-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Bass Akwards
Member
A quickie for now ... more later
A quickie for now ... more later
In this case, kitchen compost means the material we removed from the bottom of a vertical composting bin this Spring, and the ten years previous. The contents are dosed with composting microbes from time to time, and the result is a moist, black, granular, substance with a rich, earthy, aroma.
A quickie for now ... more later
In this case, kitchen compost means the material we removed from the bottom of a vertical composting bin this Spring, and the ten years previous. The contents are dosed with composting microbes from time to time, and the result is a moist, black, granular, substance with a rich, earthy, aroma.
C
CT Guy
Microbeman makes a good point that I don't think we emphasize enough.....Compost tea is a tool, like a rake or shovel, that is beneficial in organic gardening. It's not a magic bullet by any means, but an excellent way of restoring microbial populations to the soil or leaf surface.
Bass Akwards
Member
K.I.S.S. System
K.I.S.S. System
"Keep It Short & Simple" ... was that so hard?
That short statement was all that really needed to be said.
All the hullabaloo on the first page was, for want of a better word, "padding".
But ... then again, even that brief note managed to leave me skeptical.
When is the leaf surface of Any plant Ever without a microbe/fungal population? Maybe if you're growing in an autoclave, but otherwise, no. In the absence of herbicides or pesticides, what can kill off so much of the existing bacteria that it needs to be "restored"? A hard rain? Hot sun? Very doubtful. It's a tad presumptuous for any gardener to think they know better than "the locals" what kind of flora and fauna their garden should host above ground level. As the old song says, "might as well try to catch the wind". ( In a greenhouse, or basement, or closet, ... unnatural situations to begin with ... it's another story. All Manner of things can get out of whack, and stay that way, from the air on down. )
Foliar feeding is one thing, spraying protozoa & fungus ( without expectation of NPK benefit ) is quite another. After all, the subject at hand is growing cannabis, and if showers of bacteria don't make a significant difference in such a quick-growing plant, where's the benefit? ( except to one's sense of ecological correctness ... or whatever. )
If that "specially grown" population of bacteria and fungus can whip spider mites, there might be a case. Until then, and unless there's much better documentation of reduction in the incidence of PM, it all claims for benefits of foliar ACT remain anecdotal.
I'll back up now, & consider the previous posts.
If nothing else, it'll fit with the nickname.
K.I.S.S. System
"Keep It Short & Simple" ... was that so hard?
That short statement was all that really needed to be said.
All the hullabaloo on the first page was, for want of a better word, "padding".
But ... then again, even that brief note managed to leave me skeptical.
When is the leaf surface of Any plant Ever without a microbe/fungal population? Maybe if you're growing in an autoclave, but otherwise, no. In the absence of herbicides or pesticides, what can kill off so much of the existing bacteria that it needs to be "restored"? A hard rain? Hot sun? Very doubtful. It's a tad presumptuous for any gardener to think they know better than "the locals" what kind of flora and fauna their garden should host above ground level. As the old song says, "might as well try to catch the wind". ( In a greenhouse, or basement, or closet, ... unnatural situations to begin with ... it's another story. All Manner of things can get out of whack, and stay that way, from the air on down. )
Foliar feeding is one thing, spraying protozoa & fungus ( without expectation of NPK benefit ) is quite another. After all, the subject at hand is growing cannabis, and if showers of bacteria don't make a significant difference in such a quick-growing plant, where's the benefit? ( except to one's sense of ecological correctness ... or whatever. )
If that "specially grown" population of bacteria and fungus can whip spider mites, there might be a case. Until then, and unless there's much better documentation of reduction in the incidence of PM, it all claims for benefits of foliar ACT remain anecdotal.
I'll back up now, & consider the previous posts.
If nothing else, it'll fit with the nickname.
Bass Akwards
Member
And so forth ...
And so forth ...
Well, unfortunately, that's what CT posted on the first page. Glad that we're in agreement on that point.
Darned if I know!
