More Compost Tea Stuff

If you’re getting sick of the compost tea debate then you can skip this post.  If not, then read on! 

This past week I received my copy of Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(6).  And in it, page 269, I discovered an article titled “Laboratory Assays on the Effects of Aerated Compost Tea and Fertilization on Biochemical Properties and Denitrification in a Silt Loam and Bt Clay Loam Soils” by Bryant Scharenbroch, William Treaurer, Michelle Catania and Vincent Brand.  Basically what the authors did was to add dilute compost tea, concentrated compost tea, and a fertilizer to a couple of different types of soil in a laboratory setting to establish how they changed the soil.  To be honest the article was a little tough to read for a non-soil scientist and I found myself looking up terms quite often.  Still, I found their conclusions fascinating.  There were actually a number of conclusions, I’m just going to cover what I think are the most interesting:

  1. “Aerated Compost tea appears INFERIOR  [you read that right – inferior] compared to fertilizer in its ability to increase microbial biomass, microbial activity” and a few other things.   Hmmm…I’d been told that microbes hated synthetic fertilizer.  I guess not all microbes agree.  In terms of the fertilizer used, it was a 30-10-7.  I didn’t see it explicitly stated in the article, but I’d bet it was a synthetic fertilizer called Arbor Green Pro.  It was applied at what I would consider a heavy dose.
  2. Aerated compost tea, or at least the compost tea tested in this article, did contain a significant amount of nutrients.
  3. On the up side for compost tea it was pointed out that compost tea treatments might help a poor soil retain more nitrogen.  Maybe…but the authors also pointed out that “only the fertilizer treatment appeared to deliver enough available nitrogen to potentially meet tree needs in the Bt horizon soils” (in other words poorer soils).  Interesting – but if we just added compost we’d have a better soil anyway, which brings us to the next point….
  4. The compost tea tested contained only a small portion of the microorganisms that compost does.

So what’s the take home message from this article?  This wasn’t explicitly stated in the article — in fact I’m not even sure the authors would agree with me — but to me the important message is 1) ADD COMPOST and 2) IF YOU NEED TO ADD NUTRIENTS ADD FERTILIZER NOT COMPOST TEA (though I’d go with a nice renewable organic rather than a synthetic).   

Meat in Compost?

Over the years I’ve gotten a lot of questions about how to compost.  I’m not a composting expert, and don’t want to pass myself off as one, but I do understand the basics and I like to think of myself as a proponent of composting.  Having said that, there is a composting practice which I’m asked about frequently that I never know quite how to answer.  Should you put meat into your compost?

The easy answer to the question of whether meat belongs in compost is that it is an organic material which will break down just fine along with all of the vegetable matter in your compost.  But there’s more to it than that.  I’ve been to some areas that specifically forbid meat in compost because of the vermin that it will attract.  And it’s true, at least to some extent, that meat attracts vermin.  Rats, raccoons, and other mammals will go after meats.  It’s the high protein content.  How can they resist?  While leaves and grass can have as much as 4% nitrogen, meats will typically have between 5 and even as high as 16% nitrogen.  Of course they go for it! 

Besides the vermin issue, if raw meat is placed in a compost pile it tends to stink, especially if it isn’t mixed into the pile.  Cooked meat (table scraps) breaks down a little bit more slowly than raw meat and doesn’t stink as much.  Because of the high nitrogen content of meat it will get a compost pile to compost a little bit faster.  Personally, I’m in favor of using meat in compost piles as long as you’re careful to turn the pile frequently to keep it inside the pile where it can’t do as much harm.  If you’re a casual composter then you might want to avoid using meat because of the potential problems.  So there it is – in my mind the answer to whether you should put meat in compost or not comes down to how closely you like to monitor your pile, whether there are laws against it in your area, and also the likelihood of mammals getting into it where you live.  Also, at most meat should be a small component of a compost pile — not the main component.

Jeff Ball

Back in 2006, when I first started garden writing, I was invited to give a talk in Michigan.  It was really exciting to get this kind of invitation so early in my writing career and I was thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to an audience that wasn’t composed primarily of students or academics. 

Looking back at those talks…well…they weren’t particularly good.  Sure, there was good information, but I wasn’t particularly comfortable giving talks at that stage and so I’m not sure I got my information across nearly as well as I should have. 

After my talks there really wasn’t much to do besides listening to other speakers, and so that’s what I did.  That’s where I got to listen to Jeff Ball, a garden writer and self-proclaimed yardener.  I was amazed at how this guy filled the room with people who wanted to hear him speak and further amazed at how well he spoke.   Being in academia I’m always surprised when someone speaks without visual aids – I had always idolized Michael Dirr, my former advisor and one of the greatest speakers I know, who always played off of his magnificent slides of plants.  I really had never seen anyone give a talk without slides, or overheads, or powerpoint, or a chalkboard, before.  But Jeff Ball did a talk right off the top of his head with nothing else, and he was magnificent.  I remember not agreeing with everything he said (can’t remember what specifically), but more importantly, I remember how the tone of his voice and his wonderful sense of timing and rhythm kept the audience interested and engaged.   After that day there were two speakers who I idolized, Mike Dirr and Jeff Ball. 

Jeff Ball passed away this past week.  It’s always sad when someone who you know and admire passes, but their passing also provides a time for you to think back on the good things which they did.  I didn’t know Jeff well at all.  Indeed, I never saw him speak again after that day.  But his talk was inspirational and led me to really think about how I give a presentation, and for that I can’t thank Jeff enough.

Our visiting professor weighs in on potatoes

According to the FAO (and their “year of the potato” campaign from 2008), 2008 was the year of the potato.  Did you all notice?  I may not have, except for the year-long display in the horticulture building at the University of Minnesota.  What I recently became curious about was how much garden space it would take for a person to grow enough potatoes to satisfy their annual average consumption.  But if you make it past that math in this blog entry, you’ll read about recent congressional action on the tasty tuber.  The government is not telling us how many rows of potatoes to plant in our backyard, but they’re discussing how many potatoes our kids can eat.


"La Ratte" fingerling potatoes

But first, how much space do you need for your annual potato need? OK, I’ll skip the math, but we need to assume what yield we can expect.  If we can get (on the low end) 100 pounds of potatoes per 100-foot row, we’d need a 35-foot row to get 35 pounds of potatoes.  And 35 pounds of potatoes is what the average American eats per year (not including pre-processed chips and fries and instant flakes, etc).  If we can get 150 pounds per 100-foot row, we’d only need a 24-foot row for 35 pounds of potatoes.  Imagine that this way: take 8 to 12 big-sized steps in a sunny spot in your yard.  Now imagine that area meeting or exceeding an average American’s (fresh) potato needs for the year.  Seem reasonable?  Why not try it next year?

But were this your typical blog, authored by enthusiasts or hobbyists, you’d be satisfied learning that much.  But no, this horticulture blog is rooted in science and current issues.  So by now, you’re pining for some research to sink your teeth into.  Some scientific debate or controversy, or even recent policy news, pertaining to potatoes.  So with that, I present to you: the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bill for FY 2012.  This juicy piece of legislation (passed on Nov. 1) has a potato provision, a tuber maneuver, to bypass the USDA, which wanted to limit the amount of ‘starchy’ vegetables served in school lunches to 1 cup (2 servings) per week.  Their list of starchy vegetables also includes lima beans, peas, and sweet corn.  Two senators from potato-rich states (Colorado and Maine) put the amendment in, effectively blocking the power of the USDA to implement such a rule.  The reasoning given is that the rule would be a burden to school districts, which would have to find a way to meet nutritional guidelines with more ‘nutritional’ vegetables.   A conference committee merged the House version (with no amendment to limit the USDA’s power) with the Senate version on November 15, and the full legislation does indeed contain the Senate’s provision to protect potato producers.


Harvesting beets.  (Not sure why this is here.  Maybe because beets are better for you than potatoes?  Maybe just to see how darn cute Charlie’s son is?)

So what do you think?  Should kids not be allowed to eat more than a cup of lima beans, potatoes, corn, and peas in school each week?  Should it depend on how they’re prepared (French fries, for example)?  Can we grow enough broccoli to replace the potatoes that kids aren’t eating?  Would your kids eat kale and squash at school if peas and sweet corn were taken away?  Are you more like the average Russian, who eats about 286 pounds of fresh potatoes per year?  Discuss.

