[compost_tea] compost_tea] Digest Number 857

From: Jerry Cunningham <Jerry.Cunningham_at_CoyoteCreekFarm.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:17:03 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)

 I am a long time reader, first time respondent.

Ted, you are obviously a very learned individual. Please, get yourself a
private
blog, or other outlet for your auto-biographical and political offerings.
You are
taking up entirely too much space on this list.

Thanks you for considering to be more considerate of the rest of us.

Jerry Cunningham
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: 10/07/04 18:53:17
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] [compost_tea] Digest Number 857
 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/0PSxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
 
There are 17 messages in this issue.
 
Topics in this digest:
 
      1. Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
           From: Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_gardener.com>
      2. Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
      3. Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
           From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
      4. Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
           From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
      5. Another new biocontrol critter
           From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
      6. Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
      7. Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
      8. Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
      9. Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
     10. Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
     11. Re: Drip irrigation
           From: clay <clayc_at_westnet.com.au>
     12. RE: Drip irrigation
           From: "Tom Jaszewski" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
     13. Does this make any sense?
           From: mrkringles_at_msn.com
     14. Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
     15. Re: Does this make any sense?
           From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
     16. Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "Titel Ryzhomer" <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
     17. Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
           From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 08:14:26 -0800
   From: Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_gardener.com>
Subject: Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
 
Mycorrhizal fungi spores are far to fragile and should not be added
DURING the brew cycle, but rather after the cycle is over and just
before the tea is going to be used. The spores must touch a root within
24 hours of so to be viable.
 
Cheers,
 
Jeff L
 
Plant a Row in your garden to feed the hungry. Join Plant A Row for the
Hungry. Ask me how. www.gwaa.org/Par/index.html
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 2
   Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:59:30 -0000
   From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Subject: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
 
Your argument appears to be that there would be no funding of
research without the probability of commercial funding.
 
(TOM)I'm not aware of any significant private funding. I am
missing
something?
 
If that were true, it would be a sad, sad commentary on just how far
our government has sold out to the commercial world.
 
(TOM)Perhaps, but again, doesn't most of the research these days
some
from University partnership with the Ag/Hort industry?
 
I think it is in very poor taste that you attempt to taint my
objections to this commercialism by suggesting I'm demonizing
something that should be objected to by every tax payer in the US.
 
(TOM)I am just not willing to color this process with politics. I was
not attempting to "taint" your objections, rather to simply
point out
I am not willing to take a stand until such time as there is an
alternative source of funding for this work. I can't afford the
research, and it seems to me any successes will do us no harm and
perhaps even further our cause.
 
  I am not demonizing these people's work, I am objecting to people
using US tax payer dollars to patent materials, and/or processes,
which those of us who actually paid to have the research done will
now have to pay extra to be able to use those very products that our
dollars went to develop.
 
(TOM)Patents on Cornell developed strain of beneficial fungus
Trichoderma harzianum (T-22) do not prevent us from adding to our tea
nor does it limit our access. That research was funded by tax dollars
either directly or indirectly. From my view it gives me data showing
a common soil bacteria can assist in disease control. I used it 11
years ago and in fact started the journey to SFI with that body of
work.
 
This product is in commercial development, which is what the "conduct
further tests" means.
Don't you see the ethical impropriety with these sorts of situations?
 
(TOM)Again from my view to stop good research that can only benefit
our goals to me is representing the process as evil or diabolic.
 
When research grants are awarded, there is NO requirement that
commercial development occur. There is no improved chances of
getting the funding because commercial development might be possible.
 
(TOM)I can't speak to the specific requirements for the funding
in
this case. But would argue that potential commercial development
would certainly improve chances of funding. Regardless of how
community minded we are, I believe, we all are interested in the
commercial success of ACT. I think I would be naïve to believe
that
ACT will not at some junction become a commercial success and many of
the corporate players will take notice and make investments.
 
At the very least, once the product is on the market, the company
ought to pay tax payers back for the development money.
I'm struggling to find any case where this has happened.
 
