Development and Harvest Yields of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Six Orgnaic Growing Systems

[Carl Carlson]

Organic Fertilizers and Soilless Media Show Promise

Douglas Cox
Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst

This study is of interest for two reasons. The substrates used were Fafard 3B, Fafard 30 and Sunshine Organic. The nutrients used were Plantex, Neptune's Harvest Organic Fish and alfalfa pellets.

That was published in August of 2009.

 

[secondtry]

Nice find Carl, thanks.

A quick note while I'm still reading it, Neptunes Harvest is hydrolyzed fish, not fish emulsion; I have used that brand for years, great stuff IMO, but it does have P.acid to drop pH below about 3.3 to stabilize. I have spoken with the owner about this hydrolysis method with enzymes and he makes a good products if what he says is true and hes a really nice guy. Maybe the researchers ordered non-retail fish emulsion from Neptune's Harvest (tho I'm not aware of fish emulsion they sell).

Neptune's Harvest fish fertilizer: http://www.neptunesharvest.com/fishdetails.asp

OK, I'm back to reading, thanks.

 

[secondtry]

Hmmm,

Wait, that study seems to contradict itself, I thought they were using hydrolyzed from this quote: "Liquid fish fertilizer has a very low NPK analysis (2-4-1)"

But then I read this quote: "Neptune’s Harvest Organic Fish (emulsion) Fertilizer 3-1-5 (2.2 fl. oz./gal.)"; however I don't think that is a retail product.


Slightly confused...

 

[secondtry]

Good read, thanks.

It's good to see Sunshine Organic mix fared the least well considering I'm about to make something like FOF 70 and also use FOF 30. Tween80 is a decent surfactant, as is light amounts of yucca extract. I wish the researchers carried out microbiological assays (like plate counts as MM wrote about) and more qualifications, but still a good study.

 

[secondtry]

Neptune's Harvest Fish Fertilizer (hydrolyzed not emulsified):

 

[Carl Carlson]

http://www.agriorganics.com/soldagry.php

check out that company

 

[secondtry]

Hey Carl,

Do you mean for the Nitrosyme? I don't really like Nitrozyme for anything but foliar spray, and even then I would prefer to use a different kelp extract (Nitrozyme messes with auxin levels), I really like kelpak as foliar and to apply to media, lots of studies using kelpak are available, it's the cellular fluid (attained via. cell rupturing) of a special special of kelp from S.Africa which is naturally high in PGRs, and kelpak offers some K, etc.

I looked at the other products carried by that site but the fish product looks like fish meal. It's best to use hydrolyzed fish for the oils, proteins and other substances lost during heating to emulsion or when turning into meal.

For hydrolyzed fish I use Neptune's Harvest and for kelp I use kelpak, but when I want higher levels of cytokinins (than those found in kelpak) I use either the kelp product from Neptune's Harvest or Alg-a-Mic from GH.

Thanks

 

[secondtry]

Oh yea,

That company sells Willard Water so now it's impossible for me to take the them seriously

 

[mad librettist]

would fermented shrimp paste offer the same benefit as hydrolysed fish? I'm looking for alternatives that don't give me hives.

 

[secondtry]

I have no idea sorry.

 

[secondtry]

More info on the Fafard mixes, just got this from a PDF produced by Fafard:


General Purpose Mixes for Greenhouse-grown plants in containers or hanging baskets -

Fafard Organic Formulation #30:​

• Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss (55%)
• Aged Pine Bark
• Perlite
• Vermiculite (?)
• Dolomitic limestone
• Gypsum
• Perdue-AgriRecycle MicroStart60 (3-2-3)

Outdoor-grown plants in containers or bags, nursery crops and long-term crops -

Fafard Organic Formulation #70:​

• Aged Pine Bark (70%)
• Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss
• Dolomitic limestone
• Gypsum
• Perdue-AgriRecycle MicroStart60 (3-2-3)

 

[secondtry]

FWIW:

Flushing of media with plane water (before adding zeolite, etc) will flush away most water soluble fertilizers (bioavailable ions) from the MicroStart60. The same was suggested to me by Fafard scientists. The problem being at that point the media is wet. For my tests with FOF 30 I will not flush the starter fertilizers away.

 

[Microbeman]

Hey MM,



No worries about the media sample, I assumed I was going to have to take a media sample but I was hoping to avoid that with some type of mathematical model like the kinds used when enumerating by direction observation.


A few papers I have handy are below are about plate counts, I find more on-topic papers by using the search terms on Google scholar (with quotes) "direct enumeration" + soil; and "direct enumeration" + bacteria; and I also use (without quotes) "direct enumeration" + soil; and "direct enumeration" + bacteria; etc. I also use the topic I am interested like (with quotes) "direct microscopic enumeration" + soil + compost; or "direct enumeration" + soil + no-till, etc.

Have you read much about using mesofauna (nematodes) to model the rest of the (down stream) soil food web? Neat stuff for sure and it's current too. I can post references and full text if you'd like, I have been saving them for you in case you wanted to read them.

Julia Foght and Jackie Aislabie. 2005.

Enumeration of Soil Microorganisms
Soil Biology. Monitoring and Assessing Soil Bioremediation. Volume 5, pp. 261-280. 10.1007/3-540-28904-6. 2005.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3r8350574527406/
​

J. P. Taylora, B. Wilsona, M. S. Millsb and R. G. Burns. 2002.

Comparison of microbial numbers and enzymatic activities in surface soils and subsoils using various techniques
Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Volume 34, Issue 3, March 2002, Pages 387-401. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00199-7
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0038071701001997
​

L. M. Polyanskaya, M. Kh. Orazova1, A. Burkanova1 and D. G. Zvyagintsev. 2000.

Microsampling of rhizosphere soil and laboratory artifacts
Microbiology. Volume 69, Number 4 / July, 2000. pp. 486-489. 10.1007/BF02756775
​

W Yu, WK Dodds, MK Banks, J Skalsky and EA Strauss. 1995

Optimal Staining and Sample Storage Time for Direct Microscopic Enumeration of Total and Active Bacteria in Soil with Two Fluorescent Dyes
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Sep 1995, 3367-3372, Vol 61, No. 9. 1995, American Society for Microbiology
​

HTH

I did not wish to pay for these papers. The first did not seem to have even an available abstract. The second included plate enumeration (and some direct count I think) of bacteria and fungi but not a mention of protozoa or any other organism. This falls into the limited scope type of study which I was referring to. There are researchers like Bonkowski (sp?), Clareholm, Griffiths, Coleman (an American who actually answered my questions about average mass estimates for bacteria & fungi used by 'some' labs) and Foissner (somewhat ciliate fixated) who look at the whole realm of organisms working together. What really should be done, as you have proposed, is samples should be taken at different periods of a plant's growth and direct observation enumeration [bacteria/archaea, flagellates, naked amoebae, testate amoebae, ciliates, fungi, nematodes...] recorded of microbial activity [there are probably more refined methods than mine for garnering rhizosphere samples] followed by plate culture and DNA/molecular testing if species is of interest.

A good example of this type of failure in university/USDA studies are the ones which were conducted to establish that e-coli can grow in aerated compost tea (ACT). The ones I read completely excluded the role of protozoa in this. [nevermind that they inoculated the ACT with e-coli]

Edit: It appears the first references a manual for soil analysis and not a study.

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

I was not trying to imply those papers count the different types of microbes comprising a soil food web; I was merely showing that direction microscopic enumeration is not unheard of, tho not carried out the same as you do, nor how I will do it (following your DVDs). None of the papers were intended to be an example of a study to showing a result, just that plate counts are not wholly uncommon, tho not common enough, especially of the whole soil food web. That is why I want to start using whole SFW type plate counts along with microbial respiration, etc; these be done at home for cheap (the former needs a microscope of course).

