Aerated Compost Tea

[The Helpful Gardener]

You're still feeding nitrogen to the bacteria, G5. I'm telling you THEY are the nitrogen.

Feed the bacteria; get nitrogen. Feed the fungii. Get phosphorus. Both of these help etch enough potassium out of the soil. NPK is WAY less important than healthy biology, because healthy biology IS the NPK. I am oversimplifying some parts here, but the crux remains the same; feed the biology and it feeds plants. IF there is enough carbon in the soil, these guys will even show up without your help (how does a volcanic island populate? WAY faster than you'd think...) WITHOUT any intervention from humans at all, we'd still have plants, right?

We can get more from our soil by mostly leaving it be and making small additions of natural materials than all the plowing, tilling, turning and burning, dumping bags of stuff made in refineries, or spraying poisons you'd care to try. The best part of green gardening is stepping out of the way and letting Nature do her job. She's a pro with a lot of experience. All she really needs a hand with is a little more carbon (humus), some extra water now and then (she uses less then the chemical garden does, though), and the weeding. But don't we all need help with the weeding?

HG

[garden5]

You're still feeding nitrogen to the bacteria, G5. I'm telling you THEY are the nitrogen.

Feed the bacteria; get nitrogen. Feed the fungii. Get phosphorus. Both of these help etch enough potassium out of the soil. NPK is WAY less important than healthy biology, because healthy biology IS the NPK. I am oversimplifying some parts here, but the crux remains the same; feed the biology and it feeds plants. IF there is enough carbon in the soil, these guys will even show up without your help (how does a volcanic island populate? WAY faster than you'd think...) WITHOUT any intervention from humans at all, we'd still have plants, right?

We can get more from our soil by mostly leaving it be and making small additions of natural materials than all the plowing, tilling, turning and burning, dumping bags of stuff made in refineries, or spraying poisons you'd care to try. The best part of green gardening is stepping out of the way and letting Nature do her job. She's a pro with a lot of experience. All she really needs a hand with is a little more carbon (humus), some extra water now and then (she uses less then the chemical garden does, though), and the weeding. But don't we all need help with the weeding?

HG

I'm sorry HG, I'm really trying to get this. It seem like every time I think that I've got it, I realize that I don't . I think that I keep messing up on the nitrogen issue because I'm used to thinking about is as something that is not a living life form.

I first thought that you were figuratively speaking when you said that the bacteria were the nitrogen. I now see that you literally mean it.

Now, however, I'm getting confused . Earlier on, we spoke about how adding fish emulsion or kelp meal to the tea caused the bacteria too feed on the nitrogen. Now, if bacteria are nitrogen, does that mean that the bacteria are feeding on other bacteria? I'm starting to think that perhaps (now, this is just a total uneducated assumption) all bacteria are nitrogen, but not all nitrogen is in the form of bacteria. I really want to get over this hump in my understanding of soil biology.

Is the following statement correct: it's the nutrients (some in the form of microorganisms) that actually cause the plants to grow, but the plants cannot benefit (use) these nutrients without the microorganisms. Since most soils contain the necessary nutrients, it is the microorganisms that are the essential component to the successful garden.

Looking back at a few of my posts, it might seem like I'm getting argumentative. I apologize for coming off that way; I didn't intend to. I'm just really intrigued by this subject and full of questions (and you all are full of great answers ).

Thanks so much for helping me to understand the bacteria/nitrogen concept and for confirming or debunking my knowledge so far of this subject.

[Toil]

Now, however, I'm getting confused . Earlier on, we spoke about how adding fish emulsion or kelp meal to the tea caused the bacteria too feed on the nitrogen. Now, if bacteria are nitrogen, does that mean that the bacteria are feeding on other bacteria? I'm starting to think that perhaps (now, this is just a total uneducated assumption) all bacteria are nitrogen, but not all nitrogen is in the form of bacteria. I really want to get over this hump in my understanding of soil biology.