That would supply money to allow true researchers to continue working
on aspects of science that possibly don't have any commercial
potentials.
 
(TOM)You seem to imply that ARS and any commercial interests will not
practice good science. I don't agree. None of the life enhancing
medications I take was developed out of the good in researchers
hearts.
 
Regards,
Tom
 
tom_at_livesoil.com
702-595-7012
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:26:51 -0700
   From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Subject: Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
 
Never add Mycorrhiza during brewing. They sprout very fast in water and
will die when you apply them. They need something to vector with so they
can enter the soil. Since the arrive in powder form, the best way to apply
them is to mix them with seed. Usually cities have seeding machines. Have
your park maintenance personnel mix the mycorrhiza with the seed then apply
the seed.
 
Because they sprout in water, they tend to clog everything in your brewer.=
 
I did a test and it led to a lot of cleaning. Also, if you are applying te=
a
with any kind of irrigation system by using an injector to mix the tea with
the water, you are going to clog the entire system. This means you are
financially responsible for fixing the problem and depending on the system
used in the city, could be quite expensive to unclog all the sprinkler head=
s
and any drip lines on the system.
 
Tea works fine through these systems without mycorrhiza and I have been
doing it for three years now without a problem.
 
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: compost
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:03 PM
  Subject: [compost_tea] increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard
trees?
 
 
  Hello,
 
  We will be running a replicated experiment with the City this fall. The=

  objective is to increase mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees.
 
  1)Does anyone have any suggestions on how to do this? Methods? Products?=

  Application procedures? etc.
 
 
 
  2)I have heard that mycorrhizea can be added during the brewing cycle.
  What is/are the reason(s) for doing this?
  When should they be added?
  What recipe would be used to make the tea?
 
 
 
  Thank you for your input.
 
  Sonja Peters
  CropHealth Advising & Research
  Kelowna, BC
 
 
 
 
 
        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
 
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--

  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
 
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
 
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service=
.
 
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 4
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:29:16 EDT
   From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
Subject: Re: increasing mycorrhizal colonization on boulevard trees?
 
Hi Sonja -
 
Mike Amaranthus is a good person to talk to about how to get mycorrhizal
spores to the root system - injection is the best way, BUT you can't put th=
e
organisms into the intitial water you use to blast the hole in the soil.
 
There's a company in New Zealand that has a machine that does injection, bu=
t
the tea goes in after the inital blast, using low pressure, so you don't
kill
the organisms by smacking them into the soil particles at high speed.
 
Please check with Richard Prew, at heritage_at_xtra.co.nz
 
He can get you the contact details for the company in NZ called Aer8tor
 
Mycorrhizal spores should not be put in tea until IMMEDIATELY before
application.
 
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Soil Foodweb Inc., Oosterbeck, The Netherlands
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 5
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:31:42 EDT
   From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
Subject: Another new biocontrol critter
 
This just in from SANET:
 
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0403853101 oct. 6 ,2004
Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility as a means for insect pest
population control
 
Sofia Zabalou *, Markus Riegler , Marianna Theodorakopoulou ¶, Christian=

Stauffer , Charalambos Savakis *||, and Kostas Bourtzis ||**
 
Biological control is the purposeful introduction of parasites,
predators, and pathogens to reduce or suppress pest populations.
Wolbachia are inherited bacteria of arthropods that have recently
attracted attention for their potential as new biocontrol agents.
Wolbachia manipulate host reproduction by using several strategies, one
of which is cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) [Stouthamer, R., Breeuwer,
J. A. J. & Hurst, G. D. D. (1999) Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 53, 71-102]. We
established Wolbachia-infected lines of the medfly Ceratitis capitata
using the infected cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi as donor.
Wolbachia induced complete CI in the novel host. Laboratory cage
populations were completely suppressed by single releases of infected
males, suggesting that Wolbachia-induced CI could be used as a novel
environmentally friendly tool for the control of medfly populations. The
results also encourage the introduction of Wolbachia into pest and
vector species of economic and hygenic relevance to suppress or modify
natural populations.
 
