Microbe Organics
(This site is best viewed using medium or smaller text setting)
Ciliate
Microbe Organics? What the heck is this?; You ask. It is the name I
chose to describe my approach to the understanding and interpretation
of microbial based soil and plant amendments currently evolving in
horticultural practices throughout the world. Two such practices which
you may have heard of or use yourself are Compost Tea and EM (Effective
Microorganisms {EMRO USA} or Beneficial and Effective
Microorganisms{SCD}; 2 Brand Names). I will be focusing to begin with
on the practical analysis and use of Compost Tea.
I am initiating
this website in July of 2007 to coincide with the release of a DVD I
produced to assist with the identification microscopically of the major
beneficial microbes at work in compost, soil and Compost Tea. I need to
make some money to support my work so it will be my primary thrust.
More about that later.
I am not an
expert in this field of biology, in fact I am a lifelong student and
will defer to the far superior overall knowledge of several experts in
microbial based amendments, however what I have to offer is a
translation or simplification of many of the terms, functions and
observations surrounding this science. The reason I am able to do this
is mostly due to my ‘I have to see it to believe it or comprehend
it’ attitude. When I first started researching microbial based
agriculture about six years ago I set up a small microscope laboratory
enabling me to observe the microorganisms present in Compost Tea,
microbial fermentations (e.g. EM), compost and soil. I set up an
interface between a video camera, microscope and computer thus allowing
me to capture real time video which has culminated thus far in the
production of my first DVD.
Like the
science which this growing (pun intended) phenomenon is based upon,
this website will evolve over time. I will post links to sources of
knowledge, supplies and practical solutions as I acquire permission to
do so and as I learn of them. As I gain more skill managing this site I
hope to post video footage of observations and experiments. Therefore
keep checking back for updates.
Contents;
Compost Tea
Organic Growing from a Microbial Perspective
DVD
Naked Amoeba
Who I am
Microbulator Compost Tea Brewer
Projects
Tests, Observations & Postulations
Resources & Links
What is Compost Tea?
Very simply
stated Compost Tea is a water-based environment wherein beneficial
microorganisms are extracted from compost or vermicompost (worm
compost) and multiplied by the millions and billions. Some form of
agitation breaks the microbes free from the compost and they multiply
because food, like black strap molasses, fish hydrolysate, kelp meal, humic acid, etc. has been added to the water,
which at least one type of microbe digests. When one or more type of
microbe begins to multiply in response to the food, other microbes
respond to this growth and begin to consume these initial microbes and
multiply in turn and so on and so on. For example the initial microbes
are usually bacteria which are food for protozoa so the protozoa
multiply in response to the bacteria. The end result is a functional
feeding cycle or microbial nutrient cycle. I refer to this as a
functional microbial consortia. This develops over a period of 12 to 72
hours or more and is then applied to the soil and plants. In the soil
there are a number of organisms which function in basically the same
nutrient cycle and zone. Once again, simply stated, there are substances
released from the roots of plants which feed bacteria (& archaea), again the
bacteria/archaea become prey to the protozoa and the protozoa excrete
substances with are available to the roots as nutrients (e.g. nitrogen)
thus creating a feeding cycle. Other compost/soil microorganisms of
great importance are fungi. Fungal hyphae, are long branching strands
which grow through the soil and serve to; bind soil aggregates
together, help retain moisture, store certain nutrients, provide a
source of food to certain other microbes, provide pathways for nutrient
and moisture delivery, decompose organic material and displace disease
causing fungi. There are also other types of fungi which do not grow
(to my knowledge) in compost or Compost Tea which form a direct
symbiotic nutrient exchange relationship with roots. This sort of fungi
is called mycorrhizal fungi and there are many different species. The
major microorganisms at work in Compost Tea are bacteria, protozoa
(flagellates, ciliates and amoebae) and fungal hyphae if present in your compost. It is best to
have a wide diversity of each of these microbes present. There are
higher order organisms like nematodes found in compost and soil and
occasionally these are extracted into Compost Tea but they do not grow
nor multiply in the tea. Of course in the soil there are many other
contributors to the nutrient cycle, like insects, earthworms and other
animals. In its totality this is often referred to as the soil food
web.
Fungal Hyphae (phase contrast)
All life
is in a symbiotic nutrient cycle even down to the microorganisms
contained in our gut that assist us to digest certain
foods. Life, consumption, excrement, death, decomposition,
life. You are what you eat and the same applies to plants.
It has
been discovered that aerated Compost Tea helps to ensure the
multiplication of mostly aerobic microbes which are more
desirable in this application. Plus the aeration provides the
agitation necessary to dislodge the microbes from the
compost. Therefore most Compost Tea machines or brewers, as they
are commonly known, involve the introduction of air into the
water and compost.
Many
Compost Tea users and producers have begun examining their brews with
microscopes to see the microbes present. This ensures that they have
the desired microbes in the right numbers and diversity prior to
applying the tea to soil and plants. I am fairly hopeful if not certain
that in the future when someone purchases a Compost Tea brewer that the
kit will include a microscope. It is the identification of what is
going on in this tiny universe where I find my calling.
Flagellates
Fungal Hyphae (brightfield)
Organic Growing from a Microbial Perspective
To come to a rudimentary understanding of how organic or natural
growing really works, one must cast off previous miscomprehensions from
the chemical model, that when we fertilize or add compost or other
organic matter, we are feeding plants. This is not the case. With true
organics one is feeding the microorganisms in the soil which convert
organic nutrients into a form which can be assimilated by the roots of
plants. According to studies, there are only a very few plant species
capable of absorbing only a very few organic nutrients. Most plants are
only capable of absorbing inorganic nutrients which are made that way
by microbes which live at the root to soil interface, the rhizosphere.
So the idea which you have, that you are feeding your plants when they
appear to need nitrogen and you feed an organic fertilizer deemed high
in nitrogen, is bogus. You are feeding the microbes which feed the
plants.
Chemical fertilizers, mostly derived from petroleum are inorganic and
can be absorbed by the roots of plants, however they are pollutants,
which kill beneficial soil microbes, build up unused residues which run
into the water table and, in my opinion, create harmful tissue changes
in the plants which humans consume as food and medicine. In addition, I
believe, the use of chemical fertilizers promote the incidence of plant
pathogens like powdery mildew, erwinia, fusarium, pythium, etc. The
grower can end up in a vicious spiraling downward fall as they use one
chemical after another to control the effects brought on by the others.
The plant is no passive player in the natural growing game of survival
but is the master conductor of this delicately balanced orchestra. The
plant receives energy from above the soil in the form of light. This
photosynthesis results in the plant’s internal production of
carbon. It utilizes this carbon to create and reinforce tissue as it
grows, so it is a very valuable commodity. As we all know the plant
also requires a form of nitrogen (N) and other macro and
micro-nutrients which it receives through the root system. As already
stated this N must be in a form which the plant can directly uptake and
use, usually a form of ammonia (N). Research has shown that when a
plant needs to uptake N from the soil it sends out some of its precious
carbon through it’s root system as a feed for bacteria and
*archaea which live in the rhizosphere. [* Archaea are prokaryotes
indiscernible from bacteria except through specialized testing; usually
DNA] There are more complexities involved, such as, that certain plant
types attract certain bacteria/archaea types but that is beyond the
scope of this portrayal. When the bacterial/archaea population has
increased in response to the carbons excreted by the roots, protozoa
and bacterial feeding nematodes are attracted to the region,
‘hatch out’ from cysts and eggs respectively and in the
case of protozoa multiply rapidly. Protozoa consist of flagellates,
amoebae and ciliates. Some protozoa can multiply (divide) every 2 to 4
hours so their numbers can increase in short order. The protozoa and
nematodes consume the bacteria/archaea and release, as waste, the
ammonia (N) which the roots can then absorb. The multiplication rate of
the bacteria/archaea increases in response to this predation and so on.
This has been called the microbial loop. Protozoa are particularly good
providers as their ‘digestive system’ only utilizes about
30% of the nutrients consumed meaning that roughly 70% is released as
the waste which the roots crave. This factor, combined with their short
generational time makes them real feeding machines. Undoubtedly there
are micronutrients also processed and absorbed in this cycle. There are
still many mysteries which research has yet to unfold or are not yet
known to this author.
This is not the end. The concert continues. The bacteria/archaea also
consume the ammonia (N) which is now bioavailable to them, so are in
competition with the plant for these nutrients. Because of this, if
there are no predators or insufficient numbers to consume the
bacteria/archaea they could potentially lock up the N. When the
plant is growing it is in a vegetative state and requires a large load
of available nitrogen (N) so it is advantageous for it to continue this
release of carbon and maintain a balance of bacteria/archaea and
protozoa, while uptaking just the right amounts of nutrients.
Don’t get me wrong. There are other players in this orchestra,
either playing subdued roles or waiting their turn to play. There are
higher order animals like mites, other microarthropods and worms. There
are various forms of fungi, most of which are degraders but some of
which are mycorrhizal. These all have roles in breaking down organic
matter into a form which can then be mineralized by the plant’s
bacteria/archaea team or delivered directly to the roots.