Is the following statement correct: it's the nutrients (some in the form of microorganisms) that actually cause the plants to grow, but the plants cannot benefit (use) these nutrients without the microorganisms. Since most soils contain the necessary nutrients, it is the microorganisms that are the essential component to the successful garden.

you aren't confused! you are just looking to fill out a new concept: the soil foodweb. I'm not sure, but that may be a commercial term now, but it's the best word. I am not sure if bacteria eat bacteria but the organisms you are asking about are protozoans. They look like giant monsters to bacteria. And bacteria are prey to them. Fertile garden soil should have lots of flagellates (one big hair), and not too many ciliates (little tiny hairs).

Guess what they poop out? mineralized N! just like miracle grow or manure. Only in a targeted area, and if you play your cards right, in measured doses.

In fact, on dr. ingham's site, she mentions samples being contaminated with protozoa when scientists were first studying certain bacteria. the bacteria wound up being classified as nitrate emitters, when all along it was predation.

[The Helpful Gardener]

Everything living on this rock, including you and me, are basically carbon and nitrogen. Fungi are around 20:1, trees are around 50:1 for deciduous and 100:1 or so for most evergreens. This is a simplification; trees vary depending on what part; bark is around 20:1 with the wood getting higher as it gets older (twigs are way less carbon than heartwood). A cedar shingle can be 1000:1; THAT'S why it won't rot... We're 30:1; so are protozoa and most other animals, including fish... proteins contain a decent amount of nitrogen... bacteria are HIGH nitrogen at 5:1...

When anything eats anything, we get what Dr. Ingham calls the poop loop; nitrogen releases as ammonia. Say Mr. Amoeba eats a bacteria; 30:1 eats 5:1. Amoeba now has all the nitrogen he needs, but still needs another 25 parts of carbon. Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp; five more bacteria. But he now has 5 extra nitrogens, which he excretes as ammonia (proteins are amine groups, carbon stuck to ammonia; break off the carbon (digestion)and you get ammonia) Each amoeba eats about 10,000 bacteria a day and there are about ten thousand amoeba in your average gram of soil. And they can get eaten by nematodes (100:1). More poop looping; more nitrogen.... bacterial soil lock only happens when nobody eats the bacteria. SO...

...rather than concentrate on putting soluble nitrogen in the soil at all, I am suggesting putting biology in the soil, as biology won't wash away, creates a very stable supply of N, and as we cultivate the higher orders of species in brewing tea, creates a slow release system we call a food chain (I like Dr. Ingham's term of food web better). Dumping on N is just short term until it rinses away, then we need more, my way makes it and releases it daily and it stays around...

The difference between what I am saying and what G5 is saying is the difference between meatloaf and hamburger. I say I want a meatloaf sandwich, G5 says "I'll get some hamburger." and I say, "We have meatloaf right here already.", so G5 says "Sure, for the meatloaf sandwich; I'll get hamburger."

See what I'm getting at? We are brewing tea to make biology (especially higher levels), not to make nutrients. It just happens that the biology is a LOT of the nutrients, but it's far more than that.

It's the whole meatloaf sandwich. With chips. And a pickle.

This is not easy G5; I know pros who have a very hard time wrapping their head around this because it sure isn't how we were taught to think. We have become very wrapped up in our NPK thinking; toils words on symbology ring very true to me. I am asking for a shift in thinking much like toils biodynamic thinking; don't think in chemicals, think in biology, much the same way biodynamics asks for less science and more spirit (which I still have trouble with; in case you haven't got it, I REALLY like my science ).

Changing an entire mode of thought does NOT come easily to humans; we will put up with really awful stuff "because that's how we always did it". Look how long it has taken to get rid of cigarettes, racism, or lawyers. What? We still have all three? See what I mean?

But it really will make thinking about what your soil actually needs a lot simpler when we start to think of it not as the place we stick the roots or dump the N, but as an entity itself, full of creatures to be nurtured and sustained. In taking care of THAT aspect, we take care of EVERYTHING else; pH, big nutrients, micros, symbiot biologies... the soil takes care of plants FAR better than any concoction we can come up with... our bad symbology for soil has us making bad choices concerning it. THAT'S why I want to change the meme...