Leaves for Lawn Fertilizer

Yesterday I happened to see a garden calendar encouraging people to pick up their leaves so that they don’t pollute streams and lakes by encouraging algae to grow.  This was a good idea, I thought, but then I started to wonder whether leaves on the lawn might not be a better idea?  After all, the reason that leaves cause algal growth in water is because of the nutrients they have.  And if they have nutrients couldn’t those be used for fertilizer instead of the regular fertilizers which we use?  What if we raked all of our leaves onto our yards?

There’s no denying that leaves which drop in the fall can make great compost, but how well would they work as a fertilizer? So I did a little bit of preliminary research — reading old papers and such — and here’s what I’ve come up with:

Fallen leaves are very variable in nutrient content.  Some leaves have 1% nitrogen, and some can have almost 3% (these are mostly from leguminous trees).  In terms of phosphorus, fallen leaves tend to have around 0.1%, though once again, it’s very variable.   For the purposes of this post I’m going to stick with nitrogen.

For 1,000 square feet of grass yard it takes about a pound of nitrogen per year to fertilize, even with a low input variety.

In a heavily wooded lot it wouldn’t be odd to have around 100 pounds of leaves fall in a 1,000 square foot area.  At 1% nitrogen, the leaves would provide enough nitrogen for the grass, but that would probably end up being a moot point because the leaves would have a good chance of smothering the grass. 

So what I’m wondering is, if we planted trees which were legumes, and had higher levels of nitrogen, and if we chopped up the leaves so they weren’t as likely to smother the grass (using a lawnmower or whatever) could we provide enough nitrogen per year for a healthy low input lawn?  Personally, I think so.  We would need to keep these leaves off of driveways and sidewalks because this is where they would do their worst in terms of contaminating water, but if they were just in yards — I think it might work.

The Wrong Message

Every once in awhile I’ll see a new garden product that really speaks to me.  Something that promises spectacular results on some garden problem that I’ve had to deal with before and attacks it in a novel way.  Then I’ll read the advertising materials for the product and be let down before even trying it.  Such is the case for a new product called Liquid Ladybug (which, by the way, is one of the niftiest product names that I’ve ever seen — so there’s a win for the company!).

According to the manufacturer Liquid Ladybug is a spray-on product which kills spidermites, evaporates quickly from the plant, and which has organic plant oils as its main active ingredient.

So far so good — and even believable.  Plant oils can kill spider mites.  Of course simply wiping the plant with a cotton swab soaked in isopropyl alcohol can do that too — or you could easily make up a soapy spray to spray on the plant which can do the same thing.  Still, the claims don’t seem too bad so far.

Here’s the part that I have a problem with — you can, and are all but encouraged to, spray this stuff with no protection (like gloves).  See the website here .  Is this a bright thing to advertise?  Many plant oils don’t agree with eyes, mucous membranes, or beneficial insects, and let’s not even get started with allergies!  In my opinion this is reckless, foolish advertising.  Pesticides, organic or not, need to be respected.  Without that respect we inadvertantly put ourselves into bad situations. Another problem with this products is that it is likely to kill any predatory mites or other soft bodied beneficial insects just as readily as it kills bad mites.

And check out the price of this stuff!

My advice, skip this product and use insecticidal soap, or, if you’re anxious to try something new, try a beneficial insect such as the big eyed bug or minute pirate bug.

The Genetically Modified Kentucky Bluegrass Problem (The Anger As Promised)

One of the nice things about my job is that I get to work with a lot of other researchers who work in a lot of different areas.  One of these areas is molecular biology and I certainly know people who have genetically engineered plants to do one thing or another.  Maybe it’s because I know so many people who work with them, but I’m not fundamentally opposed to genetically  engineered crops. Which isn’t to say I’m not concerned about certain genetically modified crops, but in general I think that the systems we have in place to review them have done a decent job of making sure that nothing too terrible is released.

Until now.

A few years ago a grass called creeping bentgrass was genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup.  This grass was never released to consumers, but it was released for testing, it escaped, and now this grass, though not widely distributed, has made a pest of itself in various spots – and we can’t use Roundup to control it. 

The above is obviously a problem, but not the problem I’m concerned about.

This past July APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service — a department of the USDA) confirmed that a new genetically engineered Roundup resistant Kentucky bluegrass was not subject to regulation because it had been made without using organisms that are considered pests (Most genetically modified plants are).  So, for the first time, the government is actually saying that a genetically modified crop is exempt from oversight.  The other two governmental entities that usually look at genetically modified organisms, the EPA if a plant produces a pesticide and the FDA if a food is being produced, don’t need to look at this grass because it doesn’t produce a pesticide and it isn’t a food.

This, in my opinion, is insane.

This non-native grass is a known invasive across the Midwest where it fares pretty well out on the plains.  In fact, according to the USDA (which includes APHIS) it is listed as an invasive weed in the Great Plains States and Wisconsin.  The USDA also lists one of the preferred controls for this grass as glyphosate (Roundup).

WHAT?!?! 

Look, I know this is kind of a tricky thing what with the way that this grass was made and all.  But it seems to me that if APHIS wanted to consider this a potentially noxious weed it could, thereby mandating some review. 

What it comes down to is that I am very scared that the company which made this grass – Scotts Miracle-Gro — might actually release it and cause some problems similar to those caused by the Roundup resistant creeping bentgrass – but at a much larger scale.  Sure, there are other pesticides which can be used on Kentucky bluegrass if it gets out of hand, but losing one that is so effective and so safe (on a relative scale of course) seems crazy.  I guess you could argue that using this grass might reduce the use of other, scarier, chemicals in yards, but jeepers crimeny, wouldn’t you like some non-partisan governmental organization to at least look at it?

In my opinion this whole thing is just nuts.  And let’s not lose sight of something that is potentially even scarier: By figuring out how to avoid government regulation, Scotts Miracle-Gro has drawn a map for other companies to avoid regulation with their genetically modified crops.

Disagreeing With Colleagues

There are lots of things that people write about that I strongly disagree with.  Mostly I keep my mouth shut because my comments would amount to:

A. Preaching to the choir
B. Supporting the phrase "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" (I’m not sure who to attribute this saying to — I’ve seen a few different authors named).  My interpretation of this phrase is that you can’t convince someone of something they don’t want to be convinced of.

But I don’t feel that way with most of my colleagues — and I certainly don’t feel that way about any of my fellow bloggers.  We feel, and have always felt (as far as I know) that it’s important for us to disagree openly on things because only through open discussion can we arrive at the truth.  I also think that it’s important that you get to see our disagreements. 

Too often the vision that I think most people have of academic discussions is of a bunch of jerky professor types sitting around a table in a pretty university conference room nodding to each other that, yes, yes, all academics agree and we must now force the public to believe what we do.  If I’m being honest (and I try….) I sometimes feel the same way about topics like global warming.  Sure, many academics agree that global warming has been brought on by humans, but it’s far from unanimous and you need to listen to all of the voices, not just the loudest ones, to get the whole story.  Actually, there are relatively few topics that "all academics" agree on.

I am extremely proud of this website because it allows everyone to see the discussions that professional horticulturists have about various topics.  Sure, often we agree, but sometimes we don’t.  When we don’t agree we hash it out and admit when there isn’t research supporting our ideas.  And we also talk about the research we conduct which is meant to give us answers — and reduce disagreements — such as Bert’s recent post requesting input on which experiment would be most valuable.  All of his proposed experiments would provide answers to questions that we regularly discuss.

Which brings us to Linda’s most recent post.  You can mark me down as being highly skeptical of washing the roots of B&B trees prior to planting.  Linda obviously believes otherwise.  We both have our reasons, and we both agree that more research needs to be conducted.  Until it’s conducted we’ll just agree to disagree and get along with each other fine.  And it’s a nice feeling to work in that kind of environment (Happy post this week — Next week I’m planning on some serious anger!).   

A Challenge

As I was looking over the label on a bag of fertilizer this morning I was reminded of the time, a few years ago, when a friend of mine and I went to a local K-mart and decided to see what the people in the gardening section knew.  We started small—we went over to a bag of fertilizer and my friend asked what the three numbers on the bag meant.  Now, as most gardeners know, those numbers indicate the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the fertilizer.  Unfortunately the guy we asked told us that those numbers were actually a computer code…We never did find out exactly what this computer code was for.  I have no idea why the guy couldn’t just say “I don’t know”.  We had intended to ask more questions, but both of us were too stupefied to continue.

So I have a challenge for all of you this weekend—I’m curious to see who takes it up—go to a box store, or a garden center—your choice—and ask them what the three numbers on the bag of fertilizer are for.  You can list responses in the comments section below—or feel free to e-mail me directly at gillm003@umn.edu if the answers are too embarrassing!