When the plant receives its signal from the upper world, above the
soil, that it is time to switch gears and produce flowers and or fruit,
its nutrient requirement changes. Although the mechanics are not well
known to this author, studies indicate that the plant then increases
the uptake of the ammonia (N) (bioavailable nitrogen) and reduces or
stops excreting the carbon which feeds the bacteria/archaea. This
effectively starves the bacteria/archaea which will react by dying or
becoming dormant. This of course results in a similar reaction by the
protozoa and bacterial feeding nematode population. The mycorrhizal
fungi previously mentioned is then triggered into increased growth and
production. Studies have indicated that the transference of
bioavailable phosphorus and potassium to the roots occur mainly as a
function of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal hyphae in symbiotic
relationship with the roots of the plant. The fungal hyphae
(microscopic strands) grow right into the root cells and exchange
nutrients. In exchange for carbon, once again released by the plant,
the fungal hyphae delivers the required bioavailable nutrients to the
root system. The fungal structure derives these nutrients from organic
matter and food sources in the soil, some naturally processed by the
other players as previously mentioned. It is my hypothesis that
the form of carbon released to stimulate the mycorrhizal activity is of
a varied molecular structure from that released to promote the
bacteria/archaea population previously discussed, however I have no
direct data to substantiate this. There are often different types of
bacteria which accompany mycorrhizal fungi, adhering to the fungal
hyphae in a symbiotic relationship. It is thought that these bacterial
species function to exchange nutrients with the fungi as well as to
protect the fungal hyphae from consumption by other microbes and even
contribute to the protection of the plant from pathogenic fungi. There
are other types of mycorrhizal fungi (ectomycorrhizal) which
encapsulate roots rather than entering them but these are mostly
associated with trees in the temperate and boreal regions.
So you see it is quite a complex arrangement which the plant conducts
or controls and there are many facets which yet remain a mystery.
How to Apply This to Horticultural Activities
You say, okay so that’s how it works but how do I apply that to
my growing situation? The answer is pretty simple really. You need to
assure that there is organic matter, mostly in the form of composted
plant and animal (manure) substances in or on your soil for a microbial
inoculant and food source. Additionally you can add microbial
foodstocks such as diluted fish hydrolysate and molasses and kelp meal,
alfalfa meal and rock phosphate and other clay and rock powders if
available. It is very good to include rock phosphate in your composting
process if you are making your own. Rock phosphate in the compost adds
a long lasting source of phosphorus for microbes to draw from. At time
of planting it is highly beneficial to place some mycorrhizal fungi
spores in the hole or on the root system. You can research the best
strain of fungi for the plants you are growing and purchase the spores
from a number of suppliers. [ http://www.mycorrhizae.com
http://www.fungi.com ] You may also consider seeding companion edible
mushrooms which provide a dual benefit of cycling nutrients to your
plants and providing your breakfast. You may research this at the
fungi.com site. The rest is governed by the plant, as previously
discussed, assuming that all the necessary components are available
from the organic matter and additional foodstocks provided. In my
opinion manipulation of the pH is not a wise practice in natural
growing unless dramatic acidity or alkalinity are measured. Soil with a
healthy microbial population tends to self regulate the pH. One should
disturb the soil as little as possible so as to leave fungal growth and
strands intact. I realize this is challenging when growing in
containers. I have run trials where wooden bins were constructed
(2’x3’x1.5’ deep) where soil was successfully left
intact after annual plants were harvested and replanted over several
seasons. In between plantings composting worms were introduced to help
consume the residual dead roots and plant matter. The worms were later
trapped out. Compost tea was applied regularly to boost the soil
microbial population. Over time there developed something of a
miniature ecosystem complete with mushrooms, rove beetles and other
beneficial bugs. If you are growing in smaller containers it is a good
idea to provide a high volume of quality compost and or vermicompost at
the onset.
Some people grow herbs and edible produce in containers organically.
Because this has been practiced extensively utilizing chemical
fertilizers, there is a period where growers have flushed the soil with
copious amounts of water, the thought being that they are removing the
harsh or harmful chemicals from the plant tissues. Too late! Those
chemicals are already integrated into what you plan to put on your
dinner plate or in your medicinal tea or pipe. At least that’s my
opinion. If you have grown your produce naturally allowing the plant to
be in control, this flushing routine is not only unnecessary but sort
of stupid. Since plants are not able to uptake organic nutrients, what
exactly would you be flushing away? You might instead be water logging
your soil and roots.
Using Compost Tea
The use of compost tea (CT) is one of the best ways to inoculate your
soil with the beneficial microbes you wish to have for optimum health
of your plants. It is also good if your supply of compost or
vermicompost is limited, as it multiplies those microbes, we have been
discussing, by the millions. Remember the protozoa I mentioned earlier?
Well you can brew an aerated compost tea specifically to have a large
population of protozoa, usually mostly flagellates. If you have a good
quality compost or vermicompost, protozoa will already be present,
often in a resting cyst. If you have an efficient aerated brewer you
can pretty much count on having a high flagellate (protozoa) population
combined with bacteria/archaea and fungal hyphae (not mycorrhizal) at
42 to 44 hours brew time (65 to 72 degrees F). If you have a microscope
you can examine the CT periodically to be sure that the microbial
population is optimum. The use of aerated compost tea also provides the
opportunity to manipulate microbial populations for specific purposes
by using various recipes and brew times. You may wish to have high
bacterial or fungal numbers for pathogen/disease control or have soil
or plants that require a higher population of a microbial type. I have
a lot to learn yet of fungal species which can grow in compost tea so
until I have learned to identify the species occurring I’m
cautious about some of the tricks employed to stimulate fungal hyphae
growth in compost. Better to count on good quality compost and
vermicompost with natural occurring quantities and species of fungi and
use known mycorrhizal and mushroom spores in the soil.
As always, I am open to correction or refinement of what I have written.
Salutations,
Tim
Some References;
Email me if you wish to track down these references.
Protozoa and plant growth: 2003;
the microbial loop in soil revisited; Michael Bonkowski;
Rhizosphere Ecology Group, Institut für Zoologie, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany
Soil microbial loop and nutrient uptake by plants: 2006
a test using a coupled C:N model of plant–microbial interactions;
Xavier Raynaud; Jean-Christophe Lata; Paul W. Leadley Universite´
Paris-Sud XI, France
The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited; 2007 P. Frey-Klett, J. Garbaye and M. Tarkka
Interactions Arbres/Micro-organismes, Champenoux, France;
UFZ-Department of Soil Ecology, Helmholz Centre for Environmental
Research, Halle, Germany
Modern Soil Microbiology; 2nd edition 2007 - Chapter 6 - Protozoa and Other Protista in Soil
Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski, and Bryan Griffiths
My DVD 
I have
produced a narrated DVD condensed to 1 hour, 43 minutes from
hours and hours of live real time video captured through an
interface of a Leitz Orthoplan microscope, a Sony high definition
video camera and a computer. No film was used in this
process. The purpose of this video is to assist folks who
are using microscopes to identify the microbes they are observing
in their compost, soil and compost tea.
It includes some examples of; 1/ what microbes you should see in a finished compost tea,
2/ bacteria, 3/ flagellates, 4/ ciliates, 5/ amoebae (3,4 &5 comprise the three groups of Protozoa),
6/ fungal hyphae, 7/ yeast cells,
8/ nematodes, 9/ rotifers and 10/ compost examination.
For those
of you without microscopes the DVD offers a good visual
representation of what is going on in your Compost Tea and
soil.
The DVD
is a set of 2 discs in a case. The cost is $40.00 USD including
shipping by mail anywhere in the USA or Canada. Quotes will
be given for other methods of shipping or for shipping to other
countries. Wholesale prices are available to distributors. Please
email me with your inquiry. Presently the DVD is available in
NTSC format.
The
preferred form of payment is by PayPal. If you are not presently
registered with PayPal it is easy, secure, free and it allows the
use of credit cards. I will receive payment immediately and can ship
the DVD right out to you. If you would prefer to send money
by another method please email me at; thegoodjob@hotmail.com
Click on the following video link (4.7 MB) to download a 'wmv' (Windows
Media Video) to your computer. Depending on your download speed it may
take a while. It is an example of what sort of footage is included in
the DVD.
Video link
NOTE RE VIDEOS; If you are
unable to view the videos and have a Windows operating system, you may
need to initiate, dowload or update Windows Media Player.
Please email me to place your order. thegoodjob@hotmail.com
More Video Footage; also wmv; click on link to download.
Vorticella (<5 MB)
Who I am
My name
is Tim Wilson. I am a self-taught researcher/scientist. I do not
possess a degree but did study a wide range of courses at
university, some of them post-graduate
courses I was allowed into based on my knowledge level at
the time. Many of you will know me by my contributions to the
Yahoo Compost Tea discussion forum. Presently I reside on a
100+ acre farm in the southern interior of British Columbia,
Canada. I am just north of a dot on the map called
Westbridge.
Other Projects
I have designed
a new Compost Tea brewer called the Microbulator 50 which is described
below. It is different from other brewers I have
seen, in that the water is actively circulated through a pipe while
being charged with air and returned to the tank from an elevated
position with use of only an air pump. It sustains a higher than
average dissolved oxygen level. It works with or without an extraction
bag. I am actively designing a smaller version of the Microbulator
geared for use by the average homeowner wishing to use natural
gardening methods.
I hope to
produce more helpful DVDs if this first one goes over well. The next
project I have in mind is to create a DVD which instructs microscope
use specific to the observation of living microbial samples. It will
teach some tricks to enhance the images seen with a basic brightfield
compound microscope.
I plan on acquiring a variety of inexpensive compound microscopes to
evaluate for usefulness in horticultural oriented microbial observation
and interface with computer. The most useful one will be optically
enhanced through alterations and with added devices to be sold
inexpensively and included with the Microbulator kit. The barrier to
accomplishing this is money to purchase the subject scopes.
Please email me if you have questions or comments at; thegoodjob@hotmail.com
The Microbulator 50; A 50 (US) gallon compost tea brewer
{Patents pending in Canada & USA on design and method related to all sizes and configurations.}
Video Clips of Operation
Details & Questions
Purchase & Shipping
Ugly But Efficient & Cheap!
