Findin' out (was Re: [compost_tea] basic questions)

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:46:03 -0800

Folks:

There was a study done by Allen (I am not 100% on the name. I'll look it up=
 and post the reference.) in the 1950's in Kansas in regard to production q=
uantity vs quality. His assumption was that the quality or nutritional val=
ue of food was less as the yield rose. The higher yield was possible becau=
se of fertilizers and I don't recall the impact of pesticides but I will re=
search that and post it.

So we have higher yield but is the quality of the food also improved?

The study showed that while chemical fertilizers (I don't think "organic" f=
ertilizers were even available on a commercial basis.) can increase yield, =
the nutritional value of the food sampled from the yield showed a lower nut=
rient value.

In the 50's there was very little work or understanding of the role of soil=
 biology. Remember that most of the farming practices we have now were dev=
eloped during WWII to increase production. Little care was given to long t=
erm harm to the land because we had to feed troops and a population of civi=
lians. If you read any of Buckminster Fuller's work as a logistics analysts=
 for the gummint during WWII, you will get a pretty good understanding of t=
he mind set people were working under.

Well, what happened? It worked. Production increased ten-fold. The chemica=
l dependent farmer and industrial farming was born and the traditional fami=
ly farm and the Grange associations that held a lot of that structure toget=
her died off. Some remained but they filled niche markets.

At the same time, Ag programs in universities started courses all across th=
e country. Texas A&M, Cal. Poly, Pierce and a bunch of schools started Ag =
programs to get the technology of farming spread to all levels of Ag. This=
 has translated to turf, ornamentals and virtually all plants grown in the =
US. Even in grammar schools, small horticulture courses are defined around=
 fertilization and pesticides. So, it starts early.

There were always "organic" farmers like the Kloss family and others but th=
ese people were considered eccentric oddballs (I know it's a tautology but.=
 . .) and nuts of the highest order. Everybody knew that plants needed fer=
tilizer to grow. Even compost was considered "esoteric" in the world of in=
dustrial farming.

So over the years of using this approach, we have pretty much decimated the=
 soil biology which many farm and soil scientists are starting to view anew=
. There are lots of companies that sell EM and this is another path of the=
 industrial arm. CT is a different approach to revitalize the biology in t=
he soil. However, there are some problems with CT. We have touched on some=
 of them on this list but others are emerging.

Testing is one. Testing is mostly based on chemical based agriculture and =
as such, test must be interpreted when using CT. Soil test will give one r=
eading and the plant assay and brix analysis give another. So the soil mig=
ht test, traditionally, like it needs nutrients and the plants test as if t=
hey have enough nutrient. Salt is another issue and I don't think definiti=
ve work has been done yet to clearly establish the link between CT and salt=
s in the soil. This is expecially true for soil that has been chemically o=
r organically fertilized for a number of years. There a lot's of theories =
but I don't think a statement can be made with certainty at this time.

CT can and does effectively transmit biology from compost to the soil in a =
different form and does provide some small amount of food. The food is not=
 enough for long term sustainability but is enough to give the biology a ch=
ance to thrive and wake up dormant biology in the soil. Over time, with ca=
reful observation and control, the soil can be completely reestablished. I=
t takes time on several levels and many still find that it's simpler to use=
 a fertilizer that fits into a knowledge base they have rather than try to =
relearn a technology that is still emerging.

CT has shown pest control properties in certain cases. It has shown that i=
t can control and slow down the spread of powdery mildew in grapes and rose=
s. As far as I know, there is no definitive study that show a direct relat=
ion between CT and pest eradication. There is lots of tantilizing anecodal=
 information but no controled tests. However, CT has effectively slowed the=
 spread of mildew for lot's of people. However, and this is a big however,=
 I don't think it is stable enough as a concept to replace fungicides or pe=
sticides at this time. As a preventative program, I think there is enough =
anecodal data to safely say it can be used as a preventative with varying l=
evels of success. An added bonus is that while it may prevent the spread o=
f certain pests, it also helps the plants feed, through leaves, and brix is=
 improved as a result.

Where is CT going? There is still a lot that isn't known about CT and biol=
ogy and the interworkings of the soil, plants, weather, yield, maturation r=
ates, germination and a host of other information. CT hasen't been consist=
ently used long enough in AG with enough testing to give absolute answers l=
ike chemically based farming has.

I will give an example:

When do you spray for mildew and how much do you spray depending on mildew =
pressure? This is a question that has been answered by the chemical indust=
ry. A computer program exists that analyzes weather, air mositure, ground =
moisture and three or four other factors to provide a profile for a vinyard=
 or ornamental grower a systematic, controlled program to combat mildew. T=
his program costs a lot of $$ and it works 100% of the time. Growers who u=
se this program say that it costs almost nothing once it is up an running a=
nd pays for itself in one year. (This of course depends on the market and f=
arm management and a host of other things. It's a generalized statement.) =
  But I have found not one person out of the many I have talked with that h=
as a bad thing to say about this program. The ones who can't afford it whe=
edle the information from adjacent farm managers if they can. You see, if =
one farm gets infected and doesn't cure the problem, it makes controlling i=
s on an adjacent farm far more difficult.

