permaculture

[venaurafarm <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [compost_tea] Re: Standards
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
From:   soilfoodweb@aol.com
To:     compost_tea@yahoogroups.com


Standards would be a good thing.  Part of the problem stems from the
fact that agricultural programs at Universities ignore the proper
definition of compost.

It appears that a certain set of soil scientists, agricultural and
horticultural professors and researchers in academic and US government
institutions do not understand that a sign on a pile of organic matter
that says "compost", does not in fact make it compost.  Or they pretend
they don't know and thus do "research" without ever assessing and
defining compost so they can make claims that "compost doesn't work".

Based on work by Howard and Balfor, compost has to be aerobic to
maintain the conditions that allow the beneficial organisms to be
predominant.

If the "compost" is black, stinky, with white ashy layers of
actinobacteria abounding, if oomycetes the only filamentous eucaryotes
present, and no aerobic protozoa or nematodes exist in the material,
then it is not compost.

If the material is 70% cocoa color, rich earthy, old-growth forest
smell, wide diameter, colored filamentous fungi present, good numbers of
flagellates and amoebae (aerobic protozoa) and beneficial
nematodespresent, then it can be called compost.

To make good compost extract or tea requires good compost with the
beneficial organisms in high numbers or biomass.  If extract or tea
become anaeorbic, then soluble essential nutrients are lost as gases,
and the aerobic beneficial organisms are no longer active and
functioning...... and so pretty much a waste of time to apply to the soil.

How do we work on getting standards requiring assessment of beneficial
organisms for a material to be called compost accepted?  To do that
research was why I went to Rodale Institute 2.5 years ago, but since it
was not possible to implement the research I went there to do, I'm back
in Oregon, hoping to work with people more committed to getting the
replicated trials done.  There are thousands of examples where the
approach of returning the beneficial organisms to the soil works
extremely well; where dirt was converted into soil, where weed seeds
find it difficult to germinate and grow, where diseases and pests do not
find conditions conducive to their growth, where roots go deep into the
soil and find the water and nutrients, supplied by the aerobic food web,
to keep the plants healthy and full of nutrition for animals and people
to eat.

Thousands of examples.

But, not the replicated, scientific studies that are needed to bring
about the conversion of the last bastion of nay-sayers; i.e.,
researchers and academics still in the pocket of chemical and biotech
big business concerns.   When looking at the scientific literature, half
of the papers written in the last couple years extoll the benefits and
success of compost, extracts and teas.  But half the papers preach the
opposite: compost, extracts and teas are deadly, kill the plants, cause
problems. Because the researchers doing the negative work do not start
with compost.  Those negative reports have no criteria to define the
"compost" they used, other than someone put a sign in the pile saying
compost.

Manure is ...... manure and not to be confused with compost.  Composted
manure means nothing other than the manure hung around for sometime in a
pile.  Manure can be turned into compost, if the correct temperatures,
moisture, aerobic conditions, and decomposition processes occur.  Any
organic matter can be turned into great compost, if the decomposition
process is properly performed.

I have trained many people to do the qualitative microscope work, have
trained people who run the laboratories that do fully scienitifically
accepted assessments of quantitative microscope work.  Hopefully, all of
these folks have been training other folks to the microscope work so
each person can monitor for themself what happens in their soil,
compost, extracts, and teas.

At this point, I'd like to put together a consulting group where people
doing this work can come together.  Possibly put together a database
where each person doing microscope work submits their data, with a full
explanation of what disturbances happened to that area previously.  I'd
like to see a database of what is around roots of different plants in
different places, soils, weather conditions, management practices.  But
a database that can be seen by everyone submitting data to the
database.  Or where people who want to see the database do a
pay-per-view.  We someone how have to support the people inputting data
to the database and keeping it running.

It is going to take me a little bit to get this put together, if it is
is interest to other folks.  Maybe it has been started by others already
in some places.  If so, can we join forces?

Just some thoughts I've been trying to get started over the last couple
years without the time or backing to get them underway.  Now seems a
good time to canvass the community and see what responses to these ideas
might be.


Elaine R. Ingham
Consultant, Soil Life