Features:
* Active flow-circulation induced by air alone; 6.3 gallons/minute
* Efficient gas exchange system for excellent dissolved oxygen maintenance
* Works with or without an extractor bag (extractor unit included)
* Three different ways to configure apparatus
* Translucent barrel promotes the growth of phototrophic microorganisms
* 3.5 CFM diaphragm air pump with 1 year warranty
* Can be dismantled and cleaned in under 20 minutes
* Sturdy parts used in manufacture
* Glass bonded silica air diffusers
* Operational instruction on CD ROM included
* Inexpensive; $460.00 USD without barrel; $580.00 USD with 50 gal. barrel
* See it in operation > View the video clips below
See the video clips below for microbial data and basic operation.
Details, Details
I now feel ready and confident to begin taking orders for the 50 Gallon
Microbulator compost tea brewer or as I affectionately call it, a
microbe extractor and multiplier (bioreactor). One of my largest
obstacles in getting to this point was deciding on a price. My goal
from the beginning was to provide an affordable, efficient device
geared to the small farmer/grower who doesn’t need the fancy
looking brewer, just one that works and is easily cleaned. During the
end phase of development and testing I discovered that my device would
not work in just any shape of tank so I had to include a 50 gallon (US)
barrel of the correct dimensions. I decided not to mark up the price of
the barrel in my sales price, just covering my costs of purchase and
handling. Actually, I have kept my overall mark-up lower than the norm
resulting in a price much lower than similar sized commercial brewers.
My price with the barrel is $580 and $460 without. People deciding to
provide their own container will need to ensure the correct dimensions
and may need to drill a couple of holes according to instructions
provided.
While visiting Tad Hussey at Keep It Simple Inc. (compost tea
brewers) in Seattle, I showed him video footage of the Microbulator 50
operating. He commented that it might be ‘not pretty
enough’ for most consumers. When I told him my expected price
range he coined the phrase ‘ugly and cheap’. I decided to
incorporate that into my sales pitch mantra ‘Ugly but Cheap and
Efficient’. After all; the beauty of a John Deere tractor is in
the eye of the beholder but as we farmers all know ‘nothing runs
like Deere’.
The Microbulator 50 works with or without an extractor bag. That
decision is the owner’s, based on the planned uses, application
method and coarseness of the compost used.
Now, how does this work and what makes it different than other commercial brewers on the market?
My design, unlike other commercial brewers I have seen does not just
blow air into water or into the extractor bag but actively circulates
the water while charging it with oxygen. This is done using only an air
pump. No water pump is involved. This is accomplished by a diffuser
housing fixture I
designed and built which incorporates the diffuser inside an 1
½ inch PVC pipe. The whole 50 gallons of water is cycled
through
this pipe every 8 minutes at a measured flow rate of at least 6.3
gallons per
minute. The water is drawn from two opposing sides of the bottom of the
tank, pushed past the diffuser, while being injected with O2, up the
pipe and through the return nozzle suspended about 2 to 5 inches above
the water’s surface, falling back into the liquid, pushing O2
into the water by breaking the surface tension barrier, facilitating
the release of CO2 from the tank and the absorption of O2 (gas
exchange). This is not unlike the action of a waterfall or flow form.
This action pushes the oxygenated water into the body of water further
raising the dissolved oxygen content. Because the water intake openings
are located at opposing sides at the bottom of the barrel, a
current-like flow is created and maintained so any still areas of water
are highly unlikely. The release of CO2 is essential to create space in
water for the absorption of dissolved oxygen and the only way for CO2
to be released in a CT brewer is through the surface. At the same time
a 12 X 1 ½ X 1 ½ inch diffuser is infusing the whole body
of water with air. Oxygen is absorbed by the interface of the
tiny bubbles created on the way to the surface and the surface tension
barrier is broken again by the bubble turbulence, allowing the further
release of carbon dioxide and the maintenance of dissolved oxygen. By
this means there are three interfaces where O2 is being injected into
the water or compost tea.
This highly efficient yet very simple method is generally able to raise
and maintain the dissolved oxygen (DO2) content of fresh well water
having a TDS/EC of 21 PPM and temperature of 18 C to 21 C (65 F –
70 F) at least 3 PPM (parts per million) above the natural DO2. Using
the same water within the same temperature range, with; 4%
compost/vermicompost, 0.75% black strap molasses, 0.25% kelp meal and
0.063% fish hydrolysate, the DO2 is maintained at 8.8 to 9.8 PPM up to
a 48 hour brew time.
The circulating action, the force of impact with the water’s
surface along with the air from diffusers provides sufficient agitation
to break the microbes loose from their binding spots in the compost.
The continuous flow provides a more homogenous dispersal of oxygen and
microbes avoiding still water areas where potential undesired microbial
life may develop. Once free swimming or bound to smaller particles, the
bacteria, archaea, yeast cells and fungal hyphae graze on the feed
supplied and multiply.
Maintaining a reasonably high rate of dissolved oxygen in the body of
water is essential to the device’s efficiency for extracting and
multiplying the beneficial aerobic microbes, consisting of; archaea,
bacteria, fungal hyphae, flagellates, amoebae, some ciliates, yeast
cells and yeast fungal hyphae. Because of the constant cycling,
microbes are fairly evenly distributed throughout the tank. To get a
sample, simply hold a container under the return nozzle.
With Extractor Unit;
The Microbulator can be used in free suspension or with a mesh
extractor bag in two different configurations; one with oxygenated
water being circulated through the bag, being ultra quiet and good for
a bacteria/archaea disease suppressing formula or a nutrient cycling
compost tea (CT) with bacteria/archaea and protozoa; the other with the
large diffuser in the bag and the circulating water breaking the
surface tension, being good for multi-purpose but especially good if
you wish to use an extractor but still have a high fungal volume along
with the other microbes. The extractor should be used if you are using
coarse compost with pieces between 1/2 inch and 1 inch cubed. See the demo video below.
The highest microbial numbers are going to be developed using the
device configured for the compost placed in free suspension but if one
requires the extractor for a reduction in particulate matter the other
configurations provide a comparative alternative.
On the farm we usually use the Microbulator 50 without the extractor,
remove the apparatus once the brew is complete, allowing the particles
to settle to the bottom, lower in a submersible pump just above the
level of the spent compost/particles and pump out the clearer compost
tea. Alternatively one can place the pump in a mesh bag (fly screen
size) and drop it in or simply scoop out the compost tea with a pail or
watering can. Afterwards dump out the thick leftover slurry onto your
soil or compost pile. If you are using vermicompost any worm
eggs/capsules/cases remaining will still hatch once in the soil or in a
non-hot compost pile.
What did you use and why?
Pump: I settled on the Eco Plus
Commercial diaphragm operated air pump. I was first using the Hailea
9730 (rated at 60 LPM) but the air flow was just not strong enough to
support 50 gallons of compost tea and it is only warrantied for 6
months. The Eco Plus puts out a whopping 3.4 to 3.6 CFM (<>100
LPM) configured the way we use it. The flow on each pump is tested with
our flow meter prior to being shipped. On top of this the pump is
warrantied for one year and replacement parts are available if it does
quit. It is a little noisier (the price of power) and because it is
lighter it wants to vibrate around. To cease the wandering and help
with the noise I’ve included a little rubber damper mat with each
kit.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I did not use a check valve for the pump because it
prohibits air flow so the pump must be placed above or at the same
level of the water surface to prevent back flow if there is a power
outage or the pump is turned off.
The Air Tubing; The air tubing
is heavy duty 7/8 inch braid reinforced clear vinyl. I tried the
regular clear stuff but it kinked too much and wore quickly. Each kit
includes enough tubing for the device to insert into the barrel plus 6
feet for lead to the pump. You can decide where to place the pump and
trim the excess accordingly. Remember the pump must be above or at the
same level of the water surface.
Clamps: I used vinyl clamps as
they are tough, reusable, easier to clean and non-corrosive. They hold
the tubing in place on the fittings but allow the tubing to turn. This
can be considered an advantage for positioning the control valve and
large diffuser. I have solid stainless steel clamps available for those
who may prefer these.
Air Control Valve; I used a
brass plumbing valve to control the air flow between the large diffuser
and return flow nozzle. I tried cheaper plastic valves but they
didn’t cut it.
Piping; I decided on PVC pipe
because it is inexpensive, easy to clean, can be fitted together
without glue in low pressure applications like this or can be glued
when necessary (as are a few of the pieces). I am using 1 ¼ inch
diameter pipe because it is the right size to accommodate the flow
needed for the 50 gallon brewer. One small disadvantage is that
sometimes when disassembling one must use pliers or vice grips to pull
apart a pipe and fitting. NOTE; The industry sizing of the pipe is 1 1/4 inch but the actual diameter is 1 1/2 inches.
Diffusers; I consulted with
engineers in the aquaculture industry concerning the best type of
diffusers to use for the maximum gas exchange given the
parameters involved. I was directed to the medium bore Sweetwater glass
bonded silica diffusers I used. They are machined from a solid block.
They do become stained in this application but I have not had any
troubles with them plugging. They are warrantied for 2 years (some
restrictions) and can be cleaned with muriatic acid. We have not had to
do so after using them for 3 years but do dip them in hydrogen peroxide
3% occasionally to be on the safe side. They are breakable if dropped
on a hard surface. I broke one dropped from 4 feet onto concrete. There
are two included with each Microbulator 50, a 12 inch one and 3 X 1 X 1
inch one which inserts into my ‘magic’ fitting/chamber
inside the pipe.
