Re: [compost_tea] Pressure & critters

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:59:10 EDT

Mike B asked if the scientific community hasn't done the before/after testing
on sprayer applications.

Not that I am aware. Ivory tower and practical compost tea applications?
The two aren't yet mixing.

As far as I'm aware, the Small Fruits Extension Service, Botany and Plant
Pathology, Soil Science Dept and Hort Dept at Oregon State University are still
too pissed off that I left the ranks of University researchers and started my
own company to be willing to be un-biased about anything I am associated with.
 

Add to that the fact that I am critical of the genetically engineered
organism work that Oregon State University seems to be trying to force down
everyone's throats (follow the money, ok?) and my name is worth spitting on from their
point of view. The latest I've heard from certain "researchers" in the OSU
Horticulture Dept is that I should be strung up. There's scientific neutrality
and reliance on data for you.

Certain people at OSU like to talk about a newspaper headline where a
reporter mis-quoted me completely. Would those people bad mouthing me like to come
talk to me about what really happened? The administration at OSU did, and
they understand what happened. But the little people at OSU can't get over the
fact that I get quoted in the world press, when they don't.

Washington State University folk? Certain buddies of the folks at OSU
critical of my work behave the same as the OSU guys. They complain that I don't
have published scientific data for all soils, all plants, all ecosystems to prove
that what I talk about works everywhere under all conditions.

I have never made those claims, of course, but they like to be critical
none-the-less.

Here's an example of what I put up with: Some work published in a recent
Washington Tilth Producers newsletter showed a comparison of enzyme assays,
direct counts, and as I recall, tillage. They critisized the direct counts because
the data from direct counts suggested ALL the systems they were testing were
poor producing systems. The enzyme data suggested there were changes in
species composition between the different systems they tested.

As I recall, all the systems they were testing were not productive. But they
concluded that the direct count work was bogus, because it didn't show any
significant variation from weed field to weed field.

Do enzyme data and direct counts measure the same thing? No, of course not.
The enzyme data said there were changes in species composition of microbes in
the different soils. Not related to plant production of course, but
different soils, different nutrients, different plant species, of course there will be
different species of microbes. Does that invalidate the direct count data?
Does the lack of correlation in species diversity changes with plant
production invalidate the enzyme results?

Of course not.

All systems had way too low numbers of both bacteria and fungi, too low
protozoa, too low nematodes, for productive grassland or pasture production. The
plant data showed the same results - poor production.

Hum, which set of data was more useful? Enzymes or direct counts? Depends
on what you were wanting to know, right?
----------
Have researchers who are supposed to bridge the gap between University and
practical field work done any testing on the finer points of improving the
biology in the soil? No.

Are they likely to do so? Not until they get over the fact that the
biological approach is being so successful. They can't measure the improvements with
their favorite assays. What SFI is doing shows that soil biology is improved,
and relates to improved plant production. Do we know exactly all the
mechanisms? If they want to critisize me, then why not critisize them for not
having done this before I came along and started working on it?

When researchers like John Luna, Dave Bezdicek, and Richard Dick can't see
that enzymes and direct counts measure two very different aspects of the same
biology, we aren't likely to get help understanding what's going on with
microbes in soil.

The place there's hope is with folks at Cornell University, for example.
They're doing work on these biological approaches, and not trying to "shoot down"
the work that has been done, but are forging ahead on understanding what
different kinds of data are giving them. Direct counts give you understanding of
one set of information about biology, plate counts give you another, enzymes
give you another. What's most useful? Depends on what you want to know.

When trying to understand what effect passage through a sprayer has on
bacteria, separate from fungi, separate from protozoa, and nematodes, direct counts
are the most informative. When trying to determine if the active organisms
have been harmed, the activity assay is most useful.

What if you wanted to know what effect passage through a sprayer had on
cellulose-utilizing bacteria? Then the enzyme approach would be most useful.

What if you wanted to know what effect sprayer pumps had on a particular
bacterial species? Then a plate count, using media and environmental conditions
we know allows the growth of that particular bacterial species over any other
bacterial species, would be most appropriate.

So, work with people who understand what information the different assays are
good for. Avoid the people who can't tolerate that something other than
their favorite assay could be useful.

I just hope everyone understands that when SFI methods are useful for giving
you the information you want to know, I'll recommend those methods. When a
different set of assays is more useful, I'll send you to folks who do those
assays.

But I will also not send you to people who are rabid or virulent in their
attitudes towards others. None of us need people like that in our lives.

So we need to have funding to do the assessment of the biology before and
after going throug the sprayers? Yes.

Can the ICTC organize that? And give money out to the people most likely to
do the testing that makes the most sense? Yes. Even when it means that BBC
Labs might get the money to do plate counts? Yes. Sometimes, plate counts
make sense. Depends on the information that is needed.

Hope this helps -

Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
www.soilfoodweb.com
SFI Oregon, USA
SFI Australia
SFI New York
SFI Europe
SFI New Zealand

"Hope is not a feeling. It is not the belief that things will turn out well,
but the conviction that what we are doing makes sense, no matter how things
turn out." -- Vaclav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic





Received on Sun Jul 27 2003 - 01:34:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:29:24 EST