Compost *extract* is a bag of compost soaked in water: fertilizer and some microbes. Compost *tea* is when you've added molasses, aeration, and time to grow a lot more microbes.
We got twenty odd tonnes of spent mushroom compost dropped off at the allotments, round Halloween last year. It's wonderful stuff if you can find a place near you. Downside may be the fact you're getting a large lorry load, most likely. Or they could dump a bucket load in a trailer for you. If it's small scale, they may already sell it in tonne bags, to make a little side money. I was listening to a few webinars by eorganics, I think it was. They have a much more grounded, and realistic view on organic farming. They have an excellent one on growing blueberries, you may like. As well as one testing a range of organic inputs, alongside the reference of just woodchips. Their thing on understanding soil tests was also pretty good. I think once every five years or so was their advice on the gap between tests. They did suggest maybe getting another person who is also trying to amend their soil in the same area to also get a test. That way you can stagger the tests and at least get some idea of what direction your soil should be heading in. But it's still a long term thing, and you can only see a general trend until it's your turn to actually get data on your soil every five years. Also had some good info on soil tests you can do at home with some basic brewing gear, and other basic enough items. Even then, they said these are just good ways to ballpark what's going on. Like the underpants test. It won't give you exact numbers, but it's a good general guide. Microbes were also handled a lot better. I think the guy giving the talk was part of a team who got to name something or other. But then went on to say that seeing that in your soil doesn't really tell you much. Unless you see very high/low numbers of an organism, which you know is a reliable indicator of some set of conditions, or is a known pest you can ID. A lot of it is about making a genetic soup, then looking for peaks, and valleys on a chart.
Here’s the test I use to distinguish between good new ideas and bad new ideas: if it sounds too good to be true it probably is a bad new idea. Or trouble!
UC Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology. Blueberries for the Home Garden and Small Farm. Sorry man, that's the video on blueberries you may like. I'd post a link, but it would prob be flagged as spam.
30:15, " that is why compost tea doesn't work". I've heard Robert use this argument before and it is a misconstruction of the usage of compost tea. Using compost tea or extract is effective when a naturally occurring microbe population is depressed in an artificial manner such as excessive usage of herbicides, fungicide, deep tillage or extended fallow periods. Ceasing those destructive methods and the introduction of diverse populations of microbes via compost teas or extracts can speed up the recovery of soil microbe populations to the level that can be supported by available organic matter. If soil has adequate microbe population and diversity then there would be no need for any microbe population recovery methods. I agree being skeptical of grandiose claims is warranted but some of his arguments are short sighted or supported by incomplete science and more research is necessary. This exact argument got me blocked from Roberts comment section. I don't think my comments are objectionable in the least.
He's arguing that if the soil has a diminished microbe population - it's because it can't support them for whatever reason (including the ones you list above) - so adding them will not accomplish much. Ceasing the destructive methods and doing nothing will allow the microbe population to increase. Ceasing the destructive methods and adding organic matter will allow the microbe population to increase even faster. Ceasing the destructive methods and adding organic matter and keeping the soil mulched will allow the microbe population to increase even faster. Adding compost tea on top of that will be a useful fertilizer for things that are growing, but in terms of the microbe population the effect will likely be a drop in the bucket in comparison to all the aforementioned effective methods.
Robert makes a compelling argument but it is akin to a Gish gallop, albeit less disingenuous. His dismissal of microscopy as a useful tool is problematic, the flippant comparison between microbe population in a speck of dirt and ACT is inaccurate, the inaccurate description of the process of making ACT, the dismissal of the work of multiple PHD level scientists, the use of science to back his claims while simultaneously stating the science is incomplete for others to use, the conlfation of healthy and distressed soils, as well as other contradictory statements regarding rate of growth and specific location of microbes and the importance of relevant effects. Robert is an expert and I appreciate his willingness to call out grandiose claims. I also understand Robert uses science to back up his arguments but his rigidity of opinion while using loose arguments on this topic belies the nascent quality of the research in this particular field of science. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the interaction and forcing me to articulate my issues with his opinion.
Compost *extract* is a bag of compost soaked in water: fertilizer and some microbes.
Compost *tea* is when you've added molasses, aeration, and time to grow a lot more microbes.
Always great to hear different points of view, I do try keeping things simple, less chance to over think!
We got twenty odd tonnes of spent mushroom compost dropped off at the allotments, round Halloween last year. It's wonderful stuff if you can find a place near you. Downside may be the fact you're getting a large lorry load, most likely. Or they could dump a bucket load in a trailer for you. If it's small scale, they may already sell it in tonne bags, to make a little side money.
I was listening to a few webinars by eorganics, I think it was. They have a much more grounded, and realistic view on organic farming. They have an excellent one on growing blueberries, you may like. As well as one testing a range of organic inputs, alongside the reference of just woodchips. Their thing on understanding soil tests was also pretty good. I think once every five years or so was their advice on the gap between tests.
They did suggest maybe getting another person who is also trying to amend their soil in the same area to also get a test. That way you can stagger the tests and at least get some idea of what direction your soil should be heading in. But it's still a long term thing, and you can only see a general trend until it's your turn to actually get data on your soil every five years.
Also had some good info on soil tests you can do at home with some basic brewing gear, and other basic enough items. Even then, they said these are just good ways to ballpark what's going on. Like the underpants test. It won't give you exact numbers, but it's a good general guide.
Microbes were also handled a lot better. I think the guy giving the talk was part of a team who got to name something or other. But then went on to say that seeing that in your soil doesn't really tell you much. Unless you see very high/low numbers of an organism, which you know is a reliable indicator of some set of conditions, or is a known pest you can ID. A lot of it is about making a genetic soup, then looking for peaks, and valleys on a chart.
Here’s the test I use to distinguish between good new ideas and bad new ideas: if it sounds too good to be true it probably is a bad new idea. Or trouble!
UC Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology. Blueberries for the Home Garden and Small Farm.
Sorry man, that's the video on blueberries you may like. I'd post a link, but it would prob be flagged as spam.
30:15, " that is why compost tea doesn't work". I've heard Robert use this argument before and it is a misconstruction of the
usage of compost tea. Using compost tea or extract is effective when a naturally occurring microbe population is depressed in an artificial manner such as excessive usage of herbicides, fungicide, deep tillage or extended fallow periods. Ceasing those destructive methods and the introduction of diverse populations of microbes via compost teas or extracts can speed up the recovery of soil microbe populations to the level that can be supported by available organic matter. If soil has adequate microbe population and diversity then there would be no need for any microbe population recovery methods. I agree being skeptical of grandiose claims is warranted but some of his arguments are short sighted or supported by incomplete science and more research is necessary. This exact argument got me blocked from Roberts comment section. I don't think my comments are objectionable in the least.
He's arguing that if the soil has a diminished microbe population - it's because it can't support them for whatever reason (including the ones you list above) - so adding them will not accomplish much. Ceasing the destructive methods and doing nothing will allow the microbe population to increase. Ceasing the destructive methods and adding organic matter will allow the microbe population to increase even faster. Ceasing the destructive methods and adding organic matter and keeping the soil mulched will allow the microbe population to increase even faster. Adding compost tea on top of that will be a useful fertilizer for things that are growing, but in terms of the microbe population the effect will likely be a drop in the bucket in comparison to all the aforementioned effective methods.
Robert makes a compelling argument but it is akin to a Gish gallop, albeit less disingenuous. His dismissal of microscopy as a useful tool is problematic, the flippant comparison between microbe population in a speck of dirt and ACT is inaccurate, the inaccurate description of the process of making ACT, the dismissal of the work of multiple PHD level scientists, the use of science to back his claims while simultaneously stating the science is incomplete for others to use, the conlfation of healthy and distressed soils, as well as other contradictory statements regarding rate of growth and specific location of microbes and the importance of relevant effects. Robert is an expert and I appreciate his willingness to call out grandiose claims. I also understand Robert uses science to back up his arguments but his rigidity of opinion while using loose arguments on this topic belies the nascent quality of the research in this particular field of science. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the interaction and forcing me to articulate my issues with his opinion.
Did Elaine sell out? LOL