PVC Slotted Diffusers:
Each brewer will, as of April, 2008, include additionally, 2 PVC
diffusers which I have designed. Testing is still ongoing but initial
tests indicate a good likelihood that the PVC diffusers may eventually
replace the glass bonded diffusers. We are including them for brewer
owners to try out. Not that there is anything wrong with the glass
bonded diffusers but when they require cleaning a harsh chemical is
employed and I feel somewhat guilty selling a product with parts which
must be cleaned with muriatic acid which is bad for the environment.
The reason for not coming up with this diffuser design sooner is that I
just recently discovered a method for cutting such narrow 254 micron
slots. There are 2 sizes of PVC diffuser, a ¾ inch
diameter diffuser for internal use and a 1 ½ inch diameter
diffuser for use in the body of water or inside the mesh extractor. The
pipe is perforated with precision cut slots at specified ½
inch increments ( ¼ inch increments for the ¾ inch
diffuser). We have used a length which maximizes flow and DO2 with the
pump and volume of water.
Tests using these PVC diffusers together, showed the dissolved oxygen
(DO2) was maintained at only 1 PPM less than trials using the two glass
bonded diffusers. (Glass bonded 11.6 PPM; PVC slotted 10.6 PPM in
water; 65F). Tests also showed that the large PVC diffuser was as
effective to better than the glass bonded diffuser when used in the
mesh extractor.
Barrel: I searched high and low
in Canada for a translucent barrel with straight sides and a removable
top. I could only find them in the USA and the price to buy and import
them puts my Microbulator 50 selling price much higher. I wished to
have a translucent color (white in appearance) barrel to potentially
encourage the growth of phototrophic microbes. I am of the opinion that
they play an important role in the microbial nutrient cycle. Anyway the
translucent barrels I did find, had to have the tops cut off and rough
surfaces sanded but they are inexpensive. The cut off lids are wired
and taped back on for shipping. For those potential purchasers who do
not believe in my theory, I can provide blue barrels with factory made
removable lids for about $10 more. If there is enough interest in
the USA barrels I will get them in but it will add about $100 to the
price.
Extractor; The extractor bag we
are using is 400 microns mesh size, 24 inches long and 7 inches in
diameter. There is a stainless steel supportive ring sewn into the top
and a rubberized poly cap, with an entry hole for the down pipe or diffuser. The
unit is hung over the PVC pipe with nylon line. Replacement bags will be around twelve bucks.
I tested many sizes of mesh prior to choosing 400 microns. I tried 200,
250, 300, 400, 800, 1000 microns mesh sizes.
Bungee Cord; A rubber bungee
cord is included which holds the unit in place and prevents floating,
as it is filled with air charged water. The hooks are the perfect size
to secure the positioning of the control valve and large diffuser. This
beats trying to use weights inside the tank.
How about cleaning?
The whole unit can be dismantled and cleaned in under twenty minutes.
The unit should be removed from the compost tea while still pumping air
for best results. This prevents back-flow into the pores of the
diffusers and into the air tubing. While they are pumping air,
particles and bacteria will have a more difficult time entering the
bore holes. The whole unit then pulls apart and can be cleaned quickly
with fresh water, a scrub brush or pad and a bottle/pipe cleaner
(available at Wal Mart, etc.) If you clean the unit right after use,
generally you can use water alone but occasionally you may wish to use
hydrogen peroxide or bleach. It is not advised to use bleach on the
diffusers but you may use it on the pipe and tubing. You should not
need to clean the inside of the air tubing if you prevent back-flow.
The extractor bag should be flushed under fresh water immediately
following use and can be hand washed (or gentle cycle in washer??) with
detergent (please rinse thoroughly).
What about brew times?
I am confident that the Microbulator 50 will match or surpass any other
commercial brewer as far as production of numbers and diversity of
microbes and DO2 maintenance, given equal parameters of water,
temperature, compost, foodstock and time. If you wish to brew for
24 hours, the Microbulator will perform appropriately to extract and
multiply the expected microbial types and numbers for that brew time. I
recommend a brew time of around 44 hours if you are striving for a
functional consortia of nutrient cycling microbes, consisting of
bacteria/archaea, fungal hyphae and flagellates and/or amoebae. It is
very important to be aware that you need good quality
compost/vermicompost and feedstock to get good quality compost tea.
Temperature and water quality must also be considered. Really!; there
can be so many variables and the best way to know at what hour your
microbes are at the optimum level is by microscopic examination.
I’m working towards including a cheap microscope with each brewer
but I must make some money first to buy a bunch of cheap scopes to
evaluate and tweak.
Please see the video clips below for data from different brew times.
What are some other benefits of purchasing a Microbulator 50?
All Microbulator 50 owners will have access to my recipes for brewing
compost tea for various purposes. If improvements are discovered
applicable to this model the owners will receive the new parts free of
charge. Support will be provided by email and telephone. Owners will be
privy to new information gained through my ongoing research concerning,
technique, application, disease suppression, microbial activity and
recipe development. When I find and start distributing a simple
microscope, Microbulator 50 owners will receive a discounted price of
purchase. Through the distribution of the little microscope with
interface to computer I am hoping to set up a research network of sorts
with individuals from different areas, using different compost and
having various growing circumstances. The idea is to gather and share
direct view microbial data by way of micro-photographs and video.
Do you have different sized brewers or design custom brewers?
I am working on a smaller sized brewer design applicable to the
homeowner. It will likely be around 10 gallons in size. My design
principle can be applied to pretty much any size of brewer. I use the
same operational principle for our 1200 US gallon brewer which we use
on our farm. The right sized air pump, diffusers, pipe, etc. must be
calculated in accordance to the CFM per volume/depth of water.
I am open to customizing designs for large on farm applications and to
manufacturing ‘pretty brewers’ with stainless steel pipe,
tanks and extractors. Just drop me an email if this interests you.
Purchase & Shipping
I presently am limited to receiving payment by Paypal or bank transfer.
Paypal allows payment by credit card or through your bank. I believe
this service is still free. If you wish to arrange a purchase
please email me at thegoodjob@hotmail.com
Note: My Paypal account is not associated with this email address.
Units which include the barrel must be shipped by a trucking company or
via Greyhound express. I am sure Greyhound is much less expensive. The
entire unit can be packaged securely inside the drum.
Units shipped without the tank can likely go by mail or courier. In any
case the choice is the purchaser’s. I’ll try to post some
costs next week.
Where is your data?
I’m a great believer in pictures as documentation and exhibition
so I have posted some video clips here which show the Microbulator 50
in operation and some microscopic videos recording the microbes
extracted and grown at several different brew times. I will be adding
additional video clips shortly, including the cleaning of the brewer
and the 1200 US gallon brewer in operation. The videos are viewed using
Windows Media Player which comes with most PC operating systems. You
need to download them to watch and it may take some time based on your
computer and Internet connection. In many cases I have offered a choice
of high or low resolution clips. Obviously if you have a very slow
connection choose the smaller file.
Video Clips
In Operation;
The Microbulator 50 demo video; 12 MB or a smaller version at 5 MB
Microbes;
Video Data for The Microbulator 50; April, 2008
Without The Extractor - Free Suspension Configuration;
The following video clips were shot to record microbial extraction and
multiplication at varying time periods of a brew while using the
Microbulator 50 in the free suspension configuration, that is with 4.5
liters of vermicompost and solid feedstock added directly to the water
without the use of the extractor. Our own vermicompost was used which
was fed a base of very old cow manure/wood shavings compost, sphagnum
peat moss and kitchen scraps. Both brews were started at a temperature
of around 18 C (65F). In the first brew the vermicompost was not mixed
with anything to activate it. For the second brew the vermicompost was
mixed with oat flour 20:1 and covered for around 120 hours prior to
using it. Both brews maintained great DO2 levels to 60 hours; Brew #1
– 9.0 PPM DO2; Brew #2 – 8.9 PPM DO2. I do not recommend brewing for 60 hours and longer unless you have
the instruments to check your brew or unless circumstances dictate the
necessity. I have however included video footage recorded at this time
period.
I am very pleased with the results demonstrated by the brewer as well
as our by vermicompost. The following video clips are narrated and
fairly self explanatory.
Microbial Identification:
In one instance I refer to an amoeba as naked, although I’m not
entirely sure whether it has a shell (test) or not. I am researching to
identify it. You will see some flagellates which are joined together
like a bunch of balloons. These may be Choanoflagellida Salpingoecidae
(diploeca) or Kinetoplastida Bodonidae Cephalothamnium cyclopum or of a
related group within the major Mastigophora group.
NOTE RE VIDEOS; If you are
unable to view the videos and have a Windows operating system, you may
need to initiate, dowload or update Windows Media Player.
Please click the links below to download video clips. In
most cases there is a choice of a large higher resolution file followed
by a smaller lower resolution file.
Brew #1 Vermicompost Free Suspension; Not mixed with Oat Flour;
10 hours 6.5 MB
or 2.8 MB
18 hours clip 1; 10 MB or 4.4 MB
18 hours clip 2; 7.3 MB or 3.2 MB
18 hours clip 3; 5 MB
36 hours 9.5 MB or 4.2 MB
42 hours 7 MB or 3.1 MB
60 hours 12 MB (large) or 5.2 MB
Brew #2 Vermicompost Free Suspension; Mixed with Oat Flour
10 hours 5 MB
18&36 hours 6 MB
42 hours clip 1; 7.5 MB
or 3.3 MB
42 hours clip 2; 5.9 MB
60 hours 6.2 MB
With The Extractor;
The video clips below illustrate the microbial densities at various
time periods in a compost tea using the Microbulator 50 configured with
the mesh extractor bag in place. In this configuration the large PVC
diffuser was placed inside the mesh extractor while the return nozzle
still splashed oxygenated water/tea onto/into the surface. Both brews
included the use of our vermicompost which had been mixed 20:1 with oat
flour and covered for about 120 hours prior to use. The video clips are
narrated as before.
