[compost_tea] what to call it besides compost tea?

From: chris reid <reidchris_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:19:33 -0400

I think James's Suggestion of liquid biological amendment takes me in the
direction I want to go. I may be alone on this bus, but I think it is easy
to come to a dead end and stop looking by going the route of trying to come
up with attractive, catchy names that sound like tea and brewing, or by
reviewing the past history of the name and who has a right to use it.

I see that as separate and apart from the attempt to verify that the name we
are using is crystal clear and to eliminate the possibility of minds
swinging shut because they "already know what it is". The open mind is a
wonderful thing -- it can listen to new information and figure out what to
do with it. I think the catchy name comes second -- the compact
characterization of the product AND processes, so that we know what the name
should embody, comes first.

On a product level, what are the key characteristics of AACT, and secondly,
what distinguishes and makes AACT unique from the likes of: grandma's
manure tea and nettle tea and leachate and gunk stirred together with a
bunch of stuff that makes the gardener feel like a good thing is being done
but has questionable (meaning: maybe good, and maybe does nothing, but
nobody's testing) benefit for the plant.

Confusion --the confusion that occurs when people think they know what you
are talking about -- plays into the hands of those who want to convince
others that nothing is happening, or nothing new is happening, or something
dangerous is happening, or what they poured on their plants last week did
nothing so it "didn't work" and "compost tea" "doesn't work".

While it may seem like a good idea for historical reasons or rightful
ownership to cling to a name that sounds like something else or crunches
like granola, this is FALSE COMFORT. I believe that clinging to the name
because "it belongs to us" has no productive outcome. That's not a good
reason. That's an ego reason about who we are as organic land care people,
and I believe it is tied up in a whole perspective of what it means to be
involved in the organic land care. It leads in the wrong direction,
encourages us to think about being victimized or martyrs or the object of
Powerful Evil Forces, and that is in fact A GRAND DISTRACTION that may have
truth to it, but is not the bus that is going to get us to where we want to
go. I won't argue this or debate examples of corporate baloney that goes
on -- yes, it does go on, but we are not here to react to baloney. We must
decide if we are being clear and our message can easily be heard.

So let's get back to ARE WE BEING CLEAR HERE.

As this novice understands it, there is even more to distinguish once we
know we are talking about AACT. And that is the method by which the starter
ingredients and recipe are developed or verified, how it is applied, and the
verification that the AACT was viable and that it "took" on leaves or in
soil.

Even within AACT, there is distinguishing to be done. I recently visited a
major botanical garden and happened to have a casual conversation with the
person who coordinates IPM for their rose garden. Making conversation, I
asked if they had considered using compost teas on their roses. This person
assured me that 1) they like to experiment with anything organic that comes
along, 2) they "already tried compost tea at the last place I worked and it
doesn't work". They recalled that they bought a machine and some specific
starter and that molasses was in the ingredient list. I asked if this
limited experiment was happening close to where they were spraying other
roses or crops, and it was, "but we're careful about drift". I didn't say
this, but "Careful about the drift" is an idea or opinion about how people
work -- not a verified result. I mentioned that some brewers were not
tested, and that e.g. Soil Soup when used per manufacturer instructions was
reported not to give as broad a spectrum of results as some other brewers,
and they thought that was the one they had been using. No assays were done.

This person was adamant that compost tea theoretically would do nothing for
roses on the soil level and that maybe it theoretically could make sense on
the leaves. I am not in a position to argue this, because I am not a
research scientist or theory person but rather a person asking others what
their results have been and how they produced them. I won't argue it,
either, because I hate beating my head against the door of a mind that has
swung shut. I just said, "Well, I'll keep you posted how I do with my
roses. I think a lot of progress has been made in tea brewers since you did
your experiment."

So there may be benefit in distinguishing not merely the PRODUCT (I'm
calling AACT the product) but the INPUTS (tea ingredients), PROCESSES
(verification, method of application, safeguards and cultural practices to
prevent killing the organisms) that lead to the results we are talking
about.

Back to James Sottilo's comments: I like James's suggestion because I
suspect that ain't nobody going to say "liquid biological amendment -- oh
yeah, I know what that is! Grandma swore by it." I think we should keep on
considering whether anything else besides LBA should be reflected in the
name of the product and the accompanying processes that together produce the
desired results.

CHARACTERISTICS (novice requests other characteristics that may be important
to consider -- additions or corrections welcome)

It is liquid, aerated, contains a supplemental biological or living
component, may contain minerals, may contain food sources, has a limited
post-aeration life, an attempt is made to produce a wide spectrum of fungi
and microbes, an attempt is made to calibrate or assure the biological life
that will be in it via testing the starter ingredients and testing the final
product; therefore it is "verified" or monitored for biological content.

Liquid - important because in drying, reduction of diversity and number may
occur when organisms are put to sleep (if I read Elaine's previous posts
correctly)

Aerated - important to distinguish as a quality that permits the development
of beneficial organisms in larger quantity

biological component - distinguishes from nutrient only liquid amendments;
important because it must be kept alive and has limited lifespan; nutrients
needed to sustain microorganisms.

wide spectrum - distinguishes from narrower spectrum products that have
longer shelf life

Tested, verified - if done, distinguishes from much on the market.

Customized - when done in response to assays and developed to address
results of the assays, this aspect is important, especially in pricing.

food sources for the microbiology, not for the plant - may be important to
distinguish reasons for certain additions. And maybe not.


Other input welcome.

Chris Reid


-


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/0PSxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Received on Mon Jun 23 2003 - 13:45:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:29:20 EST