Re: [compost_tea] Re: Teruo Higa article on beneficial and effective microorganisms

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:29:57 -0500

Once a bacterial inoculum has been applied, and the bacteria survive and grow in that soil, addition of more of that inoculum will not be beneficial. Survival and growth of inoculated organisms will occur as long as toxic applications (pesticides and high levels of inorganic fertilizers are prime examples of these toxic applications) are not made. If added organisms have survived and are growing, why do you have to keep applying those organisms?

If you have to keep applying those bacteria, it means something is going on, which the grower should recognize.

One possibility is that the inoculum cannot survive in those climatic conditions. A second possibility is that toxic applications are continuing. A third possibility is that disturbances which kill soil organisms are being used.

In the case that the organisms cannot survive in that soil, it would be wiser to find bacteria that can and do survive. A different inoculum is required. Try some indigenous organisms. Make your own compost. Add EM, but then also add some other inocula, and get them all growing in your compost.

In the second case, where toxic materials are being applied that kill the biology, assessment of benefit must be made. Is it more expensive to keep adding back the organisms that are killed, or more expensive to keep using the toxics? It gets down to plant production here. More profit from which set of practices? At the very least, try getting the whole food web back into the soil and see if that doesn't allow you to completely remove pesticides and inorganic fertilizers.

Same line of reasoning with the disturbances that kill the organisms. Higher profit when you disturb and add the organisms back, or higher profit when you get the organisms established and have healthy soil?

Many of the EM bacteria survive for a period of time, but at a certain point, about 2 years after first application, the species that can survive, have survived and are doing fine. At 2 years, those bacteria that are not appropriate for the climate will not survive and will not grow, no matter how many times you add them to the soil. So, why keep adding them?

Therefore, I said that addition of more inoculum is not beneficial. I DID NOT say addition would result in "two steps back". No such conclusion can be made from my statements.

Does saying "addition is not beneficial" lead to the automatic conclusion that it will be detrimental? No.

If there is no benefit to the addition, it may well be that the application is neutral. And that leads directly to the question, Why keep spending money to add organisms that will not survive?

Different story if the grower is killing off the organisms, but gets benefit from adding them back. Fine, that's up to the grower and they have to pencil out cost versus benefit.

To continue getting improvement, the rest of the food web needs to be put into place. That means also getting the fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and microarthropds into the soil, letting them establish, grow and give benefit to the plant.

EM has it's place, an important place, but it is not the end-all of getting soil into a healthy condition. The rest of the food web is required.

Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
SFI Corvallis, OR
SFI Port Jefferson, NY
SFI Lismore, NSW, Australia
SFI Hilversum, The Netherlands
SFI Cambridge, New Zealand
http://www.soilfoodweb.com

 

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/

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 Sat Jan 24 2004 - 12:03:56 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:01 EST