Brew #1 was made using our vermicompost with fish hydrolysate and kelp added.
DO2 at 60 hours - 8.9 PPM
10 hours 4 MB
18 hours 5 MB
36 hours 8 MB or 4 MB
42&60 hours 5 MB
Brew #2 was made using our vermicompost with fish hydrolysate, kelp
meal and black strap molasses. Adding the molasses was kind of an
impulsive afterthought and for a regular brew I probably would not
repeat this when also using fish when the compost has been treated with
(fed) oat flour. There was an over abundance of feedstock resulting in
a very high bacteria/archaea population. The result was a brew which
took 60 hours to consume the feedstock and complete. It was interesting
though and definitely microbially rich. DO2 at 60 hours – 7.3 PPM
10 hours 10 MB or 5 MB
18&36&42 hours 9 MB or 4 MB
60 hours 7 MB or 4 MB
Other Batches with different Compost; 2007
Compost tea batch #1 at 22 to 24 hour brew time; 11 MB (high res); 5 MB (low res)
at 44 hours; 4 MB
Compost tea batch #2 at 46 hours; clip 1; 8 MB (high res); 4 MB (low res)
Clip 2; 5 MB (med res)
Clip 3; 8 MB (high res); 4 MB (low res)
Clip 4; 10 MB (high res); 5 MB (low res)
Tests, Observations & Postulations
Subcontents:
A look; Sphagnum Peat & Alaska Magic
Do Microbes Survive Impeller Pumps?
Yelm Brewer Trials and Lab Tests
Terracycle Plant Food Examination
Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss & Alaska Magic (Humus);
Here is a look at a sample of Canadian Sphagnum peat moss Premier brand
and a sample of Alaska Magic which is purported to be humus from
Alaska. Both were purchased in Washington State and I examined them in
a temporary lab situation using my portable microscope and laptop
computer. In the first set of video clips we see the samples hydrated
with distilled water and spread out on a microscope slide to have a
look at the leaf and cell structure. In the narration for the Sphagnum
peat moss I mistakenly describe it as 20X magnification (I meant the
20X objective) when it is actually 250X plus the camera lens effect.
You can see that the two plant substances appear virtually identical
which leads me to hypothesize that, although they may come from
different geographical locations, they are both primarily composed of
the same matter. I can provide lengthier and more inclusive video clips
to interested parties. I do apologize for the variance in volume on the
video clips. Please note that they may take some time to download to
your computer and they play in Windows Media Player.
Click here (9.46 MB) to view the Canadian Sphagnum peat moss sample or here (4.15 MB) for a smaller version.
Click here (7.52 MB) to view the Alaska Magic sample.
In the second set of video clips we see footage of samples of Sphagnum
peat moss and Alaska Magic mixed with distilled water and a couple of
drops of black strap molasses to ‘wake up’ the organisms
and left to sit. The Sphagnum footage was captured at 42 hours and the
Alaska Magic at 24 and 60 hours. I apologize that I was not available
for the other time periods for the Sphagnum. Now that I know that
Premier brand Canadian Sphagnum peat moss is no different in the USA
than in Canada I can run more extensive tests in my home laboratory. I
brought a bag of Alaska Magic home with me. In the video clips we can
see that both substances are emergent with a goodly amount of microbial
life, as is to be expected with Sphagnum peat moss in my experience.
There are people, purported to be experts in horticulture who report
Sphagnum peat moss to be void of microbes. I believe the Dirt Doctor
used the phrase ‘dead as cutters nuts’ whatever that means.
I believe the evidence I have produced here speaks for itself and I
believe growers could consider Canadian Sphagnum peat moss (Premier
brand anyway) as a less expensive alternative to boost microbial life
in certain circumstances, such as aerated Compost Tea. I have
confirmation from an expert that the plant matter I have identified in
Alaska Magic is in fact Sphagnum peat moss. My observations indicate
that this is a what Alaska Magic primarily consists of.
Click here (8 MB) to view part A and here (8 MB) for part B of the 42 hour ‘fed’ Sphagnum peat moss sample or click here (6.55 MB) for a smaller slightly different version
Click here (2.56 MB) to view the 24 hour ‘fed’ Alaska Magic sample
Click here (4.40 MB) to view the 60 hour ‘fed’ Alaska Magic sample
If you have suggestions for further tests which I might run please email me.
Does Microbial Life Survive Pump Impellers?
2007 Test With 1200 gallon (US) Brewer;
We made an attempt to run a test to record the effects on microbial
life when distributing Compost Tea (CT) through an impeller pump,
irrigation lines, shrub head sprinklers and a cheap hand operated
sprayer. One objective was to grow fungal hyphae in the CT to see how
it tolerated the impeller pump and sprinklers but we failed to do so.
We did see the growth of bacterial structures which are about the same
volume as fungal hyphae (roughly speaking) so we decided to proceed
using the bacterial structures as pretend fungal hyphae to get some
estimate of how fungal hyphae might survive the ride.
The pump we used is an impeller irrigation pump; 2 horse power; 20 PSI; 65 gallons per minute.
Our water line is 1.25 inches reducing to 3/4 inch. The strainer baskets
on our overhead shrub head sprinklers are about 500 to 600 microns
(just guessing; may be larger). These sprinklers create a fine mist
and are great for coating leaves.
Besides the preliminary 27hr sample I looked at and recorded 4 sample types;
The video clips presented are comprised of the best of quite a number of clips recorded.
1/ Sample from 1200 US gallon brewer; low active bacteria; very high
immobile bacterial 'biomass' (very large bacterial complexes); high
numbers & diversity flagellates click here to view video (9 MB)
2/ Sample through pump and water line: could see the effects of the
impeller pump as some of the bacterial structures were broken or
malformed but many remained intact. Flagellates were about the same;
Click here to view video(5 MB)
3/ Sample through pump, water line and shrub head sprinklers: about the
same effects as through the water line except the flagellate
activity seemed down a little. Click here to view video (4 MB)
4/ Sample taken right from brewer and sprayed through one of those hand
operated spray bottles set on mist; this, surprisingly had the most
devastating effects. The bacterial structures were mostly torn up
and many flagellates were killed. Click here to view video (6 MB)
I'm going to need to do a repeat trial but my thought is that if you have
hyphae that break up in the application process, unless they are
mashed, they will likely continue to grow in the soil if the
conditions support them. The same can probably be said for spores which are put off by hyphae grown.
Repeat Trial: 2008
Using the Microbulator 50 rather than the 1200 gallon brewer as
previously attempted, I brewed an ACT heavily populated with fungal
hyphae, utilizing our fungal inhabited vermicompost fed with oat flour.
I have succeeded with a 10 hour brew which was very heavily populated
with fungal hyphae. I have demonstrated/observed that fungal hyphae
complexes survive intact after passing through 1/ a mesh strainer of
approximately 800 to 1000 microns, 2/ a low pressure impeller pump, 3/
a sprinkler strainer basket and 4/ a shrub head sprinkler (all one
pass).
The fungal hyphae complexes averaged 3 microns in diameter ranging to
6+ microns and some which survived the pump and sprinkler spanned
several 250X fields of view. I used a cheap ancient sump pump to run
the test.
I think you can rest assured that a low pressure impeller pump will not significantly damage biology in compost tea.
I have recorded my data to video via microscope/computer interface and
the video is available here for download (plays with Windows Media
Player) > 6 MB
Rambling Dissertation on Yelm Field Trials for Brewer Prototype
Only read this if you are ready for a lengthy rambling dissertation. I
begin with my excursion to the Yelm Earthworm farm for a field trial of
my brewer design but diverge into laboratory techniques and their
foundations.
I traveled to Yelm, Washington in July, 2007 to visit the Yelm
Earthworm and Castings Farm and do a field trial of my brewer design at
a location close enough to get a fresh sample to the SFI labs at
Corvallis, Oregon.
At Yelm;
The first thing I did before setting up the brewers was to check the
DO2, temperature and the TDS/EC (totally dissolved salts
{solids}/electrical conductivity) of their well water. The DO2
(dissolved oxygen) was 6.8 ppm, somewhat lower than ours at around 9
ppm. Challenge number one. Challenge number two came in a TDS reading
of 93 ppm. You may recall my report that our water usually reads around
21 ppm. This does not mean there is something wrong with their water.
It probably is high in mineral content but it does mean the capacity to
sustain DO2 is diminished somewhat. The temperature of their water
comes out of the ground at 65* F (Note; * = degrees). I was mulling
over in my mind how to alter the compost and foodstock ratios to
accommodate these readings when the largest challenge yet, presented
itself in the form of the barrels which they had for me to use. They
were very tall and almost football shaped with the points cut off. I
had no idea that plastic 55 gallon barrels came in different shapes.
Because my device has a base shape which must sit on the bottom of the
barrel and has an air tube plugged into it at the bottom, the pressure
applied to the stiff tubing and the restricted surface area made for a
poorly balanced situation. At home we use a weight, which is a
‘U’ shaped PVC structure filled with gravel to hold down
the device; once there is air flowing through it, it wants to float.
Well, I don’t know if water has variant buoyancy properties at
different elevations but the water at Yelm seemed to buoy the device
despite the weight. We had to put rocks in ziplock bags which we
balanced on the return pipe of the device to hold it down. I already
knew at this point that I was going to have to market the device with a
tank or give strict measurements and instructions to those wishing to
get and adapt their own tanks. I also realized the weight idea is a no
go and would need to secure the device with a strap across the tank. I
thought about scrapping the trial at that point but talked myself into
persisting since I had traveled so far and the SFI lab was only 4 hours
south.