G5, if you still don't get it, I am not explaining it well. Don't be sorry; that's not what this place is about. It's about getting you answers, and we will figure this out together. If it kills us...



HG

P.S. toil posted while I was crafting this short story . Good post toil...

[Toil]

Word!

Clarification: I am too science oriented for biodynamic as well, but I think it's a good thing for a good many people in a lot of ways.


RE: Teaming with microbes - can you guys discuss it in the teaming thread as well? If there is interest maybe others will follow. I hope no one reads any of my posts here looking for brewer designs.

[garden5]

Good information, everyone!

Thanks HG, for letting me know that it's the subject that's difficult and it's not just me.

I can clearly see now how when larger life forms eat the bacteria, they get all the nitrogen they need, but not enough carbon. This causes them to eat more bacteria so as to get more carbon. This results in them getting an excess amount of nitrogen over what they need. This excess is then excreted and is used by the plants. This is over simplifying it, I'm sure, but I think I've got the general idea.

I think I'm finally getting what you are saying about the nitrogen, HG . I think you are saying that nitrogen is nitrogen; it is its own mineral/compound(which I believe, in its fundamental form, is not alive), but also is a fundamental part of life forms (which are alive). Either way, its the same nitrogen. I think therein lied my problem: I kept thinking that nitrogen was just a non-living nutrient and couldn't see how the bacteria "were the nitrogen." Now, I do; I understand that it's a part of their fundamental composition and the composition of about everything else.

I see now that the nitrogen is the same, it's the delivery method that's different. It can get to the plant's soil zone by way of harmful, microorganism-killing fertilizers, or, it can find its way there by the predation of bacteria. I know there are probably more ways it can get into the soil (or is in the soil already), but I'm just focusing this contrast. I'm thinking this is what you meant, HG, by the hamburger/meatloaf story. It's the same ingredient, just served differently.

Essentially: focus on building up the "soil-critter" population, and the plants will get all the nutrients they need, partly because some (maybe all, I'm not sure) of the nutrients actually make-up the the microorganisms.

Do I have it now, HG?

[Toil]

I can't speak for hg, but: word!

[The Helpful Gardener]

Yes, you can, in this case anyway, toil.

"Where does it rain?"

"In Spain."

"On Where?"

"On the plain."

"BY GEORGE I THINK SHE"S GOT IT!!"

I couldn't be happier, G5. You have definitely got it...

You're right, there are other ways nitrogen can get there (droppings, snow, volcanic deposits) but we are talking the big two, to be sure. And you demonstrate a complete grasp of the details. BREAKTHROUGH! (happy dance...)



HG

[garden5]

YES!!!

I've finally got it! Now, I just have to keep from losing it . One more thing to celebrate is my one hundredth post.

So, to keep the knowledge-ball rolling, I'll throw up another question. I now know how the tea and microbiological life adds nitrogen to the soil, but what about the phosphorous? How do the microbes get phosphorous to the plants. HG, you gave me a great PDF a few posts ago about how some bacteria excrete organic acids that solubilize phosphorus that is already in the soil, but in a form that is unusable by plats, and makes it a form that the plants can use.

What other ways (if any) do microbes get phosphorus to plants. Do any microbes excrete this mineral when they feed on other microbes (I don't think they do)?

Thanks so much HG and Toil for sticking with me and explaining the bacteria/nitrogen relationship in different ways until I finally grasped it. It is much appreciated!

[The Helpful Gardener]

I love it. Just finished beating you over the head with big thoughts and you want more already. We are definitely alike in that...

Yup, excretions again; in the same manner that they are nitrogen, most everything living is phosphorus too. As toil pointed out elsewhere, the general currency of energy transfer between cells is this amine group (carbon and ammonia tacked onto something else) called [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate]adenosine triphosphate[/url] and as the name would imply, it's got three phosphates! So EVERY living thing has a huge amount of this floating about. Put it in the poop loop and the soil wants to lock it up, but those PSB's, and other weak acid responses put it back in play again for plants...

And there are mineral sources too, and fungii (know how they are water proof? That's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid]phospholipid[/url]; they are loaded witih it, but any permeable cell membrane you can think of (say, skin) is made from phospholipid)... bone is loaded with phosphorus, so are fish. There is usually plenty of P in most soils but it locks up fast unless we have plenty of biology to release it...

See why we call it a soil food web? So many relationships in so many directions that the old moniker food CHAIN just won't do...

How we doin', G5? Look, I don't get everything on those Wiki's and don't want to pretend I do. But I get enough to know that biology is not just a good place to store your nitrogen, it is an even better place to store your phosphorus; that's how Nature does...

HG

[top_dollar_bread]

Wow
Just wanted to drop in and say thanks to garden for all the questions and HG plus toil for all the info contributed in the last few pages. Wonderful stuff as usual going on in this site

[garden5]

Alright, let's see if I get this easier than I grasped the nitrogen concept.

Just about everything (if not everything) has phosphorous in it in one form or another. Anything with cells probably has adenosine triphosphate, a compound that cells break apart, take energy from, then recombines and the whole process starts all over again. Also, fungi (and some cells) have phospholipids, which are phosphorous-containing compounds that create membranes for the cells. I say "compounds" since I forgot the actual scientific terms that the Wikipedia articles mentioned. Phosphorus seems to take many forms (combines with different kinds of molecules in different ways) since it also appears in the soil to begin with.

When Microorganism eat each other, they leave behind some phosphorous for the plants to use. Since phosphorous is unstable, it quickly combines with other compounds (elements) in the soil and becomes unusable by plants. The main phosphorous-oriented benefit that the microorganisms lend to the soil is not only putting phosphorus in there, but also making the phosphorous that's already there more accessible to the plants.

Did I grasp everything alright? I think I did...this time .

[Toil]

And the word of the day is... Mineralization!

Plants need everything mineralized. Start by mineralizing these and see which compounds you get: C, N, P.

[The Helpful Gardener]

I think ya done good, G5.

toil, the way I understand it, mineralized forms are NOT plant available; they need to be ionic (dissolved) FROM that mineralized state. We are looking to seperate, not join...

In order for a plant to absorb nutrients, the nutrients must be dissolved. When nutrients are dissolved, they are in a form called "ions". This simply means that they have electrical charges. As an example table salt is sodium chloride (NaCl), when it dissolves it becomes two ions; one of sodium (Na+) and one of chloride (Cl-). The small + and - signs with the Na and the Cl indicate the type of electrical charges associated with these ions. In this example, the sodium has a plus charge and is called a "cation". The chloride has a negative charge is called an "anion". Since, in soil chemistry "opposites attract" and "likes repel", nutrients in the ionic form can be attracted to any opposite charges present in soil.

Like magnets, right? The ability of a soil to hold these positive charged particles is called the Cation Exchange Capacity, or CEC.

Soil is made up of many components. A significant percentage of most soil is clay. Organic matter, while a small percentage of most soil is also important for several reasons. Both of these soil fractions have a large number of negative charges on their surface, thus they attract cation elements and contribute to a higher CEC. At the same time, they also repel anion nutrients ("like" charges).

Yet another reason I am always harping on the compost; it actually adds CEC, as well as biological housing...

Some important elements with a positive electrical charge in their plant-available form include potassium (K+), ammonium (NH4+), magnesium ( Mg++), calcium (Ca++), zinc (Zn+), manganese (Mn++), iron (Fe++), copper (Cu+) and hydrogen (H+). While hydrogen is not a nutrient, it affects the degree of acidity (pH) of the soil, so it is also important. Some other nutrients have a negative electrical charge in their plant-available form. These are called anions and include nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (H2PO4- and HPO4--), sulfate (SO4-), borate (BO3-), and molybdate (MoO4--). Phosphates are unique among the negatively charged anions, in that they are not mobile in the soil. This is because they are highly reactive, and nearly all of them will combine with other elements or compounds in the soil, other than clay and organic matter. The resulting compounds are not soluble, thus they precipitate out of soil solution. In this state, they are unavailable to plants, and form the phosphorus "reserve" in the soil.

Except if they latch onto say, an ammonium molecule instead, and become ammonium phosphate. Hey, wait! That's just like chemical fertilizer. It IS chemical fertillizer!

Which means it is water soluble, just like chemical fertilizer . Which means it will wash out into ground and surface water, just like chemical fertilizer... . Not plant soluble (ionized) but still water soluble (not part of the soil). Bad place for phosphorus to be...

So the trick is a nice balanced phosphorus cycle. Not too much, not too little. What cycle might we know that would regulate the occasional release of P, right where plants need it?

toil, I can think of no compound using all three (but enlighten me if you have a thought, please. The chemical thinkin' hurts my thinker. Why do you think I like to concentrate on biology so much? it's just eatin' and poopin' and THOSE I get, real good. Ask my wife!) .

I can mineralize carbon into C14 if I have no lignin conversion (how we got coal and oil in the first place, but that is another story) but even an octet grouping of carbon gets me brown coal, otherwise known as humate. I can add 4 hydrogen and make my N ammonium (solid cationic form) or I can add 3 hydrogen and make ammonia (gaseous state with neutral charge) We tend to get the latter in anaerobic conditions), and due to it's neutral state, it gasses off, taking our fertility with it... which is why I don't like that anaerobic state... a very sorry state... you can add your phosphorus to the hydrogens in the same way and make phosphene gas, and there goes that as well. Anaerobic is just bad for soil...

I don't WANNA mineralize my nutrients! I wanna Biologize mine! It's safer, and it don't hurt my thinker as much...

How we doin' G5? Got a little squirelly there at the end (ignore toil and I while we babble), but do you get the CEC thing? You are gonna be so set for Teaming With Microbes at this rate...

Thanks to the folks at Spectrum Analytic [url=https://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/CEC_BpH_and_percent_sat.htm]for their great explanation of CEC.[/url]

HG

[Toil]

CO2 plus water equals what? Dissolved CO2! AKA carbonic acid. Without ionic C, no glucose, no ATP.

(CO2 is mineralized C. Source: Dr. Inghams site)

mineralized nutes + water = ions.

Just like NaCl plus water equals Na and Cl ions. Those Na ions in solution make your nerve cells work. You need minerlized nutes too.


(I'm on my iPhone and can't research, so check all this before you believe it). The above is as I understand it from the soil foodweb inc site. Maybe I misunderstood? The table salt bit is from memory, but as of this edit I'm wondering if Ca is the ion that jumps from outside the myelin sheath to the inside to fire the neuron.

Edit: ok this was bugging me so I looked it up. You know I care when I pull this on an iPhone. From the sfi site. And I think this is short enough and factual enough to fall under fair use:

Why do microbiologists say that bacteria mineralize? First, we need to understand what mineralization means. When protein is converted into carbon dioxide and ammonium or nitrate, that is mineralization. More generally, conversion of an organic material into mineral forms (carbon dioxide is a mineral form of carbon, and nitrate or ammonium are mineral forms of nitrogen) is mineralization.

What about when rock is solubilized? Rock is a mineral. You can't mineralize something that is already a mineral. Typically rock P is turned into an organic form, through the action of bacteria or fungi, and on occasion root acids, and incorporated into the biomass of these organisms. When the bacteria or fungi or plant are eaten, phosphate can be released, and since phosphate is a mineral, that would be mineralization.

I have to admit, I'm just believing it because dr ingham said it. I have no clue, just trust. Any chemistry heads out there please explain. I can say with confidence though, that bacteria/archea provide us with atmospheric C, which is the basic prerequisite for Plant and animal life (after liquid water). Thank your PSB's bacteria evolved and transformed the planet.



No matter how or if you garden, or what species you are, green or pink on the inside, if you breathe air you owe your life to bacteria mineralizing C. Every breath you take, every move you make, you are using bacteria farts filtered by photosynthesis to do it. And every cell in your body has carbon that was also once bacterial flatulum.

Sort of blows holes in our cultural metaphysics. We are not lords set above or apart from nature. Our machines, our selves, our thoughts... Just one more natural process, indistinguishable from the whole. Agency and self awareness does not make us new and different, just occasionally blind and arrogant.

Now about that tea... This is getting long but I have one tip for small plots and indoor plants. An ACT brewer designer told me: brew if you want to, but make sure you have enough o2. An aquarium pump can handle a gallon or two, no more. As an alternative, quintuple the compost, add to the water, stir for 5 minutes, and pour. You can filter it to spray. That's direct extraction, and is near perfect "tea".

I use a good fistful or two per gallon to do this.

[garden5]

To confirm: The CEC (cation exchange capacity) is a measurement of how much of a negative charge the soil contains (which is influenced by the make-up of the soil). This negative charge influences how many positively charged nutrient (element) ions the soil can attract, hold, and exchange. Nutrients are usable by plants when they are in their ionic form. Negatively charged soil elements will also repel negative nutrient ions (anions).

I think I'm two for two so far .

What happens to the anions and cations after they are repelled by or attracted to the soil. I'm thinking that both the anions and cations can be used by the plants, but that the anions that are repelled by the soil have a chance at being washed out, as opposed to the cations which are held.

Are the ionic nutrients ready to be used by the plants or do they still need to interact with the microbiological life forms? Maybe it is the interaction with the microbes that makes the nutrients ionic, I'm not sure on this one.

Toil, great information, especially about the small batches of compost tea. That will come in handy for when the seedlings start growing.

One thing I wonder about is the statement that an aquarium pump is only good for a gallon or two of tea. I find that hard to believe since that is what most people seem to use for a 5 gal. batch of tea, and the math that HG and I did a few posts (page or two) ago, seems to support this.

What's your opinion on this?

[Toil]

Ouf, I have nothing to back up my hearsay.

Let me work on it. It's about dissolved oxygen, and the guy's point to me was that I was "doing it wrong". I kinda just believed him. Maybe I should not have spoken, but I wanted to give the context of the conversation.

Be patient, I gotta go sing a concert and tomorrow I travel. I should be warming up right now.

Damn HG! It's like crack!

[gixxerific]

Good information, everyone!

Thanks HG, for letting me know that it's the subject that's difficult and it's not just me.

Don't feel bad I'm still trying to figure it out some 17 or so pages later.

What really gets me is why I'm not getting emails of updates to this most awesome thread.

:edit: I posted this a page or so ago, it seems like you got it. I'm pretty much there. It's hard to keep up though after reading the 3 pages I missed. Still computing it all

[The Helpful Gardener]

Hang ten Gixx, good to see you on the book club forum too. You're doin' fine...

10-4, G5, the training wheels are officially gone. You're getting the hang of this...

To come back to thread, when we add tea to soil, we are adding biology above all other things. This biology becomes the innoculant for a larger colony that becomes a nutrient sink BEYOND the CEC, AND our soil "coagulant" (increasing tilth and field capacity), AND one of the key forces that helps bring nutrients out of the CEC and make it plant available (ionic forms are plant available forms). My position is that THIS is the key focus to soil health going far on beyond ANYTHING you can do with chemicals. THAT'S why we love this thread as we do...

HG

[garden5]

Hang ten Gixx, good to see you on the book club forum too. You're doin' fine...

10-4, G5, the training wheels are officially gone. You're getting the hang of this...

