Bokashi composting and Effective Microorganisms® – a quick analysis

A few weeks ago an attendee at one of my seminars asked me about bokashi composting.  It’s a term I hadn’t heard before, so I promised to look into it (and the science behind it, of course).  I haven’t had a chance to do much more than a cursory analysis, but even that has proven interesting.

For those of you who, like me, had never heard of bokashi, it’s a composting technique that utilizes Effective Microorganisms® as a way of creating a “positive” compost product using “positive” microorganisms.  Unlike those found in aerated compost tea, these microbes are primarily anaerobic.  They have been packaged and marketed for a number of applications, including water and sewage treatment.  Since this is a gardening blog, I limited my search to journal articles on whole plant experiments.

I found almost 50 articles in my initial sweep through the literature – I pulled out articles that included the word “bokashi.”  (There are many more [over 300] that mention “effective microorganisms” but it will take some time to winnow through those.)  Without reading the abstracts of my collected articles, I separated them into three categories:  top tier journals, lower tier journals, and meeting proceedings.  Top tier journals are generally those that have been around for a long time, have an international distribution, and are considered to be rigorous in their peer review process.  Lower tier journals may include those limited to a university or a single country, written in a language other than English, or relatively new; in many cases, this means that the peer-review may not be as rigorous as for top tier journals.  This may be unfair, but it’s one of the ways that scientists consider the impact of published research.  And finally, published meeting proceedings are almost always unreviewed.

(For those of you interested in how academics stress over journal ranking, you’ll be amused, depressed, and/or in total disbelief after reading this and this in the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

So here’s what I found when I read the abstracts of the articles in all three categories.  Briefly, I noted whether or not the bokashi treatment (which generally included Effective Microorganisms®) was effective in disease control, improving crop yield, etc.  I only read the abstracts, as many of the articles are not available as electronic resources.

Proceedings – no peer review (16)
Bokashi treatment better than whatever it’s compared to: 15
Bokashi treatment no different or worse than whatever it’s compared to: 1

Journal articles – lower tier resources (25)
Bokashi treatment better than whatever it’s compared to: 15
Bokashi treatment no different or worse than whatever it’s compared to: 7
Mixed results: 3

Journal articles – top tier resources (5)
Bokashi treatment no different or worse than whatever it’s compared to: 5

Quotes from abstracts of these last five articles:
“…did not improve yields and soil quality during 4 years of application in this field experiment.”
“We consider EM products to be ineffective.”
“…the chard treated with [EM products] lost considerable water and weight…the organic methods tested produce a vegetable that can not sustain its quality when commercialized through the conventional supply chain.”
“The treatments did not notably modify the physical and chemical quality of the chard when compared with control plants.”
“Overall, the results confirmed the…effect of compost application on plant growth. However, under the conditions of this study, EM showed no special effects in this.”

Interesting.

An update on the APLD’s soils guide

A few weeks ago I posted on the disappointing inclusion of compost tea in the APLD’s Guide to Sustainable Soils.  Included in my discussion of the issue was the suggestion that people involved in writing the guide also benefited financially from compost tea applications.  This led to some very honest and constructive emails between me and the APLD’s national leadership, which resulted in educating both parties.

Here’s what I found from the APLD’s President Susan Olinger and Sustainability Chair Toni Bailey:  As members of the Board of Directors of APLD, we can verify that there was no financial motive behind the inclusion of compost tea by the volunteers that wrote the soils guide.”  This is heartening and makes me feel less cynical about the motives behind including compost tea in the publication.

And here’s what I was able to impart to the leadership of APLD:  that while landscape designers may like to include compost tea as a soil amendment, the belief in its efficacy in improving soil tilth or biology is not supported by legitimate science.  It’s not a matter of sides, or opinions, but a matter of scientific evidence.

If the APLD doesn’t intend its guide to be a scientifically supported document, that’s certainly fine; landscape designers aren’t scientists, after all.  But since good soil science-based information is found throughout most of the guide, the inclusion of compost tea and mycorrhizal inoculants could easily be interpreted by others as science-based as well.

The Living Desert

I had to laugh at Bert’s post about how warm it is in Michigan. Two days ago I drove to Vancouver BC from Seattle through a snow storm. Sigh. I’m already wishing I was back in Palm Desert…so today I’ll introduce you to The Living Desert, one of my favorite plant places to visit. It’s got stellar display gardens featuring the vegetation of the southwest desert ecosystems, all labeled, with tidbits of information on natural history, medicinal uses, etc. (American desert purists will need to grit their teeth and endure the exotic animal exhibits, the miniature railroad display, and Village WaTuTu.)


One of these things just doesn’t belong…

But back to the desert display gardens:


Note the sprinkler spray in the background against the sky.  It takes a lot of extra irrigation to maintain this planting density in a desert environment.

And here’s one of my favorite desert natives from last week’s postNolina parryi – on sale in their nursery:

I’m always a sucker for Bad Staking Examples and The Living Desert did not disappoint:

The Living Desert is a mecca for local wildlife, given the plentiful food and water available.  We had company for lunch:

Until next week, I’m in a warm, happy place…at least in my mind.

