Yeah, you can dilute it, but use de-chlorinated water.

How are you going to spread it? If you use a pump-up style sprayer it'll go a long way.

BTW, I brew 4 gallon milk cartons for my yard and I stagger the brewing start times by 24 hours to make sure the biology is fresh when it hits the targets.

Good luck,

Chuckiebtoo

Are you still brewing after your '05 review of the literature ?
I read an opinion just now that actually prefers NCT to ACT .

There seems not yet to be detailed research on the various lives with which we are messing.

And does it rain on the parade if we advocate caution about where to let earthworms loose ? (Not in a forest, not near or in a lake )

My takeaway so far: don't spray tea on leaves you will eat.
Applying the castings as mulch is apt to do the most good.
However, since the bedding is still mulch after the castings have been "brewed" out,
I remain tempted to brew so as to be able to use it more widely.
I will be testing on tomatoes without high expectations. I can wash the edible fruit.

There "must be" good results that science can't yet document:
sort of like human nutrition in the forties -- too many variables for predictability.

IMO We all should read the Chalker-Scott Master Gardener
opinion:

http://puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Compost%20tea%20again.pdf

I find it interesting that in the above article not once is "vermicompost" mentioned but everytime it is compost. Im sure the level of microbes and how they will act will be different from "compost" microbes.

Speaking of myths, I had a very difficult time right off the bat with the cited article. The patronizing arrogance of the following paragraph almost made me actually wretch:

"I limited my review to scientific journals, and books published through scientific organizations and
academic publishers. I excluded the 13 articles in Biocycle, Arbor Age, and IPM Practitioner; they, like
B&B and other trade journals, are not scientifically reviewed. There were published abstracts from
scientific meetings which I did not include for the same reason. Peer review is critical to the scientific
community, as it allows other researchers in the field to examine manuscripts before they are published.
When an article appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it means the methods, results, and conclusions were
found to be scientifically viable by objective outside scientists."

Repeating the above mantra above is - in my opinion - one of the greatest travesties perpetrated on "the people" by the scientific community in this 'modern era'. I have been a professional "scientist" for the last 43 years. There is no greater LIE than:

"When an article appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it means the methods, results, and conclusions were
found to be scientifically viable by objective outside scientists."

First let's dispense with "objective outside scientists" BS. The foundation stone upon which all of this rests is "blind review". This means ostensibly that the reviewers are not known to the author(s) or readers, and usually the author is "unknown" to the reviewers. This is supposed to create an air of "safety" for the reviewers and authors so that the reviewers can GIVE an "honest", "objective" review and the authors GET an honest, objective review.. BULLONEY! The FIRST thing that happens when a paper is submitted for review and publication is to find reviewers that are "familiar with the field of research". Most people "familiar with the field of research" will KNOW the author(s) regardless of whether the AUTHOR(s) names are provided to the reviewer or not. If "you" are familiar with the field, you KNOW who is doing what, and HOW THEY DO IT and how THEY WRITE. There goes "objectivity" right out the window.

Second no one, AND I MEAN NO ONE, EVER REDOES an experiment. NO ONE! Realistically speaking, no one has the time OR MONEY to do that. It's absurd to think anyone will EVER do that, and it is absurd to expect reviewers to do so. Far more importantly, authors almost NEVER include the "details" of their methods. On the benign side, editors demand "succinctness". On the sinister side, (more powerful motivation by FAR), author(s) USUALLY have something to HIDE, OR they want to hide a technique that allows them an "advantage" over their colleagues in the "publish or perish" WAR.

Third: It is rare as hen's teeth today that the "results" are honestly reported. Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he said: "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians." Today, lying about results is THE NORM, not the exception. Of course there would be howling to the high heavens by the "righteous" that they "never" lie. However, that is only a technical "truth". What SHOULD be true in ALL walks of life, but especially in areas like science and engineering, is that the "experts" do not MISLEAD those that rely on their expertise and opinions with "technical truth". Let me be clearer: If "you" - the "expert" - KNOW that a reasonable person will come to the WRONG conclusion about the information you are presenting, and you do nothing to clarify that misunderstanding (or in the case of today's "science" have that misunderstanding as the GOAL), then you LIED. This is ABSOLUTELY COMMON-PLACE in scientific literature today! The reasons are: Publish-or-perish, negligence, ineptitude, ego, arrogance, money, laziness, not necessarily in that order.

The "peer review" process is completely corrupted. COMPLETELY! It is a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" OR "screw you, I'll never let anything you do get published" system. And the so-called "blind review" is the rotten HEART of the problem. Anonymity does NOT "protect" author(s) and reviewer(s), IT HIDES DISHONESTY, LAZINESS, and a multitude of sins.

So what is the solution to all of the abject DECEIT that is RAMPANT is the scientific community today? FIRST is to do away with - COMPLETELY - the so-called "blind review". It does NOT accomplish what it is ostensibly supposed to do, and more importantly, it HIDES dishonesty, incompetence, negligence, and ineptitude and FACILITATES deceit. "Blind review" makes it almost impossible to "follow the money" (determine "unholy" relationships) with regard to a particular scientific publication. Knowing WHO reviewed the work AND THE TEXT OF THEIR REVIEWS would go a LONG way toward reversing the landslide of deceit that overwhelms the scientific community today.

From the paper:
"but these results have apparently not been repeated elsewhere. (Unfortunately, much of this
work was published as annual reports, which are not reviewed by the scientific community. In contrast, a
later paper found no significant reduction in Plasmopara viticola in grape after treatment with compost
extracts.)"
Gee, imagine that. Nobody repeated the results and subsequent work yielded results exactly OPPOSITE of those reported. WHICH ONE IS DECEIVING?

"I have a home landscape with many trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. I don't use pesticides except for an
occasional shot of Roundup; I don't use fertilizers, unless I can determine a deficiency (most commonly
nitrogen, which I add as fish meal only to plants that need it); I don't add anything else to the landscape
except wood chips as an organic mulch. I don't have disease problems, I don't have insect pests, I have a
healthy, organic landscape. This tells me that compost tea is not crucial for landscape health. If a
landscape has serious soil or plant health problems, it is not likely that compost tea is going to solve the
problem. Often in urban areas the problems are soil compaction, overuse of fertilizers (especially..."
After extolling the "necessary" virtues of "scientific review" what does the author ultimately rely on when the "scientific" publications provide only diametrically opposed results? HER OWN UNREVIEWED, PERSONAL, EXPERIENCE.

The article is "good" from a few perspectives:
1) It illustrates at least some modicum of review of what is "out there" regarding the TRUE efficacy of "compost tea", and,
2) It is a 'glowing' example of the arrogance, deceit and duplicity of the scientific community today.

Science - and again, I speak as a scientist myself of some 40-odd years - has become a religion. The priests are the "expert scientists". They WANT to be "rock stars" and some of them have become so; Sagan, DeGrassi, Hawking, etc. The priests want "you" to come to them for "knowledge" that ONLY they have access to. Challenging their priesthood and religion will result in the EXACT same sort of problems that all religious challengers have faced throughout history, except that today, the "execution" is professional execution, rarely (but not without exception) physical execution. Only "true believers" are allowed to "practice the art", and the only way to demonstrate that "you" are a true believer is to publish in accordance with the "canons". Canons that preserve the priesthood.

Rant off, but I'm still 'wound up' as is always the case when I read patronizing arrogance, so if "you" want to climb up on a self-righteous high horse to "defend" science, be prepared for a vigorous and no-holds-barred challenge to "your" righteousness.

Paul

We go over and over this topic every couple of years. I suppose because chemo's just refuse to believe that vermicompost can do what I KNOW it can do because it's been doing it for me for 15 years of using nothing but it.

The magic thing about anything that goes thru a worms' body: IT COMES OUT THE OTHER END DEVOID OF HARMFUL BIOLOGY AND TEEMING WITH GOOD BIOLOGY THAT WILL OVERWHELM AND WIPE OUT EVIL BIOLOGY ANYWHERE IT ENCOUNTERS IT.

Brewing tea simply magnifies and grows that good biology many-fold and the tea allows you to deliver that fantastic biology to places like leaf surfaces on plants and trees.

I've got lots of pics that prove the viability of tea that I'll post again if anyone hasn't seen them before. People can believe their eyes or what the chemical industries want them to believe.

Chuckiebtoo

Check out my latest addition on my post-- worm tea - first batch.

Chuckiebtoo

Please post your pictures again demonstrating tea effects.
Also add as much information as you can about ratio of compost/castings to water and whether you use molasses or other enticement for desired bacteria.

question to Paul: pskvorc

where is the link I sent you ?
LCS didn't recognize the article about peer review on her site.
Her site is on Facebook. I don't know my way around Facebook.
I''d like help finding the original critique of Peer Review.

Barbararose

I'm sorry Barbara, I don't quite understand your question. Do you mean you lost the original link you sent me and would like me to send it to you? Or are you referring to some other "article" or link?

In case it's the former, https://www.facebook.com/groups/GardenProfessors/

If it is the latter, I'll need a little more info. Sorry if I appear dense.

Paul

barbararose21101:

I brew avct in gallon milk jugs and put about 5 heaping spoonfuls (about a little less than a cup) of vc into the de-chlorinated gallon of H2O. I do use un-sulfured molasses because you have gotta feed all that new biology you're producing.

The pics: I gotta load them off a CD that's among a stack of CD's looming behind me on a shelf with lots of pitifully labeled CD's that I need to organize anyway. THANKS!!

cb2

to Paul

Yes that was the question : When I find it, (the GP post about shortcomings of peer review) I'll make a pdf so "we" will have it. I enjoy being in the middle of disagreements.
It seems an interesting way to learn.

The Garden Professors, among others, advocate putting the vermicompost castings directly on/in the garden, and wonder why bothering with tea. I can think of a couple reasons, but
only if the tea really does what folks believe it does.
(Dilutes, distributes . . . ) As I've posted elsewhere, I'll be doing a sloppy test: I am inviting advice about how to test the tea.

Chuckie: How much molasses to that gallon? & it seems you don't have the VC in a bag, so you are straining after aerating ?
Or not straining, not spraying. Diluting to use ?

I recommend a book about Roots (Kourik). Excerpted:

the highest populations of soil oranisms . . . hang out in the most aerobic zone of the soil. . . where the most nutrients are liberated. . . into a soluble form that can be absorbed by root hairs . . .

What can be inferred ? Tea is dissolved solution, conceivably more ready for roots ? So: ?? Something I read somewhere puts coca cola on plants. I'm ready to speculate that the critters in the dirt like sugar -- coke to molasses.

Hence a request to all : please post demonstrations of the effects of your TEA with your recipe.

barbarosa 21101:

here's a pic: up the hill, my neighbors yard infected with take-all-patch. down the hill: my yard unaffected with AVCT and no chems.

This take-all-patch happened in every yard in my neighborhood....except mine. I converted a lot of folks after this.

cb2

"Chuckie: How much molasses to that gallon? & it seems you don't have the VC in a bag, so you are straining after aerating ?
Or not straining, not spraying. Diluting to use ?"

A "dollop" of molasses ( a dollop being about the same as a big swig of cold beer in August). I: Don't use bags. Do strain (with a flour sifter....works perfect). Use hose-end sprayer with an in-line de-chlorination filter on the hose (works).

cb2

Another pic of my neighbors' take-all-patch that AVCT stopped at my property line.

Thanks for finding & posting pictures.
Nice contrast.
Did the neighbors feed or treat their lawns in any way ?

Since my North West lawn is a 40 year old lumpy mix of unknown grasses, planted clover, dandelions, Quack grass & Crab grass, I've never heard of Take-all patch. So I looked it up: it is G. graminis, a fungus, and doesn't thrive in acidic conditions.

Got any pictures of vegetables fed tea vs other fertilizers ?

I'm sneaking a comment to Paul in here:
I am concluding that the G. Profs are guilty of the sins you ranted about.
But I think they serve a useful purpose, .
When a "Scientist" is dogmatic or immodest credibilty is compromised.
(Tough to be brief on the topic.)

One must always be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath. "Science" isn't "bad", bad scientists produce bad "science". (Bad "science" isn't really science, it is mostly just voodoo.) We are producing bad scientists - biostitutes - at an alarming rate.

I could rant on all the causes and sources but that's for another forum. I would like to encourage people to NOT find a "favorite" scientists because the scientist either says what the person WANTS to hear, or because the scientist "makes a good argument". We are TRAINED to make "good arguments" with NOTHING. Let me repeat that: We are TRAINED to "WIN AN ARGUMENT" when NO data supports the argument. We are trained in obfuscation. In fact, "winning" an argument when the side one took was patently WRONG, is highly praised! How many times have you heard some scientist say when faced with a logical rebuttal to their pet theory: "Well, NOTHING is impossible." Or these days; "Well, MOST of the scientific community ACCEPTS this."

I wish I had a "technique" for "you" to use to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I don't. Personally, after 40+ years practicing science as a professional, I START OUT with the perspective that the data reported is at some level FALSIFIED. That perspective is borne of a lifetime of finding out that EVERYwhere I went data was being falsified and that even my "friends" were "fudging things" here and there.

We are left to our 'own devices'. We must use our common sense. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it has feathers and lays duck eggs; it's a duck. We also have to NOT MARRY some "favored" scientist. As soon as we do that, we are lost. Furthermore, we MUST learn to ADMIT WE'RE WRONG when we get off track or are mislead by an "expert" that we had faith in.

There are two quotes I use to guide my steps these days. One is very old, and one is fairly new. The old one is "You will know them by their fruit." I learned through training how "talk" is more often than not, deceiving, but ACTION shows the truth. The new one is just the other side of the same coin: "What are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

Paul

The sinister thing about take-all-patch is that when it starts decimating your lawn, your natural impulse is to water the dying vegetation but, because it is fungal, that's the worst thing you can do.

When it gets a grip on the lawn, most of the time it wipes it out and you have to start over.

cb2

another tea proof pic but without a chemo comparison (I don't use chemo). Raised beds with tomatoes and peppers.

chuckiebtoo, in a post on this site I remember you very recently linked to a brewing site. I did not know you had another forum you visited. I feel... ... like I just found out about your other, younger, blonder, forum. In my quest to know everything about everything I have found there is not enough time in the day. Can I skip reading every page of that 'other' forum and just follow your methods. My guess is your methods are a learned synthesis of the best methods for brewing. I want to put brewing on my to do list. The list is long. But I want to get there. Mostly I want to show chemo's that take all patch don't come around here no more. A stark contrast line like in your photos would be perfect. How do you get the line so straight? I want to tell that take all patch to hit the road. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ

pskvorc, I hear ya. The value of peer-reviewed is cuckolded. Similar happens in college accreditation. The same could be said if our own posts here were given status by other posters. If somebody said good or bad about my posts, how would I judge their posts? Maybe even without official status similar still happens. This is on my mind when posters pop up out of no where super attentive and positive in replies to frequent posters?

~ Your Friendly Neighborhood, well OK (spell check made me do it.) the opposite side of the continent, Poster.

Yeah, I want to use capitals too. Mark Twain also probably wanted to use capitals. Instead he just used characters who were characters to tell his story.

EQtoo......I will gather up some documentation. Next week.

I'm on an Easter pilgrimage to worship at the skateboard of my grandaughter this weekend.

I've begun my spring tea brewing processes now and may do some new pics and stuff with that. Been thinking about updating some of it all based on recent conversations about it here.

Cb2

chuckiebtoo, I don't need documentation. I'm already a believer. :-)

I for one loved chuckietoos take on the bioligy of what comes out a worm and agree with it totally.

"The magic thing about anything that goes thru a worms' body: IT COMES OUT THE OTHER END DEVOID OF HARMFUL BIOLOGY AND TEEMING WITH GOOD BIOLOGY THAT WILL OVERWHELM AND WIPE OUT EVIL BIOLOGY ANYWHERE IT ENCOUNTERS IT. "

Amen