On 10 Sep 2003 12:04:40 -0700, (Fleemo) wrote:

I just want to know if I'm wasting my time in
preparing a batch of the brown liquid if my primary goal is to feed my
plants.

A letter posted today on yahoo groups compost-tea.

Compost tea has been around a LONG time. Since the Roman Empire, to
the best of anyone's knowledge. Just like aspirin, or honey for a
sore throat, biodynamic preps. the science behind using these
practices was lacking. Scientific studies were not performed with
these materials, because of the weight of tradition behind them.

Aspirin began to be studied just a few years ago, and it was clear
that effectiveness could be improved by understanding why aspirin
works. Different formulations work better for different kinds of
pains.

Compost tea is like aspirin for your soil and plants. Does it need
scientific study? Sure. That's what IS HAPPENING with compost tea.
We're getting around to studying it. But to declare that compost tea
has no benefit because someone tried it on their bushes, or did a
study where they used something that probably wasn't compost tea is a
bad case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There's some
bath water that needs to be exited (maybe snake-oil would be another
term), but there's a core of solid knowledge developing about compost
tea.

Compost tea can work, amazingly well, but just like aspirin, some
traditional formulations leave a lot to be desired. Throwing compost
into water and leaving it to ferment can result in dead plants, or can
result in vibrant, healthy plant.

Inconsistency in results is what has probably prevented compost tea
from gaining widespread acceptance. I've killed a few plants with
stinky, smelly compost tea. That's why I know at least some of what
not to do.

Don't leave compost tea in a container until it starts to smell bad.
Just because it smells bad doesn't always mean that bad things will
happen. Sometimes there is no effect. Sometimes, the brew has enough
competitive organisms in it to out-compete the disease on your plant
and give positive results. BUT, any time harm has been observed, the
tea has been stinky and smelly.

So, how do you make a tea that is consistently beneficial?

Aerate the tea during production, and the danger is removed. If we
control the brewing conditions, then much more consistent teas are
produced.

When someone assumes that non-aerated tea will automatically be
anaerobic, they reveal that they don't know much about the entire
business.

How do you know for certain something is aerobic? A real scientist
would use an oxygen probe to measure oxygen concentration. Data are
required to make a statement about aerobic - anaerobic conditions in
tea. Non-aerated teas can still be aerobic.

If you are a non-scientist, smells are a reasonable way to assess
anaerobic conditions. If the brew stinks, or smells bad, there's a
real possibility that some very bad things will happen to your plants.
Putting bad smelling, anaerobic tea into your soil may not cause the
soil to go anaerobic, but it will certainly help move it that way.
Anaerobic liquids may kill or put-to-sleep the beneficial organisms in
soil that make soil aggregates. That means compaction will be more
likely in the future, and your soil will be even less of a good place
to grow your plants if it gets more compacted.

Do we need to test each batch of tea? Not if the data are there to
show us that a machine can maintain aeration and mixing to produce
good tea. You have to follow directions about temperature, water
quality, added foods in the brewer, and compost quality. But if the
tea machine maker has done the testing and can show the data about
bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes in the tea brewer, and you
follow their directions, then the tea you make should be fine. Maybe
testing the first two or three batches to prove to yourself that you
are doing fine would be a good idea.

Why is there so little published on actively aerated compost tea?
Because the machines to make consistent compost tea were only invented
within the last five years. And the first people to make such a
machine did not do adequate testing on exactly what that machine was
able to do, or why it worked so well.

So, we're working on the science. But just because there are some
snake-oil sales-people out there doesn't mean you throw the whole
industry out the door. What is needed is education on which machines
give tea that works every time, and which machines are snake-oil
purveyors.

The International Compost Tea Council (www.intlctc.com) is working on
testing all the kinds of tea-makers on the market. They have a good
explanation of what is good tea, and why it is good tea on their
website.

Soil Foodweb Inc (www.soilfoodweb.com) has compared different tea
machines on the market. Our findings showed serious differences
between different tea machines in their ability to extract and grow
the organisms from the compost. The biggest split was between
machines that often become anaerobic during the tea brewing cycle,
such as the Soil Soup machines, and the Growing Solutions machines.
These two machines CAN make aerobic teas, if you are careful to use
very low amounts of foods in the tea brew, but then you can't grow
decent levels of bacteria or fungi if the compost used is truly
mature. Fungi are never adequate in the Soil Soup machine, and only
occasionally adequate in the Growing Solutions machine.

All of our agricultural and urban or suburban soils are typically low
in fungi. Humans till and disturb soil, and that tillage knocks the
fungi for a real loop. So, it is critical to get fungi back into the
soil, and get the disease protection needed back on the roots, leaves,
stems, and blossoms of the plants.

Machines like the KIS brewers (www.simplici-tea.com), the EPM brewers
(www.composttea.com), the WormGold brewers (www.wormgold.com), and the
Bob-O-Later brewers (check the yahoo groups.com compost tea list
serve, for their info) make excellent tea,
with all the organisms in the compost extracted into the tea. They
have data on their websites, they have demonstration areas they can
send you to show where the tea is working (the best demos are in
Idaho, on potato land, but the daylilies, people's lawns and gardens
and even golf courses can be seen as well).