Dry doesn’t have to mean dull!

I’m on vacation this week in Palm Desert, California – part of an annual ritual that I’ve enjoyed for about 30 years. Nearly the first thing I do while I’m down here is get away from the golf courses and shopping malls into the high desert mountains. Yesterday my daughter and I hiked Horsethief Creek trail (great name, huh?) in the San Bernardino Wilderness and admired the spring flowers that are just starting to emerge.

One half of my brain was busy noticing all of the native plants that I felt had great ornamental value for home landscapes, while the other half worried about what to do for my blog posting this week. And finally both sides of my brain got together for a chat and here we are with today’s posting.

For many years, the home landscapes down here were primarily of the petunias-and-palms persuasion (or in this case snapdragons and olive trees).

That’s been changing as water has become more limited (i.e., more expensive) and people’s appreciation of native plants has increased. Still, an awful lot of native landscapes rely on traditional desert plants like barrel cacti or agave. They’re pretty – but predictable. And the results are often not natural looking.

So…why not shake things up a bit by using some lesser known, but nonetheless stunning species? While many nurseries might not carry these, the only way to change that is to request them. Savvy nurseries respond to customer requests. Or check with native plant societies, who often have plant sales featuring unusual native species.

Without further ado, here are some great plants from yesterday’s hike, which tolerate low water conditions but have great ornamental and/or functional value.


Arctostaphylos glauca (manzanita) – deceptively tough green leaves against a red-striped bark

The lovely Charlotte displays a good-sized manzanita

Juniperus californica (California juniper) – because every desert landscape needs its own gin mill

Opuntia basilaris (beavertail cactus) – the symmetrical arrangement of tiny spines is aesthetically appealing

                           

Nolina parryi (Parry’s beargrass) – absolutely stunning plant with wickedly sharp leaves

Pentagramma triangularis (goldenback fern) – yes, you can even find ferns in the desert

                             

Astragalus spp. (vetch) – sturdy groundcover with brilliant purple flowers. And it fixes nitrogen!

(A final note: don’t dig these up in the wild and try to transplant them. It’s doubtful they would survive, and in many instances it’s illegal. Do the right thing – support your local native plant nursery and buy them legally.

Taking gardens to a new level

I spent the last few days in New Jersey, with a quick day trip into NYC.  It was a perfect East Coast winter day – sunny and cold – while back home in Seattle it rained.  So it was with real joy that I hoofed it through some of the city’s greenspaces, ending up at The High Line.

I won’t go into detail about the site’s history and development of this city landscape, because the link will do that much better and with more authority than I can.  But briefly, the High Line was the elevated freight train line used in the industrial district.  After it was decommissioned, it was developed into a public greenspace.  And an important note – it is entirely funded through private money.  Its future won’t be affected by city budget cuts.

I was enchanted by the landscaping: it looks like an abandoned trainyard that’s being taken over by a re-emerging forest.  Rather than being centered in a planting space, most of the trees and shrubs pop up right next to a rail or crossbeam; dead grasses remain in place, and you can see crocus and other spring flowers poking through.  It’s obviously a designed space, but it’s not unnatural.

There are benches everywhere – some big enough for two people to sunbathe.  There’s an outdoor movie projector across from a white-painted wall for showing movies in the summer; bleachers are built against the opposite wall.  It’s an interesting, inviting, and unique landscape, allowing you see the city from a completely different perspective.

Compost tea – now part of landscape design?

I spent yesterday at the Washington APLD meeting in Seattle (that’s the Association of Professional Landscape Designers) – a new venue for me.  In my relatively short time frame I focused on one example of an unsustainable practice (overamendment of soils with organic matter) and an unsubstantiated product (compost tea), both of which I knew were of interest to this group.  I came away with a lot of new colleagues and a shared sense of excitement that landscape designers, like other horticulture professionals, also want the best science on which to base their recommendations.

Imagine my frustation, then, when I was sent the national APLD “Guide to Sustainable Soils.”  Most of this document is very good – lots of information and graphics from the USDA and other reliable resources.  But scroll down to page 5, under the section “Soil Additives.”  And yes, there it is, compost tea.  Acccording to the APLD member who sent me this (not a Washington state member, by the way), the advisory committees that write these guidelines include people who make money from selling compost tea.  Surprised, no.  Disappointed, yes.

And it’s not just in landscape design.  Compost tea is ending up in specifications for landscape management contracts.  Reputable companies have to decide whether to hold their noses and apply useless products to secure contracts, or to not compete for the contracts at all.  In this economy, there aren’t many people who can afford to live on principle rather than a paycheck.

Compost tea is marketed, very effectively, through targeting emotional response.  We’ve already got science on our side, so here’s my suggestion to those of you who fight the compost tea battle:  start a little emotional targeting yourself:

  • Refer to compost as “slow food” for the soil system, as opposed to the liquid “fast food” tea that needs frequent application.
  • Suggest that Mother Nature’s been making tea herself for eons, letting rainwater perk through the compost.  Are we smarter than nature?
  • Point out that using compost is a natural, environmentally friendly approach to caring for the soil, rather than the big business, energy- and resource-consuming compost tea industrial complex that’s exploded in that last decade.

