Re: [compost_tea] Response to a Skeptic

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:38:05 EDT

Hi Marc -

Your correspondent said -
> I recently completed a very detailed study of the
> contribution of soil microorganisms to dormant weed
> seed decay.
>
> This is not the mechanism by which most weed effects have been observed.
Increased weed seed decay is not a well-researched area of effect. Indeed,
Anne Kennedy's work is about it on the subject, as far as I have read.

The mechanism by which soil biology affects weeds is more in the area of
altering availability of nutrients. If you change availability of nutrients, then
shifting species composition of plants iseasy to understand. Your
correspondent clearly doesn't understand the actual mechanisms that are involved.

Not much replicated science on this, more in the realm of observation. But
repeated observation tends to lead to practices that are effective. Still
replicated scientific studies would be good. I have never claimed anything beyond
observation on this topic, however. For someone to suggest that there's
something wrong with my science just proves they probably haven't actually read
what I have written.

The science behind the effect of improving soil biology on plant production
cannot be questioned. There's too much been done to show that when beneficial
bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes are improved, that plant production is
improved. I am not the only scientist shwoing that these relationships are
important. I tend to be the most publically visible, but by no means the only
scientist working in this area. Go to a meeting of the Soil Ecology Society.


But, I am probably one of the few scientists working on how to apply biology
so it survives, grows and alters the soil in conventional ag fields. How do
growers use the knowledge about the soil foodweb? That's the work that we are
doing. On a practical basis, how do you apply and get the biology in your
soil and on your leaf surfaces to alter, and benefit plant production?

We are showing that we can apply the beneficials, we can get them to survive
and grow and change plant production, plant species composition, disease
incidence, nutrient retention, nutrient availability to plants, and soil structure.
 A tall order, but we are doing it.

But we aren't going to figure out how to do this in every system the first
time we try.

I think that's what your person means by the placebo effect. Where's their
evidence, their data, to suggest that improvements in plant production, yield,
reductions in pesticide use, fertilizer use, etc are placebo effects?
Challenge them with proving there's anything placebo about this. I don't think most
growers that require money to convince them of anything fall for placebo
anything.

Ask your person how the atmosphere of the whole planet was altered by
microbiology.

If they aren't aware that they are able to breathe only because bacteria
changed the composition of the atmosphere of the earth, maybe they have an excuse
for their attitude that microbes aren't really capable of affecting anything.
  

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 Mon Jul 28 2003 - 01:55:55 EDT

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