Register free!
Search
 
     

Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,322
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-17-2007, 05:17 PM
Gerry Miller Gerry Miller is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Midlothian, IL zone 5
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadhussey View Post
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/c.../message/15727
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-17-2007, 05:37 PM
greenjeans_il greenjeans_il is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois Zone 5
Posts: 19
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
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-18-2007, 07:58 AM
NattyLawn NattyLawn is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 1,648
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.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-19-2007, 02:02 AM
Smallaxe Smallaxe is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 9,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by NattyLawn View Post
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.
__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage
,,, I wonder what does...
*
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-19-2007, 08:00 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallaxe View Post
Fighting about a belief system doesn't help the overall understanding of what the reality of our world is about.
Agreed. To that end, I will repost resource links with a few additions and without the commentary.


Sustainable Landscapes & Habitats


Environmental Protection Agency:

GreenScapes Program

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service):

Improving Urban Landscapes

University of Minnesota:

Sustainable Urban Landscape Information Series (SULIS)

Oregon State University Extension Service:

Plant Selection for Sustainable Landscapes

Building Green:

Natural Landscaping: Native Plants and Planting Strategies for Green Development

National Wildlife Federation:

Create a Certified Wildlife Habitat

University of Maine:

Principles for Creating a Backyard Wildlife Habitat

State of Illinois:

Creating Habitats and Homes For Illinois Wildlife


Compost Tea Trials and Information


University of California:

North Coast Apple Scab Trials 1993/1994 Organic And Conventional Materials Comparison

The Effects of Compost Tea on Golf Course Greens Turf and Soil: Presidio Golf Course, San Francisco CA

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

University of Vermont:

Compost Tea To Suppress Plant Disease

Ohio State University:

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program

Oregon State University:

OSU/Lane County Extension Service Compost Specialist Tea Trial

Research Project Report for the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program


Misc Related Information


NC State University:

Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South

University of California:

Soil Fertility Management for Organic Crops

Soil Management and Soil Quality for Organic Crops

Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California

Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles

University of Vermont SERA-17:

Referenced Publications From SERA-17

Colorado State University:

Xeriscaping: Creative Landscaping

Organic Materials as Nitrogen Fertilizers

Texas A&M University:

Landscape Water Conservation...Xeriscape

Duke University:

Long-Term Soil-Ecosystem Studies (LTSEs)

State of California:

Coyote Creek Watershed Management Plan. Green Infrastructure Site Design Guidelines

ATTRA:

Sources of Organic Fertilizers and Amendments

USDA-NAL:

Soil And Water Management

Organic Gardening: A Guide to Resources

USDA-SARE:

Building Soils for Better Crops, 2nd Edition


Holistic Agriculture Library:

Factors Of Soil Formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology

Last edited by Kiril; 10-19-2007 at 08:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-19-2007, 02:45 PM
tadhussey tadhussey is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 294
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.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-19-2007, 03:15 PM
Gerry Miller Gerry Miller is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Midlothian, IL zone 5
Posts: 504
Bozo Strikes Again!

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!

Last edited by Gerry Miller; 10-19-2007 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Gerry Miller Gerry Miller is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Midlothian, IL zone 5
Posts: 504
Amazing Absurdities!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadhussey View Post
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."

Last edited by Michael J. Donovan; 10-19-2007 at 04:08 PM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-19-2007, 03:53 PM
greenjeans_il greenjeans_il is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois Zone 5
Posts: 19
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 PM.

Page generated in 0.21034 seconds with 7 queries