Microbes and microscope info
- Thread starter Zendo
- Start date
Dirt_McMaster
New member
Hey Zendo - Nice scope. I've got a Laborlux k that I use for work. Does your bulb flake out occasionally?
Last edited:
Zendo; I'm not totally sure from the photo but that appears to be a brightfield condenser with filter holder affixed to the bottom. It therefore means you probably do not have phase contrast capability.
Zendo
Member
DIRT- Not that I've noticed, but I've only been toying with it for a week or two now..
MM- that sucks, but...It is free, and it still works really well. I really look forward to viewing your DVD, and getting to know these little beasties.
What is the difference between having one and NOT having one..What will I miss?
MM- that sucks, but...It is free, and it still works really well. I really look forward to viewing your DVD, and getting to know these little beasties.
What is the difference between having one and NOT having one..What will I miss?
Phase contrast makes the microbes stand out in in greater contrast to their surroundings.
C
CT Guy
Many of these organisms have a refractive index very similar to water. The phase contrast helps them to stand out like MM said. Don't listen to others if they tell you that you'll miss things in phase vs brightfield or that there is a special shading "technique" in brightfield. MM's DVD will have examples in both so you can see the difference.
I like to start in a low magnification like 10-20x and look over the whole slide to see what sort of fungi/larger organisms I have present. Then, I like to go to a higher magnification to see in greater detail the fungi and active bacteria. MM always chastises me for going too fast, as it is easy to miss things when you rush.
You'll also get variance from slide to slide, remember you're only looking at 1 drop out of the bucket and your sampling technique will effect what you see as well (I like to pull out of the middle, with the brewer running). Look at 3-4 slides to get a good idea as to the quality of the tea.
Keep in mind that the examples of good compost tea that MM has on the DVD are not typical, I don't always get teas that have that much activity, but that's not to say they're not good teas. You'll get a feel for it over time. Those examples that he shows are well above range for standards set by SFI.
I like to start in a low magnification like 10-20x and look over the whole slide to see what sort of fungi/larger organisms I have present. Then, I like to go to a higher magnification to see in greater detail the fungi and active bacteria. MM always chastises me for going too fast, as it is easy to miss things when you rush.
You'll also get variance from slide to slide, remember you're only looking at 1 drop out of the bucket and your sampling technique will effect what you see as well (I like to pull out of the middle, with the brewer running). Look at 3-4 slides to get a good idea as to the quality of the tea.
Keep in mind that the examples of good compost tea that MM has on the DVD are not typical, I don't always get teas that have that much activity, but that's not to say they're not good teas. You'll get a feel for it over time. Those examples that he shows are well above range for standards set by SFI.
Cave Dweller
Member
What is it that you need to see in your compost tea? I mean microscopes and microbes are way cool but you don't need a microscope to know if you have a good tea. The more food you use the more microbes you get the more air you need. Seaweed, fish ferts, water, air and you will get an awesome bacteria tea. If you want to take advantage of the fungus your best results will come from filling your pots with the proper soil several months ahead of time, the less disturbed the better as far as fungus is concerned.
A rolling stone gathers no fungus.
CD
Trichgnomes
Member
I'm sure a lot of people are making great teas without a microscope (I hope I am, lol), but some people just prefer to be more scientific about it. Sure one can say that certain foods will make it more bacterial/fungal dominant, etc. But there are a lot of factors involved. Let's see,
length of brew
quality of compost/vermicast used (has it been tested for bacterial/fungal levels?)
water used
types of food substrates
compost/food ratio
DO levels
temperature
I'm likely missing a few. Maina wants a microscope because he/she wants to evaluate ACT from a scientific point of few (as do I). I had a conversation with a someone that is big into organic farming, has worked with remineralize the earth and such. He was like, "You don't need a microscope." I said, "I know I don't need one, but I want one, because from an objective POV, there is no way to tell the difference between high quality ACT and dirty water without one." ( I think that may be a line from CT Guy).
NPK growers base science as their claim of force feeding ionic nutes to plants. Let's not disagree about the value of science, but use it as a tool to move forward. Personally, I want to be taken seriously when it comes to growing from a microbial perspective utilizing soil food web techniques. The only scientific way of going about classifying a tea as Bacteria/Archaea dominant, Fungal dominant, Protozoa dominant, or well balanced, is with a microscope.
Pictures are a very powerful tool. We can talk about microbes til the cows come home, but bottom line, we cannot see them without a microscope.
Remember the picture that Jeff carries around in his wallet? The one that got him sober (off miracle grow)?
Seeing is believing for most people, and when someone from the NPK dogma, or someone that doesn't know anything about gardening at all, asks me why I put compost, molasses and/or fish hydrosolate and kelp meal in a bucket, aerate it for a day, then apply it to soil, I want to be able to explain it in a way that is understandable yet scientific.
Trichgnomes
Member
BTW, Maina, yes, that is Microbeman's MO with those scopes--to provide a low cost microscope to the small scale farmer/ gardener that will be able to asses compost and ACT.
I plan on getting the larger one soon, but the small one will do the job. I believe he specifies which pictures were taken with which scope on his site to give you a better idea.
As Trich has described quite well the small scope will enable one to see what microbes are present in tea, compost and soil.
The advantage to having a microscope when brewing an ACT is that you can see what microbes are emergent at what period of the brew. If you want a nutrient cycling brew you want to use it when there is a good ratio of bacteria/archaea and flagellates and/or naked amoebae (protozoa). If you want a fungal brew, well then of course you want to shut it off and use it when you can see the greatest amount of fungal hyphae. No matter what recipe you follow or what brewer you use, ACT will always be somewhat different in its timing for emergent microbes. I agree one can make good ACT without a microscope but to get optimum results a microscope is easily used. Besides its an awfull lot of fun!
The advantage to having a microscope when brewing an ACT is that you can see what microbes are emergent at what period of the brew. If you want a nutrient cycling brew you want to use it when there is a good ratio of bacteria/archaea and flagellates and/or naked amoebae (protozoa). If you want a fungal brew, well then of course you want to shut it off and use it when you can see the greatest amount of fungal hyphae. No matter what recipe you follow or what brewer you use, ACT will always be somewhat different in its timing for emergent microbes. I agree one can make good ACT without a microscope but to get optimum results a microscope is easily used. Besides its an awfull lot of fun!
C
CT Guy
I think a microscope is key. There really are no other evaluative methods to determine if you've made the tea properly, short of watching your plant's response. Foam, smell, color...none of these will give you sufficient information in regards to microbial activity.
I agree completely with that statement.
I would add that learning how to use a microscope is a real benefit. I'll get back to you when my friend and I figure this deal out. The last time I used a microscope was probably 1967 or 1968.
Not a real 'science guy' in those days what with all the distractions of living in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. Things like surfing, hanging out with large-breasted Bahama Mamas, smoking bunk pot, etc.
When we figure things out we'll be ordering MM's CD/DVD so we know what we're look at and what we should be looking for.
CC
Cave Dweller
Member
Exactly, you think it is key but what you really mean is you wish it were key and you wish that looking at a drop of water on a glass slide would allow you to properly evaluate a tea.
You almost got it right, there are NO methods and the plant response it all that matters anyway.
You people want to buy into their pseudoscience BS so you have an excuse to buy a microscope or brewer be my guest, can't save people from themselves.
CD
Trichgnomes
Member
This thread was started (Please correct me if I am wrong, OP), to obtain information about microscopes, not to be told why it is unnecessary to have one.
Maybe you posted this hastily before fully analyzing what you said, but I do not think it really has any value here. Did you read my post? Or MM's? On the contrary to your opinion microscopy is not in the least bit psuedoscience. I personally seek objectivity. Not that subjective viewpoints have no place, but it is much easier to discuss these matters when there is at least somewhat of a consensus on current scientific theory.
FWIW, I do not mean to offend, as we all have our flaws, and I have foolishly lashed at others for differing in opinion, IRL and on the forums. But I try my best not to. Also, I am a fan of categorization (As are the mods, it seems). So if you want to start a thread about why a microscope is unnecessary, we can have a healthy debate in a place of proper context.
Maybe you posted this hastily before fully analyzing what you said, but I do not think it really has any value here. Did you read my post? Or MM's? On the contrary to your opinion microscopy is not in the least bit psuedoscience. I personally seek objectivity. Not that subjective viewpoints have no place, but it is much easier to discuss these matters when there is at least somewhat of a consensus on current scientific theory.
FWIW, I do not mean to offend, as we all have our flaws, and I have foolishly lashed at others for differing in opinion, IRL and on the forums. But I try my best not to. Also, I am a fan of categorization (As are the mods, it seems). So if you want to start a thread about why a microscope is unnecessary, we can have a healthy debate in a place of proper context.
Cave Dweller
Member
Well it is easy enough to check let us look at the first post.
The individual that started this thread has a scope and would like to know if his model is capable of evaluating his tea. Unfortunately no microscope viewing a drop of water on a glass slide is capable.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
secondtry
don't feed the trolls
The scientific hypothesis as I understand it is; using a microscope, a person is able to see the number of microbes in his sample and if he so wishes and is capable, he can identify the various microbes he sees to check for bio-diversity.
Perhaps you can give a scientific explanation as to why looking at the microbe numbers and diversity of such does not qualify as a valid scientific evaluation of his tea?