I was wishing I had stuffed one more thing in the little Montana van,
my white barrel. I’m sure I already had looked suspicious enough
at the border crossing stocked with microscope, two weird looking
cameras, empty pill bottles for test tubes, rubber gloves, vials filled
with dark liquid, strangely configured PVC pipe, tubing connected to
brass valves, ziplocks of compost in coolers and a beard and messy hair
to boot. A 55 gallon barrel may have pushed it over the edge. Thank
goodness for my USA passport. Without it I would never have made it.
Well we set up two barrels in preparation for brewing. Brew
‘A’ would use the Yelm Earthworm farm
vermicompost/thermophilic compost blend and Brew ‘B’ would
use my horsemanure/shavings vermicompost. Our compost normally presents
a good quantity and quality of fungal hyphae in a Compost Tea (CT) and
a high number of bacteria with flagellates at varying blooms throughout
the brew. After getting things pretty much balanced and running the
brewers for a few hours without ingredients, the DO2 was up to 9.5 ppm.
Because of the high TDS readings I decided to reduce the compost used
from 4% to 3% or 4.5 liters (18 cups) and the black strap molasses to
0.65%, the kelp meal I left at 0.25% but reduced the fish hydrolisate
to 0.05% (which had got quite smelly at this point). I added the
ingredients and we were off and running. It was around this time that
we heard through the news that a heat wave was on its way. You know;
the one which broke all the records in the North West. I thought to
myself; ‘Of course, Murphy’s Law’.
At the Yelm Earthworm farm they are open from 8:30 AM to 5 PM and keep
the big front gate locked when closed so there was no way to check on
the progress of the brews in the ‘off’ hours. When I drove
in the following morning and checked the brews ‘B’ device
had tipped over and was not operating in correct fashion. I
straightened it up and checked the DO2 at 3.9 ppm. Damn! Of course it
had to be the brew with my compost. The ‘A’ brew was okay
at 7.7 ppm. This was at the 21 hour mark, three hours away from drawing
my first sample. The ‘A’ sample at 24 hours was still
maintaining at 7.7 ppm DO2 and 72* F when I drew it. Through the
microscope tube it exhibited a good amount of active bacteria at about
5% with about 7 to 8% total bacteria. I was disappointed that there was
still some fish smell present. (maybe my fish was too old) Generally
the CT was as I expected at this stage prior to the protozoa explosion.
To see a short video of A24 click here (5 MB).
The ‘B’ sample had crept back up to 5.2 ppm DO2. The
temperature for both brews was 72*F. Through the microscope tube B24
presented with a good quantity of active bacteria at about 3 to 4% and
very thick total bacteria at about 20 to 30%. There is some fungal
hyphae present albeit of a smaller diameter than we normally see from
this compost and quite coated with bacteria. I attributed this to the
mishap with the device tipping but the other variables could also be at
play. I only saw 1 lonely flagellate representing the protozoa
population. To see B24 click here (14 MB) or here (6 MB). As usual these clips are viewed in Windows Media and may take a while to download.
Note; In the narration for b24 I use the word ‘mature’ for fungal hyphae when I mean more developed.
By this time the heat wave had hit full blast and the little room where
I had set up my temporary lab became a torturous sweat box in the
afternoon. This is where I was set up to examine the Alaska Magic,
Sphagnum peat moss and various other substances people were bringing me
to look at. I became very appreciative of the drive back to the motel
at 5 PM with the windows wide open until the A/C kicked in.
The next morning the hour had arrived, or rather the 44th hour when I
had decided to draw the final samples and head to the SFI lab at
Corvallis. I drew the samples and had a microscopic look at them,
recording the data to the computer under the witnessing eye of Kelan,
one of the farm owners. My goal, primarily was to create a CT optimum
for nutrient cycling in the soil. Brew ‘A44’ appeared
excellent for this purpose. The DO2 was at 7.0 ppm despite the
temperature being slightly over 74*F. Looking through the microscope I
conservatively counted 90 flagellates per 250X field of view and as is
to be expected, the number of active bacteria was radically reduced to
less than 1% by the protozoa but the total bacterial level was still
good at about 5%. I did not however see any amoebae. When you view the
short video clip of A44 by clicking here
(7 MB) bear in mind that the camera only shows about 1/3rd of a
field of view. The ‘B44’ sample was the same temperature
74*F+ but the DO2 had never recovered and remained under 5.0 ppm.
Through the microscope tube B44 exhibited a tiny bit of fungal hyphae
but this was a really brief exam so there could easily have been more,
there was less than 1% active bacteria but very high inactive bacterial
biomass for a total of around 12 to 15%; there were about 2 flagellates
per 250X field; quite low. Click here to view B44 (10 MB).
I re-examined the 24 hour samples as well to decide what all I would
include to get tested at SFI. The A24 sample appeared to have degraded
and there was not much bacterial activity so I decided to save some
money and exclude it. In reality the only really good sample for my
purposes was A44 but I wanted to see what the SFI report would say
concerning the fungal hyphae in B24 and B44 so I loaded the 3 samples
into a small cooler and hit the road.
As, I have relayed previously I had a telephone conversation with
Elaine Ingham about 10 days prior where I understood that I would be
able to have a quick look at one sample using one of their scopes just
to see how the flagellates had survived the 4 hour transport. In the
same conversation I had understood her to say that the plate culture
method was not used for counting protozoa in Compost Tea samples,
contrary to what the lab manager had told me. Rather, they use the
direct count or direct determination to ascertain quantities of all
organisms in Compost Tea samples. When I arrived at the lab I kinda
expected to go in with the samples and watch the technician put the
sample on the slide, have a peek, explain to her my reason for
submitting the ‘B’ samples and head back to Yelm. I had
witnessed this done for someone else several years ago when I spent a
day in the SFI lab. I was told to wait for the technician. After about
a half hour+ I was beckoned into the lab by the tech and there was a
slide prepared and on a microscope set up for incident light
fluorescence, what one uses for observing stained or autofluorescing
organisms. At first I glanced down the eyepiece but then asked if there
was not a scope I could use with transmitted light to observe the
survival and activity of the protozoa. The tech replied
“What!?”. (I’m not sure which part she did not
understand or if she was just startled.) She then said the protozoa
would not be observable for 5 days as they were being plated out. I
replied ‘That’s silly, I observed around 100 active
flagellates per 250X field a few hours ago. They don't need
plating.’ I wish I had not blurted out ‘silly’
but the heat of the moment and mounting disappointment was overwhelming
me. The technician suggested I speak to the lab manager. I did spend a
few fruitless moments engaged in conversation with the manager trying
to ratify what Elaine had told me. He determined that I had
misunderstood Elaine, which I guess is correct and that all Compost Tea
samples are plate cultured to count protozoa. I blurted out, again,
that such a count is not valid. He rightfully corrected me that, in my
opinion it is not valid and I corrected my statement to reflect this
meaning.
I left the lab feeling rather frustrated and confused but, despite
having spent almost $400 on testing methods different than anticipated
I held out hope that in the big picture the learning experience would
be worth the price paid. The rush hour traffic through Portland was
ugly.
The next morning at the Yelm Earthworm farm I relayed my experience and
predicted that the utilization of the plate culture method would show
the CT which is high in protozoa content as being lower because the CT
had already produced protozoa to the optimum and many of the resting
cysts had already excysted (hatched). The CT sample which is low in
protozoa content would likely show a higher count after being plate
cultured because there is more potential for protozoa multiplication as
they have yet to populate to an optimum level and there may be resting
cysts yet to excyst.
Upon returning home I contacted some people knowledgeable in
microbiology and several laboratories to try to get their take on this
method for counting protozoa. I could find none that thought the plate
culture method made any sense for counting protozoa and one lab
concurred with my prediction theory. There were also suggestions that
the plate culture medium may not grow the same set of protozoa present
in the CT as is. The consensus was that if they were asked to do a
count of protozoa in such a medium (CT) they would immediately prepare
several slides, do a live count and calculate an average. Most
suggested they would use a hemacytometer or other counting chamber
(slides with pockets and etchings of precise dimensions for counting
microorganisms).
I thought something is not right here. Maybe I’m missing
something. I had always agreed with Elaine Ingham’s assertion
that the way to get a more accurate estimation of live microbes was
through direct determination and that plate culturing was unreliable
because it misses most of the organisms and because it projects the
growth rather than showing what is present now. I have admired her
stance on this amidst criticism but now, apparently her lab is using
this very method for protozoa counts, while other labs are advocating
direct determination. Does it make sense to use direct determination
for one set of microorganisms while plating out another?
The following excerpts are from Elaine Ingham or are associated with
her; I wish to make it clear that I intend no enmity towards Elaine. I
hold her in high regard. Her knowledge level eclipses mine. Her
contribution to the advancement and widespread practice of microbial
based horticultural practices is without measure. I seek only clarity
and verity.
1/ SFI Website
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach_pgs/c_01_understand_why.html
Species diversity
Species diversity is the same in compost and the tea
made from that compost. Species diversity in compost is higher than
fumigated or sick soil. But at least one plate count microbiology lab
is giving out data suggesting that compost has lower diversity than bad
soil and that “ok” tea has less diversity than bad compost.
It is clear that plate count “diversity” methods are not
effective in assessing species diversity, or species richness, in soil,
compost or compost tea. Molecular methods tell us that species
diversity in soil, tea, and compost, can number in the thousands and
tens of thousands per gram.