CT isn't so certain. If the program says spray sulfur now and the growers s=
prays CT instead, the grower will have to monitor his fields every day and =
respray a lot of CT to ensure the leaves have enough biology to outcompete =
the mildew. If he gets an outbreak, what does he do then? And local outbr=
eaks will occur. The CT can be working perfectly but the person spraying m=
ay decide to move faster and get less coverage. A nozzle may get clogged. =
They may forget to spray. The sprayer could have residue fungicide that ki=
lls off a lot of the biology of the tea, the plants get coverage but the mi=
ldew gets hold anyway. And there are a bunch of other pests that attack pl=
ants that there is absolutely no data or anecdotal stories of CT doing anyt=
hing. So we have a very long way to go to develop the certainty we need. =
 

So what does CT do? What can we do to promote it without overselling? I w=
ould ask one question: Would you be willing to reimburse a person who follo=
wed your advice or hired you to solve a problem based on what you state abo=
ut CT if it failed? Before you state what CT can do, put yourself in that =
position. If someone stated that they had mildew on their roses would you =
advise CT instead of a chemical or organic fungicide? If someone wanted to=
 plant new seedlings would you promote CT over compost or mulch? Have you =
really figured out where CT fits into a large scale farm program? Does it =
fit in every case? Are you willing to take soil tests and actually find out=
 what the little numbers under the letters represent? Do you know how to r=
ead and interpret basic ag reports? Do you even know the kinds of reports =
and testing and sampling done? What about the old farmer who does everythi=
ng by feel: He can feel and smell the ground and knows when there are probl=
ems. He knows his crops and can walk through his fields and sample his stu=
ff and know whether he is going to have a good or bad year. How do you tel=
l this guy that CT will solve any problem he may have? Do you feel qualifi=
ed to do so? What would you be willing to do if it failed?

I have read lots of statements on this list. I have done lots of experimen=
ts, written reports, gotten contracts and used tea in a bunch of innovative=
 ways but I still can't make a definitive statement that it will work every=
 time. I think it will based on tests but I am not certain. I have proven t=
hat CT can revitalize turf and save water. Will it work every time? I sti=
ll don't know. It should but I don't have absolute data that shows that it =
work every time. I do know that I can significantly reduce fertilzer input,=
 control stream pollution because fertilizer runoff is less, extend turf ro=
ot growth and mass and create a turf area that uses little or now extra inp=
uts to stay healthy. But I am in the process of replicating that and I sti=
ll can't say it will work every time. Also, it takes more man hours to get=
 a turf area converted. So in the long run, the fertilizer savings may be =
eaten by the man hour expenses and the whole thing could be unfeasible from=
 a management point of view. There are still unknowns. I have shown that =
CT can control the growth of pathogens in composted sludge. Will it work e=
very time? I think so but don't have a data stream that will prove that. I=
 have three other contracts now based on the first work done and the testin=
g looks promising.

There has been a lot said about snail/slug control. I read all the emails =
and have conducted experiments. Lots of experiments with snails. I haven'=
t found snail control one single time. Not once. In fact, tea that the pl=
ants like seems to be tea the snails like. I read that some people have ef=
fectively controlled snails and slugs. So should I state that CT can contro=
l snails/slugs based on what I have read here? What should I be willing to=
 do if someone sprays CT and their garden gets eaten? What if I recommend =
that someone call or contact one of the people touting snail/slug control a=
nd it doesn't work? Am I ethically responsible when I cannot replicate the=
 control myself? Should I reimburse them for the food? What if they are ma=
king a living off of their produce? Should I be responsible for their loss=
 of income if the snails so damage their crop that they are impacted financ=
ially?

So where CT is right now is still foggy. We know it can do certain things =
but there's a lot we don't know. Steve Diver probably knows as much as any=
body and you never see any grandiose statements from him. Tom Jazewski man=
ages a multi-million dollar resort and you don't see grandiose statements f=
rom him. There are others too who don't post and who use tea regularly and=
 as part of their programs. Lawnjockeynick up in Seattle has made a fantas=
tic business using CT. He has designed all kind of equipment and is actual=
ly "doing" the work and being successful. Yet, you never hear grandiose st=
atements from him about all the wonderful things he can do with tea. He is=
 actually making a profit implementing the technology.

So on this last day of the year, I would hope that this post gives readers =
some things to ponder. I think CT can be a valuable part of any program bu=
t I don't think it is Erlich's Magic Bullet. There was a good movie about =
a couple of guys who get mistaken as gay pagent producers in a small town. =
 The town sheriff turns out to be a closet gay and comes on to one of the g=
uys. The guy rebuffs him because he is actually straight. The sheriff's l=
ine was "Well, that's what life is all about: findin' out. Right?" That's =
kind of what we are doing here with CT. Findin' out.

Happy New Year To All,

Ted Peterson
Earth-Wise/Spirit of the Earth
www.earth-wise.com
ted.peterson_at_earth-wise.com
ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net
(805) 534-9605








Received on Sat Jan 01 2005 - 00:14:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:41 EST