 
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Soil Foodweb Inc., Oosterbeck, The Netherlands
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 6
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:01:12 -0700
   From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Subject: Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
Whaaa? Most companies have R&D. The aerospace industry for example has two
types of funded programs CRAD and IRAD. Both are funded by gummint money
and the researchers are free to patent their discoveries and license their
used. If we left it up the the gummint to administer patent licensing,
nothing would ever be developed from the research. The "spin-off"
technology would be non-existant. Drug companies hire lots biochemists who
are hoping to find the next major development to save the world from
whatever disease or malady.
 
The drug companies themselves invest millions to find cures and test drugs
and in these companies are programs that also distribute gummint money from
grants. In addition, our gummint commissions works of art and offsets the
cost of an architect's work on designing privately owned buildings. Even
though the money comes from tax dollars, we don't call it people's art.
This happend in the so-called Communist Block to utter failure. An artist
developing a new style is free to call that style his own even though he go=
t
the opportunity to develop that art because of tax dollars.
 
It is the same with scientific work. Just because the gummint throws out a
few sheckles it doesn't mean they own the work any more than the patrons of
Mozart's work own or have a right to his symphonies.
 
Elaine, you are promoting an agenda here that will ultimately only restrict
chance taking and development. To me this smacks of everything I know abou=
t
socialist USSR and China.
 
I find the fact that our gummint actually funds and promotes research and
discovery, however lame-brained some of it may be, to be one of the real
cornerstones of US supramacy in the world of commerce and invention. Yes,
we all love the "garage genius" but these are few and far between. I have
met a few. You would hate them. They are totally driven people who care
only about one thing and that is the thing they are working on. They are
protective to the point of paranoia and with good cause: everyone who sees
what they are doing wants to take it away from them. What you suggest is
institutional robbery and intimidation which I find offensive and counter
productive.
 
I give a lot of stuff away and have been soundly criticized for it. I have
patented a lot of stuff too. Some of the patents are dual because they wer=
e
done when I had a business partner even though he had nothing to do with th=
e
work. I got contracts from the city which were from tax dollars to develop
most of what I have done but I would not have done it if all the work, idea=
s
 techniques and designs I came up with became the property of the city.
 
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
   None of the life enhancing
  medications I take was developed out of the good in researchers
  hearts.
 
  Regards,
  Tom
 
  tom_at_livesoil.com
  702-595-7012
 
 
 
 
        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
 
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--

  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
 
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
 
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service=
.
 
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 7
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:01:43 EDT
   From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
Subject: Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
There is significant private funding of a great deal of ag-related
scientific
studies. Kellogg Foundation, Pew Trust, Mellon Foundation, and a bunch of=

others.
 
Engineering schools, and research with genetically engineered organisms and=

bio-pesticide microbes are probably the places where serious private
industry
involvement occurs in what most people think of as pure science.
 
Most research done at University does NOT partner with industry. The
National Science Foundation and USDA fund most of the biological research
done at
land grant universities. Most of these grants do not have commercial
linkages.
 
Tom used an example of Trichoderma as an organism where research at
Uiversity
resulted in a patented commercial product. As a result, however, the cost
of
the T-22 inoculum is higher than it needs to be. It would cost people
significantly less if royalties were not being paid. Our tax dollars paid
to
isolate, identify and grow out the FUNGUS, Trichoderma harzianum. Our tax
dollars
were spent to do the field trials on this organism.
 
But the US tax payer is not being re-paid for the development money put int=
o
this now commercial product. I object to that.
 
What if that commercial company had to pay back the investment dollars that=

the US tax payer put into that product? If the terms of the agreement were=

reasonable, it would not be a burden on the commercial company. And if tha=
t
money were put back into a research fund that was ear-marked for more
research,
then MORE research would be done than is being done now.
 
The fact that private individuals can hijack the American tax payer has
nothing to do with the quality of research.
 
Tom, you are confusing research funding with funding development of compost=

tea. I was not discussing compost tea, I was discussing funding of researc=
h

and the fact that research paid for by tax payers gets hijacked by
commercial
interests. Commercial interests reap the rewards of a system where the
public
is supposed to reap the rewards.
 