Use of methods that tell you that soil contains only a few 5 to 10
species, or that compost contains only 8 to 15 species need to be
viewed with a great deal of incredulity. Plate methods are missing only
about 99.9% of what is actually present!
Do plate counts or direct counts assess tea quality? The clear answer
is that direct counts assess tea quality, while plate counts do not.
Take a look at the results (below) from a test where two different teas
were used to control blight on tomato plants.
2/ Soil Foodweb Institute Australia
http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/index.php?pageid=340
Plate methods could not differentiate between the two teas.
TSA incubated at room temperature, in aerobic
conditions, measures “aerobic heterotrophs”. There was no
detectable difference between the two teas using plate methods, despite
the fact that Tea Two was capable of suppressing blight, while Tea One,
sprayed at the same concentration, in the same conditions, did not
suppress disease.
King’s B medium selects for pseudomonads, but not all these
bacterial species are beneficial to plants. Enumeration indicated that
there were more pseudomonads in the not-suppressive tea. Plate methods
cannot distinguish whether the bacteria growing on this plate, and thus
presumably pseudomonads, will be beneficial to the plant. If these
values were used to measure “species richness-diversity”,
the not-suppressive tea would get a higher “index” score
than the tea that resulted in the plants remaining alive and producing
a bumper crop of tomato later in the year.
Please note that “species richness-diversity” is not a
valid name for any ecologically accepted measure of diversity. The lab
that developed and uses this index will NOT explain how this index is
calculated, and will not show any data that documents what relationship
the index has with plant health. They claim the index is in any
introductory textbook, but in fact, no textbook anywhere has a measure
called species richness-diversity. Until such time as the lab using
this index documents the claim that a higher index value actually means
a benefit to the plant, the use of this index must remain highly
questionable.
Spore-formers are determined by boiling the material in question to
kill vegetative cells, followed by plating the material on TSA. Only
spores or highly dormant stages of organisms survive boiling. Those
spores capable of growing on TSA, at room temperature, in the
particular oxygen conditions present in the plate (please recognize
that oxygen exchange is reduced by the fact that the plates are
covered), are then enumerated. Again, the not-suppressive tea had
higher plate enumeration values. What is the relationship between what
will grow on a plate, and physiological functions occurring in the
soil, or on plant surfaces? These data show that there is no
relationship.
Direct determinations separate bacteria from fungi. Plate media do not
separate even bacteria from fungi, much less not giving an indication
of what is going on with approximately 99.9% of the species present in
the material plated.
Direct determinations also let you know whether protozoa or nematodes
are present and performing their functions. A much clearer picture of
what biology is present and performing their functions is possible when
using direct determinations. Direct methods let you know if coverage on
leaf surfaces is adequate. These types of assessments need to have a
clear relation back to benefit to the plant.
Please note that there is no consistent relationship between plate
count enumerations of “species richness-diversity” and
improvement in plant growth. Plate counts do not assess diversity or
activity of the organisms in the test material. An insignificant number
of the actual total individuals or total species present in a sample
grow on any single plate medium or set of lab conditions that it is
difficult to see why anyone would continue to pretend that there is a
relationship between plant growth and plate count assessments of
diversity.
3/ Discussion Forum
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0211&L=sanet-mg&P=7967
When you talk about functional groups in the soil, it
is as if you think that organisms that grow on plate as active in the
soil. They are not. Thus, as a method to assess function, plate counts
are pitiful. As a method to determine whether a functional group exist
in soil, again, plate counts are pitiful, because 99% of the
individuals that might be able to perform a function do not grow on
that plate.
If you want to know function, do any enzyme test. Then you know how
much of that function is being performed right now. But enzyme analysis
doesn't help you to know how much that function will be maintained. You
can be predictive only if you know the number of active organisms
performing that function now, and in ten minutes, and in an hour, etc.
Plate counts don't allow you to do that. Most of the organisms that
grow on any plate are dormant forms, spores, that were not active in
the soil, or compost, or tea.
4/ Internet
http://www.energybulletin.net/23428.html
Monitoring the soil life
The first step in restoring the soil biology is being able to diagnose
it. Since we can't look at the soil food web directly, we must rely on
indirect methods. Some have suggested nematodes and springtails as
indicators of soil health.
Ingham advocates a "direct count" method, in which individual organisms
in a sample are counted under a microscope. Following a protocol, a
trained technician counts the number of different classes of organisms
(bacteria, fungi and protozoa, for example). The result is a report on
the organisms estimated to be in the sample. The numbers indicate
possible problems in the soil. For example, a high number of ciliates
(a group of protozoa) suggests anaerobic conditions - harmful to plant
life.
Other researchers have used plate counts. A soil sample is placed in a
growth medium like agar, typically in a Petri dish. The number of
bacterial or fungal colonies that grow from a soil sample are then
counted.
Ingham maintains that this method grossly underestimates the number and
variety of soil organisms. She says that the method was designed to
detect and grow human disease organisms such as E. coli. In contrast,
soil organisms need different conditions than the laboratory setting
and growth media can provide. Only about .01 percent of soil organisms
can be detected with traditional plate counts, she estimates.
5/ Discussion Forum
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/compostteas/Week-of-Mon-20020506/000000.html
Testing tea is critical - and you have to know whether
the competitive organisms in the tea are ACTIVE or not. You cannot
measure active organisms using plate counts, you can only measure
viable organisms. There's a huge difference.
6/ Internet
http://soilfoodweb.ca/SFC-Elaine&TedArticle.pdf
To get this information, you will need to send samples of soil, compost and compost
tea to a laboratory that can provide this information. Choosing the ‘right’ lab is
important as not all soil and microbiology labs use protocols that can provide the
information that growers need to make good decisions about soil biology
management. To date peer reviewed, direct look protocols and composite databases
are only available at the worldwide soil foodweb labs in the USA,
Canada, Australia,New Zealand South Africa and soon England and
Belgium. Plate culture laboratory protocols cannot provide this
information and miss 95% of the biology in soil because most soil
organisms cannot be grown in an artificial lab environment.
7/ In The Compost Tea Brewing Manual 4th Edition,
Elaine advocates direct count methods for determination of the microbes
present in compost teas.
End of Excerpts:
SFI Test Results:
The SFI test results did come by email. You may view the tests here in PDF format A44 B24 B44
A44 – When we
examine the results of bacterial count overall my estimations as to
general quantity (quality) from above (active bac low <1% but total
okay 5%) seem to roughly concur with the SFI results (active bac. low;
total bac. good). SFI reports the bacterial content in mass per volume
(ug/ml) so it is difficult to make a direct comparison. I will discuss
this later.
When we come to the flagellate count the SFI number is 13,863 per g (or
per ml because 1 ml. of water weighs 1 gram). This is where my numbers
disagree sharply with the SFI report. Remember that I did a
conservative count of 90 flagellates per field of view.
The formula for roughly converting numbers of microorganisms per field of view to microorganisms per ml or g is;
(~ = divided by; field of view = FOV)
Number of microorganisms/ml = area of coverslip ~ area of FOV x number of organisms/FOV x number of pipette drops/ml
The 250X FOV of my portable microscope = .49 sq mm
The number of drops per ml. = 20
The area of the coverslips = 324 sq mm
Therefore; The number of flagellates/ml = 324 ~ .49 x 90 x 20 = 1,190,204.08/ml
Because 1 ml of water = 1 gram, this = 1,190,204 flagellates/g
This is over a million flagellates per gram. Even if my count is off by
10 percent or more this is still radically different from the SFI
result. I attribute this to the plate culturing method they used.
Note that my prediction bore out; that the sample with the higher
number of direct count flagellates is showing a lower number through
the plate count method.
There is a comment in the lower portion of the SFI test which states
that the aerobic bacteria are dormant. I would like to know how aerobic
bacteria are determined without using plating or other methods.
B24 – Here again
the observations I recorded (of active bacteria at about 3 to 4% and
very thick total bacteria at about 20 to 30% showing very good; mention
of okay fungal hyphae) seem to generally jive with the quality
description from SFI (active bac. good; total bac. excellent).
Again I cannot make a direct comparison because the bacteria are
recorded in mass/volume.
On the surface it would appear that even our flagellate estimations
concur were it not for the comments and the following report for B44.
The comment at the bottom portion of the report states ‘Protozoa
either not present in compost, or did not survive in the tea’
If we skip ahead to the SFI test result for B44, which is drawn from
the identical Compost Tea brew (just 20 hours later) the number of
flagellates reported is 277,259/g. In the lower portion of the report
the flagellate count is described as excellent. Hold on; This is the CT
where protozoa were either not present in the compost or did not
survive the tea. What’s up with this? I attribute this to the
potential inaccuracy of using the plate culture method to count
protozoa.
Interestingly, even though the DO2 was miserably low when I drew the
B24 sample there is no comment saying that the aerobic bacteria are
dormant. The description makes this CT sample sound superior to A44
even though we have (to the best of our current knowledge) observed
microbial activity and DO2 readings indicating the opposite. One good
thing to know is that SFI measures the fungal hyphae at 4 micrometers
and determines it to be beneficial. Now that’s the kind of meat
and potatoes information I find useful. It backs up my estimates of 6
micrometer hyphae when everything is going right.
B44 – My numbers
(less than 1% active bacteria but very high inactive bacterial biomass
for a total of around 12 to 15%;) for bacteria observed seem to go
along with the SFI qualitative description (active bac. low; total bac.
good) except that I may have a higher total bacteria. This could be
where their superior staining techniques may help define bacteria from
other junk. Of course as previously outlined our flagellate counts are
way different. My observation being about 2 flagellates per 250X field;
quite low, translated; 324~.49x2x20= 26,530/ml = 26,530/g. Yes
that’s what I call low but much lower than the SFI; 277,259/g.