Thanks for the offer. I do have a slight problem with branding microbes as "pathogens", or "protectors" because it verges on anthropomorphism. They either suit our purposes, or they don't. It's what they do, because it's all they can do, and ever will do, to stay alive and reproduce their kind.
I appreciate those stories very much. Real world stuff. The picayune complaints of adolescents, ( and permanent adolescents ), on this and other grow sites are a constant irritation.
Have you considered writing a children's gardening book? ; )
More later.
Time for dinner.
Ciao.
And so forth ...
Well, unfortunately, that's what CT posted on the first page. Glad that we're in agreement on that point.
Darned if I know!
Thanks for the offer. I do have a slight problem with branding microbes as "pathogens", or "protectors" because it verges on anthropomorphism. They either suit our purposes, or they don't. It's what they do, because it's all they can do, and ever will do, to stay alive and reproduce their kind.
I appreciate those stories very much. Real world stuff. The picayune complaints of adolescents, ( and permanent adolescents ), on this and other grow sites are a constant irritation.
Have you considered writing a children's gardening book? ; )
More later.
Time for dinner.
Ciao.
I don't think he did. I could not see it. Can you kindly point this out without using the information concerning microbial anti-pathogens being considered pesticides presented by the blithering idiot from the EPA whose lot I oft eat for breakfast, intellectually speaking. Hmmm... children's books ..... rad.
Bass Akwards
Member
and so on ...
and so on ...
It's refreshing to hear it from a large scale operator. We both know that "modern" greenhouse growing is an unbalanced system, if only because the bacteria and fungus from rain water are eliminated from the start. Everything is geared to Mass Quantities at the Lowest Cost. Eventually, the short-cuts backfire, and increasing the numbers of chemical treatments only make it worse. Glad you found a way off that treadmill.
Don't have a dog in the fight. I'll only say that academic infighting is as old as time, and those bouts tend to drag on, and on.
Thank you.
Thanks again. That's fairly simple, straightforward, and it isn't laden with unnecessary qualifiers.
Actually, to a greater or lesser extent, the answer is yes. Ask your dentist about it.
Aside from cleaning up the Exxon-Valdez, what are the specific "toxins" you refer to in the soil? Herbicide and pesticide residues, or other naturally occurring soil constituents that are branded as "toxins"?
Again, the shadow of anthropomorphism rears it's ugly head. Neither plants, nor humans, can "call upon" microbes. Either conditions exist for them to grow, and reproduce, or they don't. Period.
Quite true. Compost tea recipes remind me of Gumbo or Bouillabaisse recipes ... everyone has their own take on it.
Speaking of crap, just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what procedures the Chinese use to produce the "night soil" that grows most of their crops? That's the straight shit, it's been going on for millennia, and they've never heard of "bathroom tissue".
CT Guy did everything but claim that CT cured cancer. His long list of "benefits" was, and is, absurd. All the sanctimonious malarky pushed by the "Organicrats" offends my knowledge of science ( limited though it may be ). "Superstitious nonsense" is a personal grudge I'm not likely to give up anytime soon.
I'm sure you mean "traditional" in terms of the last 100 years of agrochemicals and mechanized machinery, rather than the practices of our ancestors ( inefficient though they might have been ).
It would be to their advantage, but they have better things to do than actively lobby against the use of CT. Their thinking isn't hard to understand. They're heavily invested in very expensive technology, and must make that investment pay off, or eat it raw.
That's all well and good for professional farmers, but for reefer growers itching to jump on every new gimmick that comes along, using a microscope to gauge the contents of their compost tea borders on obsessive-compulsive disorder. ( Have I just stumbled on the real reason behind the absurd appeal of hydroponics? )
I'll take your word for it. Don't doubt your motivation one bit.
( Better end it now, while I can still resist the temptation to paraphrase Vince Lombardi. ) ; )
and so on ...
It's refreshing to hear it from a large scale operator. We both know that "modern" greenhouse growing is an unbalanced system, if only because the bacteria and fungus from rain water are eliminated from the start. Everything is geared to Mass Quantities at the Lowest Cost. Eventually, the short-cuts backfire, and increasing the numbers of chemical treatments only make it worse. Glad you found a way off that treadmill.
