Compost Tea

Bartlett science is like science done by the cigarette companies. Trying to legitimize forgone conclusions. Knowledge request id like to see the proof you have for even 1 case of E Coli in any legitimate actively aerated compost tea. Why so hostile?
 
Unfortunately, the science just isn't there on compost teas. There are lots of anecdotal stories of amazing results, but no instances where experiments were held with sufficient numbers and or controls, with the subsequent findings reviewed by a blind panel of scientific peers, to make sure that the experiment/findings met real scientific standards.

As to Bartlett, they make money by adding value with the services and materials they provide. If scientific review had backed up the efficacy of compost teas, I have to think Bartlett would have been all over making it a part of their offerings. Bartlett did show that the constituent components of the tea seemed to work better without the brewing component. That seems pretty forthright to me.

Hearing scientists talk about how they can't be hemmed in by the peer-review process, is pretty much the same as saying that their assumptions should be accepted as fact, without being tested for actual validity.

Some of these compost tea purveyors have been operating since 1996. In all that time they've not been able to show conclusive, peer-reviewed evidence that their products are significantly effective? Why is that?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Bartlett science is like science done by the cigarette companies. Trying to legitimize forgone conclusions. Knowledge request id like to see the proof you have for even 1 case of E Coli in any legitimate actively aerated compost tea. Why so hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]


MichaelBDunn, its interesting you find my posts hostile. It is difficult to have conversations online without hearing tone inflection or facial expressions. Was it the fact I asked for Mr. Tea to provide us with data? And why attack the Bartlett Tree Research Lab???

Apparently it is too much to ask that you advocates of ACT provide any efficacy data for your concoctions. The fact remains that it is just silly to bother leaching material from compost to use as a drench or illegally as a pesticide when the intact compost can simply be applied as an organic mulch layer. Let rain and irrigation run through that compost layer and there you will find a useful tea.

ed
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually this forum is Tree Buzz. A website dedicated to the practicing professional arborist. As a practicing BCMA I strive to give my clients a science based product. Compost tea ain't science. Its science fiction.

Hit us with data, Mr. Tea. Show me this Harvard "proof" you have.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'll provide two claims that Harvard makes, that would seem beneficial for my area:

Didn't Harvard claim they save 15% on water usage due to the Compost Tea?

Didn't Harvard prove that the soil isn't compact anymore? It becomes naturally aerated.

To me that's huge. Out here, where it is arid climate & we have compact clay soil, that would be huge for my customers. It would be huge for the trees.
 
I took the time to read the report from the harvard soil rehab project . Without doing a soil bulk density test, they proclaimed the soil to be compacted. The soil wasn't naturally aerated.They did that manually. They also put down 3/4 of an inch of compost over the entire site. They planted new grass, put down organic fertilizers (yes.. fertilizers) and introduced an incredible number of variables into the test plot.

As to irrigation, they put down 300 gal of water every time they applied their compost tea. They never gave any specific information as to how much water was put down before, during, and after their study to specify their claims of reduced water needs, and who can say that the tea caused any real reduction? Could it have been any of the other interventions they applied?

That's the problem with their study. They threw everything at that plot but the outhouse shingle, but attributed positive reactions only to the compost tea.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I took the time to read the report from the harvard soil rehab project . Without doing a soil bulk density test, they proclaimed the soil to be compacted. The soil wasn't naturally aerated.They did that manually. They also put down 3/4 of an inch of compost over the entire site. They planted new grass, put down organic fertilizers (yes.. fertilizers) and introduced an incredible number of variables into the test plot.

As to irrigation, they put down 300 gal of water every time they applied their compost tea. They never gave any specific information as to how much water was put down before, during, and after their study to specify their claims of reduced water needs, and who can say that the tea caused any real reduction? Could it have been any of the other interventions they applied?

That's the problem with their study. They threw everything at that plot but the outhouse shingle, but attributed positive reactions only to the compost tea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see those points.

The promotion of Compost Tea on "This Old House" looked like they were in a large courtyard area, where students walked on the turf all the time. It also looked like they had soil plug from that area and another "controlled" area with out the C.T.

I can see how this can be misleading.
 
My question is, how can Compost Tea not be beneficial?

It seems to me like people are "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

In otherwords, people are throwing the whole idea out rather than looking for the positives. And it seems that people are not leaving room for improving the development of Compost Teas.
 
Jamin, I've got to turn that statement inside out, and ask why the people promoting teas, aren't willing to put them to a stringent scientific test? There's certainly been ample time since folks started promoting and selling compost teas, for someone reaping the benefits to put together a significant field study, with sufficient replicants and controls to prove or disprove the concept, and the willingness to let relevant experts review and comment on the experiment and the findings.

It's the difference between adapting your assumptions to the facts, or adapting the facts to your assumptions.

