Re: [compost_tea] Re: Rock Dust

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:37:08 -0800

Folks:

Remember we aren't discussing suppression of new growth but eradication of =
existing mildew growth. CT has shown that it can suppress new mildew growt=
h and restrict outbreaks. That is nothing new. It works. Where I run into=
 problems is when eradication is indicated. These are two different things=
 entirely. CT both with and without granite dust suppressed the spread of =
mildew on grapes. However, CT with or without rock dust did nothing to exi=
sting outbreaks. Once the mildew becomes established, I have only seen Sul=
phur dust or orther recognized fungicides have any effect.

Now, I have tried using Ammonium Sulfate on mildew. I figured that if I di=
luted enough in aerated water, I would get the benefits of the nitrogen and=
 the prevention of the sulfates. Well it was great in theory but did nothi=
ng when applied. I tried different dillutions and only visually observed t=
he results. At one point the N got so strong that it burned the leaves. So=
 I guess one could say that a leaf burned by nitrates represented fungal er=
adication but that is kind of like saying: "I removed the plant to cure the=
 mildew." That is organic to the max but hardly practical.

It's hard to say to a client: "I can cure mildew without any inputs at all.=
  I just chop down your infected plants and the healthy plants closest to t=
hem. After all, it works for cancer so if we look at mildew like a cancer, =
we can eradicate the sick plants but to ensure it hasn't spread, we will re=
move the healthy plants around it." Sounds rational but hardly practiacal =
 

Since mildew appears to be soil-borne, this approach may not solve the prob=
lem at all.

But I think this whole discussion started with rusts. You know, in my expe=
rience, CT is a wonderful preventative but a terrible short-range curative.=
  Where CT can possibly prevent rust outbreaks it is doubtful that it can c=
ure existing outbreaks. Maybe additives could be added to the brew to acco=
mplish this but we have a couple of problems. Here is the thought experime=
nt based on a number of different tests:

1. CT, in general, is the transferrance of aerobic bacteria and fungi from =
compost to plants and soil in a different form using processes (aerobic bre=
wing) that magnify the amounts of these benificials.

2. This, in turn, allows the plant to utilize the diversity of biology in t=
he compost and nutrients in the soil to feed and more effectively self-cont=
rol their local environment. (Plant gets stressed, sends out exudate that t=
riggers bacteria/fungi to produce enzymes that interact in the soil or on t=
he leaf and the plant gets the nutrients it needs to resolve the stress.)

3. Adding something to CT that acts as a fungicide is probably non-specific=
 in that it doesn't just kill one type of fungi. Since plants need fungi w=
hich are generally higher-order than bacteria, anything that acts as a fung=
icide would very likely kill the beneficials also.

4. So while we can find additives to tea that may have eradicative powers w=
e have turned what we are applying away from CT and towards an extract. Fo=
r example, you could add sulphur dust to a brewer which has brewed a health=
y, aerobic CT with a large biomass. The sulphur would have a negative effe=
ct on the CT but may eradicate a number of things when applied. Saying: "M=
y CT cured such and such would not be accurate because what was applied was=
 not CT.

Ted Peterson
EW/SOE






Received on Wed Nov 24 2004 - 14:13:34 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:37 EST