Tad

Gerry Miller
10-24-2007, 02:58 PM
"With respect to the studies, they are what they are, and your dismissal of them is wrong. You invalidate a study because they didn't mix a brew according to Tad's or Soilfoodweb specifications? Dare I ask how you think we came to the level of understanding we enjoy at this time with regard to mixing a compost tea? Furthermore, both you and Tad have chosen to completely ignore the other 3 types of teas listed on the SoilFoodWeb site, why is this?"

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to respond. First off, I don't think you're in Dr. Chalker-Scott's camp and wasn't trying to imply that by my emails. I just wanted to make you aware as to the quality of the studies that she reviewed. When I went back over the list of studies you posted, I gave clear reasons why these couldn't be considered good compost teas. Yes, I do invalidate a study if I feel that the methodology they used was flawed. How do I know it was flawed? Because I've made many batches of both good and bad compost teas over the years. Now I can look at them under a microscope and see for myself if the organisms are present. If the tea was poorly made, the organisms won't be present, and there will be no benefit dervied from application. I don't need a study to tell me that. As for ignoring the other 3 types of teas on the SFI website, I assume you're referring to things such as plant tea, manure tea, non-aerated compost tea, and such.... The reason I discount these types of teas is because they are inconsistent in providing a high diversity of beneficial organisms, and in many cases can actually damage your plants. There's information directly on that website that states the problems with brewing these types of teas. We're at the point scientifically where we've confirmed (in my opinion, I realize there's data on both sides which you've listed previously) that actively aerated compost teas are the BEST way to provide a diversity of beneficial microorganisms.

As you have stated Tad, I only discuss AACT as that is the type of tea that produces the aerobic organisms that I want to use on my lawn and plants. It's the highest type or best tea, for the obvious reason, the aeration.

Gerry Miller
10-27-2007, 05:38 PM
Here is an article that appeared in the News Tribune.com that has some bad information provided by Linda Chalker-Scott. Her title is an 'urban horticulturist' indicates she really has no background on soil biology or microbiology.

Here are a couple of her erroneous posts:

"DON't use corn gluten meal, recommended as a weed control product in the Midwest. Chalker-Scott says research indicates it does not work well in our climate."

Baloney. I have used CGM and it works extremely well. But again, since she has limited knowledge of soil biology, she doesn't understand what is needed for CGM to work.

The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.

Gluten is a food for microbes. As with any food stuff, keep it dry, or refrigerate it in order to prevent microbial growth without the use of toxic chemicals to prevent microbial growth.

Please remember, it is the set of microorganisms you grow when you put corn gluten meal, corn meal, or any other food resource such as these materials are that gives you the results you want.

If you put any of these materials down without also making sure that you have the diversity of beneficial organisms that you need, you may well not get the results you want.

So, aerobically produced compost, or aerated compost tea need to go down at the same time as the CGM, SBM, or whatever. And of course, for biology to work, there needs to be moisture and temperature in adequate ranges.

Corn gluten feeds some really good sets of bacteria and fungi, but for long-term weed suppression to work, you need to get a good fungal bloom to happen, not just a bacterial bloom. Which I hope explains part of why some people get good results with these food additions to their lawns and other people do not.

If the beneficial fungi have been destroyed by application of fungicides before "switching" to more green management, there's no way something like corn meal, or corn gluten, is going to give you much benefit.

"DON'T bother with compost tea, a product made by diluting compost, advises Chalker-Scott, from WSU's extension service. She says there is no scientific proof that it works.

Again, it's obvious she has no understanding of soil biology or microbiology. There is a ton of data, scientific proof that it works. It just shows why she has no credibility.

The aritcle goes on where she talks about making or buying compost. No mention that the compost you make or buy should be tested to make sure there are the organisms you want. No wonder she doesn't know how to make AACT.

