Re: Thomas' response to Re: [compost_tea] soil chemistry facts

From: Thomas Giannou <thomas_at_tandjenterprises.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 02:17:53 -0700

Ted,

When I look at compost tea recipes, I see a fair amount of nutrients being =
supplied. There's quite enough to do a foliar feed. One thing you didn't =
mention is that the bacteria are reproducing and the fungi are growing. Th=
e bacteria have short lives I would imagine and with the presence of protoz=
oa in larger numbers, the protozoa are releasing the nutrients consumed by =
the bacteria. At least this is what Elaine has written. I wish Elaine wou=
ld expound a bit on what form the nutrients are in when the bacteria are ea=
ten by the protozoa and nutrients are released. I suspect the nutrients ar=
e not just some kind of anion or cation in water, but are loosely hooked in=
to things like amino acids. Some bacteria are effective in producing a lo=
t of amino acids which serve as a means of chelating minerals. As the amin=
o acids get into plant cells loaded up with nutrients, that's one of the be=
st foods for plants. Think of those nutrients added to the tea as being "i=
n the bank" for a while.

All the nutrients added to the tea are either in a free form in the water, =
or are in a bound up form or are inside the organisms.

I add NPK and trace minerals to lawns, but never chemical fertilizers. Ins=
tead of adding 1/4 to 1/2 inch of compost, I'm adding even less composted m=
aterial to lawns ... less than 1/16 inch of composted material. The NPK of=
 that composted material (cotton seed meal and soybean meal) is around 7-2-=
3. There's quite a lot of minerals in that material. Seeds end up with a =
lot of nutrients and when meal from those seeds is composted, that's food f=
or the bacteria and fungi in a concentrated form. A single application of =
that compost lasts all year and on into the next. I like to mulch mow my l=
awns and that insures the nutrients are not lost but are put back into the =
soil for the worms to grab and then the trichoderma fungi and bacteria will=
 work with the mycorrhizal fungi to get those nutrients back into the plant=
s.

For weed control, I've been experimenting with corn flower (corn gluten mea=
l). It seems to work well and it serves as a big source of nitrogen and a =
fair number of minerals... another seed source. Add tea to those lawns and=
 more nutrients are being brought "in the bank" and are being released as =
the levels of soil life drop down a bit.

With bacteria, trichoderma fungi, mycorrhizal fungi and other types of fung=
i and all the other critters like protozoa, nematodes, earthworms, mites, e=
tc., eating and releasing nutrients AND becoming fertilizer themselves, it =
doesn't take very much food to sustain the system all year long. With gras=
s roots down 20 inches into clay soils, the water input is easily cut in ha=
lf. The value of the water savings is more than the cost of all the materi=
als I put on my lawns.

I do add inorganic trace minerals to my lawns because I am harvesting the c=
lippings for use elsewhere from time to time and I want to make sure I have=
 a wide range of minerals present in those clippings. I mulch with those c=
lippings around other plants and spray them with tea. The worms pull the c=
lippings into the soil and eat them all in a month. That changes the amoun=
t of organic material in those soils significantly and my cultivated raspbe=
rries and grapes reflect it. No destructive insects and no diseases and br=
ix levels above maximum levels on the brix charts. I've also examined the =
insides of the plants and have observed significant improvements in all pla=
nt structures. My yields have also more than doubled. The after harvest s=
poilage is way down and the requirement to refrigerate harvested produce ha=
s dropped to a fraction of what it once was. You don't have to eat many ve=
ggies grown like that before you notice a significant improvement in your o=
wn well being. That's my ultimate goal.

I'm diverging a bit here from the discussion about nutrients, but I just wa=
nted to point out some other "effects" and economies I have seen over the y=
ears as a result of this type of growing.

I look at all of the organisms as a kind of "biological fertilizer bank." =
It takes surprisingly little to feed them and the nutrients they provide to=
 plants produce the best plants I've ever seen. All of this really chang=
es nothing. There are still nutrient inputs in the tea and compost that ne=
ed to be considered to keep the critters alive. And that level is sufficie=
nt to make a significant difference with plant growth and development. Foo=
d for those large populations of organisms ends up being food for the plant=
s. The food consists mostly of nutrients that are all bound up initially a=
nd are made available in the form of a wide range of biological acids that =
carry the nutrients into the plants. They make plant food and they become =
plant food and food for others in the food web.

Now, consider "agricultural soils" where soil tests have been made looking =
at NPK and the 7-9 other minerals deemed essential to plant growth and wher=
e the grower has been adding the NPK and the 7-9 minerals according to "soi=
l tests". When you put some soil life food down and apply active soil life=
 in high numbers, you probably have enough bound up nutrients in those soil=
s to last many years (from additions made by the grower following soil test=
 results) and can grow even healthier plants with higher more nutritious yi=
elds as a result. I believe this is what Elaine was saying as we got into =
this discussion. This is perfectly logical. The only reason I came out of=
 lurk mode was to say that any journal article written about this needs to =
also consider the inputs tied up in the soil life and food for that soil li=
fe as part of the equation. Elaine eventually came out and said, "No inorg=
anic fertilizer needs to be added to those agricultural soils." The so cal=
led soil tests and the recommendations for adding inorganic minerals and NP=
K are exorbitantly high when you start using soil life to make it available=
 to plants. The soil tests are for the chemical industry and are NOT for d=
efining the use of soil organisms. When you use these organisms, a lot les=
s is drawn from the soils to produce very nice high yielding plants.