I think a reason for the lack of whole soil food web plate counting is that some researches believe it is too fine grained thus they use soil respiration, mineralization, etc, as a means of quantitation, not plate counts. I assume a reason they do not use whole SFW plate counts is because we know so little of what is going on (from a whole SFW point of view) they think the assumption that we need benchmark levels of microbe type X, Y and Z of may not be well founded, after all, there is relativity little proven scientific theory in regard to growing plants with plate counts as you, Dr. Ingham, etc suggest. (I am not saying your are wrong, far from it, I am just saying I know of little scientific evidence of what you and Dr. Ingham suggest)

Do you have titles of papers I could read by those authors?

All the best

 

[Microbeman]

I am a little confused. If anyone is discussing the SFW in a study, unless limited to nutrient fixing bacteria or AM, etc. IMO it is essential to take the full realm of microbial players into consideration. Just a point of possible correction. Generally I do not recommend {nor do I employ} plate culturing except for identification. As far as I know Elaine does not either except for her protozoa plates. The microbial nutrient cycle is very well founded so don't know what you mean there. I provided citations on my webpage after my little monologue on the subject. I'll email you some papers.

 

[Microbeman]

(I am not saying your are wrong, far from it, I am just saying I know of little scientific evidence of what you and Dr. Ingham suggest)

I'm unsure what aspect you mean exactly here but if you mean the soil food web or microbial nutrient loop, this was being researched and discussed in Europe far before Elaine or I.

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

I am a little confused. If anyone is discussing the SFW in a study, unless limited to nutrient fixing bacteria or AM, etc. IMO it is essential to take the full realm of microbial players into consideration.

AFIAK that is why most researchers seem to use and suggest soil respiration as a means of soil food web qualification and quantitation (as activity, etc) as it's supposedly preferred over direct enumeration because enumeration only tells one how much/ratios of organisms, not what they are doing in the media. The former (soil respiration) tells one the level of activity of microbes, not what type of microbes, but that's kind of the point because so little is known about microbial interactions of soil food web organisms. AFAIK some researchers consider the distinctions and benchmarks (and ratios) of whole soil food web assays by direct enumeration to be pretty much unproven. I would love to read some researcher in this area, I have found very little so far and I could be missing something.


I however think we need both assays: 1) your suggestion of direct microscopic enumeration of whole soil food web; and 2) soil respiration. Together they tell a more complete story than either alone. I don't consider a study on microbiological horticulture to be complete without both assays; it's like when measuring a HID lamp, we need the irridiance measurements (e.g., soil respiration) and spectral output (e.g., direct enumeration of soil food web micro/organisms ratios).

Just a point of possible correction. Generally I do not recommend {nor do I employ} plate culturing except for identification. As far as I know Elaine does not either except for her protozoa plates.

I didn't mean to claim you or Elaine do plate cultures. When I wrote "plate counts" I am referring to immediate direct enumeration on a slide, I could have used a better term I guess, it does seem like I misused it considering your interpretation of the term (which seems more correct than mine). I see no reason to do plate cultures unless trying to identify specific microbes.

The microbial nutrient cycle is very well founded so don't know what you mean there. I provided citations on my webpage after my little monologue on the subject. I'll email you some papers.

What I mean is the ratios of soil food web micro/organisms cited as benchmarks for 'good' compost and ACT are (to my knowledge) unproven and some researchers seem to think the figures are a bit arbitrary. I assume the original data used to form the benchmarks came from healthy soil, but I am not sure, do you know? That may be why few researchers use whole SFW direct microscopic enumeration (DME): finding data is one thing, but how to apply it I think is the problem because there is little proven scientific theory about what is 'correct' in terms of numbers and ratios of SFW micro/organisms.

I will look for the email, I really would like to read what I can about this and I have had a hard time finding on topic material.

All the best

 

[Microbeman]

Here is a review of interest with lots of citations

 

[Microbeman]

I do not hypothesize on the ratios presented by Elaine/SFI and never have. Just so you know.

I have no real comprehension of where SFI base figures come from and the fact that they use average mass figures for broad spectrum fungi and bacteria species is a pretty major factor which I question.

 

[Microbeman]

Ya. Plate count means just that; plating out.