No wonder there is so much confusion when it comes to organic lawn care practices. You have these so called 'experts' giving out bogus information and half truths. It almost seems to me that she is on the big chemical companies pay roll to distort the truth on purpose. Whatever the reason, it's clear that some of the information she gives in this article is accurate and others information, like on CGM and AACT she is clueless.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/189143.html

muddstopper
10-28-2007, 11:12 AM
The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.

Gluten is a food for microbes. As with any food stuff, keep it dry, or refrigerate it in order to prevent microbial growth without the use of toxic chemicals to prevent microbial growth.

Gerry, reread you source of info as to why CGM works. While CGM is a food source for microbes, so is soy meal, cotton seed meal , wheat meal and a host of other meals. But the food source isnt the reason CGM suppresses weeds or acts as a pre-emergent.

I would go into more detail, but you would just say I am being arrogant or some other wishy washy word. So you are on your own.

Gerry Miller
10-28-2007, 11:32 AM
Gerry, reread you source of info as to why CGM works. While CGM is a food source for microbes, so is soy meal, cotton seed meal , wheat meal and a host of other meals. But the food source isnt the reason CGM suppresses weeds or acts as a pre-emergent.

I would go into more detail, but you would just say I am being arrogant or some other wishy washy word. So you are on your own.

Actually, I didn't say that the food source is the reason for CGM suppression of seeds taking root. I said it was due to the correct soil biology. If you don't have the correct soil biology, CGM will not give you the results you are looking for. I think I made that rather clear. Perhaps you should reread what I posted. I don't know how you came up with that conclusion.

As for your second sarcastic comment, that was completely unnecessary. You are making another attacking statement, trying to provoke more of a negative response. And then you would say that I started the negative exchange. Give it a rest and try to keep your eye on the ball here, please.
:nono:

Kiril
10-28-2007, 12:31 PM
Baloney. I have used CGM and it works extremely well. But again, since she has limited knowledge of soil biology, she doesn't understand what is needed for CGM to work.

The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.


It would appear you also don't understand.


The Use of Corn Gluten Meal As A Natural Preemergence Weed Control in Turf
(http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut3.pdf)
Further studies have shown that corn gluten meal contains a
substance that inhibits root formation in several species, including crabgrass (Digitaria spp.).

Evaluation and Demonstration of Corn Gluten Meal as an Organic Herbicide (http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/freeform/slosson/documents/1999-20002063.pdf)

Root formation of susceptible species is reportedly inhibited by dipeptides found in CGM (Liu and Christians, 1996). However, the presence of the material alone at the high use rate (20 lb/1000ft2) may also contribute to the reported weed control by acting as a mulch or by improving the competitiveness of the crop or turf due to nitrogen fertilizer effect.

Greenhouse Screening of Corn Gluten Meal as a Natural Control Product for Broadleaf and Grass Weeds (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/grnhsechr.pdf)

Root formation during germination is inhibited by CGM in susceptible species. When CGM-treated plants were subjected to moisture stress, they died (Christians,1993). In addition, CGM contains »10% N by weight
and provides an additional N source to plant species with well-developed root systems. United States patent 5,030,268 has been granted for using CGM as a surface-applied preemergence herbicide (Christians,1991).


Please remember, it is the set of microorganisms you grow when you put corn gluten meal, corn meal, or any other food resource such as these materials are that gives you the results you want.

If you put any of these materials down without also making sure that you have the diversity of beneficial organisms that you need, you may well not get the results you want.

So, aerobically produced compost, or aerated compost tea need to go down at the same time as the CGM, SBM, or whatever. And of course, for biology to work, there needs to be moisture and temperature in adequate ranges.

Corn gluten feeds some really good sets of bacteria and fungi, but for long-term weed suppression to work, you need to get a good fungal bloom to happen, not just a bacterial bloom. Which I hope explains part of why some people get good results with these food additions to their lawns and other people do not.


Interesting recommendation considering the following.


