[compost_tea] Re: Rock Dust

From: Titel Ryzhomer <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:18:12 -0000

Ted,

If ingredients such as clay powders are placed at the onset of the
brew, mixed in with the compost they are not necessarily additives
but active participants (or food) in the microbial multiplication.
Try going outside your box a little.

Cheers

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Ted Peterson"
<ted.peterson_at_t...> wrote:
> 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 growth 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 existing
outbreaks.  Once the mildew becomes established, I have only seen
Sulphur dust or orther recognized fungicides have any effect. 
>
> Now, I have tried using Ammonium Sulfate on mildew.  I figured
that if I diluted 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 nothing when applied.  I tried different
dillutions and only visually observed the 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 eradication 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 them. 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 remove the healthy plants
around it."  Sounds rational but hardly practiacal 
>
> Since mildew appears to be soil-borne, this approach may not solve
the problem at all.
>
> But I think this whole discussion started with rusts.  You know,
in my experience, CT is a wonderful preventative but a terrible
short-range curative.  Where CT can possibly prevent rust outbreaks
it is doubtful that it can cure existing outbreaks.  Maybe additives
could be added to the brew to accomplish this but we have a couple
of problems.  Here is the thought experiment 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 brewing) that magnify the amounts of these
benificials.
>
> 2. This, in turn, allows the plant to utilize the diversity of
biology in the compost and nutrients in the soil to feed and more
effectively self-control their local environment. (Plant gets
stressed, sends out exudate that triggers bacteria/fungi to produce
enzymes that interact in the soil or on the 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 which are generally higher-order than bacteria,
anything that acts as a fungicide would very likely kill the
beneficials also.
>
> 4. So while we can find additives to tea that may have eradicative
powers we have turned what we are applying away from CT and towards
an extract.  For example, you could add sulphur dust to a brewer
which has brewed a healthy, aerobic CT with a large biomass.  The
sulphur would have a negative effect on the CT but may eradicate a
number of things when applied.  Saying: "My CT cured such and such
would not be accurate because what was applied was not CT.
>
> Ted Peterson
> EW/SOE




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Nov 24 2004 - 15:39:39 EST

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