Why we should be careful (was Re: [compost_tea] tea for pasture

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:34:05 -0800

Folks:

I was asked once whether a program using CT I was involved in would work. =
After all, there were no precedence and it was a completely new - as far as=
 we were concerned - approach. I pointed out that the program could not fa=
il. It couldn't fail because an area that had been neglected, for the most=
 part, was now being scrutinized. In other words, the object at hand was b=
eing attended to on a daily basis when it had been attended to on a monthly=
 basis at best. I have found this consistently with every project I have be=
en involved with. Involvement improves the situation.

I don't care what the project actually is. A basic rule is: the more atten=
tion you pay to something, the better that thing actually is. The thing yo=
u are paying attention to changes and if you are trying to get it to change=
 for the better, it usually will regardless of how you go about doing it. =
 

When I am working on programs and projects, I always factor this in. I try=
 to take two or three different areas within the project scope and leave on=
e or more things out. This is kind of like a scientific control but not as=
 rigorous. If I am using CT along with compost, I make an area where there=
 is no compost and tea and an area where there is no tea and compost, etc. =
 I try to make sure that water is consistent, if this is a factor and also =
factor in soil analysis and plant assay before and after my project.

It is very sexy to attribute a lot of improvement to CT when in fact, it ma=
y be that simple attention on the same level may be the important factor. =
 

Some years ago, lots of high-school students did class science experiments =
based on plants and music.
Some were played rock music and some classical and some were played no musi=
c at all. The common knowledge belief is that the rock music killed the pl=
ants and the ones where classical music was played thrived. This, of cours=
e, was proven to be completely bogus. Plants like music or sound of any ki=
nd and it appears that volume is a more important factor than genre or type=
 of sound. I will not go into the whole of the experiments but suffice it =
to say that almost all of them proved what the people doing the experiments=
 wanted to prove. The interesteing thing is that the plants being observed =
did better because someone was interacting with them daily. The plants wit=
h no music showed less change because nobody paid as much attention to them=
. So was it the music or the attention?

We face a similar situation with CT. Lots of anecdotal evidence exists tha=
t CT improves growth even on secondary and tertiary levels. In Betsy's exp=
eriment, the grass did better and the cows eating the grass gained in essen=
tial nutrients and weight. What we don't have is a situation where there w=
as no interaction. It appears that Betsy or someone was observing all the =
time which is an interaction.

What does this mean? Well consider that if you are observing, you are more=
 likely to play with elements involved in the process. You may add more wat=
er to the trough. You may water the grasses differently. You may, by simp=
ly making your presence available and observable to the cattle, make them h=
appier. Animals like interaction and seem to do better when benevolent int=
eraction is a common thing. Animals like to be touched and they feel comfo=
rtable with people around for the most part.

So when looking at data like the report in the link, keep in mind that ther=
e may be a completely different explanation that could potentially give the=
 same results. Yes, the cattle gained when they were observed and interact=
ed with more often. When they were left to their own resources and the inte=
raction lessened, they lost on all levels.

I'm not suggesting CT did nothing but that what it did has to be viewed wit=
hin the context of everything that happened rather than just one thing that=
 is selected to prove a point.

We should be more than careful when reporting results and I have found that=
 the possibility of simple human interaction may be as important as anythin=
g else as an indicator of success.

Ted Peterson
SOE






Received on Sun Feb 13 2005 - 15:53:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:46 EST