"I am honestly looking for someone to give me conclusive, unbiased evidence one way or another on ACT." and "(Yes, I like to see the dogma get hit by the scientific karma :)"

I have read you say that many times, and there is no such evidence that I know of. That is why your position is so untouchable if you will excuse my poor grammar. I could make an attempt to the "why" ACT works, but yet again, it would not be scientific enough for your satisfaction.

I honestly do not believe (non scientific again) the microbes have anything to do with why ACT does what it does. From my use of anaerobic compost tea I see the same results when used as either a soil drench or foliar spray as aerobic tea. The only difference is the dilution rate of the tea, with anaerobic tea needing a greater dilution due to the strength of the tea. Something on the lines that anaerobic compost has a higher nitrogen level than the aerobic process. My learning is focused on the humic and fulvic acids generated during the composting process. More specific, the fulvic acid has shown to be of greater influence on plant growth and nutritional quality of crops. As I said before, that is a different topic, thus the thought of starting a new thread.

BTW, the scare comment was not meant to be directed towards you, again, poor grammar on my part; we have been down this road before...

Blutranes

"I could make an attempt to the "why" ACT works, but yet again, it would not be scientific enough for your satisfaction."

A hypothesis on why it works is not evidence- scientific or otherwise.

People used to believe that ulcers were caused by stress- they had great explainations about changes in the digestive tract in response to stress etc. etc. They were wrong. It made sense, but they were wrong. That's why I don't put any credence into this yet- a giant clapping its hands causing thunder, leaves falling in a stream becoming fish, the sun rotating around the earth- all looked like reasonable explanations and seemed to fit observation.

It's good to see that you are at least one of the people that is willing to look at the "why" of compost tea, even if we've not really given good evedence for the if" part yet :)

On the subject of peer reviewed research concerning ACT, this article from the W/2007 of the B.C. Organic Grower says this:

"Appropriately, one researcher recently con-
cluded: "Compost tea production practices are
evolving faster than traditional researchers
capacity to evaluate the impact of new prac-
tices on disease suppression".

(snip)

"Is compost tea a procedure worthy of consid-
eration for commercial organic farmers? Or is
it hocus-pocus recipes hiding under scientific
symbols? Or is it both?

Solid research is now being published in peer-
reviewed scientific journals. The results point
to compost tea being beneficial to improve
plant growth and prevent diseases such as
damping-off and Botrytis mold. But success
depends on a number of factors as many
compost tea applications make no measurable
impact.

In the coming issues of this magazine, we will
review the science behind compost tea, and
offer "recipes" that can be applied on B.C.
organic farms. The first article will examine
compost tea applications to prevent plant dis-
eases. The following article will examine the
preparation of disease-suppressive compost,
the cornerstone of high quality compost tea.
The last article will review specific recipes and
ingredients, for those wishing to tailor com-
post tea applications to their situation. See
you then!"

(snip)

"Sound management of soil and compost is still
very important
High quality soils and composts contain ben-
eficial microbes that colonize plant roots and
induce natural pathways against many dis-
eases. This process is solid and published
in high-credibility peer-reviewed scientific
journals. Sound composting is the first step
in the preparation of high quality compost
tea. Procedures are available to produce high-
quality, disease suppressive compost. These
procedures are generally not implemented on
B.C. organic farms."

So, if you follow the publication, you should be able to find out what research has been done and results published under peer-review guidelines.

OK- I'm waiting for them to actually site one of these papers. Notice that elsewhere the aerate a compost/water mixture without sugar and call it aerated compost tea- which is very different than the aearated/activated tea methods that most talk about when they say ACT. They also point out e.coli issues.

Review of the literature says it's not a help: http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Compost%20tea%20again.pdf

Review of studies says it may or may not be a help (but nothing here is convincing, or well cited): http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/composttea.html

Overview of one of the studies from the second source; not convincing, and no discussion here of methods or data analysis: http://fpath.cas.psu.edu/RESEARCH/SAREPoster.pdf

Some suppression of damping off when produced with kelp and humic acid aditives, but just adding compost to the growing medium had good suppression as well (they found that the additives were more important than the source of compost): http://apsnet.org/phyto/pdfs/2004/0901-01R.pdf

Reasonable looking approach here- mixed bag results: http://fpath.cas.psu.edu/FIELD/AltFungicide.html

Thanks for the links Pablo. I will look at them as time permits.

Another thing that interested me in the B.C. Organic Grower was this:

"With many compost teas, standard labora-
tory analysis shows an elevated Electrical
Conductivity (E.C.) from the rich supply of
many nutrients. Are the impressive field
results coming from microbial activity, or is it
simply plant nutrition via foliar fertilisation?"

Following Blutranes intuition about fulvic acid, I googled "fulvic acid" and "electrical conductivity" and found that fulvic acid is a key component of electrical conductivity. This might be worth following up on a separate thread.

The link below is a commercial site with info about fulvic acid. I read it with the same precaution of any site or individual, overtly or veiled advertising.

salts are electrolytes. Cations and anions are both electrolytes. Gatorade restores your electrolytes. Runners take salt tablets during long races for this reason (along with drinking water).

Be wary of what they are saying: you cannot change an ion from one charge to another without changing the charge state of another component that they are just ignoring. If you could- then you are creating a charge imbalance/plasma. That just is not going to happen in soils, and their claims on fulvic acid are for human internal use. (there's some fundamental chemistry missing...) Now- they may just be giving a high-level overview on something that is the best thing since the widget in the Guinness can, but even so- that doesn't necessarily translate to stuff that you add to your soil.

Now- on another level- fulvic acid, humic acid, and many other substances may act as charge mediators, ion exchange resins, or by some other mechanism that may or may not be beneficial.

The idea that cells act as electrochemical pumps is actually pretty old (My old boss used to say that all the time). This is part of the mechanism of protein movement, pressure regulation, nutrient balance etc.- but measuring the conductivity of soil may just tell you about the salts anyway.