It would be very nice if you would actually read what I wrote, and did not=

twist what I am saying. I did not say that companies currently pay the US=

public back in any way, shape or form. For you to say in your e-mail that
you are
struggling to to find a case where pay-back has occurred is nonsensical. I=
t
is exactly the problem. Private companies are reaping the benefit of tax
payer
dollars. This does not improve research being done, nor does this increase=

tax payer money being put into research.
 
And with this statement on your part, you really go over the threshold -
 
"You seem to imply that ARS and any commercial interests will not
practice good science. I don't agree. None of the life enhancing
medications I take was developed out of the good in researchers
hearts."
 
What an incredible case of putting words in other people's mouths, Tom. Yo=
u
are completely, and absolutely, off-base when you try to twist what I said
in
the fashion that you try to do above.
 
The research done by pharmaceutical companies for their own financial
benefit
has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Their research was not=

paid for by US tax payers. They used their own corporate dollars to do the=

research. Patenting something where the company paid for development is no=
t
the
topic of this discussion. There is no rip-off going on there.
 
Public institutions can be involved in doing studies on the efficacy of
drugs, but a clear separation of the research being done and the corporate
interest
must be maintained. With alarmingly greater frequency, we hear of drug
studies that were faked, or the data altered to appease the desires of the
company
funding the studies. And now, years later, and how many people's lives
later,
the truth comes out that the study was not properly done.
 
Commercial interests have a bias. You cannot pretend that they do not.
 
Are researchers doing what they do out of the goodness of their hearts?
Don't be silly. They get paid to do what they do, but there must be
separation of
commercial pressure from research. We have allowed that separation to be=

abrogated.
 
How do you fix that? That's the subject of a different discussion group.=

 
I apologize to everyone on the list serve for taking up your time on this=

not-compost tea topic. Sorry. I hope that all of you see the point that I
m
trying to make. I am not making a point about the quality of research
performed
by ARS, or commercial interests, or anything else. I'm making a statment=

about the use of tax payer dollars. It is not right that one or two people=
,
or
the members of a board of owners, gain from the use of our money.
 
Right or wrong, it is happening. But just because it is happening does not=

mean it is right, or should be overlooked, or be written off.
 
But, I've made my points, those of you who have waded through this long,
thanks for wading with me. If my statements get mis-represented again, I'v=
e
just
going to ignore his comments. Time to get back to doing some tea testing.=

 
Oh yeah, real data.
 
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 8
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:23:58 EDT
   From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
Subject: Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
Ted - Not at all what I'm talking about.
 
I am NOT objecting to private industry patenting what they have developed.=

 
I am not objecting to the government commisioning artists to develop art.=

Completely different.
 
I am not suggesting that hiring someone to do a specific job is ethically=

questionable. Get real.
 
I have a problem when our tax dollars are given to a scientist to do a
research project that the scientist wrote a proposal for that states the
research
they will do, and the scientist gets that funding, does the work and
discovers a
potential commercial product, and then turns around a patents the process o=
r
the product, claiming they, or the institution they hold a position at, now=

deserves the commercial rights to that product.
 
That is not ethical. At the very least, the tax payer should be re-imburse=
d

 
Do not mis-read what I wrote. But, enough. No more on this topic from me.=

 
 
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 9
   Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:57:07 -0000
   From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Subject: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
 
But, I've made my points, those of you who have waded through this
long, thanks for wading with me. If my statements get mis-
represented again, I've just going to ignore his comments. Time to
get back to doing some tea testing.
 
 
 
This DOES relate to ACT in my opinion. It's to bad a well intended
discussion leads to "ignore his comments". The wonderful thing about
a participatory democracy is the ability to agree and disagree. Not
having the same views is not "twisting" and was not intended to be
anything more than a polite discussion.
 
tomj
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 10
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:40:03 -0700
   From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Subject: Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
  I have a problem when our tax dollars are given to a scientist to do a
research project that the scientist wrote a proposal for that states the
research they will do, and the scientist gets that funding, does the work
and discovers a potential commercial product, and then turns around a
patents the process or the product, claiming they, or the institution they
hold a position at, now deserves the commercial rights to that product.
 