The Use of Corn Gluten Meal As A Natural Preemergence Weed Control in Turf
(http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut3.pdf)
In the original study, corn meal was observed to lose its inhibitory effect on germination when it was used as a medium for microbial growth. Microbial activity reducing the effectiveness of the inhibitory substance is the likely reason for the somewhat more limited crabgrass reduction in 1988.


There is a ton of data, scientific proof that it works.

We are still waiting for you to post this ton of data, scientific proof about compost teas as it applies to disease suppression.

rutgers1
10-28-2007, 06:15 PM
Gerry...I will begin by saying I have no leaning any way in this issue. My family owned a landscape business for a while and I continue to have an interest in the field - which is why I am here - and I am trying to go organic. But I have to say that reading your posts gave me a headache. There really is a better way to express your thoughts without jumping down people's throats. You might see your abrasiveness as a response to an attack against you, but any neutral outsider would see you as the more abrasive of the two. Reading through the thread made me want to go out and find information to contradict what you said even though I agreed with much of it. I certainly hope you are not this disagreeable in person.

muddstopper
10-28-2007, 06:25 PM
.

Originally Posted by Gerry Miller
The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.

Gluten is a food for microbes. As with any food stuff, keep it dry, or refrigerate it in order to prevent microbial growth without the use of toxic chemicals to prevent microbial growth.

This is exactly what you said, re-read your own post. Your continued ranting and refuseing to to listen to what others has to say is the reason for my last comment. You have posted a lot of good info, but you evidently dont understand everything you have read or posted. The problem here is you are only half right and not willing to hear the other half.

Gerry Miller
10-29-2007, 03:53 PM
This is exactly what you said, re-read your own post. Your continued ranting and refuseing to to listen to what others has to say is the reason for my last comment. You have posted a lot of good info, but you evidently dont understand everything you have read or posted. The problem here is you are only half right and not willing to hear the other half.

I simply posted to the related subject and you turn things around saying that I'm ranting and refusing to listen to others. Not true. The rantings are coming from you sir. I understand what I post thoroughly. I do not have things half right. I do not listen to what you have to say cause you purposely confuse and change, and try to put words in my mouth for the sole purpose of argument. You have not shown me anything worthwhile that I should listen. I don't think you read the posts all the through cause you imply that I make statements I never made. I think you are a 'drive by poster; or at best simply confused.

I see you still haven't taken advantage of the spell check. It's something you should really use.

FIMCO-MEISTER
10-29-2007, 08:37 PM
Let us see: Mudstopper 1,884 posts. G "chigger bite" Miller 86 posts.
Who would you call the drive by poster?

Gerry Miller
10-29-2007, 09:18 PM
Let us see: Mudstopper 1,884 posts. G "chigger bite" Miller 86 posts.
Who would you call the drive by poster?

A 'drive by poster' is one who doesn't add anything to the conversation or debate, but rather just make insults, distorts statements or take posts out of context, the use of misdirection and slight of hand, also a far left wing liberal also fits the description.

You fit the description yourself!

I've been a member here for a few years but stop coming because of all these 'drive by posters' and got tired of the abuse. And as you can see by your posts, it's quite clear what you bring to the table. Nothing useful, just name calling and insults.

muddstopper
10-30-2007, 07:45 PM
I simply posted to the related subject and you turn things around saying that I'm ranting and refusing to listen to others. Not true. .

This is your post on the related subject,
Originally Posted by Gerry Miller
The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.

Gluten is a food for microbes. As with any food stuff, keep it dry, or refrigerate it in order to prevent microbial growth without the use of toxic chemicals to prevent microbial growth.

And my post to was inform you that statement, (your post to a related subject), isn't correct. Your reply is I am a ankle biter, and I am putting words in your mouth and a drive by poster who's only intentions are to antagonize you. It bothers you so much to be corrected that your best comeback is to use spell check.

Gerry Miller
10-30-2007, 09:08 PM
This is your post on the related subject,


And my post to was inform you that statement, (your post to a related subject), isn't correct. Your reply is I am a ankle biter, and I am putting words in your mouth and a drive by poster who's only intentions are to antagonize you. It bothers you so much to be corrected that your best comeback is to use spell check.