The positives just aren't there in any numbers which justify the time and expense of brewing, transporting and applying teas, versus mulching with compost. Compost, unfortunately, doesn't have all the bells and whistles and wow factor that are inferred from the tanks and sprayers and brewers involved with producing and applying compost teas. Compost doesn't put you back on the property month after month either. It just does its job, quietly and effectively, in sync with the trees.
 
Wow,this has gotten pretty heated, i myself believe in compost tea and have seen the benefits: Healthier looking plants, LESS insect and disease pressure, More Tolerence to drout stress and after a few years soil that has comparible microbial numbers to forest soils (and yes i have had soil tests done). so im not here to defend what i have seen with my own eyes, As for the "where is the scientific study?" my company will be starting a long term study with Soil Food Web later on this season. Stay tuned. and will be glad to share the results when they come in.

My intent on joining Tree Buzz was to help others interested in starting/improving there compost tea programs
 
From a microbiology point of view, I believe in the process. My problem is with the application of the brew. Too many variables.
 
I think that compost tea is a legitimate product to provide to clients to reduce soil compaction over time. I see compaction as THE primary issue limiting urban tree life expectancy. Any product that increases O2 in the root zone will have a whole host of additional benefits for trees and other plants in the landscape.

That being said, I believe a compost tea program should be combined with physical aeration and the occasional application of sand and compost on clay soils.


I do understand that many of you need to see independent research, and I have posted a few articles before. Here is a link to Dr Scharenbroch's exciting research at the Morton Arboretum Soil Science Lab. http://www.masslaboratory.org/mass_020.htm


Personally, I'm a believer, although I do concede that we need more independent research and clearer standards. Personally, I recommend ACT as a soil amendment, not as a pesticide or fertilizer.

Bartlett's research is suspect, to say the least. I won't comment further.

Finally,Knowledgequest, I am interested in your comment that there are several other legitimate products available....I am unaware of any other product on the market that reduces soil compaction (aside from physical airknife decompaction).
 
It's not so much independent research I'd like to see. I'd just like to see a peer-reviewed study. It's the same standard that the rest of the scientific community is held to, so why can't the promoters of teas be troubled to produce a study that will hold up to that same standard? It's just a standard for scientific research,like ANSI has standards for tree work.

If the the assumptions will stand up to a peer-reviewed study, then they are facts. If not, well then perhaps the product isn't all that it was hoped to be. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, since proponents all claim to see positive signs in treated plant material. If anecdotally, people are finding improvements, then further digging may be needed, to discover what might actually be the agent of the noted improvements, if it isn't the teas.

Thinking that something should work, is optimism.

Proving that it works...is truth.
 
KYLimbwalker, excellent discussion. I am a bit surprised at the tenacious grip some otherwise fine arborists have on this nebulous practice.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that compost tea is a legitimate product to provide to clients to reduce soil compaction over time. I see compaction as THE primary issue limiting urban tree life expectancy. Any product that increases O2 in the root zone will have a whole host of additional benefits for trees and other plants in the landscape.

That being said, I believe a compost tea program should be combined with physical aeration and the occasional application of sand and compost on clay soils.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aerate and amend with compost, eh? Why do you need ACT?
Applying this stuff alone would give no real long term benefit. About the ONLY reason I can see to use compost leachate is when it is also applied along with the compost from which it was derived. And, I ask you KYLimbwalker, what is the point of leaching out material from the very product I intend to lay down as an organic layer?

[ QUOTE ]
I do understand that many of you need to see independent research, and I have posted a few articles before. Here is a link to Dr Scharenbroch's exciting research at the Morton Arboretum Soil Science Lab. http://www.masslaboratory.org/mass_020.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem many here do not need independent research. Blind faith based on anecdote seems to be enough. “Trust me, it works.” “now pay me”. ACT is very expensive considering you are unable to quantify any real benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'm a believer, although I do concede that we need more independent research and clearer standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standards? Do you mean A300? That requires an analysis for compliance. Correct?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I recommend ACT as a soil amendment, not as a pesticide or fertilizer.

[/ QUOTE ]

KYLimbwalker. Exactly what are you amending? Alone the stuff is useless. Apply with compost and aeration and guess what? You composted and aerated. What need is there to dump compost leachate on the ground? To charge a premium? I guess you get to come back a couple weeks later and feed this hopefully occupied army with another application of $omething or other.

[ QUOTE ]
Bartlett's research is suspect, to say the least. I won't comment further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suspect, to say the least? I tried to answer your questions. How about return the favor. What is so suspect about Bartlett’s research? If the stuff worked they would be endorsing it as a money making product, dontcha think?

Finally,Knowledgequest, I am interested in your comment that there are several other legitimate products available....I am unaware of any other product on the market that reduces soil compaction (aside from physical airknife decompaction).

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about ACT and decompaction.


You guys are caught up on the Bartlett research that discounts ACT. Do your own internet research and learn the multitude of respected researchers/scientist/practicioners, outside the Bartlett realm, whom also discount the stuff.