To come back to thread, when we add tea to soil, we are adding biology above all other things. This biology becomes the innoculant for a larger colony that becomes a nutrient sink BEYOND the CEC, AND our soil "coagulant" (increasing tilth and field capacity), AND one of the key forces that helps bring nutrients out of the CEC and make it plant available (ionic forms are plant available forms). My position is that THIS is the key focus to soil health going far on beyond ANYTHING you can do with chemicals. THAT'S why we love this thread as we do...

HG

Hmm, so the the microbes store up all the cationic nutrients that the soil can't handle and the anionic ones the soil repels. That makes perfect sense. Not only do they store it, they also move it into the plant's root zone since they are attracted there by the polysaccharides (?) (remembered the concept, forgot the term) that the plants exude through the roots. If you think about it, having microbes is like having a 100% organic fertilization system built right into the soil .

OK, HG, here is something that intrigues me. A few pages ago, we spoke about the benefits of adding ACT to little seedlings since the microbes not only add some nutrients, they also help in the development of the seedlings roots. However, I recently read that you want to plant seeds in soil-less, or at least sterile, planting medium and not compost because the microorganisms in compost that help large plants grow well are actually detrimental to seedling and can kill them . Could these be the anaerobic microbes that are killed in the aeration process of the tea that are harmful to seedlings?

What are your insights on this subject?

Toil, it looks like you might be in the right with your statement. At the very least, my math a few pages ago does not pertain to it . You are speaking about disolved oxygen (something I don't fully understan...yet ); my calculations were referring to how many times the pump turns the water in the bucket.

[The Helpful Gardener]

The microbes don't store as much as they just ARE nutrients that plants can use; they need to be eaten to release said nutrient. But that more N, more P, more traces than we can store in CEC, right? And these won't wash away like free phosphorus... so it not like, it IS like having a fert factory in the soil. Exactly so...

The reason so many places are keen on sterile for seedling mix is the fact that they are about to hit these lil fellers with the chemical nasty, and as we've discussed elswhere, doing that is going to whack good guys before bad guys. Sterility is a false attempt to stack the biological deck or at least get the plant a little start before pathological organisms start. Organically we are not allowing any particular organism dominance, so the seedlings choose who to provide with cake and cookies (we are not so much establishing real roots at this stage as we are developing symbiot mycorhizal colonies that work with the seedlings, and the plant does a pretty good job of that. Or it should, anyway).

If I am developing a forum, I can just invite people I know to the forum, and it becomes a pretty sterile place, limited by what and who I know. If I invite the world, it gets filled fast with a crazy patchwork of personalities and characters, and takes on a life of it's own, but in so doing becomes SO much more than my pick and choose forum ever could. Kind of like this nuttiness .

Soil is NO different... only if you are ready to work in dead soil by feeding ammonia salt is sterility important. Just tried to explain to wife why sourdough starter is not "rotting" on top of refrigerator. Same thing. Good healthy cultures support health, not endanger it

HG

[Toil]

I have to add: seeds that get into my wormbins sprout like editeds. They never damp off, they just blanch and die from dark.

Sterile schmerile.

[The Helpful Gardener]

Nice technical terms, toil...



HG

[Toil]

Lol. You know the kitty cations and anions and polysaccharides made my head spin. I was too dizzy to sound smart.


I caught myself using the curse "edited" to myself today. As in edited, not a cursed word edited to read edited.

[garden5]

Thanks for reminding me about the bacteria being the nutrients, I knew that they were and can't believe that I almost regressed back to our former discussion.

I think that I should be alright starting/growing my seeds in my sifted compost, which is mostly dirt, anyway. I don't plan on adding any inorganic fertilizers, but will probably do some compost tea with the extraction-method that Toil mentioned.

Also, I now want to get some worm castings and add them to the soil and make some tea with them. Are most all kinds sold in the store organic, or are there certain things I should look out for when buying WC?

Well, I guess that since we discussed nitrogen, and phosphorous, let's round out the "big three" with potassium. What are your insights on how the microbes relate to the K levels in the soil?

[Toil]

At the risk of sounding elitist, commercial worm castings are not a great way to go unless you are very near the source and they feed good stuff.