"Now- on another level- fulvic acid, humic acid, and many other substances may act as charge mediators, ion exchange resins, or by some other mechanism that may or may not be beneficial."

This is why I felt another thread may be of benefit. The site I was referring to states this:

"Fulvic acid readily complexes with minerals and metals making them available to plant roots and easily absorbable through cell walls. It makes minerals such as iron, which are not usually very mobile, easily transported through plant structures. Fulvic acids also dissolves and transports vitamins, coenzymes, auxins, hormones, and natural antibiotics that are generally found throughout the soil, making them available. These substances are effective in stimulating even more vigorous and healthy growth. These substances are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes in decomposing vegetation in the soil. It has been determined that all known vitamins can be present in healthy soil. Plants manufacture many of their own vitamins, yet these from the soil further supplement the plant. Upon ingestion these nutrients are easily absorbed by animals and humans, due to the fact that they are in the perfect natural plant form as nature intends. Fulvic acid can often transport many times its weight in dissolved minerals and elements."

Relating back to the "Who Has Humus" thread, one of the major factors in foliar sprays is the extraction and application of fulvic acid from compost tea. That is the reason I stated it matters not weather aerobic or anaerobic compost tea is used, the microbes have nothing to do with what compost tea does per se. Yes, they are important in the manufacturing of humic and fulvic acid, but it is the acid that does all the work. IMO, applying a mass volume of microbes into soil is a waste so to speak, they will only last as long as the food supply, then mass death occurs. Here in the south we suffer from loss of organic matter at an accelerated rate due to environmental conditions, to add massive populations of microbes only makes matters worse from my point of view. However, if indeed fulvic acid is the true catalysis in compost tea, then to brew for the fulvic acid makes sense. Since the quality and quantity of fulvic acid is based on the quality of compost, not on how the fulvic acid is extracted, it matters not if one uses air or a stick to get fulvic acid into a solution.

As Althea has said, the problem with most data on fulvic acid is coming from commercial sites; this is the case with the material I quoted. The reading is fascinating and exciting, yet it must be taken with a grain of salt due to the fact that the site is trying to sell "mined" fulvic acid. The only benefit is that it does site organic matter and compost as the only other source of fulvic acid and what fulvic acid does within the soil and on plants. The title alone causes the raising of the eyebrow, yet with an open mind the reading has great value. The page is long, but the reading is captivating from start to finish. Take a look and see what you can gather when time permits...

Blutranes

"IMO, applying a mass volume of microbes into soil is a waste so to speak, they will only last as long as the food supply, then mass death occurs."

While I can't speak to the magnitude of any effect from fulvic acid, I do think that you make a good point in that statement. Not only will the population likely decrease to match the nutrient and moisture levels, but as they were generated in a water solution, once they dry out to any degree they may experience a serious "fish out of water" syndrome.

Likewise, when people add compost to a new pile to try and seed it with microbes, they totally neglect the idea that everything is covered with microbes that breed incredibly fast and will heat a pile in less than 12 hours anyway. (Yes, another one that I rant about :)

Back to nutrients and fulvic acid- aerated or not- the nutrients in solution from compost tea will end up washing into the soil after a rain, and much that misses the plant ends up directly in soil anyway. Foliar feeding therefore becomes another suspect method that should be tested (IMO).

"Back to nutrients and fulvic acid- aerated or not- the nutrients in solution from compost tea will end up washing into the soil after a rain, and much that misses the plant ends up directly in soil anyway."

That is the beauty of foliar spraying; nothing is wasted. Keeping in mind that in organic gardening we are dealing with the "powerful little", in that small amounts give large results, the need for prolonged contact with a leaf surface is not required. The speed the solution is absorbed into the plant correlates to moisture being absorbed from the atmosphere in the form of dew in the morning. The amount of moisture, though not measurable to my understanding, is sufficient enough to satisfy the need of the plant. This is why most advocate spraying in the early morning or late afternoon when plants naturally are accustomed to absorbing moisture from the air. The spray that ends up on the soil is used by the roots resulting in the absorbing of nutrients within the spray, a win-win situation IMO.

With an open mind it is easy to see that the mystery of exactly what fulvic acid is doing within a liquid solution cannot be expected to follow known behavior. I force myself to always keep in mind that man does not understand the total dynamics of humus, compost, and other organic matter and their relationships within soil. You want "just the fact" and the proof thereof, however if the total facts are unknown you are left in somewhat of a state of limbo until those total facts/proof come to light. I prefer to use the benefits before all the facts are known even though those benefits are not proved to be true. There are risks involved in both attitudes/behaviors, the beauty is that neither is wrong...

Blutranes

"You want "just the fact" and the proof thereof, however if the total facts are unknown you are left in somewhat of a state of limbo until those total facts/proof come to light."

We can test whether something is helping without understanding the mechanism in total. That's all I'm saying above. A controled test will tell us if something works better or not (that's the "if" part I mentioned). In fact- YOU were the person speculating on HOW it works, not me.

I'm waiting to see if it works before I think too hard on how it works. Tring to keep the horse in front of the cart.

"In fact- YOU were the person speculating on HOW it works, not me.

I'm waiting to see if it works before I think too hard on how it works. Tring to keep the horse in front of the cart."

Well, if all you are waiting on is to see if it works, why not just go outside and put some good compost in a bucket, add water and stir, wait 24 hours, pick a victim, take a picture of the victim before you spray it, then spray it. In 24 hours go back and take another picture of the victim then compare the photos. Now, you can show the photos to all your co-workers if that will make you happy, but your eyes should be able to tell if anything happened to the plant (good, bad, or not at all). If you want to write an article for a magazine go for it. Do it any way you wish, the results will be the same.

I test it like that all the time, I just use other peoples' plants at their homes. But that is another story; I can't wait to hear your version of said story...

Blutranes

"IMO, applying a mass volume of microbes into soil is a waste so to speak, they will only last as long as the food supply, then mass death occurs."

Actually the microbial population can be somewhat self-sustaining. In the absence of a food supply, the microbes will feed off the death of other microbes, essentially finding an equillibrium population that can sustain itself based upon available food, including its own life and death cycle in the population. When no food is available, they feed off of the death of each other. The population will decrease and fluctuate, but rarely just "dies off".

"Well, if all you are waiting on is to see if it works, why not just go outside and put some good compost in ..."

Because that's not a controled test. You need one group like that, one where you soil drench, one with just the compost on the ground, one with no compost, etc. etc. Randomize it. Then repeat it.

If ACT does something good, but un aerated CT does the same or better, and plain compost does something just as good... then what is the sense in all the fuss about aeration and foliar feeding at a certain time etc? Without a controled test- you cannot make a claim that one gives a benefit over the other.

First of all- nothing is growing outside here now (expecting 6" snow tonight), second- I'm not set up for a good controled experiment here, third- I honestly don't have the time for it. It's not that hard, but it's not that easy and requires time (and growing plants).

Joepyeweed,

"The population will decrease and fluctuate, but rarely just "dies off"."

Good point, it never dies off per se; I was speaking figuratively if you will. The loss of organic matter that is consumed by the increased population is exact however, it has to be replaced every year or the harvest will suffer to some extent

Pablo,

"First of all- nothing is growing outside here now (expecting 6" snow tonight), second- I'm not set up for a good controled experiment here, third- I honestly don't have the time for it. It's not that hard, but it's not that easy and requires time (and growing plants)."

Oh! Sorry to hear all that, dude. Well, when you get a chance then. If I may, let me share a story

I was driving to town one day and happened to look in my rear view mirror. I could see three hills behind me a police car with its lights flashing. This is very unusual considering I was the only person I had seen for 15 miles. The police car pulls up behind me and signals to pull over. Once stopped the officer gets out, cheek full of tobacco, puts on his "Smokie The Bear Hat" and walks up to the truck. The conversation goes like this:

Police: Hey Blu
Me: Hey Jimmy
Police: Blu, momma called me last night and said she been calling you for three days and you dont answer the phone.
Me: I be outside most time, tell her to call my cell phone.
Police: Momma says she dont call no area code phone numbers, any phone not plugged into the wall costs money.
Me: That sounds like your momma all right.
Police: Momma said Miss Ellie been at church talking about you sprayed her flowers with "Blu Juice", and her flowers shame the county.
Me: They do look nice.
Police: Momma said Miss Ellie says her flowers are organic and momma flowers are addicted to Miracle Grow. Miss Ellie said momma be walking around with a bag of blue Miracle Grow in her purse to keep her flowers from dying.
Me: Ellie needs to stop all her foolishness.
Police: Momma said Francis came by and told her she got her flowers some "Blu Juice"; said you sprayed some dead flowers by mistake and they came back to life.
Me: I didnt know they was dead.
Police: Momma said Deacon Wilsons wife told her Miss Ellie said she should change her name to "Miss Sprinkle Honey" cause every time Miss Ellie drive by momma house she be outside watering them flowers with blue colored water trying to keep them from dying. Miss Ellie said dont matter if they all die, momma can call Blutranes soon as she finish them off to glory.
Me: Me talking to Ellie aint going to do no good, she been like that all her-
Police: Blu, would you please go spray my mommas flowers before she get on the last nerve I got? She home having fits like one of them cats done died.
Me: Sure Jimmy, tell your momma I will be by there first thing in the morning or just before the sun go down tomorrow.
Police: Thanks Blu. Let me give you $100.00 to cover the cost. If that aint enough just come by the house and get the rest; if it is too much just keep the change or give momma some of your compost stuff or something. It will be worth it to not have to look at her mad like her bloomers are in a knot.
Me: Ok Jimmy; consider it done. Your momma will have something to say to Ellie in a couple of days.
Police: Hey Blu, what is in that stuff anyway, how does it make flowers look so pretty?
Me: Gone Jimmy, now you trying to dip in my business. I tried to tell everybody how to do it but they was too busy hauling 10-10-10 to listen. Tell your momma I will see her in the morning.
Police: Thanks again Blu, you just dont know what this means to me. See ya later.

Hey Pablo, you think Jimmys momma could qualify as a control? Maybe Miss Ellie could be considered as a peer review, you think? Keep in mind I am not in the business of selling compost or compost tea, but if I refuse to spray one of the ladies around here flowers I will have to move to Texas.

I could sit here all day and tell you stories about my life with organic gardening; I just dont have the time. Got to go, my cell phone is ringing

Blutranes

"Hey Pablo, you think Jimmys momma could qualify as a control?"

Ummm.... no... :)

After reading the reviews of ACT by my peers here on GW, I tried an experiment. I brewed a small batch, gave one potted indigo plant a foliar feeding/soil drench and it's sister plant, also potted, none. All conditions for both prior to ACT were equal. The plant given ACT literally doubled in size in a few days. The other showed barely any growth at all. That was a good enough controlled experiment for me.

Althes- you missed non-aerated ACT, just compost on the soil, and if foliar feeding has any effect. That was the question. I have no doubt that leaching nutrient from compost will make something good for plant growth.

Use it if it works for you, but I'm trying to say that nobody has proven that the aeration part has anything to do with it, or that it really effects disease. I just add compost to my beds with incredible results. I know that works. Why go through the extra trouble of aeration etc?

"The loss of organic matter that is consumed by the increased population is exact however, it has to be replaced every year or the harvest will suffer to some extent"

The organic matter consumed by microbial populations is not "lost", its given back to the soil in the form of microbial waste or dead microbes. The decomposing microbes themselves and their waste is organic matter that feeds the soils. The microbes consuming organic matter are breaking the matter down into nutrients that the plants can readily use.

The quote that I copied and pasted above seems to imply adding microbes reduces the amount of organic matter because of their own consumption... which is misleading.

The organic matter feeds the microbes, and the microbes break the matter down which feeds the plants. The plants uptake the matter and grow vigorously. If the plants were left in place to decompost, then all of the matter that fed the plants would be returned to the soil to repeat the cycle of microbial boom and bust and plant growth.

Its when we harvest the plants, that we remove the organic matter from loop, which is why organic matter needs to be replaced. Not because we have added microbes.

"Did anyone notice the fish carcass in those pictures? Very cool."

Your last post was much more informative...

Blutranes

Blutranes said: "That is the reason I stated it matters not weather aerobic or anaerobic compost tea is used, the microbes have nothing to do with what compost tea does per se. Yes, they are important in the manufacturing of humic and fulvic acid, but it is the acid that does all the work."

A larger population of microbes should produce more fulvic acid and many other beneficial things. While I'm in total agreement with you that fulvic acid is manna, it's not the only thing in healthy soils, composts, and teas that benefits the rhizosphere.

Somewhere back in this thread someone said that humans don't know everything about what's in soil etc. I don't think we know much at all. We're talking about a very complex system, and I don't think we've scratched the surface (sorry for the pun). I think it's a mistake to zero-in on one major player and say that it does all the work.

"IMO, applying a mass volume of microbes into soil is a waste so to speak, they will only last as long as the food supply, then mass death occurs."

The mass death provides the soil, plants, and other critters with high protein (nitrogen, and everything) nourishment. So the higher the population, the better.

"The loss of organic matter that is consumed by the increased population is exact however, it has to be replaced every year or the harvest will suffer to some extent"

You've made that and similar statements in this and other threads. Putting, say, 6 inches of organic matter on top of your soil, or tilling it in, has the same result: massive shrinkage. The organic matter doesnât disappear, and is not lost. It continues to decompose into CO2, water, and humates with associated minerals (made more available by fulvic and other humic acids). That's why it takes 100 years for nature to add an inch of topsoil in a healthy prairie system. Shrinkage.

It's also why it took millions of years for nature to distill leonardite, which is mostly carbon and humates, from organic matter. Faster decomposition is a good thing. Humates are where it's at. Just keep the OM coming, and the herd population high.

Pablo_nh said: "Likewise, when people add compost to a new pile to try and seed it with microbes, they totally neglect the idea that everything is covered with microbes that breed incredibly fast and will heat a pile in less than 12 hours anyway. (Yes, another one that I rant about :)"

What does it hurt to add compost as a starter? Worst case, as far as I can see, is that it does no harm. It likely speeds things up to start with a larger population since microbes multiply exponentially. Also, with "finished" compost you get the benefit of starting with a micro herd comprised of Darwinian survivors.

Iâm very interested in research on how things work, but I donât need research to know that ACT benefits plants. Itâs obvious by simple observation. I prefer to use aerobic because it is more pleasant to work with, and probably safer.

Has science proved that putting a small fish next to a corn kernel makes the corn grow better? Horticulture and agriculture are all about observation. Always have been.
I choose to reap the benefits now, rather than waiting till science proves the obvious, or until someone spoon feeds me the info that's out there. -rangier

I'm an avid fisherman. And it was interesting to me to see large fish carcass.

I'd rather talk about fishing than just about anything else!

At least, I looked at the link, BEFORE I posted anything.

Rangier,

"It's also why it took millions of years for nature to distill leonardite, which is mostly carbon and humates, from organic matter. Faster decomposition is a good thing. Humates are where it's at. Just keep the OM coming, and the herd population high."

You have made many valid informative statements in your post. Since you have mentioned other threads I am sure you are aware that I do not differ with your experience or statements related to soil microbes. However my reasoning for adding organic matter rests on different concerns. As stated in other posts, my major focus is humus, not compost. However, since this thread is about compost and compost tea that is where my focus is.

"I think it's a mistake to zero-in on one major player and say that it does all the work."

I must agree with your observation; my zealous interest in fulvic acid has gotten the better of me. Since it takes many to make the whole in organic gardening, to make such a statement is going overboard to be kind, and wrong to be exact. Thanks for your insight.

I do appreciate your sharing of your knowledge and insights. It is a pleasure indeed to read your contribution...

Blutranes

"What does it hurt to add compost as a starter? Worst case, as far as I can see, is that it does no harm."

I never said that it did harm, I just don't think it helps. I'm a big proponent of not passing it on if it's not really correct- harmful or benign.

"It likely speeds things up to start with a larger population since microbes multiply exponentially."

I've stated before, and other observe- that with enough ingredients for a new pile- it will be cooking well over 120F in as little as 4-6 hours. I'm sorry- you just aren't going to convince me that you will do it faster with seeding with compost. If you do save an hour- well- that doesn't help either on the scale of making compost. Further- finished compost has more microbes associated with the cool-finishing phase. You're going to kill most with heat, and the pile will repopulate when it cools.

I'd rather suggest that people use their finished compost as... compost.

"Also, with "finished" compost you get the benefit of starting with a micro herd comprised of Darwinian survivors. "

They survived the cold phase only to get cooked? You really think that you are selecting any better than the new pile will anyway? Do you think that exposed microbes in non-ideal conditions are worse survivors than those that live in a compost pile (about the cushiest conditions imaginable... exactly ideal for composting no less). It doesn't matter- they'll be fine, and I seriously doubt that it helps 1% to add finished compost to a pile in a very different phase than the microbes in the material.

The idea of adding makes sense when you hear the explanation... but that doesn't mean that it helps. Our hypotheses and anecdotes do not create the truth of the matter. As someone that thinks that we know very little of what happens in soil- you might be able to appreciate that our rationalization and reasoning may fall flat in places like this.

That's why I suggested simple controled tests above. First we answer "if", then we look at "why".

I like this convesation- interesting stuff!

Interesting, yes.

Exciting as a catching a huge fish and then composting its remains, hardly!

"Has science proved that putting a small fish next to a corn kernel makes the corn grow better? Horticulture and agriculture are all about observation. Always have been."

Umm- that is science. That is all I have suggested- just that the variable pieces be controled. Observation leads to hypothesis, which is rigorously tested further using observation of a controled situation. That's it- "it seems that when I do this, I get this result... Is that cause and effect? Is it optimal? Is it coincidence?"

I know a guy that swore that he had no problems with starting his truck if he went to the store and got a 1/2 gallon of chocolate ice cream, but did if he got fudgesicles. Turns out he was right. This went on for a while (his wife was pregnant and he had to get ice cream).

The Fudgesicles were way in the back case in the supermarket- the ice cream was up front (or was it the other way around?). The truck cooled down more in the time walking to the back of the store and back to the register- just enough for the issues to happen. He could have gone on and got scolded by his wife- who recognized that he was a fool, or he could have tested the hypothesis on cooling.

"I choose to reap the benefits now, rather than waiting till science proves the obvious, or until someone spoon feeds me the info that's out there. -rangier"

Read what I actually said. I'm sure it helps. I'm not sure that it does more than compost. I don't suggest that anyone start or stop using one method or another- I just want to know the truth about whether aeration helps or not. Others have noted that they get similar benefit from compost, or from unaerated compost tea.

Do what you like- I'm actually interested in the topic, and that doesn't impact your practices.

"Exciting as a catching a huge fish and then composting its remains, hardly!"

Damn straight my man. My brother just bought a 20' boat... I see striped bass in my future this summer...

"Althes- you missed non-aerated ACT, just compost on the soil, and if foliar feeding has any effect. That was the question."

Pablo, the point of my post wasn't to respond to your question, it was merely to state my experience and methodology.

You can easily run your preferred experiment with 4 diseased plants in pots.

Brewing aerated compost tea isn't difficult and probably involves less work than other non-aerated teas I make; nettle requires I wear elbow-length leather gloves and use great caution in handling; alfalfa means I need to go buy alfalfa at the pet store, then deal with the raunchy stench if I let it brew long enough. ACT is sooooo simple in contrast. I don't see the point in making non-aerated compost tea when putting the bubbler into my bucket takes about 2 seconds.

We might not be able to quantify the benefits of non-aerated tea over aererted tea and vice-versa.

However, from an odor perspective, one is certainly better than the other....

"You can easily run your preferred experiment with 4 diseased plants in pots. "

Well, 4 plants doesn't tell you anything either. That is a sample size of 1 for each value(which any scientist or statistician might tell you is- absolutely insignificant).

The test would require that you not use nettle tea or whatever- it's compost tea without aeration. Nothing new about it.

Again- see my other posts here on methodology- it's more complex than 4 plants if you want any meaningful data.

I have to say that this thread seems like a waste of time. Not trying to be rude to anyone but I don't think any of you are going to change the minds of the others and, for those who have NO clue what you are talking about (which is probably most here), you are not providing any useful information.

Whoever said people could be scared off from composting by this type of thing was right. With all due respect, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Christine

I think something has not been addressed and does play a powerful part in this discussion. There are many forms of compost that are used by members of this board. Some sheet compost, bin compost, tumbler compost, pile compost, windrow compost, and create lasagna beds. In all these methods the compost used are at different stages of decomposition. Most who use/make compost use "finished" compost on their gardens. This being compost that has cooled to a great extent and what has been described as unrecognizable organic matter. It is "finished" compost that is suggested to be used in compost tea; it is this compost that has the safest level of decomposition to be used in the aerobic tea makers. It is "finished" compost that most active members in this thread have been speaking of as their subject matter for the most part.

Yet, there is another level of compost to be considered in this discussion. That being truly cured mature compost. This stage of compost is an entirely different level of decomposed organic matter. The normal microbes found in "finished" compost are not present. Cured compost is for the most part inhabited by azobacteria. These are the microbes that fix nitrogen and lower the C:N ratio of a compost pile if the pile is allowed to cure. The longer a pile is allowed to sit, the longer azobacteria fix nitrogen thus lowering the C:N ratio. It is this compost that most closely mimics chemical fertilizer. For those who are fortunate enough to be able to produce and utilize cured compost the results are very pleasing IMO. It is cured mature compost that I have been speaking of, for this is the compost that I use. Add to that the fact that I blend into this compost very aged humus and you can see I am very fortunate indeed.

The question is what does cured mature compost do in compost tea (both aerobic and anaerobic)? Exactly what levels of fulvic and humic acid are found in cured mature compost tea? These are the questions I do not have an answer to; however, I know full well what happens when cured mature compost tea (both aerobic and anaerobic) is used on plants. The normal array of microbes found in "finished" compost are not there, they have been converted into a different form of nitrogen. I have not had this compost tested (nor will I), but I feel the C:N ratio is at or below ten (10).

For those interested, the link below addresses making cured mature compost (and then some). As has been stated earlier, this is a very good discussion IMO. I trust more is to follow

Blutranes

"... if you want any meaningful data."

Pablo, just to clarify, I got all of the meaningful data I wanted from reading the posts of my peers, and trying out ACT for myself, and repeating an annual application of ACT for the past 5 years.

""The population will decrease and fluctuate, but rarely just "dies off"."

Good point, it never dies off per se; I was speaking figuratively if you will. The loss of organic matter that is consumed by the increased population is exact however, it has to be replaced every year or the harvest will suffer to some extent "

I picked up my Rodale's Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening (1971 ed.) to see if it had an entry for fulvic acid. It doesn't, but under the entry for humas it says, "Organic matter in the soil must decay in the soil;and decaying, the supply must be constantly renewed.Otherwise we have either a barren condition of the soil, brought about by too great a decay of this humas and failure to replace it or an equally unfavorable condition in which the soil organic matter is dead and inert like so much peat, or in some cases similar in its interness to coal itself."Thus we have the terms living and dead humus."

Blutranes, I think you were right the first time.

Althea- again- don't change your methods if they work and you're having fun! That's not at all what I'm trying to discuss here.

"Pablo, just to clarify, I got all of the meaningful data I wanted from reading the posts of my peers, and trying out ACT for myself, and repeating an annual application of ACT for the past 5 years. "

This does also not address any of what I was talking about- comparing it to straight compost or unaerated compost tea in a controled way. That's it. My whole point.

No tea vs ACT- ya, I get it. No doubt.

ACT vs. NCT vs compost, foliar vs. soil, disease suppression, etc- that's what I'm curious about. If you don't want to address that- that's fine- you can stop telling me that ACT makes your garden grow- I believe and do not dispute that :)

Again- the plural of anecdote is not data. (I love that quote :)

"Again- the plural of anecdote is not data. (I love that quote :)"

Hear, Hear! This can't be said often enough.

"This does also not address any of what I was talking about- comparing it to straight compost or unaerated compost tea in a controled way. That's it. My whole point."

Yes, I understand your inquiry and advise you to create and carry out an experiment according to your parameters. You really can't expect others to do something you yourself are unwilling to do.

"... if you don't want to address that- that's fine- ... "

I believe I did address your concern about peer-reviewed studies and provided a link. :)

Again, my primary reasons for posting my experience with ACT were not to respond to your appeals for scientific data, merely to state my experience.

"You really can't expect others to do something you yourself are unwilling to do."

Yes I can. People make all sorts of claims for the material, and make money on it- the burden of proof should be on them. I made no claim about it's effectiveness and use- so why should I prove anything?

You could make a claim that pumpkin pulp cures the common cold. People could quote this. If I said "where's the proof"- should I be the one that investigates, or should the person making the claim?

"I believe I did address your concern about peer-reviewed studies and provided a link. "

Not a link to a peer reviewed article- a link to someone making second hand claims about peer reviewed articles. Look through some of the studies that I linked- you could point out any good piece of data... or you could point out that there's no significant different between ACT results and compost on the ground.

I don't trust a secondary source saying "It's been researched, and was great". That's a very common way to introduce a major bias. The devil is always in the details, and none were provided.

That's why I said above that it would be nice if they actually even referenced a peer reviewed article.

"Yes I can. People make all sorts of claims for the material, and make money on it- the burden of proof should be on them."

I agree with the principle that anyone making money from a product should have evidence of it's effectiveness. You have suggested that I should carry out an experiment to satisfy your curiousity. I'm not making any money from my ACT, or any other part of my garden. You need to differentiate between home gardening for personal use and market production of inputs and products.

"I made no claim about it's effectiveness and use- so why should I prove anything?"

Because you are the one asking for proof.

"Not a link to a peer reviewed article- a link to someone making second hand claims about peer reviewed articles."

I never claimed the article I linked was itself a peer-reviewed article. I introduced the clip by saying "On the subject of peer reviewed research concerning ACT ...", and advised following the publication for their analysis of recent peer-reviewed research. Your summaries of the various links you posted are second-hand claims.

"Look through some of the studies that I linked- you could point out any good piece of data... or you could point out that there's no significant different between ACT results and compost on the ground."

This sounds very similar to the section of the B.C. article I clipped.

"But success
depends on a number of factors as many
compost tea applications make no measurable
impact."

""It's been researched, and was great"."

Could you please provide a citation for this quote?

"That's why I said above that it would be nice if they actually even referenced a peer reviewed article."

There really should be no need to restate what has already been said, but here again is the clip from the article saying they will be reviewing the studies in upcoming issues. That was not the purpose of the article I linked.

"In the coming issues of this magazine, we will
review the science behind compost tea, and
offer "recipes" that can be applied on B.C.
organic farms."

"You have suggested that I should carry out an experiment to satisfy your curiousity."

No- I suggested that your "data" did not answer my question. As you discussed what you called data- I merely pointed out that it was not germaine.

"Because you are the one asking for proof. "

It's very simple. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. If not- then why make the claim?

"I never claimed the article I linked was itself a peer-reviewed article."

And I clarified that it really added nothing to the evidence, nor did it really give us any peer reviewed articles. It used the phrase and that was all. I see that we might agree that it did nothing for the conversation.

"Your summaries of the various links you posted are second-hand claims. "

With links that cite actual studies. See the difference?

"Could you please provide a citation for this quote? "

Oh- c'mon- how many articles out there do this? Not even just for ACT- for creationism, homeopathic remedies, energy saving methods- I was pointing out the attitude, I was obviously not quoting a source- as should be obvious from my post.

"There really should be no need to restate what has already been said, but here again is the clip from the article saying they will be reviewing the studies in upcoming issues. That was not the purpose of the article I linked. "

I understand- until then, we don't have any that give us real hope that ACT does anything more than good old fashioned compost on the ground- at least that we've seen or that have been conclusive.

Look- this is all I'm saying:

Lots of people are making claims about ACT for financial and for other reasons. Nobody has produced proof that it does any more than just compost, than NCT, that foliar feeding with it has a significant effect on disease any more than the other methods.

That's it. I believe that it's a good way to make a solution of compost nutrients- few would dispute that. I'd just like to see evidence that it does what people claim it does above and beyond NCT or compost.

People here have told new gardners that it's 10s or times as useful as straight compost. It prevents or reverses some diseases. We used to joke here that it cured human disease and made a great desert topping because of the glowing praise. I'm not demanding that home gardners do the experiment- I'd just like to see convincing evidence that it's really as special as advertised, and does more than other methods. The opinion must come from somewhere- I'd just like to know if it's hype or real.

I have no financial or other stake in this. If it's proven to work- I'll even use it.

That's my whole question. Again- I don't doubt that you get a good nutrient solution in ACT. That's got little to do with what I'm asking.

One advantages that the teas do have over solid compost is that you can spread the benefits of compost over a larger area.

If one using compost that they made themselves, they are somewhat limited by the volume that they can produce.

If one makes a tea, They can cover a much larger area with a relatively small volume of compost.

Keep it simple...

Althea said:

"Blutranes, I think you were right the first time."

Yes Althea, I know I am, but so is Rainer in his context. Rainer registered to this forum in February of this year, to weigh in on this topic demonstrated his comfort in the company of the thread. This is one of the things that make this forum grow, new members feeling welcome to join in conversation without fear of the consequences. This thread has taken many twists and turns, with this present direction very deep in both information and controversy. Yet, the tone and respect shown fosters even greater dialogue. To admit anothers "rightness" takes nothing away from any party; I preach it, thus I teach it.

I make compost by the ton, twelve (12) bins at the time. I turn them all by hand, I am not interested in windrow composting for I dont own or want a tractor. I store at least fourteen (14) 55-gallon drums of compost that is curing at all times. I just recently secured four (4) yards of fresh, urine soaked rabbit manure from a rabbit seller (free of charge), with plenty more where that came from. I have the material to create a giant worm bin as soon as I find the time to make it. I have an unlimited supply of organic material of all kinds, folks here could care less about ecology; there is no money in it for them. I plant ten (10) times more vegetables than I need, for I know what my friends, family, and neighbors are capable of and demonstrate every year. I love organic gardening and learning about it, I love to talk about it, and I love to listen to others talk about it. To some I am a sick man, to others I am a dream come true. I know what I am doing, yet I am learning what to do nonetheless.

My point is that this forum IMO, is my home. You and all the other members are my neighbors, weather we get along or not, matters not. When new members move in so to speak I welcome them and help them the best I can. I speak on matters I have experience with, not what I have read. I give here on this forum the same way I give here at my home. I treat others the way they represent; I do not pick and choose. This is my reality and I accept it just the way it is.

I dont have to be right all the time; sometimes I can let others be wrong. However, I do not cater to foolishness or ignorance. If one calls, I will come get them; I expect the same in return. The joy of this forum and its members continues to give great satisfaction to yours truly; I can only trust others find no less

Blutranes

Blutranes, I completely agree with you regarding the forums as a fantastic place for people with similar interests to share ideas. I also thought Rainer's post was exceptional, esp. when he/she cautioned against reductionist thinking.

Pablo, I'll try one more time.

"No- I suggested that your "data" did not answer my question."

The intent of my post wasn't to respond to your question, merely to state my experience.

"It's very simple. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. If not- then why make the claim?"

I did back up my claim with a description of the differing growth of two identical plants. You are the one asking for an elaborate experiment done according to established scientific protocol. My experiment was never intended to be classified as "scientific" according to your definition. If you want to see results of the experiment you have in mind, you need to either do it yourself, or contact a research institution that will do it for you.

"With links that cite actual studies. See the difference?"

The article clearly says analysis of the peer-reviewed research will take place in upcoming issues, not in that article. You are complaining that they didn't include cites when that wasn't the purpose of the article. The B.C. article didn't include any direct quote from the studies. There was no need to provide a citation. Anything written by anyone other than the original author is a secondary source. That includes you.

"Oh- c'mon- how many articles out there do this?"

If you include a quote, you need to cite the source. Earlier in the thread you said you have had your work published under peer-review standards. Do these standards allow authors to publish un-referenced quotes they pull out of thin air? Check the Chicago Manual of Style for the rules on quotes. You'll find the rule is what I have said. In the context of you post, it looks like you are referring to the B.C. article. You can't have one set of standards for yourself and demand another set of standards from others.

"I understand- until then, we don't have any that give us real hope that ACT does anything more than good old fashioned compost on the ground- at least that we've seen or that have been conclusive."

Based on what I've read, since every batch of compost is different and can't be standardized, you can never find the scientific certainty you are hoping for.

I don't want to see people taken in by something if it is really useless. The teas I have brewed from my own compost for use in my own garden have proved themselves. My experience is enough reason for me to continue. I encourage people to brew it for themselves and see if it has any benfits in their garden.

I've read non-aerated compost teas shows many of the benefits and possible more than ACT. An advantage of ACT is that it is faster to brew. In a short growing season such as mine, it makes sense to brew aerated for two or three days instead of wait two weeks or more for non-aerated brewing. Also, although this again is mere anecdote, I always top dress the garden with regular old compost, but the rich growth doesn't take place until after my ACT application.

If you prefer to wait until enough research has been done showing that ACT or even N-ACT is worth the time for you, that's fine.

"I did back up my claim with a description of the differing growth of two identical plants. "

That doesn't compare ACT to NCT or acompost.

" You are complaining that they didn't include cites when that wasn't the purpose of the article. "

If we can't see the data, then it doesn't help tell us if ACT does what people claim better than other methods. I'm not sure what the purpose of the article was- you were telling me that you weren't responding to my request...

"If you include a quote, you need to cite the source."

It wasn't a quote- despite being in quotes. It was a characterization of what I see passed here as data. I didn't claim that it proved anything, or attribute it to anyone- so let's not get concerned about plagiarism...

"I don't want to see people taken in by something if it is really useless."

I never said they were useless- quite the opposite actually.

" I encourage people to brew it for themselves and see if it has any benfits in their garden."

I have no problem with that. I just wonder what evidence we have to say that aeration helps this. That's my whole point.

"An advantage of ACT is that it is faster to brew."

How do you figure that? Add compost to water, stir, let it sit a day or 2 stirring a few times... that's about it really. I would not call nettle tea non-aerated compost tea. It's not made with compost.

"If you prefer to wait until enough research has been done showing that ACT or even N-ACT is worth the time for you, that's fine."

Have you read any of what I wrote before saying that? Where did I say it doesn't work at all? I use NCT- it works and is easier than ACT.

> This is one of the things that make this forum grow, new members feeling welcome to join in conversation without fear of the consequences. This thread has taken many twists and turns, with this present direction very deep in both information and controversy. Yet, the tone and respect shown fosters even greater dialogue.

Just wanted to pipe up to say that I'm sorry to say I disagree. The very first response to the original post by Captain Compost --- Blutranes's note, which claimed to "mean no disrespect" but then went on to make very sarcastic, disrespectful comments such as "You're joking, right?" and "people actually pay money for that "compost"?" was so much the opposit of respectful debate that I, who had been away from this forum for a while and was hoping to join back in, decided not to post.

Who knows how many other people are scared away by this kind of attitude? I have been hoping to learn something useful about ACT so have been reading the thread, but was really determined not to post because I have no patience for sarcasm, mockery, and unsubstantiated claims put forward as fact, but I just couldn't let the smug claim that this was all somehow pleasant and respectful go by.

It's not. The kind of post that mocks another forum user's efforts is unpleasant and disrespectful, and is keeping me (and who knows how many others) away from what could have been a useful, interesting debate.

Zabby

I definitely understand what Pablo is saying, and it is the main reason I have never made compost tea, aerated on non-aerated.

Though I have been making compost for maybe 10 or 15 years, it is small scale. I don't make nearly the amount most of you guys do, and I don't have space on my small suburban lot to have mountains of compost sitting around curing for a year. I use it when most all ingredients are not identifiable even though there might still be some sticks or whole leaves. I just spread the compost on beds. Everything I have read about the tea makes wonderful claims but it's always anecdotal. Many authors warn about spreading disease if the compost used in tea isn't fully mature, others warn against non-aerated teas for the same reasons. Some claim to use NCT with great results, and I've seen the same claims about tea made with immature compost.

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but rather a student. Like Pablo, I've not seen results of actual scientific studies to compel me to make the tea, either ACT or NCT. I keep debating with myself.

I think my background is way too heavy in science courses (though over 30 years ago). I'll just stay on the fence until study results seem analytical enough to my way of thinking.

My past experience tells me that if I spread actual compost that isn't completely cured, it will still do nice things for my soil but cause no harm. Same thing for lasagna beds or even simple mulching with OM. No telling how I might screw up with the tea! That's not to say that I don't think the rest of you should do it, it's just not my cup of tea :-) I also don't try to compost meat or animals or poop, but I know many do with terrific results. I watch and listen and learn and might eventually imitate.

But I understand Pablo and agree.

Karen

"it's just not my cup of tea :-)"

Karen...now that was funny, loved it.

Lloyd

from blutranes post of Friday, April 13 at 15:40:

"I dont have to be right all the time; sometimes I can let others be wrong. "

that the kind of attitude you're talking about, zabby?

although, if you think about it, it might be in the same range of comical as "not my cup of tea"...

"That doesn't compare ACT to NCT or acompost."

Well, I did top dress the pots with compost after transplanting the seedlings, just as I do the plants in the garden. Nevertheless, that's irrelevant since my only goal was to find out if ACT would be of any benefit determined by plant growth and vigor. Pablo, your experiment calls for n-ACT, not mine. :)

"If we can't see the data, ..."

Be patient. I understood the article to mean they would include cites in the upcoming articles when the reports are discussed.

"It wasn't a quote- despite being in quotes."

After I read it, I went back and re-read the article thinking you must have been quoting an actual source. You should have prefaced it by saying something like "we've probably all read statements such as ...", if you wanted it to me understood as irony.

"I never said they were useless- quite the opposite actually."

I just re-read all of your posts on this thread and didn't find one kind word about ACT. The only possible exception is suggesting it may have lots of nutrients.

"I have no problem with that. I just wonder what evidence we have to say that aeration helps this. That's my whole point."

You could try brewing a batch of n-act and a batch of act, test them in your garden and see if you can see any difference, evidence of one being more effective than the other.

"How do you figure that? Add compost to water, stir, let it sit a day or 2 stirring a few times... that's about it really. "

I should have written n-act vs act. Anyhow, I read it on ATTRA. Here is their recommendation.

"Methods of Compost Tea Production
Bucket-Fermentation Method

"Passive" compost tea is prepared by immersing a burlap sack filled with compost into a bucket or tank, stirring occassionally. Usually the brew time is longer, from 7 to 10 days. This is the method that dates back hundreds of years in Europe, and is more akin to a compost watery extract than a "brewed" and aerated compost tea."

Unlike Blutranes, I do write about what I have read, and tend to lean toward established "experts" when weighing in on a topic or idea. This is why I'm sympathic toward your call for proof of act's many claims when they are made by someone profiting from it. Yet, on a forum such as this, I'm interested in reading the experiences of others. So when you said "You could make a claim that pumpkin pulp cures the common cold.", it meant nothing because you only note 1 person making the claim. Now, if several people in varying circumstances make the claim,such as many did before I started brewing act, it might be worth trying.

"Have you read any of what I wrote before saying that? Where did I say it doesn't work at all? I use NCT- it works and is easier than ACT."

Yes, I have read everything you have written, twice. I didn't say you said it didn't work at all. How would you know if n-act is easier than act if you've never brewed act?

"I just re-read all of your posts on this thread and didn't find one kind word about ACT. "

Really? How about these?

-I have no doubt that leaching nutrient from compost will make something good for plant growth.

-Read what I actually said. I'm sure it helps.

-No tea vs ACT- ya, I get it. No doubt

-Again- I don't doubt that you get a good nutrient solution in ACT

No ill feeling- but I don't think this is much of a back and forth. I'm going to stop repeating myself and banging my head on this thread.

"Really? How about these?"

I did allow for the possibility of the nutrient comments being an affirmation. Didn't you read my post?

"-No tea vs ACT- ya, I get it. No doubt."

This really dosn't convey much of anything in response to your claim, "I never said they were useless- quite the opposite actually." You allow for only one scenario, all or nothing. Again, it isn't much of an affirmation.

Althea:"I should have written n-act vs act."

I didn't need to say that since it was clear in my post.

"No ill feeling- but I don't think this is much of a back and forth. I'm going to stop repeating myself and banging my head on this thread."

This we agree on. The feeling is mutual. :)