  That is not ethical. At the very least, the tax payer should be
re-imbursed.
 
  Do not mis-read what I wrote. But, enough. No more on this topic from m=
e

 
Sorry, you don't get the last word on this. Especially when that last word
is misleading. And please stop suggesting people misread you when they
disagree with you. Your implications are clear enough.
 
I think that the behavior you are describing is highly ethical. What I fin=
d
unethical is an artificial attempt to control creativity and alternative
forms of investigation. I don't think the tax payers should be reimbursed
for that any more than they should be reimbursed for failed weapons systems
or avenues of investigation that turn up nothing and there are loads of the=
m
 As long as we have a system of centralization, we will have this problem.=
 
You want the problem to end, lobby your gummint to stop funding anything.=

 
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 11
   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:36:56 +0800
   From: clay <clayc_at_westnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Drip irrigation
 
I am setting up a drip system and would like to use more ‘organic type
materials’, what do you
mean by ‘built especially’?
 
On 5/10/04 5:21 PM, "Mike Harvey" <mharvey_at_westnet.com.au> wrote:
 
>
> Systems that have been built especially for organic type materials such a=
s
> liquid fish would be the ideal.
> I have used ACT through normal commercial hort operations drip irrigation=

> without any problems- however the t tape is replaced every year (they mov=
e
> the patch).
> regards Mike Harvey
 
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 12
   Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:09:39 -0700
   From: "Tom Jaszewski" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Subject: RE: Drip irrigation
 
Allan alluded to a tape system that passed the biology. Perhaps ALLAN? can=

give us the manufacturer?
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: clay [mailto:clayc_at_westnet.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:37 PM
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Drip irrigation
 
 
 
I am setting up a drip system and would like to use more 'organic type
materials', what do you
mean by 'built especially'?
 
On 5/10/04 5:21 PM, "Mike Harvey" <mharvey_at_westnet.com.au> wrote:
 
 
Systems that have been built especially for organic type materials such as=

liquid fish would be the ideal.
I have used ACT through normal commercial hort operations drip irrigation=

without any problems- however the t tape is replaced every year (they move=

the patch).
regards Mike Harvey
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1299q14j7/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176=
/D=gr
oups/S=1707418612:HM/EXP=1097195946/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*=
http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here
 
 
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=grou=
ps/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=623595603>
 
 
 
  _____
 
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
<mailto:compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
 
 
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
 
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 13
   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:12:53 -0000
   From: mrkringles_at_msn.com
Subject: Does this make any sense?
 
 
I bag my grass and feed it to my worms and use the vermicompost to
make tea that I spray on my lawn to make the grass grow. Maybe I
should just let the grass clippings on the lawn to decompose
naturally and save myself a bunch of work?
 
John
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 14
   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:33:57 -0000
   From: "tomjasz" <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Subject: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
 
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_g...> wrote:
>
> From: ARS News Service <NewsService_at_a...>
> The ARS team, together with University of Idaho scientists, will
> collaborate with a commercial firm to conduct further tests under a
> cooperative research and development agreement.
 
 
 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/business/docs.htm?docid=771&page=1
 
 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
The Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) program is
the primary tool linking government and industry researchers. This
program, authorized under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of
1986, allows federal laboratories and businesses to form commercial
partnerships that help move new technologies into the marketplace.
ARS scientists and companies work together to develop a research plan
that is consistent with the agency's mission. Under a CRADA, ARS
scientists collaborate with private firms to help commercialize the
technologies developed. A CRADA allows the company the first right
to negotiate an exclusive license to any inventions that emerge under
the agreement.
The objective of the CRADA is to expedite federal research activities
to the private sector to enhance global and domestic competitiveness.
 