Maybe do it this once, but composting or worm binning is the way to go.

There are a bunch of ideas in the vermiculture threads. Check em out. I got my favorite up there. Easy as pie but you need a sowing machine.

[soil]

or are there certain things I should look out for when buying WC?

if you can biological and nutrient analysis is best. or know the source and call and ask how they run things. how they ship and store, things like that.

[The Helpful Gardener]

Even the really big boys in this game still rely on worms to get the job done. As noted, natural systems tend towards stability and fertility. I don't find any reason to dis the commercial guys at all; I was making VERY nice castings in a commercial unit and harvesting a LOT of casts fast...

That said, I do ok in my veggie garden too; probably took a five gallon bucket for other projects and still tons left. Nature just does... but I was harvesting ten times that weekly without even trying in a 16 by 4 by 4 commercial bottom drop type bin,if we'd of pushed it we could have done five times that easy... and no different than what you get from a homestyle unit, not one bit...

HG

[Toil]

HG check out the design I use. Worm bin bag. It's a diy flow thru. Makes castings fast. Just like you describe. Only smaller.

It's very easy to manage moisture, as it breathes. The material is polyester felt. Instructables dot com.


[img]https://wiki.vermicomposters.com/wormbin/images/4/4a/Wormbinbag.jpg[/img]

[garden5]

I wouldn't call you an elitist, Toil, I call you a purist!

I'd love to have my own worm bin, but I don't have an idea about them. I don't even have my tea brewer up and running yet, one thing at a time .

You have an interesting setup, Toil, how's it work? On second thought, let's not take this thread any more off topic than it already has been . After I get this soil biology thing down, I'll post another thread on vermicomposting. I definitely want to learn about that, too.

First, the tea; second, the worms .

[Toil]

Yeah, back to tea.

Can anyone tell me how compost tea differs from worm casting tea? Should I mix them? Use them different? I know they are not actually the same thing at all.

HG? Someone?

[The Helpful Gardener]

No, they are the same thing, pretty much, we just ran one through a pile and one through a worm. The concept remains the same; biological innoculation...

HG

[garden5]

HG, what are your thoughts on the "direct extraction" method described by Toil?

Also, and I know I asked this before but can't find the post, can ACT be too strong, that is, is there a required minimum dilution rate, or can I use it full strength?

I want to give it to my seedlings as they're growing under the lights, but don't want to over-power them.

Thanks.

[The Helpful Gardener]

It's more compost intense, as noted, but as all we are trying to do is culture, rather than populate the soil, this is a viable method. Be sure of water and compost quality even more than usual, apply immediately, as even a short sit could be disastrous, and you might even kick in a teaspoon of mollasses per gallon just to boost the innoculation process.

But it would work, no doubts... it would take longer than compost tea (we have multiplied the original inhabitants by facters of ten or twenty, even more there) to get effects, but it would work...

HG

[garden5]

Could you explain exactly what role the molasses play in the tea? How to they affect/benefit the microbes?

[The Helpful Gardener]

It's simply a bacterial food, but in their increase, they provide protozoal food, and so on and so forth...

HG

[garden5]

So, you are saying that bacteria multiply more rapidly when they are feeding? How do the levels of bacteria increase, anyway? Do they breed with one another or do they send out other bacteria from themselves?

Thanks.

[The Helpful Gardener]

Yes, exactly. Bacteria multiply by cellular division; that increases as their energy inputs increase, and glucose is a great kicker...

HG

[garden5]

Yes, exactly. Bacteria multiply by cellular division; that increases as their energy inputs increase, and glucose is a great kicker...

HG

Wow, I got it right. Do the fungi, protozoa, and other microbes multiply in the same manner?

[The Helpful Gardener]

Fungi not so much; we need to get those spores into the soil to grow. But an increase in bacteria means an automatic increase in protozoa; increase any prey population and the predator population booms to match it. Doesn't matter if we are talking lions and wildebeest or soil biology. More little fish mean more big fish...

HG