Look. I think i get it, you folks have made the capital investment in your equipment and you are making money selling this stuff to your customers. I just hope you are being honest with them, and yourselves, about what it can do and what it can not do.

Good luck, people. Stay safe.
ed roland
ISA BCMA 4595-B
 
Knowledgequest-

Put on your reading glasses. This is a long one.


The main problem I am trying to solve is how to get urban trees to stay healthier, longer.

To do this, I believe we need to focus our attention on soil compaction. Specifically, I think urban trees tend to die young because urban soils have low oxygen and inhibit fine root growth. It is a bit odd to think of oxygen as an essential nutrient, but it is THE most essential nutrient. It is required for plants in order for them to use all of the other nutrients. Leibig's Law of the Minimum states that that plants use nutrients in relation to one another and that nutrient which is in shortest relative supply is THE limiting nutrient.

I believe oxygen is the most limiting "nutrient" in most urban soils.

Petroleum fertilizers do not aerate the soil or decrease compaction. They have not been effective in prolonging tree life.

In order to prolong a tree's life, I believe we need to do improve soil health by:

1. Improving structure
2. Improving chemistry
3. Improving biology

We can add compost and sand to improve the physical structure of our clay soils in Kentucky.

We can then, using a soil sample, add missing macro-nutrients (using organic ammendments)to improve the chemistry.

Finally, we can improve the biology of the soils by adding organisms which speed up the rate of decay and/or form mycorrhizal relationships with plant roots to improve the uptake of nutrients.


Listen,

I think we have addressed urban tree needs in a very narrow way in the past. Too many arborists focus on fertilizers as the primary method to address tree health. But remember, no one ever fertilized an old-growth forest.

Tree health is dependent on soil health. A soil is considered healthy when it is full of organisms which form positive relationships with plant roots, and pathogenic organisms are absent. (These "good" organisms are essential in mineralizing nitrogen and increasing nutrient availability)


Compost tea is not some type of magic elixer. It is most effective when used in the three steps I outlined. Compost Tea standards are developed at the company Soil Food Web. I expect that as more people try compost tea, we will change and improve upon those standards.

To summarize, I believe we can improve soil health by systematically improving soil structure, chemistry, and biology. I am convinced that compost tea is a reasonable tool to use. Plus I like that it's organic.
 
"I think we have addressed urban tree needs in a very narrow way in the past. Too many arborists focus on fertilizers as the primary method to address tree health. But remember, no one ever fertilized an old-growth forest."

Are you implying the health of old growth forests have been dependent upon the application of aerated compost teas? I am having trouble following your line of reasoning here, KY. Nobody in this thread has championed modern fertilizers for trees.

And
Where is your explaination as to how Bartlett's research is so "suspect". Wanna give it another go?

"Tree health is dependent on soil health. A soil is considered healthy when it is full of organisms which form positive relationships with plant roots, and pathogenic organisms are absent. (These "good" organisms are essential in mineralizing nitrogen and increasing nutrient availability)"

Then add them in the same way the old growth trees in your above example have enjoyed them throughout the eons. Not some hippy microbial homebrew sprayed through a nozzle but from the natural process of the decomposition of intact litter.

ed
 
Knowledgequest,

The whole reason we are using compost teas is because the natural process of decomposition of litter is not allowed to happen. If we had that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I said Bartlett's research was suspect and that I wouldn't comment further. So I'm not.
 
Look. I want to say this and then i'm done with it. It was fun but i kinda feel like i farted in some kind of yoga class.

You were the one that brought up old growth. I dunno why.

Thanks, buzzers.
ed
 
I'm lovin' this thread. Not because of the head to head compost tea fights but because a lot of great information is coming to light.

I'd love to see some definitive science on the issue but i doubt that's ever possible. Soil biology and chemistry is so vastly complex and hard to measure that it's almost impossible to control all the variables in an experiment.

I think that ACT is a tool that we should keep and use but only in limited situations. I cringed at the Harvard video that showed simple sprinkling of compost juice over lawn areas. Too simple and too naive.

We know that mulching helps trees immensely. The majority of tree owners are unwilling to invest in decompaction and remediation through physical aerating, adding compost, mulch and teas. I think an affordable alternative is to add fresh or seasoned mulch to root zones and then apply compost teas throughout to inoculate the organic matter with decomposers.

Thanks for all the posts guys.
 
It's a conspiracy man!
The big Ag companies don't want you to know that aerated compost tea is more effective at sustaining long term soil and plant health. If word got out that it is effective they will lose a lot of revenue. That's why your not seeing peer reviewed studies. Non of the university professors want to lose their jobs because their research threatens the major donors to the university where they work. The university will choose the funding over a research project.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Knowledgequest-

In order to prolong a tree's life, I believe we need to do improve soil health by:

1. Improving structure
2. Improving chemistry
3. Improving biology



[/ QUOTE ]


This is exactly what compost tea is all about

Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom