Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Everybody, I would caution ya'll about Deerslayer's misleading comments about ACT. Dr Ingham is the better person to listen to. She and I belong to yahoo personal forum and she gives a lot of informations why it works, etc, etc. She makes Deerslayer look like a kindergarten kid lecturing us over soil biology or ACT...

I think not in my case since I still have many thatch. And I'm not sure too how the sod folks were previously maintaining it before they transfered it to my land.
So deerslayer, like what you said, since I don't have enough organims(tons of thatch as a proof), I will apply it very soon.

Thanks!

lou_midlothian_tx, that post of mine was for deerslayer. :)

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Everybody, I would caution ya'll about Deerslayer's misleading comments about ACT. Dr Ingham is the better person to listen to. She and I belong to yahoo personal forum and she gives a lot of informations why it works, etc, etc. She makes Deerslayer look like a kindergarten kid lecturing us over soil biology or ACT...

Perhaps you could link data or direct us to a post instead of delivering ad hominem statements? Also, if she would happen to deal with the issue of potentially adding a non-native microbe species from trucked-in compost that would be grand.

That's okay. :)

The biggest problem is growing enough fungal biomass in soil. They are rather fragile. Bacteria is easy to grow, no problem so we all need to put in more effort in growing fungal biomass AND PROTECTING them. It doesn't take much to kill them off. Pesticide, chemicial fertilizer, etc will cause a great damage to fungal biomass. It's a bit difficult to get enough fungal population in compost tea. To achieve this, you add baby oatmeal to compost (hopefully there will be some fungal population to feast on them), they should grow a bunch of hyphae after a week or so(it should look like santa claus beard) and then you use them for brewing ACT. You will always have enough bacteria but not fungus in ACT if you don't do any special preparation to add grow fungal population). I suppose digging up some leaf mold from untouched forest floor is a great way to get more fungal population if you can get it.

If you end up with high fungal biomass in the soil, they will act as sponge. They soak up a lot of water and hold them a lot longer...

Lou, rather than name calling why don't you explain why you disagree with what Morpheus and I wrote?

-Deerslayer

The biggest problem is growing enough fungal biomass in soil.

Agreed. Although there too, the spores blow on the wind when released by fruiting bodies and are quite good at working their way down. The ACT does add some mass for them to digest--but a duly healthy soil that isn't chemically treated and is organically fed shouldn't have too much issue with fungus underpopulation. Once you have a few here and there, you're off and running.

Unless the weather's dry or you have too little carbon available or the pH isn't good...and so on and so on and so on. I tend to shoot for 90% and figure the last 10% isn't that significant anyway.

I wonder if we're simply arguing over the difference between "Extremely Good" and "Perfect." By my lights, both of them are fine. By yours, perhaps not and you prefer Perfect. That's cool.

Perhaps you could link data or direct us to a post instead of

Linking data is not a cool way to do it, especially since there are huge numbers of spammers on Yahoo groups. Besides Dr Ingham's words would be used here without any way for her to defend herself - unless she were to join this group. It would be better for those of you interested in joining her group to do that. I would link you over there but I can't. Gardenweb filters out any references to the Y-a-h-o-o G-r-o-u-p-s. You can go to that domain and sign up yourself.

Go to

httpcolonslashslashgroupsdotyahoodotcom

and search for compost tea. It is its own group. I've been a member and owner of Yahoo groups for several years and have received no spam from them. If you do it right, you can rest relatively assured that you'll be okay.

But I think ACT is hyped just about right. I don't see it everywhere. Even if you look for it everywhere you sometimes can't find it. Visit your local HD or Lowe's. They've never heard of it. I think the hypometer is just about right.

I didn't want to enter this discussion because it sounds like we're going to argue, but then again I've never been any good at keeping my mouth shut anyway.

Morpheus, Deerslayer, in a perfect world with no pollution covered in prairie soil lawns with multi-culture native plants there would be no need for ACT. Most of us don't live there.

Many of us have neighbors that spray their lawns with pesticides and herbicides. We have a guy next door that lives uphill from us that uses Scott's 24 step program. We have hard, compacted clay with 6" or less of pulverized earth that they want to pass off as topsoil. The same topsoil that no longer supported farm land because it'd been abused and spent of all it's natural resources.

Yes, applying grains and other organic matter has raised the populations of our microbes. Yes, SOME microbes are blown in by the storm. But are we going to sit back and hope our soil has enough beneficials getting blown in or are we going to grow them and then apply directly where they're needed?

The soil can never contain too many microbes. They're constantly being preyed on and cycled through the foodweb. Fungi die when we walk across a wet lawn. Conditions beyond our control occur where disease fungi are supported more so than the beneficials and they become overwhelmed.

It's the nature of the plants to support the microbes it needs but it's also true in nature that many plants work in unison to support a large variety of microbes that they all benefit from. When monocultures of plants are grown they often lose the beneficial microbes hosted by other plants. Those microbes need to be occasionally re-introduced to ensure the health of the plant in question.

It's all about introducing and sustaining the highest and most diverse microbe population possible. Besides, it's a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than topdressing with compost. Their are few problems that can't be addressed with a little well made ACT.

Greenjeans

But are we going to sit back and hope our soil has enough beneficials getting blown in or are we going to grow them and then apply directly where they're needed?

Like I said, it's that we're all choosing different approaches at different levels to deal with the same issue.

You use ACT. I approve of that. I don't use ACT. I approve of that.

My soil's similarly tapped (forty years as a Pennsylvania corn field) with surrounding neighbors who use Scotts' as though it were candy. When I moved in, it was biologically inactive and a very pale tan. The weeds had trouble growing in it.

Still and all, after two years the bacterial counts are high enough--grass clippings dissolve in jig time, I have no thatch, and the SBM disappeared into a trillion hungry little maws.

Is it perfect? 'Course not, but I'm only going for the 90% level. You just do a better job than I do. And I approve of that.

No arguments there, I just consider it more effort than it's worth for a lawn and garden that do look really good. Sure, they would probably look somewhat better with ACT, but I'm nearing my limits with what I can handle and I'm content to let nature do her job while I do mine.

"No arguments there, I just consider it more effort than it's worth for a lawn and garden that do look really good. Sure, they would probably look somewhat better with ACT, but I'm nearing my limits with what I can handle and I'm content to let nature do her job while I do mine."

My views are similar with the exception that I don't think my lawn would look better if I used ACT.

To the ACT supporters out there, can you point us to any studies besides Dr. Ingham's on Yahoo?

-Deerslayer

"Scott's 24 step program" hahahahaha
Oh, sorry

Ron, I'm still wondering what it is you are calling thatch? Is it the pics you showed me the other day? If so, I have to confess I misled you by my response. I agreed it is thatch, but I let you know it is not accumulating naturally and the grass is dying possibly from a lawn disease. Where I misled you was to agree that it was thatch. It isn't thatch because thatch is, by nature and by definition, a natural accumulation. I was half joking when I said "Oh my stars, you have thatch!" but I shouldn't have joked. I kind of expected you would get my sad attempt at humor after reading the rest of my response. Sorry about that because I don't want you to worry about having a thatch problem even though you do still have to worry about why there is so much brown grass, why the grass is dying off, and why it's dying off the way it is (the appearance of the blades as they turn brown).

Even with ACT and a complete organic program, you still have to have some thatch. A certain amount is healthy for the lawn, just so long as you understand the microherd, no matter how vast and diverse, is not going to prevent it. Help to keep it at bay perhaps, but not prevention. And, if you have a lot, you are still going to have a lot. It is proper cultural practices that controls thatch for the most part, and not the hungry little creatures in the soil. By that I mean, the microherd are not goats. It's a natural process, not a here-today-gone-tomorrow kind of process. Good lawn care prevents thatch from over accumulating. Then, you only maintain enough that is good for the microherd to munch on and it naturally decomposes and you maintain enough that is also good for the grass. Also, some grass plant varieties are natural thatch producers. For example, the cultivars I suggested will not produce as much thatch as the one you currently have. The reason is that they grow at a slower pace. Another thing is your organic program will serve to keep thatch to a minimum whether you apply compost tea or not. The reason is chemical forms of nitrogen force the grass to grow rather than allowing it to grow at its own natural pace. When it grows, it produces thatch. The slower, more natural the pace, the less thatch will be produced. Organic substitutes will not force growth, so each individual plant and its parts are not thrust into early attrition.

Now, tell me if the pics you showed is happening all over the lawn or just in certain areas. If it is certain areas, take some samples of those to be tested. You really have to do that. It's the only way to know for sure if there is a disease killing the grass. If it a disease, it will not stay confined to those areas but will spread and mess up the lawn. It may be something corn meal is effective at treating, but get it identified so that can be determined.

Here's some.

Here is a link that might be useful: INTLCTC

...and more:

Here is a link that might be useful: Soil Dynamics

Greenjeans, thanks. Do you have any links to studies that scientifically prove that compost tea is beneficial? Credible studies exist for compost but I have not seen any for compost tea.

-Deerslayer

I have lost faith in ACT as well. I think if you put out enough food to feed the microbes, that is more than sufficient. More than likely, all of the microbes found in ACT are already in abundance in your soil and in exponentially vaster numbers.

BTW, Virtuosity, by using organics, you don't get a flush of growth that produces enormous thatch and you feed the microbes that consume it. In conjuction with core aeration which brings soil microbes to the surface, thatch becomes a non-issue, even for high thatch producing fine fescues or kbg.

Below is all that I have been able to find regarding University studies on Compost Tea.

"Research done in the eastern United States, by AATRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas), has reported some effectiveness of compost teas for common fungal problems such as gray mold on beans. Locally, very little firm research evidence has come out. Landscapers at the City of Seattle Parks Department, Seattle University, and the University of Washington have experimented during the past summer with compost tea to improve plant growth and to attempt disease control. Results have been mixed and more research is planned."

I found the above in a newsletter dated about seven years ago (please note that the quote is not turf specific). I would think that confirming research would be completed by now.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer

All you have to do is check out Dr Ingham's work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that so hard to do??? Or you just don't care and would do anything to discredit ACT no matter what? Her work is done with precision. Other universities probably didn't conduct studies correctly as Dr Ingham pointed out many times. Other people would provide studies but she always ask for more specific information on how it was done in DETAIL step by step! It makes a huge difference.

It's real clear that you don't want to look at Dr Ingham closely at all. You're just looking for poorly designed studies to discredit ACT and Dr Ingham like you've done many times... Give it up. Find a new hobby.

Lou, do you have any idea what kind of impression you are leaving with the readers of this thread?

I have already read some of Dr. Ingham's work. In fact, DCHall posted some of it recently on another thread that I read several times.

"Other universities probably didn't conduct studies correctly as Dr Ingham pointed out many times."

That's a believable statement if I ever saw one! I prefer to obtain my research directly from universities and government agencies...not chat groups.

"discredit ACT and Dr Ingham like you've done many times"

I'm fairly certain that I haven't witten anything negative about ACT before yesterday and I haven't written anything negative about Dr. Ingham. Why do you play so fast and loose with the facts? It makes you appear untrustworthy.

"Give it up. Find a new hobby."

I'll make you a deal. I won't tell you what to do if you do the same for me.

-Deerslayer

You use ACT. I approve of that. I don't use ACT. I approve of that.

My name is dchall_san_antonio and I approve this message.

I used ACT way back when and got nuthin. Still that didn't stop me from posting the positive results and design of a compost tea maker to a website. Certainly I didn't have to go out of my way to teach myself HTML for an idea that an acquaintance had if I didn't think there was some merit to it. I've seen too many good people get good results with their teas to not believe in it. I think I know what I did wrong, but I'm not sure the results will be all that spectacular to justify the grind of setting up the machine.

For a foliar spray I rely on milk.
For a fertilizer I rely on corn meal and alfalfa.
For a source of microbes, well, I just rely on my own microbes and try not to kill any.

i experimented with tea last season on my container flowers.

bucket, water, compost, stir every few hours..pour on the flowers the next day. Of course, to be scientific, i didnt apply tea to some. The the flowers that got the tea were
robust and the colours were more vibrant that the others.

clearly this is not a university study, but since the basis of science is observation, i would call it reliable result.

if it works on a small scale, it follows that it would also benefit a larger scale lawn. i doubt the results would be 'measurable' but every little bit helps.

i doubt i would ever go to the trouble of making a large 'batch' to apply to a whole lawn. Spreading soybean meal is far less complicated.

I've used ACT for seven years now. It is good stuff IMHO.

I especially like how it eliminated scab outbreaks on my fruit trees. I used to get scab almost every year. I don't get it any longer.

If you use compost, grains, etc., to fertilize, the need for ACT is obviously diminished.

Dr. Ingham's more concerned with soils on large farm plots and how those soils have been "killed" by chemical fertilizers and pesticides. For those soils, ACT can help.

For backyard organic gardeners the use of ACT isn't as important IMHO.

However, it is good for me as a foliar disease treatment. No scab on fruit trees, no wilt on tomato plants, etc. Obviously using compost around tomato plants, etc., will help with wilt, etc., but ACT ain't bad either IMHO.

Also, I see nothing wrong with people adding a little beneficial bacteria and fungi by using ACT.

How is it over hyped? I don't quite understand that statement.

It's VERY easy to make and cheap also. I don't understand why anyone would have an aversion towards using ACT.

Do I think it is "the cure" for everything? Of course not, nothing is.

It's VERY easy to make and cheap also. I don't understand why anyone would have an aversion towards using ACT.

Not an aversion per se, I'm just dealing with limited space, I'm not mechanical (unless it has a microchip in it), and I'm not too worried about the last ten percent.

Regrettably, Dr. Ingham radiates "guru," and "convert." When scientific results can't be corroborated by major universities, you have a problem. A huge problem, since any hypothesis has to be backed up by consistently repeatable results. If they can't be then your hypothesis is incorrect--and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Which isn't to say that we can't garner some wisdom from her factual information. However, I'll just keep feeding my burgeoning microherd and rely on that.

Here are the results if we use this thread as an informal poll for the current usage of ACT on turf by knowledgeable organic lawn care hobbyists.

1 Currently use ACT on turf
6 Do not currently use Act on turf
2 Can not determine (Bestlawn, Greenjeans)

Most of the people that currently do not use ACT on turf have tried it. The most common reason given for no longer using ACT on turf is that perceived benefits do not justify the effort.

Please let me know if I misclassified your response.

-Deerslayer

Let's fix the poll: I use ACT religiously.

My first year doing my landscape was an absolute disaster. I had new construction with hard clay that was full of weeds some as tall as 6 feet. I got letters on my door from the police regarding my villages "weed ordinance" so I decided to do something about it. We have at my place of work a 55 gallon drum of a weed killer that we use around our place and it works pretty good, plus I could get it for cheap. I sprayed this stuff at full strength all over my hard clay. I can't remember the name of the chemical this herbicide contained but I found out what it did when I tried to plant grass 3 months later. It had sterilized my soil to the point that very little of anything would grow.

I found advice here on GW and started using ACT. Not only did ACT eliminate the chemical from my soil it eliminated a strange fungus from my Crabapple trees. I started out useing ACT every week and now only use it once a month even in Summer (the grass goes dormant, not the microbes). Of course now I've moved up to mixing 15 gallons at a time and applying it as a foliar and soil drench at full strength. Overkill? Definitely. Beneficial? Without a doubt. Will the grass, plants and trees live without it? Probably. Will the grass, plants and trees flourish with it? Definitely.

My thinking where ACT is concerned is prevention is the best medicine. Too often when a disease or insect starts to take over a part of a lawn or garden by the time the person tending the area notices the damage is already done. Why wait for something to go wrong before action is taken? Why settle for 90%?

ACT addresses too many issues with the home lawn and garden to be ignored. Want to plant a new tree? Use ACT as a starter fertilizer. You'll be surprised! Transplanting those bulbs to a new part of the garden? Soak 'em in ACT before they go in the ground next Fall and you'll see more blooms. Have red thread or dollar spot? Soak the area with ACT and watch it be overcome by benneficials. The same is true for powdery mildew on your rose bushes. It also cures compaction in soils when it's injected. University tests? Who needs 'em? Try it and see for yourself what can happen.

The only thing I haven't seen ACT cure is improper cultural care. It will help, but without proper plant care it can only do so much. I had a large section of my turf wiped out by what I think was pythium last Summer. I was keeping my bent grass too tall and it harbored the disease. That coupled with the fact that my wife insisted it needed water EVER DAY! She learned her lesson. My turf is particularly susceptible to it so now I've taken several measures to prevent it from happening again; I bought a reel mower and keep the turf at 1/2", I have enough corn meal to feed an army of trichoderma, and I use ACT.

If anything your poll implies that ACT is in fact under-rated in its uses and versatility. It's not easy at first, but it can become easy. A couple hundred invested and I can apply 15 gallons of ACT in as little as an hour with very little work involved. Does a couple hundred sound like a lot? Not when anyone considers the $2500 worth of plants, turf and trees in my landscape. To me that's worth it.

Greenjeans

Here's the update.

2 Currently use ACT on turf
6 Do not currently use ACT on turf
1 Can not determine (Bestlawn)

-Deerslayer

I bought my house in April 2004. It was a bank repo, and the yard appeared neglected. I started to work on the yard in May. The weeds were bad, so I used some chemicals to ahead, but I used organic ferts. The soil appeared "poor". I didn't test it becuase it wasn't very high on my priority list as the house needed some work. My uncle has a large area where he dumps his yard waste in the back of his lot, and I was able to get a decent load of that compoost. I spread it around the yard, and I made some new flower beds with it. I was doing everything I was supposed to do, and thngs were coming around.

I read here about ACT. It was hyped by a few, and disregarded by a few, but I figured I would try it. I used it as a drench and a spray. I can't say I saw a huge difference. I had already spread compost, and I was using an organic approach for my lawn care. The lawn improved, but it was in such bad shape, that any care was better than what it got previous.

I would like to see some major research done. The situation that "GreenJean" meantioned, I can see ACT being a benefit. If the soil is damaged, and the microbes are destroyed, you need to reintroduce them. If you have a yard with a lot of thatch, it would help, but I still think straight compost is better. I still feel that the soil will only support so many microbes, and constantly reappling them is not effective.

The reason some people feel it's overhyped is when people claim it's a great fertiliser, and will make your plants grow bigger. I don't understand how compost, an amendment, can become a fertiliser by adding water and air. It's still compost. It's a good thing, but it's not fertiliser.

I guess in the end, if your soil is barren, you will need to introduce some microbes. I still think spreading compost around the yard is better, but ACT is second. If the microbes don't have food, they won't be around very long. Which is why I prefer compost.

Take care of the soil food web, and the soil food web will take care of you.

I use it on everything so you should add me to the list if you haven't already yet Deerslayer.

I'm making a batch right now. Fruit trees are flowering so I need to start the disease suppression now.

Like I said people, it's so darn easy to make.... oh well, I'm repeating myself! LOL!!

Regrettably, Dr. Ingham radiates "guru," and "convert." When scientific results can't be corroborated by major universities, you have a problem. A huge problem, since any hypothesis has to be backed up by consistently repeatable results. If they can't be then your hypothesis is incorrect--and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

This is a great topic for discussion all by itself. Forget about Dr Ingham; there are gurus everywhere. In fact there are more and more organic gurus (an upward guru trend). Besides that, there are "data" flowing from and among us users at an increasing pace. No university can keep up with the speed of the flow. I call our data, "experiential evidence." You call it anecdotes. Same thing.

Let's look at the research on corn meal as an "antifungal" agent. First of all I need to point out that corn meal does not kill anything. Corn meal is a food that feeds beneficial microbes which then outcompete the disease causing microbes which then end up dead (or as food for the beneficials). But I'm going to be glib here and call cornmeal an antifungal material. The earliest notice I've heard of on corn meal "killing" fungus was from the 1920s. Then there's a long dry spell and the idea resurfaces in 1995 at Texas A&M University in Stephenville, TX. The initial research demonstrated that using ordinary yellow corn meal boosted the population of the Trichoderma fungus (a known fungus-killing fungus) greatly in 10 days and resulted in the eradication of certain diseases in peanut crops. It turns out those same diseases affect turf, so the potential was recognized and several people tried it. In the mean time, apparently the original researcher has passed on and the official TAMU research has gone unfunded since then. Since 1995 the list of people aware of the preliminary results of the corn meal research has grown tremendously thanks to these forums. I would guess there are thousands of people use corn meal routinely to cure their lawns from many different fungus diseases. Is there any more university research on the subject? Not that I can find. But the experiential evidence rolls in daily.

I tried searching the Internet for real research on cornmeal as an antifungal material. Doing a search on "corn meal" and "antifungal," or however you want to word it, gives you thousands of hits. The reason is that when they want to grow fungus in the laboratory, they use a product called "corn meal agar." So all the research on fungi and fungal disease gives you a hit on "corn meal." Even if you subtract agar from the search you get a lot of hits. Then to read the articles, you have to subscribe to the journals, which is not in my budget.

Okay I didn't meant to beat that topic to death. I wanted to also make the point that university research in the area of organic farming/gardening is compromised by soil contamination with chemicals. Way back when DDT was first discovered, it was hosed on EVERYTHING! And, as Rachel Carson pointed out, that stuff is persistent. 100 pounds of DDT sprayed on the soil in 1950 would still be the equivalent of 6 pounds of DDT sprayed on May 2, 2007. I'll bet they used thousands of pounds in their research before they realized what they were doing. How many pounds of other chemicals have been used in other research over the decades? The point is there is darned little uncontaminated soil around to do organic research on. In the case of corn meal (not to belabor that much longer), if there is any persistent chemical fungicide in the soil when you apply the corn meal, the beneficial fungi will not grow and your results will be negative.

Dr Ingham is passionate about compost tea, somewhat evangelistic, and has considerable charisma among the organic and organic hopeful. Every successful guru has these characteristics or you never hear of them. Eisenstein, Bell, Edison, Galileo, DaVinci, Newton, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - they all had these characteristics. They didn't just sit around in their offices and be brilliant. They were promoters, like P.T. Barnum was a promoter. They had to be. Are these characteristics faults or features?

"I tried searching the Internet for real research on cornmeal as an antifungal material."

Try "cornmeal" and "fungus". You'll get many relevant hits including references to the Texas A&M work. I didn't participate in lawn care forums prior to 1995 but it wouldn't surprise me if the interest in cornmeal as an antifungal agent was a direct result of the research performed at Texas A&M.

I think the same is true with CGM as a pre-em. The pioneering work was done at Iowa State University not a Gardenweb or Yahoo forum. Search on "CGM" and "preemergent" and you quickly find references to the Iowa State studies.

I agree that forums help to "spread the word" regarding relevant university research. The key point is that the university research usually identifies the useful ideas first.

-Deerslayer

Eisenstein, Bell, Edison, Galileo, DaVinci, Newton, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - they all had these characteristics. They didn't just sit around in their offices and be brilliant. They were promoters, like P.T. Barnum was a promoter. They had to be. Are these characteristics faults or features?

Well, I'm going to throw Beethoven and Mozart off the list as non-scientific, and exempt DaVinci and Newton for being too long ago before the idea of mass media was even a glint in anybody's eye.

Bell was an inventor as was Edison, neither a pure scientist. To promote ideas they had to sell them, but that wasn't theory, merely application of it.

So..faults. Einstein was a brilliant theorist but introduced the cosmological constant because he believed the Universe was eternal and unchanging. Interestingly, in recent years we've had to add a constant back in to account for dark energy. However, that's a different constant for a very different reason.

Hubble proved him wrong--the Universe is expanding (our current constant doesn't change that). Einstein did refer to that as his greatest fault.

It wasn't, or at least rivaled his other one. He also refused to accept the consequences of quantum theory ("God does not play dice with the Universe." --Einstein). Wrong again.

On the plus side of the column is that his fame and (really, lack of) fortune weren't dependent on his being wrong or right on these issues. His fame was sealed with good old E=mc^2 (not that he wrote it like that, but it's neater for us). Which required considerable butt-work at a desk and only eventually trickled down.

On the minus side, the instant a scientist uses intuition, allegory, or anecdote as proof they are running the real risk of being wrong. Even if they are correct, it's for the wrong reason (partial credit is not awarded for jumping to any conclusion).

On the very strongly negative side, as soon as a guru starts making money from what they say they have a very strong reason to discard, discredit, or ignore any data to the contrary. Doc up there makes cash off her lectures and whatnot. Negative proof cannot exist as the ol' paycheck would be impacted. That isn't sufficient reason.

A scientist loves nothing more than getting a very surprising result they didn't expect. That's the start of something new.

A guru hates contradictory data because it's the end of something lucrative.

This is getting long. Sorry.

100 pounds of DDT sprayed on the soil in 1950 would still be the equivalent of 6 pounds of DDT sprayed on May 2, 2007

Quite, although if I'm inverting your decay curve correctly that's a 14 year half-life (well, a smidge more but I'm inverting the log in my head so please excuse my dropped decimals). I've seen 12 as a more accepted figure (4.75 halves, or 100 pounds in '50 equals around 3.7-ish pounds [again, in my head]). I'm not inclined to quibble between around 4 and 6 pounds. That's still high; anything in a sun-drenched pond is going to volatilize and decay much faster.

However, that has been diluted down in the soil by rain, washed into oceans, leached into ponds, etc. The harm done is not the equivalent of 6 pounds sprayed today, it's considerably less due to the dilution factor.

Still important? Sure. But...if it can kill your existing fungi it can kill your added fungi just as fast.

How many pounds of other chemicals have been used in other research over the decades?

Tons, if not tens of tons. However, University professors are fairly bright people. They do understand that a field on which fungicide has been tested would not be the best place to test fungus growth. Not until the soil tests show low enough levels of the chemical, at the very least.

Grants, although hardly generous, can certainly be big enough to lease some reasonably pure field or forest land.

But the experiential evidence rolls in daily.

Yes, except that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Unless it were done double-blind (one half of the lawn sprayed with water, the other half with ACT, the owner doesn't know which is which and there's no way to tell) then confirmation bias comes into play. Simply put, it looks better because you expect it to.

That's another thing that experimenters watch out for. Anecdotal can have its uses, but it can't be used for proof. Now spectrometry readings, dry weights, growth measurements, chloroplast/blast counts...those experimenters can use.

I have to confess if I were able to apply ACT, I certainly would and would have done it by now this season. However, that makes me an advocate and not an active activist. So, I have no idea where that puts me on the poll. You decide.

Morph--I think you misunderstand the genius list. I don't think it was supposed to be a list of scientific geniuses, but a list of geniuses who thrived in the face of adversity.

Much of your post was devoted to Einstein, and David never mentioned Einstein. He mentioned Eisenstein (I'm assuming the director).

Right bpgreen except who the heck is Eisenstein??? Amazing what a cheap spell checker will come up with. I like Einstein for his development in the field of linear algebra and tensor mathematics. Without the simplifications provided in mathematics (required for his other analyses) it would have been very hard to shoot space probes to Pluto.

Regarding the use of various materials in the garden and farms, as long as I have dense grass where it didn't grow for years, I'm happy. I don't need any more research.

You would think the researchers would be smart enough to find more appropriate places to do organic research, but they continue to get different results than the farmers and gardeners are getting. If they get negative results early on, it seems to be much more difficult to try to correct the original issues and redo the experiment.

"who the heck is Eisenstein??? "

I figured you meant Sergei, the film director. I wasn't sure why you included somebody so obscure, but I thought maybe you were a fan of one of his films.

Morph--I think you misunderstand the genius list. I don't think it was supposed to be a list of scientific geniuses, but a list of geniuses who thrived in the face of adversity.

Never heard of him, I assumed it was a typo!

It was a typo. If I had wanted a genius director I would have picked the ever-popular Kurasawa.

Is ACT overhyped? Certainly not by most mainstream gardeners, researchers etc. You can find some people who overhype everything though.