No, the information I posted is correct. Your information is not.

Kiril
10-30-2007, 10:25 PM
No, the information I posted is correct. Your information is not.

Gee, and too think the scientist responsible for discovering the weed supressing capability of CGM knows less then you Gerry.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2013619&postcount=89

Gerry Miller
11-01-2007, 01:07 AM
Why is it that some people have great success using CGM and other don't see any improvement in weed control? The reason is their soil biology.

While timing is a critical part of success with using CGM and the correct moisture to activate the CGM followed by an extended dry period, without the correct soil biology, you will not experience good success. If someone who have been using all sorts of chemicals for years and then decides that this year, they are going to become organic and put down CGM in the early spring. Assuming they have it timed correctly, the chances are that this person will not have very good results because of the biology that has been killed off from the previous years of abuse using synthetic chemicals. Then they cry, that CGM doesn't work. Is this the right assumption or is it another reason.

The people that have discovered the pre-emergent benefits of CGM have stated that results get better with time and also with the amount of CGM used. I believe the studies indicated that 40 lbs of CGM per year was the amount necessary to see satisfactory results. Not to be applied at one time, but twice a year, early spring and late summer for best results. And even with this amount being used, the results of 50% to 60% control in the first year, and by using it for 3 years, everything should be in control at that point.

By using CGM you help the bacterial and the fungi to bloom to get the best results from the CGM. If you have been using fungicides and other synthetic chemicals, the biology is probably greatly reduced in numbers and takes a while to build those fungi numbers back up to where you get the ideal results from using the CGM. Unless you are adding the biology back with the use of AACT, it make take 3 seasons for the correct levels of fungi to be present for the CGM to be effective.

This is what I have learned from Dr. Ingham and from first hand experience, for what it's worth.

Kiril
11-01-2007, 10:52 AM
Why is it that some people have great success using CGM and other don't see any improvement in weed control?

You pretty much listed most of the reasons why it may not work, I will summarize and add a few more.

1) Improper application rate and poor timing

2) Poor water management (intended or not)

3) Inadequate compound levels and persistence

4) Attempting to control weeds the compound has no effect on

5) Inadequate knowledge of the weeds life cycle given site conditions

Since the compound responsible for the pre-emergent weed suppression is water soluble, it can easily be leached out of the area it is needed in to provide adequate control measures.

With respect to persistence, if microbial decomposition of the compound is relatively fast, your timing window has become even smaller.

Gerry Miller
11-01-2007, 02:56 PM
You pretty much listed most of the reasons why it may not work, I will summarize and add a few more.

1) Improper application rate and poor timing

2) Poor water management (intended or not)

3) Inadequate compound levels and persistence

4) Attempting to control weeds the compound has no effect on

5) Inadequate knowledge of the weeds life cycle given site conditions

Since the compound responsible for the pre-emergent weed suppression is water soluble, it can easily be leached out of the area it is needed in to provide adequate control measures.

With respect to persistence, if microbial decomposition of the compound is relatively fast, your timing window has become even smaller.

A couple of things if you could explain:

1) You say the compound responsible for root suppression is water soluble? I've never heard that before. What I have learned from Dr. Ingham, it's the soil biology, in particular fungi in full bloom, that is responsible for the weed suppression. Once again, I believe it's the soil organism, not the compound, that produces the weed suppression, although it's the CGM compound that feeds those soil organisms that are needed for weed suppression

2) Corn gluten meal, like most meals, are water insoluble and are broken down by soil organisms in usually 3 weeks. The one exception that I know of is feather meal as it takes months for this meal to be broken down. To me, that's a pretty big window.

3) As far as weeds that it is currently labeled for control of; crabgrass, barnyardgrass, foxtails (Setaria spp.), dandelion, lambsquarters, pigweed, purslane and smartweed. Data suggest it has at least some activity on an even wider variety of plants.

