Re: Retreat/soil tea/humus tea

From: Elaine Ingham (Soilfoodweb@AOL.COM)
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 15:09:10 EST


With respect to "soil tea" or "compost tea", the material you extract makes a
difference.

But soil usually does not contain as great a number of organisms or soluble
nutrients as compost. The amount of food (e.g., % organic matter) to feed
organisms is typically MUCH, much lower in soil than in compost. So,
typically a soil tea is not as successful at generating the high biomass of
bacteria and fungi that is desired.

Alaska Humus is not soil. There is very little sand, silt or clay in the
material. It is nearly all organic matter.

What defines soil then? Organic matter, with the organisms AND a mix of
sand, silt and clay. Probably most soil scientists would want the sand, silt
and clay to occupy at least 50% or more of the volume of a true soil. So
Alaska Humus would not qualify as soil. It is a very well humified compost.
 Or, the best term for it is humus.

So, humus tea.
-------------------
When someone retreats from a conversation or discussion, it can be for
several reasons.

For example, when David Menne became so un-necessarily nasty in his
degrading, derogatory, un-true, often personally insulting, comments that had
nothing to do with the subject matter, he caused me to retreat. There is no
reason for the kind of behavior he exhibits. That kind of behavior should be
called out and people should not respond to anything that person says until
that person stops the derogatory behavior.

Another type of retreat occurs when someone has no response to the "other
side's" points. The "side" that could show the best set of information has
"won". Everyone now knows where our knowledge base sits.

An example of this is Joel Reiten's claim in a message to this group that he
had proof that the Growing Solutions machine super-saturates the water in the
machine with oxygen. He claimed to have an expert who had data showing his
claim was true. I showed where Reiten's logic was incorrect, but also I
asked him to please show us his data, or have his "expert" come forth and
give evidence.

Please notice that Joel Reiten has never come forward with any information.
That's a retreat that should suggest to everyone that the man had no proof of
what he was claiming. It says something about the level of confidence anyone
should put in any statement from him. He is prone to make claims for which
he has no proof.

But let me also add that, at a later date, more data may become available
which allows the knowledge base to be advanced. There is no ignominy in
saying to people that you need to collect more information to show that your
point of view is correct. You don't have the necessary data, you'll be doing
that research.

However, Mr. Reiten claimed to HAVE data. If so, where is it?

If in fact he only has a belief about the machine, and needs to collect data
to show his claim might be true, then Mr. Reiten should state that to the
group, and state what work is being done to forward knowledge. I believe
that any of us would listen if he would, at any time, care to come forward
with proof of his claims.

The fact that neither he nor any other representative of Growing Solutions is
capable of giving proof that the machine can maintain adequate aeration
during a tea brew suggests that the machine that he represents is not capable
of performing as he wishes it would perform.

In order to show a machine maintains adequate aeration requires readings
throughout the tea brewing cycle. Not just at 0, 8 and 24 hours as was done
by BBC Lab in their paper for Biocyle, May 2002 meeting. Please remember
that oxygen levels in most tea brewers, if they go anaerobic, go anaerobic
between hour 14 and 20. By 24 hours, the tea brew may well be aerobic
again, but beneficial fungi and protozoa may have been lost and E. coli may
have grown, during the time the liquid went anaerobic.

Of course if someone decides to do research, and what they show is that what
the "other side" said was actually correct, they have an obligation to tell
people the truth. That is, if they are honest people. Ah-hem.
----

There's the "scared" retreat - you are afraid of being shown up as having
faulty logic. It doesn't advance anything to be afraid of asking questions,
or be afraid of trying to clarify things you don't understand. There is a
requirement that you try to find the answer before you take up other people's
time. But a query about where to find information is perfectly reasonable.
------

Another reason for retreat is just running out of ability to continue a
discussion - time, or ability to pursue the knowledge needed, or find the
references. At least statement of those reasons for ending a discussion is
better than just dropping something in which other people have invested time
and energy.

Are there other types of reasons for retreat from a discussion?

Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
www.soilfoodweb.com


.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 15:26:37 EDT