Note that my predicted theory bears out again; the sample which had the
directly determined lower count of flagellates ended up showing the
higher count when the plate culture method of counting was employed.
I need to question the reason for the plate culture method being used
to assess protozoa numbers in CT. Generally, in my understanding, a
plate culture method is useful for determining the potential for a
substance to produce certain microorganisms. It is therefore useful for
application to soil, compost, humus, peat samples, etc. For CT samples
I’m an advocate for what you see is what you got NOT what you see
is what you might get if you culture these microbes out over 5 days. I
could also be missing the point completely and am therefore open to
being educated.
Microbial Mass
I said that I would discuss the results for bacteria and fungal hyphae
expressed in terms of mass per volume. This type of expression is used
in various studies and analysis of microbes. It is deemed necessary for
certain trials which have been carried out and there have been numerous
approaches and formulae establishing conversion factors to interpret
volume/volume of microbes as mass/volume or mass/mass.
I have searched for and read some of the research papers on which many
of the accepted conversion factors are based for studies carried out by
contemporary scientists. I have found the results to vary greatly and
indeed even some of the authors of the papers warn that these are rough
averages and one must have confidence in the methods used to formulate
the presently used conversion factor for the specific group of microbes
being utilized. We are talking about the weight of microorganisms here.
You can’t use the bathroom scales so it is based primarily on the
mass of carbon and there are many variables concerning environmental
medium, growth rates, species, etc.
I have already been overly long-winded so I’ll not provide any
excerpts but will be happy to email the journal articles to interested
parties. I will, however list some of the conversion factors with the
author(s’) name(s). I have converted them all into grams per
cubic centimeter so there is some chance of misplaced decimal points.
If you see any errors please let me know;
1979 – van Veen & Paul; bacteria - 0.8 g/cu cm; fungal hyphae – 0.33 g/ cu cm
1982 – Newell & Statzell-Tallman; fungal hyphae - 0.9 g dry/cu cm
1982 – Bakken & Olsen; bacteria – 1.09 g/cu cm and 30%
dry matter (DM); fungal hyphae – 1.09 g/cu cm and 21% DM; I have
trouble comprehending this one
1885 – Braktak; fixated bacteria – 0.056 g/ cu cm; wild bacteria(?) - 0.22 g/cu cm
1987 – Borsheim & Braktak; bacteria – 0.22 g/cu cm
1987 – Lee & Fuhrman; bacteria – 0.38 g/cu cm
There are other articles I could not access ($) and I’m sure there is more information available.
I asked the SFI lab in Oregon for their conversion factors and was told
it is proprietary information, however Elaine told me in an email that
as she recalls they are; prokaryotes (bacteria) - 0.31 g/cu cm; fungal
hyphae - 0.44 g/cu cm
There is obviously value in expressing bacterial and fungal amounts
like this, especially if one needs to perform calculations or express
mass to mass ratios. For my information to use these results I’d
like to know what the conversion factor is, what research the factor is
derived from and what the high and low variances are. I have looked for
this information on the SFI website and maybe it’s there but I
have not seen it, nor have I found a basic description of their testing
practices and techniques. At most labs they will give you this
information with the exception of proprietary techniques for detection
of species, etc.
The SFI test results can become confusing, otherwise. For example if we
look at two of the SFI test results posted on the KIS website; One test
is for their small brewer (I believe) and the Invoice # is 5795. The
other test is for the vermicompost they use (Invoice 0). The tests use
the same units of measure as ug/ml is the same as ug/g unless a sample
has been dried (baked) first (their protocol does not state this that I
know of) In the vermicompost the total bacteria is reported at 5969
ug/g while in the Compost Tea it is reported at 11648 ug/ml (ug/g). If
they are using this or a similar vermicompost does this mean that the
bacteria did not even double? Perhaps there is a totally different
method for handling and testing the compost but without knowing this it
is difficult to learn something from these results.
Using these two tests to review the validity of the plate culture
method to count protozoa, in the vermicompost the flagellate count is
209,599 /g (/ml) and in the Compost Tea the flagellate count is 13,863
/ml (/g). If they are using this or a similar vermicompost in the
brewer does this mean that the numbers were reduced by the brewer?
Likely this is a factor of the plate culture method. Something seems
wrong with the overall picture. It could be there is something I just
don’t get and I need educating.
Something I pointed out before is that the flagellate number and
amoebae numbers on the KIS test are identical at 13,863/ml but
something I just noticed is that the flagellate number on my A44 test
is also 13,863/g (/ml). What are the chances?
1/ It would be nice if someone from SFI could lay out as much as
possible what their testing protocol is. 2/ What is your biomass
conversion factor and where is it derived from? 3/ Can someone explain
the reason for the plate culturing of the protozoa?
4/ How do you determine that bacteria are aerobic as noted in the quantitative test results?
What did I learn? I learned that I had to return to the drawing table
as far as a couple of features for the Microbulator design. I had
reaffirmed the importance of what is in compost to begin with and the
ability of water to retain O2. This supports the practice of blending
several substances for a broader range of microbes, like done by KIS. I
have come to the realization that the SFI quantitative testing is
probably not going to work for my purposes of illustrating the efficacy
of the brewer; unless I’m shown to be full of it and re-educated.
If anything I might prefer their little qualitative test. In a
discussion with the biologist at Woodsend lab she expressed what I have
observed consistently. A set of microorganisms in a CT sample does not
stay the same for long making it difficult for shipping to the
lab and getting reliable results. I guess I’ll stick to the video
footage of microbes extracted to illustrate results for now.
Terracycle Examination:
Recently, I examined Terracycle’s product labeled, Plant Food. It
comes in a recycled 591 ml pop bottle with a spray device screwed on
top. It has an NPK analysis on the label of 0.03 – 0.002 –
0.02. The ingredients listed are; vermicompost extract, period. It is
an OMRI listed product where it is classed as a manure tea. I believe
the recommendations for its use are similar to the recommendations for
compost tea in certified organic applications. According to OMRI, whom
I contacted by phone, if there are other ingredients they must be
listed. If there are any loopholes in labeling laws I am unaware of
them. When I first heard of Terracycle’s ‘liquid worm
poo’ product I assumed that they must be using phosphoric acid to
stabilize or put to sleep the microbes. According to their
‘science guy’, Bill and their label, this is not the case.
Bill says the stabilization and shelf life are attributed to the
process utilized in production which he did not volunteer to reveal. He
did say their product has been tested against pathogens such as e-coli.
I examined several samples of one bottle only so I would call this a
preliminary observation and report. Upon first examination of the
product fresh out of the bottle under the microscope, I observed very
little microbial life. I saw two spore forming bacteria, apparently
dormant. This was akin to looking at plain water. It was so vacant
(boring) that I did not bother looking at another sample. Because I do
so with all samples I observe, I filled a pill bottle with the liquid
product, added a couple of drops of black strap molasses, shook it up
for 90 seconds and left it sitting on the bench with the lid off.
Obligingly at about 24 hours I sucked up a sample to observe. What a
surprise! I saw a sample swimming with a wide variety of bacteria.
There were also a few flagellates present and what appeared to be
fungal hyphae. You can download a video clip here (14 MB) or smaller version here (6 MB).
At the 40 hour mark after the Terracycle being fed black strap
molasses, I found myself further amazed to see even more diverse
bacteria and a higher number and diversity of flagellates. There are
large masses comprised of a type of actinomycetes or other hyphal
forming bacteria (I believe) conjunctive with other stationary
bacterial biomass, active bacteria, yeast formations, fungal hyphae and
feeding flagellates. These appear as large islands and the video clip
only shows the outer edge of one of these. The short clips I made for
the website do not properly illustrate these masses so if someone is
interested in seeing more I can send you some footage. The apparent
fungal hyphae structures are much more developed and growing across
many fields of view. They are approximately 3.5 to 4 microns in
diameter and appear to have relatively regularly placed septa. I did
not observe any branching and do not know what this may indicate. If
someone knowledgeable in fungal hyphae has any input I’d
appreciate it. The video clip for the 40 hour observation may be
downloaded here (14 MB) or here (6 MB).
My response to this preliminary observation by way of recommendations
is that if one uses it straight out of the bottle it will probably have
little effect as a foliar feeder or leaf disease suppressant. Used
straight out of the bottle on soil it may have very good benefits, via
initiating or boosting the microbial nutrient cycle at the root/soil
interface, once the dormant microbes are stimulated to growth and
activity from propitious conditions and food sources. Used as an
inoculant in a compost tea Terracycle may have profound beneficial
effects to increase the microbial diversity and volume in compost tea
inclusive of bacteria, flagellates and (apparently) fungal hyphae.
As I said, I am most surprised by these observations and expected
absolutely the opposite. I would appreciate hearing from other
microscopists out there who may look at this product in similar
fashion. As time affords it, I will look at more samples (bottles) of
this product to test for consistency to rule out this being an isolated
case. I did run a control test on my molasses mixed with water in case
anyone wonders.
Resources & Links
Following
are some links to useful resources and information. I will be adding to
this periodically so keep checking in. Please let me know if you come
across inactive links.
Worms;
Here is simple information I put together for keeping your own
composting worms to supply your brewer with fresh vermicompost.> keepingworms.pdf
Venturi;
Here is a sketch venturisketch.pdf and text venturitext.pdf instructing
the use of a water pump and venturi for building a compost tea brewer.
It works.
Microscopes;
Here is a PDF copy of my Microscope advisory. It may help you with making a decision concerning a microscope purchase > microscopeadvisory.pdf