I brew tea. I've never tried to test it, but it ends up fairly sweet and earthy, so something pretty good is going on. I don't have any way to separate the results from other organic practices, but the overall effect has been positive for me. I grow veggies, flowers and turfgrass and very rarely have any disease problems.

Bill: I put some old rotting wood chips into my brew this time. You know, the type of wood chips that have those white strands growing in them.

You could see them in the finished tea. Dr. Ingham told me to do this and she was right. The fungal strands from the wood chips did multiply enough so I could even see them with my old eyes. LOL!!

This will probably be another year where ACT completely inhibits scab on the fruit trees. It amazes me how something so easy and simple to make wipes out disease on my fruit trees.

It appears that ACT is more widely used on fruit trees and gardens. I should have qualified my original statement. I believe that the benefits of ACT applied to turf are overhyped. I didn't because I assumed that we were discussing turf since this is a lawn care forum.

Like others have stated in this thread, I don't think that there is a favorable effort/benefit ratio when using ACT on turf.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer,

You still have no clue at all....

Lou, I suppose the others that don't use ACT on turf because they can't justify the effort don't have a clue either. I suppose various universities and agricultural agencies likewise are clueless.

BTW, the majority of the people that responded to this thread don't use ACT on turf. Many have tried it. Why can't you accept that?

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer: I guess you won't ever know unless you try it.

"I guess you won't ever know unless you try it."

There are many things that I know that I haven't personally tried. That's the purpose of education.

Remember that my initial statement was that the benefits of ACT (on turf) are overhyped. The people that have tried ACT on turf and no longer use it support my claim. If ACT was as beneficial as some folks believe, people that have tried it would continue to use it.

Considering that this is an organic lawn care forum, I was surprised by the number of people that stated that they don't use ACT on turf. Even though many of them think that ACT has some benefit, the benefit isn't perceived to be great enough to justify the effort of brewing and applying it.

I'd like to add that even though I haven't personally used ACT on turf, I have used compost on turf. Most people believe that compost on turf provides more benefits than ACT. In my case (healthy established lawn), the benefits didn't justify the cost and effort to apply the compost.

-Deerslayer

I think that most people who read these forums care for their lawns in a way that they probably don't need to add ACT or compost to their lawns. Also if someone uses either compost or ACT just once and adds microorginisms to the soil they will stay there as long as they are fed. I have a new home that was built last year. The soil on the surface was all clay and hardpan so I brewed and used ACT. The soil is now looser,the grass is greener and as an experiment (I am a biology teacher so I am alwasy doing things like this) if we had more than one od the same type of plant I sprayed tea on one and not the other. The plants that recieved the tea have more flowers/buds and are larger than the ones that didn't. Having said this I don't expect to need to add ACT or compost again as long as I keep the little critters fed.

Mark--Out of curiosity, since you did the controlled experiment with the plants, did you also do that with the lawn--spray one part and leave one part unsprayed? I'm just curious, since some of your other lawn care practices may have been responsible for loosening the soil.

I really couldn't because about 1/4 of my "lawn" is bare soil and not grass as the soil was so bad when the contractor planted the seed. I used the tea more heavily where there was less grass and that is where I can notice the difference in the soil. I also seem to be getting more grass from rhizomes in those spots but that might have happened anyway.

I think, I would be the best guinea pig then for testing ACT. My ACT will be ready by Saturday or Sunday. I have never done core aeration neither put Nitron A-35 to it. So, my lawn is a perfect candidate. I see tons of thatch in my backyard. However, I don't know how long it takes for it to take effect. I can take pictures of before and after, monthly update or quarterly.

Objective: Apply ACT everywhere but leave 10'x10' area untouched.

Deerslayer: I agree that spreading compost is the best way to go. Also, like you said, if people are feeding with organics, mulching grass and mulching leaves in the fall, ACT is really not needed.

It's just so da** easy to make though!! LOL!!

I guess what I'm really saying Deerslayer is "try it". Same for molasses spraying. These give a little "added boost" if you know what I mean.

Rdak, I appreciate your point of view.

-Deerslayer