Licensing Information
The Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) negotiates with the private
sector the licensing of USDA patented technologies, pursuant to the
policy and objectives set forth in the 1980 amendments to the Patent
and Trademark Laws (Bayh-Dole) Act and the Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986. Companies interested in licensing USDA
technology can obtain a license application online or from an OTT
licensing staff member.
License fees and royalties are negotiated on a case by case basis and
depend upon several factors including the scope of the rights
granted, the size of the potential market, and the time and financial
investment required by the licensee to bring a product to market.
Information provided by the license applicant concerning the product
concept, market size, profitability, and additional research and
development required prior to product introduction is used to
determine fair fees and royalties for each invention.
Licenses can be granted both exclusively and non-exclusively or by
specific field of use. Negotiated royalty rates are based upon the
anticipated profit margins for the products to be marketed by the
licensee.
 
Link to patents, referred to patent appears to be 8 or so years old!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-
bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=Slininger.INZZ.&OS=I=
N/Slining
er&RS=IN/Slininger
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 15
   Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:26:01 EDT
   From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
Subject: Re: Does this make any sense?
 
You need to know that you have the beneficial foodweb in the soil if you
want
to let the grass clippings decompose in place.
 
You can run a soil foodweb test to know right away, or start leaving
clippings in place and watch to see if the clippings decompose and disappea=
r
within 15
to 30 days. If they do, then you know the foodweb is there and doing its=

job. If not, then you need to add some organisms.
 
Presumably you would need to add fungi, but to know for sure, you would tes=
t

 
 
If you have been adding compost to your soil previously, you just might wan=
t
to test your compost and soil (qualitative test would be the least expensiv=
e
way to do this, $25 per test for bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes),
and
make sure the biology is there in reasonable amounts.
 
Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 16
   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:32:17 -0000
   From: "Titel Ryzhomer" <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
 
Ted,
 
If I collect a certain combination of herbs and make some extracts
and perhaps form a new molecular bond by cooking one of the
ingredients in vinegar (of course I don't know about the molecular
bond) and then combine the ingredients together and find that it
cures the flu when ingested and start bottling it and trading it
around the neighborhood for sustanance and favors and a big funded
research outfit stumbles on the same thing through a slightly
different process and announces the molecular bond with fanfare and
patents it, does that mean I can no longer make up my recipe and
sell it?
 
If I enter a contract to do research for a company or government to
research and create a specific substance for them using their money
and getting paid am I ethically or morally justified in patenting
the end result substance in my own name and not my employer's?
 
These are the points I see.
Are you Republican?
Titel
 
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Ted Peterson"
<ted.peterson_at_t...> wrote:
> I have a problem when our tax dollars are given to a scientist
to do a research project that the scientist wrote a proposal for
that states the research they will do, and the scientist gets that
funding, does the work and discovers a potential commercial product,
and then turns around a patents the process or the product, claiming
they, or the institution they hold a position at, now deserves the
commercial rights to that product.
>
> That is not ethical. At the very least, the tax payer should be
re-imbursed.
>
> Do not mis-read what I wrote. But, enough. No more on this
topic from me.
>
> Sorry, you don't get the last word on this. Especially when that
last word is misleading. And please stop suggesting people misread
you when they disagree with you. Your implications are clear enough.
>
> I think that the behavior you are describing is highly ethical.
What I find unethical is an artificial attempt to control creativity
and alternative forms of investigation. I don't think the tax
payers should be reimbursed for that any more than they should be
reimbursed for failed weapons systems or avenues of investigation
that turn up nothing and there are loads of them. As long as we have
a system of centralization, we will have this problem. You want the
problem to end, lobby your gummint to stop funding anything.
>
> Ted Peterson
> EW/SOE
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
Message: 17
   Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:37:31 -0700
   From: "Ted Peterson" <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Subject: Re: Re:pretty close to compost tea!
 
Titel and others:
 
The barter marketplace is still one that is not totally controlled by the
gummint even though there are efforts underway to tax bartered labor and
merchandise. Because it is so difficult to track and so few people actuall=
y
admit to bartered trade, it will take some mighty stringent enforcement to
get this controlled.
 