Kiril
11-01-2007, 04:12 PM
Yes, you are correct, CGM is essentially insoluble, but not completely. What I was referring to was the compounds specifically isolated and related to the herbicidal properties as detailed in the

Updated patent (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/290757.pdf):

During studies designed to isolate and identify one or more active
components of corm gluten we unexpectedly found that hydrolyzed
protein from corn gluten provided an effective water-soluble preemergence
herbicide that is much more active than the corn gluten meal itself.


and the study conducted on corn gluten hydrolysate:


Isolation and Identification of Root-Inhibiting Compounds from Corn. Gluten Hydrolysate (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/isolation.pdf)


And in this research summary:


If the material is applied too early, weed control is less effective. This is
likely due to microbial degradation of the active component of the CGM.


And also noted in this article:


Making its way to the marketplace: A natural product for the control of annual weeds (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut2.pdf)

Continuing field work has shown that rates of corn gluten meal in the range of 20 Ibs./1,000 sq. ft. will reduce crabgrass infestation in Kentucky bluegrass turf by 50 to 60 percent in the first year. As rates are increased, almost total control can be achieved. However, timing is important because microbial activity is known to destroy the activity of the active component. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be made close to the time of weed germination. Moisture is necessary to activate the material, but extended wet periods can reduce its effectiveness, as is the case with synthetic
preemergence herbicides.

Gerry Miller
11-02-2007, 03:07 PM
I asked Dr. Ingham's to give her analysis of the links in your posts. Here is her response:

"Basically, the folks at Iowa State aren't doing the microbiology assessment correctly. They use plate counts to try to give information about what is going on with the organisms decomposing the corn gluten, and thus they are missing about 99.999% of the organisms actually doing the work with the CGM.

It is the growth of the beneficial fungi that really explains the impact of CGM. Just because the organisms aren't assessed properly does not mean they are not present and doing their work.

If you sterilize the CGM, and the soil lacks organisms, the CGM has no effect on weeds."


Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
SFI Corvallis, OR
SFI Port Jefferson, NY
SFI Lismore, NSW, Australia
SFI Roxburgh, New Zealand
SFI Culiacan, Mexico
SFI Canada West, Vulcan
SFI South Africa, Polokwane
SFI England, Laverstoke Park
SFI Canada East, Halifax
http://www.soilfoodweb.com

Kiril
11-03-2007, 01:00 AM
Gerry, I think your missing the point. It is the compound in CGM/CGH that was found to have the inhibiting effect on seed germination, hence the reason why they are trying to isolate it so it can be supplied in an economical fashion. You clearly stated it is NOT a compound, it is the biology.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2012896&postcount=86

The reason corn gluten works is because it feeds the organisms that suppress the weed seeds from growing.

This statement is inconsistent with more than one study regarding this inhibitory effect.

Isolation and Identification of Root-Inhibiting Compounds from Corn. Gluten Hydrolysate (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/isolation.pdf)

The five dipeptides isolated from the aqueous filtrate of the gluten hydrolysate root formation of germinating perennial ryegrass, demonstrating their potential for use as naturally occurring, growth-regulating compounds and as natural pre-emergence herbicides.


This is not an question of the effect of fungus on weed suppression, but a question of the compounds contained within CGM/CGH that were isolated and found to have a inhibiting effect, even under controlled laboratory conditions (see materials & methods in the above linked study).

If Dr. Ingham has data that contradicts these findings, I'm sure everyone in this field of science would be interested in seeing them, so please post. Perhaps she has discovered something new that can be patented, like fungal inoculation of CGM.

I'm curious if you asked her permission to post that email on a public forum? I'm also curious if you mentioned your remarks concerning her position on compost tea as a fertilizer? Care to post your emailed question to her?

Tread lightly Gerry, because you are going down a very dangerous path.

Gerry Miller
11-03-2007, 10:33 AM
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams

Kiril
11-03-2007, 11:19 AM
scientific fact (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific%20fact): An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)