I like reading scientific studies regarding mycorrhiza fungi. There's a lo=
t of work showing that low levels of nutrients in the soils were present, y=
et high levels of nutrients were found in the plants. What's the standard =
for saying "low levels of nutrients" in the soils? It's that same silly st=
andard set by the chemical people. When you introduce active soil organism=
s with food to sustain those organisms, that low level of nutrients is actu=
ally quite high because of what the soil life can do to get the nutrients i=
nto the plants. I've seen this in many different studies. And when you in=
troduce mycorrhizal helper bacteria into the mix the results get even bette=
r with plant performance. To me, it's clear evidence of the "food bank" ma=
king a large deposit. Don't forget that of all that food being made in the=
 leaves of plants about 20% is being pushed out of the roots to feed those =
bacteria and fungi. The mycorrhizal fungi that we put into commercial inoc=
ulum are the species that bring more nutrients into a plant than what it co=
sts to feed that fungi. Add helper bacteria to the mix which are being fed=
 by the plant exudates and the nutrient flow is even greater into the plant=
s.

So, Ted, as the sun shines on the lawns you add compost to along with those=
 organisms, the soil tests are low for the chemical guys, but are more than=
 adequate for the biological guys. And the food being made by a nice healt=
hy lawn with roots down 20 inches into the soil is being distributed to qui=
te a crowd of critters. Mulch back the clippings and the system can be sus=
tained for quite a long time at a high level of health and much lower costs=
. I've been doing this for several years and no chemical fertilizers can c=
ome close to producing the level of performance demonstrated by the organis=
ms with a little bit of food to sustain them. And when you add selected or=
ganisms that perform rather well, the results can be dramatic with plant pe=
rformance.

--Thomas Giannou
http://www.tandjenterprises.com



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ted Peterson
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 3:44 PM
  Subject: Thomas' response to Re: [compost_tea] soil chemistry facts


  Thomas:

  Try this as a thought experiment:

  1. Active bacteria feed.
  2. They do not have digestive tracts but feed and get rid of wastes throu=
gh osmosis and diffusion.
  3. To break down the food they need, they release enzymes or use material=
 broken down by the enzymatic action of other bacteria/fungi and higher ord=
er living things.
  4. Different bacteria feed on different nutrients (for the bacteria) and =
diffuse different waste products.
  5. Plants use the waste products as food. When the plant wants more food=
 of a specific type, they send out messengers that the bacteria need to fee=
d. The bacteria feed and release waste that the plant uses.
  6. While a lot is known about the process in general, specific bacteria t=
hat give the plant specific nutrients is still in the discovery stage.

  So while I can make a general statement that I have been running a park f=
or almost three years without adding any inorganic or organic nutrients and=
 that the plants are healthy by plant assay, I can't make the same statemen=
t about the soil health. The soil actually shows low in many nutrients, ho=
wever, the CEC has remained constant (24 to 28) which means that the capaci=
ty for the bacteria to feed is there. Specific nutrients indicate low and =
the tests come back with recommendations to add certain things to get the a=
mounts in soil up to where traditional plant maintenance practices says the=
y should be. However, the plant assays don't indicate the same thing. The=
 brix is up and plants test healthy across the spectrum. I argued this poi=
nt the the Park Maintenance personnel until they finall threw up their hand=
s and agreed to leave the park alone. It was a hard sell though.

  I use A&L Labs. If I followed their indications based on soil tests, I s=
hould be adding all kinds of stuff to the park. I talked with them by phon=
e and mentioned that the plants they were testing came from the soil they w=
ere testing. They flatly stated that that couldn't be true because plants =
coming from the soil they tested should have been way below norms for brix =
and other indicators.

  It is important to remember that ACT does not directly feed the plants. =
Sure there may be some residue of N in the tea but it is not enough to feed=
 a plant. So what is going on?

  Bound minerals and nutrients can be made available through bacterial enzy=
matic action. Given decay, rain cycles and a soil biology healthy for your=
 area, plants should be able to self sustain with little input. This means=
 that you have to have a time table that plants operate on not necessarily =
a customer's time table. If you absolutely have to have it greened up on a=
 couple of weeks, add what you need to but understand that this added NPK =
does nothing for your overall soil health and may actually decrease overall=
 soil health.

  It is a hard shift from plant centered methodologies to bacterial centere=
d methodologies because all the tests we use are based on practices that di=
rectly feed the plant. There is no test that shows bacterial/fungal potent=
ial in the soil to produce exactly what the plant needs when the plant need=
s it. This is a hard sell to maintenance people who are sitting with a war=
ehouse full of chemicals and a computerized schedule that says: Apply chemi=
cal X during June and Y during September.

  Ted Peterson
  EW/SOE




Received on Mon Sep 06 2004 - 09:25:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:28 EST