Don't have a dog in the fight. I'll only say that academic infighting is as old as time, and those bouts tend to drag on, and on.
Thank you.
Thanks again. That's fairly simple, straightforward, and it isn't laden with unnecessary qualifiers.
Actually, to a greater or lesser extent, the answer is yes. Ask your dentist about it.
Aside from cleaning up the Exxon-Valdez, what are the specific "toxins" you refer to in the soil? Herbicide and pesticide residues, or other naturally occurring soil constituents that are branded as "toxins"?
Again, the shadow of anthropomorphism rears it's ugly head. Neither plants, nor humans, can "call upon" microbes. Either conditions exist for them to grow, and reproduce, or they don't. Period.
Quite true. Compost tea recipes remind me of Gumbo or Bouillabaisse recipes ... everyone has their own take on it.
Speaking of crap, just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what procedures the Chinese use to produce the "night soil" that grows most of their crops? That's the straight shit, it's been going on for millennia, and they've never heard of "bathroom tissue".
CT Guy did everything but claim that CT cured cancer. His long list of "benefits" was, and is, absurd. All the sanctimonious malarky pushed by the "Organicrats" offends my knowledge of science ( limited though it may be ). "Superstitious nonsense" is a personal grudge I'm not likely to give up anytime soon.
I'm sure you mean "traditional" in terms of the last 100 years of agrochemicals and mechanized machinery, rather than the practices of our ancestors ( inefficient though they might have been ).
It would be to their advantage, but they have better things to do than actively lobby against the use of CT. Their thinking isn't hard to understand. They're heavily invested in very expensive technology, and must make that investment pay off, or eat it raw.
That's all well and good for professional farmers, but for reefer growers itching to jump on every new gimmick that comes along, using a microscope to gauge the contents of their compost tea borders on obsessive-compulsive disorder. ( Have I just stumbled on the real reason behind the absurd appeal of hydroponics? )
I'll take your word for it. Don't doubt your motivation one bit.
( Better end it now, while I can still resist the temptation to paraphrase Vince Lombardi. ) ; )
Bass Akwards
Member
here it is ...
here it is ...
Here's his quote from the first page:
"Reduces or eliminates the need for chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers."
The herbicide claim is also from nut-bar land, but why drag it out any more?
I'll go back up again later, or tomorrow.
Better things to do right now.
Ciao.
here it is ...
Here's his quote from the first page:
"Reduces or eliminates the need for chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers."
The herbicide claim is also from nut-bar land, but why drag it out any more?
I'll go back up again later, or tomorrow.
Better things to do right now.
Ciao.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
"Reducing the need" is not the same thing as "being" an herbicide (pulling weeds reduces the need for herbicide too), and in that respect your claim is bogus. Nothing in the original post claims ACT is an herbicide, insecticide, or that it kills anything at all. The way your own post points out that you've been extremely creative with semantics in support of some perceived common sense ethos is kinda silly. Let me remind you that putting words in someone's mouth for the sake of convenience is pretty low class. I hope you didn't mean it.
Nobody called compost tea fool proof or a panacea. But it is a technology worth promoting because it is so effective and in the long run, cheap. Everything has downsides, but you've greatly oversimplified things.
"Reducing the need" is not the same thing as "being" an herbicide (pulling weeds reduces the need for herbicide too), and in that respect your claim is bogus. Nothing in the original post claims ACT is an herbicide, insecticide, or that it kills anything at all. The way your own post points out that you've been extremely creative with semantics in support of some perceived common sense ethos is kinda silly. Let me remind you that putting words in someone's mouth for the sake of convenience is pretty low class. I hope you didn't mean it.
Nobody called compost tea fool proof or a panacea. But it is a technology worth promoting because it is so effective and in the long run, cheap. Everything has downsides, but you've greatly oversimplified things.
Dead wrong on this one. Read the paper on my page and follow up with the citations. If you have trouble finding them shoot me an email (not PM). Mary John took the words from my mouth regarding the pesticide thing.