Now, if soil is already healthy, and toxic chemicals are not needed to
maintain the system, what does that tell you? That the biology needed
is in your system already. More good won't hurt, but it won't improve
things. But you don't shut down an entire industry because one
person's yard is in good health.

That's like saying that because I'm healthy right now, the whole
antibiotic industry is pointless and antibiotics should be banned.
What about when you get sick? What about when there is a disease
outbreak? You are going to need the antibiotic.

When people do have plants that are not healthy, they need an approach
that will bring back the healthy condition.

Same thing with human health. We need a medical system that pushes
health, instead of antibiotics. Oh, you don't get rid of the
antibiotics, because people will get into situations where there is no
other solution, but you don't use the "nuke-em" approaches unless
absolutely necessary. Same with compost tea. There will be
conditions where the disease is so bad, that the tea can't keep up.
So use the toxic chemical and then get tea back out there so you don't
have to keep using the nuke-em.

But there is more work needed to learn exactly what conditions result
in the best compost tea. That work is on-going. Keep checking the
ICTC website, the SFI website for more information.

Compost has the benefits it does because of the organisms and the
foods to feed those organisms in the compost. The organisms interact.
Logic is lacking when someone suggests that compost tea is a problem
because we "have to now worry about the microbes interacting" (quote
from the B&B article that appeared in August).

There's no logic in claiming "there's a potential for variability" in
compost tea without also applying that same criticism to compost. In
fact, the most variable thing in compost tea is the compost. If
someone wants to claim "some people do testing that is inconclusive",
that just says there's a problem with your sampling, not that every
tea ever made is worthless. As if the same criticism couldn't be
applied to soil, or compost, or chicken soup.

Compost leachates should not be confused with compost tea. A leachate
is an extraction of soluble materials. Tea requires the physical
removal of the whole diversity of organisms from the compost, which
cannot be achieved by passive movement of water through the compost.
Tea is also brewed, so the organisms have time to grow, reproduce, and
increase in numbers. No one who knows anything about compost tea
would call a liquid a leachate in one sentence and call the same
material a compost tea in the next sentence. Cedar Grove produces a
compost leachate, not a compost tea. Someone in city government
should push the issue with them, because Cedar Grove is
mis-representing what they are selling.

Maintaining an understanding of the difference between leaching and
leachates is also important. In properly made compost, the inorganic
forms of nitrogen (N) should be at barely detectable levels. The
inorganic forms of N are the most leachable kinds of N, which is why
compost usually gets a bad rap as a fertilizer - low to no inorganic
N, S, or P. But plenty of N is present in any decent compost, but
present as bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods, and
perhaps worms. Biology is not leachable; the organisms have to be
attached to their food, or they don't stay active. So organisms hold
on very well indeed.

Leachates DO NOT contain significant biology because microbes don't
wash off compost or leaf surfaces with a mere rinse or wash.
Leachates contain soluble materials from the soil, compost, mulch,
potting mixes, or whatever. Data exist to show that compost teas
contain measurable amounts of nutrients, but not in a leachable form.
You want proof? Send in a good, aerobic compost tea to a chemistry
lab. They can show you that the N in compost tea does not exist in
the inorganic forms. But look at the biology. That's where the N is
located.

Now, leave a compost leachate in a vat for awhile and what Dr.
Chalker-Scott was worried about could be true. Putrefying organic
matter does not contain the biology needed to hold the nutrients in
place. Without the right biology, leachable forms of N, P, or S do
not get converted to non-leachable forms.

How do nutrients get moved out of the bacteria and fungi and back into
a plant-available form? This requires predators of bacteria and
fungi, but in the right amounts and in the right places. The plant
should control this interaction, and it does in healthy soil. But
when the soil lacks predators, then nutrient cycling cannot occur.

Compost and compost tea contain all these organisms, in greater
concentration and diversity than soil. They are both inocula of the
organisms. If the habitat is right, organisms grow and thus spread
through your soil.

Compost tea contains the soluble nutrients found in compost, but lacks
the solids that occur in tea. So, is it better to use compost or
compost tea? Compost will have a benefit for years, while compost
tea, no matter how high in biology and soluble foods, has a limited
ability for maintaining organism activity. But organisms grow, and as
a source of the diversity of organisms needed to get back in your
soil, both compost and compost tea are terrific. Compost tea is
easier to apply than compost, and can be used to deliver the organisms
to the foliage. So which is better? Depends on what you need.

Now, let's clear the air about the study that was done at UW in 2001.
Soil Foodweb Inc documented that the COMPOST contained a good set of
organisms - that is bacteria, fungi and protozoa. Sorry, the compost
wasn't outstanding, as there were no nematodes present. A Growing
Solutions Microb-Brewer machine was used, which IF PROPERLY CLEANED,
is capable of extracting good bacterial, fungal and protozoan biomass.
(But please note that Growing Solutions no longer makes
Microb-Brewers. They make a different machine now).