Selling anything that offers medical results such as a cold cure or cancer
cure are still areas that are "gray" areas. By this I mean that the people
working in those areas may be producing things in a way that is uncounted
for by any regulatory agency. If you remember DMSO4 which was a turpentine
derivitave that people felt eased joint pain was one such area. The gummin=
t
has since passed legislation that controls anything that has a secondary
medical use. So you can sell your mix but cannot sell it as a cure without
FDA testing and authorization. The herbal and vitamin industry operate in
the fringe area and are mostly self regulating. If you read labels, however=
,
you notice that the producers have been forced to limit medical claims.
There's still a lot of wiggle room there though.
 
Yes, you could make your Dr. Titel's Elixir and even get a "poor man's
copyright/patent" by mailing the ingredients to yourself or simply taking
your papers to the patent office and getting a patent pending number. This
means you are saying "to the best of my knowledge this is original work and
I am claiming it as such from <date>." A patent search costs a lot of mone=
y
  It's about $350K to $700K to have a lawyer conduct a patent search. You
don't need that. If a company comes along and recreates your work, you may
be able to get a percentage of what they do because you came up with the
idea first and can prove it. Even if they claim they never say your stuff,
you can make the claim because of a weird interpretation in the law that
basically protects you, the original creator, as having changed perception
because of the work you did and this change enabled the other company to ge=
t
to their product when they wouldn't have gotten there before."
 
If you enter a contract with a company to do a specific task and they give
you the materials and provide a means to do the task and you sign a contrac=
t
that states that "any invention, product, process or method you come up wit=
h
as a result of that work is the property of the company", you have no leg t=
o
stand on even if you were the only person who could have come up with the
process. That actually happend to me and all I got was a nice letter. Whe=
n
I pointed out that my work saved the company about $12M, they relented and
cut me a check but it was a token amount considering the ramifications of m=
y
work.
 
If you sign a contract that states that you have rights to processes that
are discovered in coincidence to the work you are doing, you are safer but
companies are usually greedy and seldom sign such stuff. There is also the
chance that the company will have no interest in what you come up with and
release interest. IBM did this with Bill Gates because they thought that
hardware had a future and that software meant nothing. The Bank Of Canada
released the rights to Omegamon to Aubry Chernick and he went on to make it
into most widely used mainfram diagnostic program on the planet. So if you
find something as a coincidence of the work you are doing, patent or
copyright it under your name. Then go to the company and say that you
developed something and are interested in seeing if they want to do anythin=
g
with it. You may just get a release from any contract restrictions you hav=
e
  If not, you can just do nothing with the patent/copyright or you can
assign it to the company. Now, most companies have a date limit on the wor=
k
you do. Usually it's a year and this has held up in court. So if you
really find something great, quit the company, mow lawns or wash cars or
clean windows or pump gas for a year while you develop your idea then go
find some VCs (Not the soldiers but the capitalists) and see if you can get
some development money. If it is in the same field as the company you worke=
d
for, you will eventually lose it without a release form. If it is a
different field you will probably have no trouble until you get big then
they will come after you as a matter of course whether they have a case or
not.
 
I am a registered Libertarian. According to Drew Carey, that's a
Republician who still gets high. But I am not hard core. For example, I
think that we need a nationalized healthcare system and we need it fast. I
believe in public service as a part of citizenship. If you serve in either
a domestic program like vista, head-start or an international program like
the military or peace corps for four years, you get free medical for life.=
 
If you choose not to serve, you have to pay but nothng like the exhorbitant
amounts you have to pay now. I'm glad Bush took the fight to the terrorist=
s
rather than waiting for another attack. Even if mistakes are made, I want
them made on foreign soil not ours. I am a decorated Vietnam Vetaran who i=
s
Special Forces (You know them as Green Berets) qualified and served in
combat. My inservice combat experience was 26 months continuous then as a
contractor after that. I cannot possibly bring myself to vote for Kerry.=

 
 
 
 
[This message contained attachments]
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 






Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 10:38:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:31 EST