The foundations of my belief in the viability of AERATED worm or compost tea are teetering and I'm afraid, without some support, my whole vermi philosophy is about to come crashing down.

My convictions re ACT come from various published (non-advertising related) info from the web which proclaim CT "increases plant growth", "provides beneficial nutrients to plants and soil", "provides beneficial organisms", "helps to suppress diseases", and "replaces toxic chemicals". I realize that all of these claims are general and none really address the foliar aspect of ACT.

Among other articles, Kitchen Gardener published an article, reproduced by The Taunton Press, BREWING COMPOST TEA by Elaine Ingham, that extolled the virtues of ACT. Exhaltations included: ACT "makes the benefits of compost go farther", "when sprayed on the leaves", ACT "helps suppress foliar diseases", "increases the amount of nutrients available to the plant", and "speeds the breakdown of toxins". It's "even been shown to increase the nutritional quality and improve the flavor of vegetables".

In the same article: The science behind compost tea, includes the facts that "the soil is full of microorganisms that aid plant growth and plant health--bacteria and fungi, which are decomposers, and protozoa and beneficial nematodes, which are predators. But there are bad guys, too--disease-causing bacteria and fungi, protozoa, and root-feeding nematodes". WHEW.

"THE BAD BACTERIAL DECOMPOSERS AND THE PLANT-TOXIC PRODUCTS THEY MAKE ARE ENHANCED BY ANAEROBIC, OR REDUCED-OXYGEN, CONDITIONS. By making sure the tea and the compost itself are WELL OXYGENATED AND HIGHLY AEROBIC, you eliminate 75 percent of the potential plant disease-causing bacteria and plant-toxic products. To take care of the other 25 percent of potential diseases and pests, you want to get good guys into the soil AND ON AT LEAST 60 TO 70 PERCENT OF YOUR PLANTS' LEAVES. Good bacteria work against the detrimental ones in four ways: They consume the bad guys, they may produce antibiotics that inhibit them, they compete for nutrients, and they compete for space." WHEW, TOO.

When I absorbed all this, I yelled YIPPEE!!! I've found the holy grail! This is the missing part of the puzzle!
And I began to formulate THE PLAN, which I've stayed with up until now, until inferences began being made that "ACT is benign, aeration is unnecessary", etc, ad nauseum.

Pardon the brevity of my post-I could have cited many more testimonials for ACT-but the questions that have arisen by recent posts seem to dispel all the above "facts". Posters seem to be distancing themselves from positive statements about ACT. Kelly, you, in particular, continue to proclaim "do what works for you, what you feel comfortable with", "I steep tea without using aeration", etc.

If Ms. Ingham's studies have been rebuked, for what reasons, and by whom? Kelly, your ambivalence toward ACT, if I interpret your posts correctly, could use a little amplification.

I just want to know if I am spraying my ACT against the wind.

Thank you for your diligent and attentive effort to get all the way to this point in this ridiculously long post.

Chuckiebtoo

I've made compost and casting tea at different times for a fertilizing aid, and aerated or not found it didn't do much different than just using the compost dry - main problem I came up w/ [aside from the unecessary mess and fuss] is that you never know exactly what the nutrient composition of any given batch of 'tea bag' material is, and how that's affected by the length of brew time, and how the bacterial population is actually changing [unless you can do a lab analysis hourly thru each batch!]

don't know Elaine Ingham other than to know that her 'soilweb' labs are multiplying at an alarming rate, and the analysis offered ain't cheap! I find that a 'regular' soil analysis can reveal all thats required to know about a thoughtfully tended soil, and regular additions of compost [also useful to have analyzed occassionally] keep my garden soil healthy enough that I don't have disease and insect problems beyond a very minimal level to be expected on this planet, and my plants do well

the best fertilizer is indeed the footsteps of the gardener!

Bill

Below are two links to legitimate, research-based papers/articles reflecting the lack of data and the conflicting data regarding compost teas. People post links all the time that never get read, but I would strongly encourage you to read these. They are relatively short, but are well written and cite published research that will allow you to follow up should you choose.

http://www.mofga.org/mofgm04c.html

http://www.cra-recycle.org/CCC/inthenews/June 2003 newsletter.pdf

Lynda Chalker-Scott of WSU Puyallup is one of the researchers who disputes Elaine Ingham's claims, and whose questions are available on the internet. Below I have linked two of her WSU-published fact sheets:

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda Chalker-Scott/Fact Sheets/Compost tea fact sheet.pdf

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda Chalker-Scott/Horticultural Myths_files/Myths/Compost tea again.pdf

Please note in the above statement that I said Chalker-Scott questioned Elaine's CLAIMS, not her research. Published, peer reviewed research conducted by Elaine is not in question, but there is damned little of it, and certainly not enough to support the broad statements of the efficacy of ACT, and the claims that ACT is superior to NCT that appear to come from Soil Food Web. Consider, Chuckie, the number of lay-people and home gardeners who love compost teas, but the dearth of accolades for compost tea coming from Extension Agents, Ag and Hort advisors, farmers, orchardists, vintners and mainstream gardening experts. People who rely on research for their claims have so little on which to base an opinion of compost tea that they cannot generally advocate its use. Still, there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest there is something to tea use that these same professionals find themselves reluctant to advise against it. So here we are, left with some confidence that tea is good, but without sufficient scientific backing to say what exactly, or how specifically tea should be used so that we ensure that the majority of those trying it will see the suggested benefit. In the absence of such data how would you suggest we procede?!? I want so badly to scream from the hilltops that tea will reliably replace chemicals and always enhance plant growth, but I have absolutely no reliable proof of that, and in the absence of proof I have a responsibility to remain cautious in how I approach the concept.

I do believe that one day hard data will enable us to start making research-based claims about compost tea. As such, I am very concerened that people are not turned off to the concept prior to this happening by inflated or misguided claims of efficacy or complicated "rules" and expensive equipment requirements for making teas without knowing if such gyrations are necessary. Thus, I suggest that folks go with their gut as opposed to listening to those who stridently criticize all tea making methods but their own.

I hope to hear from you, Chuckie, and from anyone interested in more detailed discussion or this or any other compost, vermicompost or soil related subject. My phone line remains open to you!

Kelly S

The article I referenced has been, pretty much, my basis for using ACT, and most recent blog posts have not necessarily concurred with most of it, so I was just seeking, on a forum that seems to exist for such things, more than I've been able to come up with.

I will research the sites you so graciously provided with a new found appreciation of the controversy of the subject matter.

Chuckiebtoo

I trust my gut with regard to the benefits of vermicompost, so I can respect that others feel the same about ACT. Can't you hurry it up with that hard data? :-)