Note that the Dr. Chalker-Scott article tried to side-step around the
fact that the tea was never documented to be worth the time and effort
they were putting into it. Was the tea made properly? Did they clean
the machine properly? NO DATA about the TEA. What about their
sprayer? Did they ever test the leaf surfaces to see if they were
getting organisms on the leaves? Did they get proper coverage of the
leaf surfaces?

They did not document any of those things. When doing a study that is
purported to be scientific, the very least you have to do is show that
the treatment being applied is in fact what you say it is.

I visited the tea brewer that was being used for the UW study and
immediately pointed out that they had severe cleaning problems. The
insides and outsides of the brewer were streaked with bio-film, the
pipes had not been cleaned. The brewer smelled so bad that I could
not remain in the area. The excuse I received at the time was that
the person cleaning the brewer had been on vacation just before I
arrived. That's an excuse. If the person had been cleaning the
machine properly, they would have left it clean. More realistically,
the tea brewer had probably not been cleaned the entire summer.

When I was there, I pointed out that no effort had been made, despite
constant reminders, to make sure they were getting adequate organism
coverage on the leaf surfaces. They had no idea if the brown liquid
they were putting out was really tea. This is in contrast to numerous
clients of ours who have checked their first two or three tea brews
and learned that they need to do to make top-notch tea and get
excellent leaf coverage.

There were other possible problems, such as not applying the tea at
the correct rates. For example, on Jackson golf course, the FIRST tea
application was not made until after July 4. In the Pacific
Northwest, all those ugly fungal patches, take-all, molds, and
root-feeding grubs are well-established by mid-summer. To expect
compost tea to take care of all the fungicide that has been sprayed up
until then, much less all the diseases already well-established by
that point is just ludicrous. The compost tea organisms have to
establish BEFORE the "bad-guys".

During my second trip to talk with these people, at the end of the
season, when I was standing on a green riddled with horrible patches
of disease, it was revealed that when the head superintendent was away
on vacation, the person left in charge had decided to use chemicals on
the supposed "tea-greens". It was after that point that the tea had
failed. Hum, I wonder why?

So, is it fair to suspect that there was a hidden agenda operating
during this study?

At the beginning of the compost tea study in Seattle in 2001, I was
threatened with a lawsuit just for saying that I work with Jim Moore,
from Texas, who does consulting on golf courses, and has studies going
on USGA greens. When questioned whether Jim had a Ph.D., I said I
wasn't aware that Jim Moore had a Ph.D. But a golf course employee
called Dr. Moore and told him I had claimed that I worked closely with
him. Dr. Moore became so angry he threatened me with a lawsuit.

Guess what? There's more than one Jim Moore living in Texas and more
than one working on golf courses which have USGA greens. Actually,
the real Jim Moore told me that there were at least two more Jim
Moore's in Texas working on USGA golf courses. For anyone to jump
into lawsuit territory based on this "evidence" is beyond the bounds
of normal behavior. But I think it tells a significant story about
these studies on compost tea in 2001.

Compost tea has been around for a long time. The benefits have been
variable. We need to standardize the tea-making process, so we know
that each tea made is going to deliver the biology needed to improve
soil and cover leaf surfaces.

There will be snake-oil sales people who try to cash in on this
potential. There will be proponents of the old paradigm who fear what
change will bring. But you can see through their lack of logic pretty
easily.

Is more replicated, solid science required? Yes. But check out the
science that has been done on the information listed on the ATTRA
website. And in the book published by Soil Foodweb Inc.

If a scientist were really interested in doing a decent study on
compost tea, they would test the tea, and make sure the biology was
surviving in the soil and on the leaf surfaces. Just checking the
compost, before making the tea, is not adequate science.

As a consumer, how do you protect yourself? The snake oil salesmen
don't have any data to show their machines, or "compost", or "catalyst
packages" actually improve the biology in the brew. They don't have
studies that show that the biology in the tea improved the biology in
the soil. Those kinds of studies have been done by Soil Foodweb, and
are in the Compost Tea Brewing Manual, or will be published in
scientific journals. We have a SARE tea trial in vineyards in review
by a scientific journal currently.

And it is NOT just bacteria that must be present in the brew (beware
of the plate count methods that only give bacterial results!). Fungi,
protozoa and nematodes are also required in tea brews that will
improve your soil, and ultimately end up with systems that require
very little maintenance.

Neither pesticides nor compost tea are needed in healthy systems. But
we have to have healthy soils first.

Fungi have been killed by the constant fungicide applications to our
rose bushes, our cut flowers, our gardens, and ag fields. We need to
put the beneficial fungi, protozoa and nematodes back. If you add
back just bacteria, as two of the machines on the market are only able
to do, you cannot hope to get the full benefit.

So, the bottom line is that caution is required, but out-right
rejection is silly. Do some reading, check some websites, look at
some demos. Don't waste your money on things that only give you step
one in a twelve step program, and don't buy something from someone
giving you hype. Data should be asked for, and if they don't have any
data, walk away.

For more information, please contact the ICTC, or Soil Foodweb Inc.

Dr. Elaine R. Ingham is President of Soil Foodweb Inc, with labs in
Oregon and New York, Australia, New Zealand, Holland and Mexico. She
is graduate faculty at Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.