Over the top?  Probably.  But accurate?  Absolutely.

An uphill battle for evidence-based products

I was idly scrolling through Facebook, thinking about my topic for today, when I saw a link for “federal guidelines for sustainable landscaping.”  Perfect!  I skimmed through the document – some quibbles here and there, but nothing gasket-blowing on my first read – and then checked out the BioPreferred Catalog page.  I looked under “Landscaping and Agriculture” and clicked on “Fertilizers.”

There are 182 listings.  The very first one is “1-2-3 Instant Compost Tea.”  You can follow the link yourself, but here’s what the company says: “Contains macro/micro nutrients for turf, Increases potassium and phosphorous uptake in plants, Stimulates seed germination and root formation and growth, Improves soil porosity, Increases the protein and mineral content of soil, Increases soil microorganism populations, Aids in reducing soil erosion.”

And that’s just the first entry.  How about Bio Plant Wash?  Here’s what it is: “Bio Plant Wash is a BioBased Nano-Colloidal formula, a remarkable blend of processed extracts of coconut, corn, soy, sugarcane, etc. This unique formula improves plant health so much the plant can resist harmful insects and disease which in return helps produce vastly increased yields. Eliminate or greatly reduce expensive toxic chemicals.

“Bio Plant Wash can be used on Flowers, Fruits, Fruit Trees, Vegetables, Sod Fields and Lawns. You will see healthier, bigger, stronger and faster growing plants.”

But wait, there’s more!  Here are the results you will see if you use this product:

“Accelerated Photosynthesis,
Enhances Root Growth,
Better nutritional absorption,
Revives stressed plants,
Plants become more disease resistant,
Reduce expensive pesticides costs,
Cost Effective, Cost pennies per gallon when diluted,
Non-Toxic, Non-Carcinogen,
People, Animal and Earth Safe”

The only standard one needs to meet to have their product listed as BioPreferred is to show that it’s “composed in whole, or in significant part, of biological products, renewable agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials), or forestry materials.”

No testing is required to show that it actually works.

Another lesson from my (eastcoast) garden

When we lived in Buffalo, we became warriors in the gypsy moth battle. One of the things we quickly learned was to check tree trunks for larvae, especially those trees with thick, rough bark where caterpillars could hide. It went without saying that burlap used to insulate tender plants came off as soon as possible in the spring, because that burlap was a great place for larvae to live as well.

Back in Washington state, we don’t have a gypsy moth infestation (yet), but the lesson was retained: we don’t leave materials wrapped around the trunks or branches of trees. Other pests would find them just as hospitable as gypsy moths, and the dark, moist conditions would be wonderful for disease development.

So imagine my horror this morning when the Sunday paper featured the latest Seattle art – Tree Socks. These knit installations are appearing on trees in public spaces. Don’t get me wrong – I love art – but this just seems like a bad idea waiting to happen.

Why not dress up utility posts and light poles instead? They’re certainly more in need of aesthetic improvement than trees.

Plants aren’t so cooperative after all

One of the underlying tenets of ecology is the principle of competitive exclusion. This principle states that when two species compete for the same vital resource, the better adapted species will ultimately displace its competitor. Simply put, it’s survival of the fittest.

More recently, some ecologists have suggested that nature’s not quite so brutal – that the species composition in an ecosystem is determined more by random fluctuations in population numbers than by direct competition.

But last month, this "neutral theory" was directly challenged by evidence on three continents which compared the abundance of particular tree species, both in the fossil record and in existing forest ecosystems. The similarities were so close among all the comparisons that it’s most likely due to direct competition rather than random fluctuations.

While this information might seem pretty esoteric, it does have direct application to gardens and landscapes. Among your plants, you will have some that compete better for water, nutrients, and other resources. The concept of "companion plantings" as plants actively helping each other survive is a wishful projection on our part.

And this all ties into the discussions we’ve been having about mulch. While living mulches – turf, ground covers, etc. – help protect soil structure and reduce erosion, they also compete with other plants in the landscape. Maintaining landscapes with living mulches will require more water than the same landscape with organic mulches. It doesn’t matter if the plants are native or not – it’s just a question of limiting resources and who’s going to be the most competitive in extracting them.

(Forgot to include the reference the first time I posted this – here it is: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen (LMU). “Jostling for position: Competition at the root of diversity in rainforests.” ScienceDaily, 26 Jan. 2012.)

Stupid plant tricks

Blog reader Ray sent these photos of his weeping peach, weeping crabapple, and a Hydrangea paniculata, along with this comment:

    

“When a tomato grower extrapolates his applied knowledge to his landscape, before learning otherwise.”

(Translation for those tomato avoiders like me:  they are all planted too deeply, which tomatoes like.  Trees and shrubs, not so much.)