Re: [compost_tea] Re: Searching for basic instructions on compost tea brewing

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:50:42 -0800
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:13:03 -0800, Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net> wrote:

> I think you both have it a little wrong.  Controlled situation can be
> created in the lab that give precise results using a procedure or object.
> For example, bacteria can be grown in a petri dish in an iso chamber at so
> many degrees with such and such nutrients.  It can be shown time and time
> again that this works exactly the same way every time.  In the "wild" so to
> speak, there are ennumerable factors that and either add or detract from the
> parent situation. However, if the growth rates seen in the lab are basically
> duplicated in the "wild" within a range of acceptable error, one can
> successfully state that the procedure work and can be replicated time and
> time again.  The "wild" elements will either enhance the effect or detract
> from the effect. 

You just validated the point that I was making that the "controlled
experiment" MUST be validated by the experience in the field.

If the experience in the lab is not validated by the anecdotal
evidence, then it is the lab results that are questionable.

> Taking a series of 10x10 plots and treating them differently in a "wild"
> environment still produces data that can be quantized and replicated.  For
> example: Take a lawn and get four plots on the lawn that are 10x10 separated
> by 20 feet or so.  Apply nothing to one, compost to another, compost compost
> tea to another and compost, compost tea and VAMs to another.  Check the root
> growth and mass and the health of the soil with soil testing and analysis
> and the plants with leaf assay and brix testing.  Test both the plots and
> test the untreated area for a comparison to the control. You will see
> changes in the plots based on the inputs you use.  Go to a different
> location and reproduce the same experiment.  Do this two or three times
> more.  Then compare the test results.  You should notice that similar
> results occur in plots treated similarly in each location.  The untreated
> plots will give you a control.  This control should stay the same as the
> rest of the lawn area that is untreated.

yes, this is a very good way to do it, but it really is exactly the
same as anecdotal evidence put together by a farmer that is trying
things out over the course of a lifetime. Of course he will care the
most about how it works in local conditions. There just isn't a grant,
a Ph.D or a peer review journal involved.

The method used is to compare observed results from as large of a
dataset as you can afford, controlling every variable that you can.
The problem with agriculture is that you cannot control very many
variables at all.

All a study really offers over anecdotal evidence is documentation of
process. It can be darn useful, but it does not help out those dealing
with it in the real world.  Sometimes all they do is document bad
process, but all that anyone will read is the bad results.

Like I said, a farmer is a lot more likely to pay attention to what
works for they guys nearby than what is published in a peer review
journal. Tom said that we would be fringe till we had those studies,
and that is simply incorrect. Those studies will generally only help
with regulatory decisions, it is the anecdotal evidence that will
convince people.

> After you do this a number of times, you will be able to make pretty
> definitive statements about the effects of each input in a lawn area as long
> as the water amounts remain the same for all areas.  However, even if the
> water rates change, treated plots should test differently than untreated
> plots and the rest of the lawn. 

Yup. And you could do that even without documenting your process, or
for that matter, even being very careful about how you do your
testing.

You are in a situation, dealing with government entities, where some
testing is advantageous to convince them. But they still give you one
park, or even just a section of a park to start with, then actually
see how you do. This is far more important to convincing them to go
for the big switch than your test results at that point.

And for individual homeowners to switch, they will do it simply
because your lawn is nicer than theirs, and you don't make them keep
off the toxic grass for a week after application. If most homeowners
switched, so would the parks, even without the study results.

Again, I never said that there is anything wrong with the studies.
They are a good thing. They give alot of value in figuring things out
a lot more precisely, more quickly. But the anecdotal dataset is a lot
larger than you could ever hope for in a study, and it should not be
downplayed. And when it comes to convincing someone, it is almost
always far more important.

Dave

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sun Nov 21 2004 - 05:27:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:36 EST