You are now taking on the tone of one of those we run into who could be called a desperate arguer, so in a sweat to prove some lame point they think they made that they lose track of what is real. Mix into that the need to impress linguistically and you have what adds up to me wasting my time on an Internet queen.
Bass Akwards
Member
Notes from the field ...
Notes from the field ...
I made no "claim", but merely pointed out the deliberate use of misleading terms, phrases, and modifiers, to support highly questionable propositions.
CT's original post claimed ACT "reduces or eliminates the need", which certainly implies, and was clearly Meant to imply, that ACT can be substituted for, and performs the same tasks, as herbicides and pesticides. I never used the "killing" analogy. That was mentioned by Microbeman. If it's a problem for you, take it up with him.
Painful to read. Please edit or rephrase it.
If my "creative semantics" are a problem, them aim your arrows at the original perpetrator, CT, who prompted my commentary in the first place.
If he got a dose of his own medicine in that respect, that's tough.
On the contrary, I meant every word. Nothing was put in anyones mouth, and certainly not for the sake of "convenience"; ( a poor choice of words ).
That long list of purported benefits on page 1 certainly qualifies ACT as a "panacea". Read it again. My "colon cleansing infomercial" analogy fits like a glove.
Hard to argue with cheap and effective, unless, of course, it's not.
A 5 gallon bucket, an aquarium pump, and an air-stone, is a relatively inexpensive investment that can produce fine ACT. Buying a compost tumbling machine, an industrial-duty pump, ( or compost brewing gizmo ), plus a microscope, doesn't qualify as "cheap". Effective? Probably. But if there's such a significant improvement that it can justify the additional cost ( on a non-industrial, hobby-grow scale ), we've yet to see anyone make that case, or even make an attempt.
Notes from the field ...
I made no "claim", but merely pointed out the deliberate use of misleading terms, phrases, and modifiers, to support highly questionable propositions.
CT's original post claimed ACT "reduces or eliminates the need", which certainly implies, and was clearly Meant to imply, that ACT can be substituted for, and performs the same tasks, as herbicides and pesticides. I never used the "killing" analogy. That was mentioned by Microbeman. If it's a problem for you, take it up with him.
Painful to read. Please edit or rephrase it.
If my "creative semantics" are a problem, them aim your arrows at the original perpetrator, CT, who prompted my commentary in the first place.
If he got a dose of his own medicine in that respect, that's tough.
On the contrary, I meant every word. Nothing was put in anyones mouth, and certainly not for the sake of "convenience"; ( a poor choice of words ).
That long list of purported benefits on page 1 certainly qualifies ACT as a "panacea". Read it again. My "colon cleansing infomercial" analogy fits like a glove.
Hard to argue with cheap and effective, unless, of course, it's not.
A 5 gallon bucket, an aquarium pump, and an air-stone, is a relatively inexpensive investment that can produce fine ACT. Buying a compost tumbling machine, an industrial-duty pump, ( or compost brewing gizmo ), plus a microscope, doesn't qualify as "cheap". Effective? Probably. But if there's such a significant improvement that it can justify the additional cost ( on a non-industrial, hobby-grow scale ), we've yet to see anyone make that case, or even make an attempt.
Bass Akwards
Member
over & out ...
over & out ...
"Neither plants, nor humans, can "call upon" microbes."
Might do that. But, until shown otherwise, I'll continue to believe that the only way to "call upon" microbes & fungi is with a Ouija Board.
If the points were so "lame", why did you agree with some of them?
As for being in a "sweat to prove something" .... that's really amusing. This little interlude has been a piece of cake.
There's no "need" to impress linguistically, it's just the way I think and write. I'm literate, educated, articulate, and as you've noticed, opinionated. If you feel it's a waste of your time, why did you even bother? As a public service? Please, spare us.
Until the next round of half-baked hooey hits the fan, ciao!
over & out ...
"Neither plants, nor humans, can "call upon" microbes."
Might do that. But, until shown otherwise, I'll continue to believe that the only way to "call upon" microbes & fungi is with a Ouija Board.
