[compost_tea] Baseball

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:15:45 -0800

Folks:

I coach baseball. I love the game and love the kids who play baseball. To=
 me it's the best game ever invented and if anyone is interested, I can wax=
 poetic on why I think so. But there is an interesting thing I observe whe=
n coaching and working with other coaches. I see this especially with dads=
 who have hyper expectations for their kids.

Let's say a kid is working on throwing. There are certain mechanics to thr=
owing and another set for pitching. So the coach tells the kid, "Do it thi=
s way." And the kid tries. As the kid tries successive times, the coach c=
omments on every throw: "Do it this way. Do it that way. Lean more. Lean le=
ss." This goes on and on until the kid is so frustrated that he/she doesn'=
t want to throw any more. The coach has taken something that is supposed t=
o be fun and turned it into a chore. Kids hate chores just like adults hat=
e chores.

The point I am making here is that when you give a person a set of instruct=
ions, you must also give them time to work with the instructions, integrate=
 them into what he/she already knows and makes a few mistakes. Rare is the=
 person who can here the instruction once and duplicate it exactly. The id=
ea would be to get the instruction to be so integrted that the person doesn=
't have to go through the mental steps to achieve the end result. This tak=
es practice and time. It takes a lot of practice.

On this list, I have seen too much of the type of coaching that more resemb=
les the "comment on every move" type of instruction as opposed to the "give=
 the instruction and allow the person to integrate this into his/her plans =
BEFORE you give them further instruction.

Not everything has to be good or bad or a better way. Sometimes a set of in=
structions has to be worked with for a while before the whole process is un=
derstood. Now, I personally would like to see everyone successfully brew t=
ea and use it to help reitalize soil and limit fertilizer and pesticide use=
. This means attracting people to the process rather than making it so con=
voluted that if becomes a daunting task even before anything is tried.

You know, if a person is using a proven or even a standard recipe, they don=
't need to test their tea. Adding testing into every set of instructions d=
rives people away from the process rather than piquing their interest. I'm=
 not against testing. I just don't think it is needed in every case for ev=
ery batch of tea. I recommend that my clients test the soil and plants but=
 seldom do I suggest that they first test the tea. I do suggest that if th=
ey don't get soil results or see plant assay results that they test but not=
 right off.

If I am selling a product to an end user and part of that product includes =
recipes for tea production, I NEVER tell them that they need to test the te=
a from the recipes I give them. NEVER. If they want some testing, I first=
 tell them that I will do a microscopic analysis and if they want more, sen=
d them to SFI or BCC. This way I avoid statements like: "You mean I have t=
o pay for a test every time I brew this stuff?"

If I was selling testing and owned a lab, I would probably say: "Of course.=
" But I don't. I am offering solutions based on prevention for the most p=
art and nothing in that includes massive amounts of tea testing. See, to m=
e, testing every batch when using a proven recipe is kind of like the coach=
 who has to instruct the kid after every throw. Sometimes kids just have t=
o throw and see what happens without constant comment.

Ted Peterson
SOE






Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 23:15:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST