From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Alaska

I have to agree. ACT is a waste of time money and the effort put into it. Until the so called soil food web experts can come up with scientific peer review studies backing up thier claims, IT'S JUST SNAKE OIL!! So get off the couch and get busy adding as much good compost to the patch as you can. That's when next years magic will start to happen. Later Spudley.
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Compost%20tea%203rd%20time.pdf

11/14/2007 3:36:40 PM

Somers, CT

Spudley or anyone, I found the article interesting. Is the reasoning behind using aerated compost tea specifically for supressing disease or is it supposed to add to nutrients and intake of nutrients as well? Growers using teas had a good year, but as you say, there is no data to back up the reasoning behind their success. I have seen old books (1972) that discuss teas with no aeration.

12/4/2007 2:23:17 PM

President - GPC

I have found some studies....I go back and find out where I read info. I know there have been tests done on certain brewers and biology counts done on them....

12/4/2007 3:11:46 PM

Alaska

From what I have read somewhere along the way Anerobic teas may have some disease suppressive qualitys where as Aereated teas not so much so. IMHO if you take care of the soil by adding as much organic material as you can and supplement with some liquid feed then Teas in my mind are a waste of time and money. I've used ACT as a stand alone product and used it along with my regular program. I got no better results when using it with my program and was back sliding when it was the center of the program. So little is known about the micro-herd. It's all most impossible to get consistent results. For a field that so little is known about it seems to me that the so called experts need to be very carefull when they make claims they cannot back up. It's the kitchen sink approach with these folks and it stinks.
This statement backs up more or less what I believe. So if you believe in the other .001% then be realistic about the results. Later Spudley.

Evolutionary theory? When we are dealing with well over a million species of bacteria in a forest, and we can't even isolate and grow 99.999% or more of them, how can evolutionary theory even be consdiered?
By Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.

12/4/2007 3:53:43 PM

Seattle, WA

Spudley, have you any idea who funded her study? Her and Elaine have had a personal and academic feud going for many years now.

Did you look at the actual studies she reviewed. Most of them are total crap! Did they measure DO levels throughout the entire brew to ensure the tea remained aerobic? (NO). Did they use a good brewer that have been proven to provide high levels of beneficial organisms? (NO). Did they test the tea or look at it under a microscope to ensure it was good before using it? (NO).

Many of the studies she uses for that article are highly flawed.

I believe the University of Maryland produced a peer-reviewed study on compost tea this past year (or it's coming out soon).

Also, there are many studies that support the use of compost tea. It's not a one-sided argument!

I'm not saying that compost isn't a good thing or that compost tea is a complete substitute. However, I make compost tea all the time and look at it under a microscope. You can't tell me that it doesn't contain millions of beneficial organimss. I've seen the results myself both under the microscope and in the field.

~Tad

1/15/2008 8:24:24 PM