If the points were so "lame", why did you agree with some of them?
As for being in a "sweat to prove something" .... that's really amusing. This little interlude has been a piece of cake.
There's no "need" to impress linguistically, it's just the way I think and write. I'm literate, educated, articulate, and as you've noticed, opinionated. If you feel it's a waste of your time, why did you even bother? As a public service? Please, spare us.
Until the next round of half-baked hooey hits the fan, ciao!
you redefine the terms to suit you, then make a claim. Yes, your statement is misleading, in the sense it accuses the OP of making a claim that was not made. "Reducing or eliminating the need for" is not mistaken as a claim of equivalence by any reasonable person. Are you a reasonable person? Here's a reasonable analogy - not falling from a tree reduces or eliminates the need for a cast on you arm. If your reasoning holds true, and i made that claim, you would accuse me of saying good balance can substitute for a team of surgeons to put your arm back together and the cast to immobilize it.
CT is largely used as a preventive, and by promoting plant health alone eliminates or reduces the need for pesticides, which are an intervention after the fact. Don't conflate the two. No one else has.
And please, let's all drop the personal attacks and the little literary criticisms. It's a message board not a poetry slam. I would concur that much of this appears to be arguing for its own sake.
Not quite literate enough to understand what you read; not quite educated enough to research before you speak; articulate in a thesaurus sort of way; opinionated....oh ya but you left out narcissistic and double-digit IQ.
Public service is actually correct. If you check my record, that pretty much sums it up. A little sad...I know.
Moderators; what was that about blocking posts which are not based on knowledge or experience?
To use a quote from New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (circa 1970), Back Akwards 'scientific knowledge' suffers from what Moynihan described as 'benign neglect' and I'm probably being extremely charitable with that description.
You're welcome.
CC
C
CT Guy
I just want to state that I'm not claiming that compost tea is a pestcide, or any other type of ~cide. I do believe it will reduce or eliminate the need for these products. However, you can't take a chemical paradigm into organic gardening. It's important to get the soil and plant healthy, rather than just treating symptoms. Compost tea is an excellent tool for the organic gardener.
I don't appreciate how you've chosen to interpret my motivations in sharing information. I think it's important to share educated knowledge on this relatively new technology. Bass Awkwards, if you have any information of importance or experience that you'd like to share, I'd love to see it. If you're here just to criticize and attack my posts, then I think it's a waste of time.
Many people in this forum have had great successes with compost teas. If you choose not to use them in your growing, that's just fine as well. I mentioned before it's just a tool for the organic gardener, however I'm not retracting anything I've already written and stand behind what I've stated in previous posts. Please go back and do some research into the literature that Microbeman has posted, or I can point you in the direction of good information as well. I'd be happy to send you the Harvard study if you send me a PM with your email address.
You don't make it very easy to have a polite conversation due to the antagonistic nature of your writing. Please refrain from questioning my motives and instead just post questions or comments relating to the material we are discussing.
Thank you.
I don't appreciate how you've chosen to interpret my motivations in sharing information. I think it's important to share educated knowledge on this relatively new technology. Bass Awkwards, if you have any information of importance or experience that you'd like to share, I'd love to see it. If you're here just to criticize and attack my posts, then I think it's a waste of time.
Many people in this forum have had great successes with compost teas. If you choose not to use them in your growing, that's just fine as well. I mentioned before it's just a tool for the organic gardener, however I'm not retracting anything I've already written and stand behind what I've stated in previous posts. Please go back and do some research into the literature that Microbeman has posted, or I can point you in the direction of good information as well. I'd be happy to send you the Harvard study if you send me a PM with your email address.
You don't make it very easy to have a polite conversation due to the antagonistic nature of your writing. Please refrain from questioning my motives and instead just post questions or comments relating to the material we are discussing.
Thank you.
i just read the whole thread and found it interesting (apart from the unseemly row in the last couple of pages) CT Guy, whether you are selling a product or not, the advice and help you give out is useful to many so thanks for that.
i have no doubt that compost teas work, what i would be most interested in is comparisons against other organic methods such as just using a rich soil mix and adding mostly water, or top dressing or whatever.
i get great results with just a good soil mix and probably havent the time for compost teas, but i would consider them if i thought they might improve on other organic practices.
i have no doubt that compost teas work, what i would be most interested in is comparisons against other organic methods such as just using a rich soil mix and adding mostly water, or top dressing or whatever.
i get great results with just a good soil mix and probably havent the time for compost teas, but i would consider them if i thought they might improve on other organic practices.
CannaSmile
New member
My experience with teas has been amazing so far and I am greatly appreciative of the poster. Thanks a lot CT. Great soil education here 
Good question!
The author of "Teaming With Microbes" moderates a 'Compost Tea' group over at Yahoo.com and included in the group of participants are many farmers, researchers, university-level educators from around the world and 'regular folks' like me who generally read the material presented knowing that much of it is way over the layperson's head.
Read a few of Microbeman's threads and answers and without a good solid basis in micro-biology the average farmer/grower can get pretty lost in the specifics on how these teas are brewed, for what specific purpose, etc. The whole nematode discussions have me lost by the 2nd paragraph.
But what's interesting on that and other venues where AACT uses are discussed, the overriding purpose of using teas is to 1) improve the fertility of the soil and 2) using these teas as a viable defense against powdery mildew (a very general term for about 3,500 different strains).
When I mix up new soil or I'm re-charging the used soil for containers, I add the highest-quality compost and/or earthworm castings that I'm able to source. Adding an aerated compost tea probably has less effect on that soil's fertility than the benefit against the bane of every farmer, grower, horticulturist, nurserymen, orchardists, vinters, et al in the Pacific Northwest - mildew.
So back to your question, I don't think that it's an 'either or' deal. Could a person take a mediocre 'soil' that they pick-up at their local 'indoor garden center' and improve it with aerated compost teas? Probably and the level of that success would depend on the base ingredients used by the manufacturer - "You can put a vest on a goat but it's still a goat"
By applying the tea you would improve that specific 'soil' product but the fertility would never hit the levels of using your homegrown earthworm castings, correctly made compost, etc. along with kelp (or seaweed extract if your prefer), fish hydrosylate, some form of rock dust, etc.
Soil fertility notwithstanding, at the very least the application will move a process forward to produce the healthiest plant possible given your other factors, i.e. lighting, temps, air flow, etc. which is the best defense against fungus invaders and limit the damage by mites, etc.
BTW - in 1968 W.A. Stephenson (who founded MaxiCrop) wrote a book, "Seaweed in Agriculture and Horticulture" about using seaweed in agriculture. Many of the studies referenced in his book of over 40 years ago went back another 40-50 years on the use of kelp 'teas' as a defense against spider mites. It seems that there's an agent which helps prevent mite eggs from hatching. Not the 'magical cure' that the average pot grower is looking for, but it is another tool.
Here's an extract from the book I mentoned.........
yes, that makes sense, i take a lot of trouble over my soil mix in the first place because it's something you only have to do once in each grow. there is a gardening proverb that i always liked which says
spend a penny on the plant and a pound on the hole
it always amazes me that people will spend hundreds on a pack of seeds and stick them in any old soil they can get from round the corner.
as for powdery mildew, my observations of it's occurance in gardens are usually as a result of irregular watering which may be the result of letting plants dry out too much between waterings/rain or plants being left in pots for too long and getting pot bound and too big for them. plant them out and very often in later life they will develop PM. Excess nutrients leading to lush sappy growth also attracts it.
cheers
V.
spend a penny on the plant and a pound on the hole
it always amazes me that people will spend hundreds on a pack of seeds and stick them in any old soil they can get from round the corner.
as for powdery mildew, my observations of it's occurance in gardens are usually as a result of irregular watering which may be the result of letting plants dry out too much between waterings/rain or plants being left in pots for too long and getting pot bound and too big for them. plant them out and very often in later life they will develop PM. Excess nutrients leading to lush sappy growth also attracts it.
cheers
V.
