I may see something interesting with one Apricot tree this year, because, unbeknownst to me, that rascal had sent roots up into the compost 
That may have affected the compost, actually, because it’s supposed to be a particular, controlled, environment. Another mistake! Another lesson learned!
If you watch the presentation, this compost quickly makes the New Mexican desert more productive than old growth forest soil.
I’m mostly blown away by your extreme enthusiasm. Never has a topic here had the same level of fervent advocacy by the creator.
I generally need to know why something works before I will be bothered following someone else’s “discovery”. I will continue to believe the compost is the sum of its ingredients and differences are slight even in that context until this method is more widely tested and found to be as you very strongly advertise it.
Been to too many rodeos and sold too many magical beans in the last 50+ years I’ve pulled a living from soil and plants.
Not saying these magic beans might not be everything you say they are, but experience makes me skeptical. Have the experiments used other kinds of compost as a control? How many soil types has the compost been used with? and so forth and so on.
If the “math” is “compost is just the sum of its parts”, and “all compost is basically equivalent”, a. “Berkeley” compost, and specific compost formulae, would be done away with, and b. why would this be equal to other composts, since it’s just leaf material (whereas others use completely different materials)?Regarding “science”, and “testing different soil types”: have you availed yourself of the presentation?
“Someone else’s ‘discovery’” : he’s a doctor, so it’s not “his”, he’s pulling on vast resources from many others. He discusses the power of “quora” in the context of the compost; the same goes for basically everything else. It’s not about him, it’s just about what’s true, and about what’s going to work, thus lead to the greatest amount of longterm happiness with the fewest amount of longterm drawbacks.
“I generally need to know why something works before I will be bothered following someone else’s ‘discovery’”: have you availed yourself of the presentation?
Here is the only scientific study I could find on this compost method:
It had some benefits but not statistically significant according to the confidence intervals. I’ve seen this many times for various treatments, great results in some cases but not repeatable in a study.
Right away, I’m going to question the study, since they rely on CSU data, which, as I mentioned, is unreliable, because the methods and materials employed in making the compost matter, and according to their own data they published, no one (no one I saw) in their registry was actually following the Dr. Johnson’s instructions. As mentioned, when I asked Su, Dr. Johnson’s wife, about that, my suspicion that their findings were unreliable were confirmed. She said farmers were easier to work with, because they actually follow basic instructions, and they obtain the expected results (YouTuber, Young Red Angus, a farmer, has obtained the expected results, for example)–eg, vastly decreasing inputs while basically maintaining yields (at least earlier on–as things progress, however, yields should increase, just as one regenerative agriculture Blueberry farmer says has happened for him), resulting in far greater profits.
I would encourage everyone to enjoy the presentation.
They didn’t even use worms (p3)!
Worms facilitate the growth of beneficial bacteria!
They didn’t follow instructions.
Also, Dr. Johnson strongly encourages people to simply use dried deciduous leaves, and they used all sorts of things, including llama manure (we don’t even know if they followed instructions for that, either–ie, if you’re going to use poop, which is not recommended, it must be dried first, so it doesn’t create anaerobic pockets, AND we don’t even know if the llamas had been dewormed in the previous three years, because I learned, separately, that you don’t want to use manure from a beast that has been dewormed for three years after).
They also don’t even specify whether they used the clippings (lawn, etc) dry or fresh. Dr. Johnson says not to use fresh, because they will create anaerobic pockets. They also inoculated everything with “native soil”, without having mentioned whether they tested it for any sort of contamination (biological or chemical).
Oops!
No one follows instructions, then they want to say “Nope, doesn’t work!”
Sorry, that’s not how that works.
How is it possible that the USDA was “unable” to utilize worms when that is a crucial component of BEAM? It couldn’t be that any of the absolute moral paragons at the USDA would want to “debunk” this HELPFUL and LOW COST method, right? I mean, they’ve never done anything like allow GMOs and glyphosate in our food or anything, right?
They were “unable” to use worms? There are mistakes, and then there are “mistakes”.
How could any honest person have done what they did?
What they studied was actually a “strawman” of BEAM, not actual BEAM–and, to me, their “findings” against BEAM are actually a ringing endorsement of it!
That I know of, apart from some farmers in America, there are farmers in Australia and in Turkey who are successfully utilizing this method. The farmers in Turkey are grateful for it, because it actually decreased their water utilization by, I think, 30%, right before they had their recent drought. I would imagine the same would be true for the Australian farmers (water utilization decrease).
You can equally argue that anytime something doesn’t work in a controlled study or is scrutinized and the creator disputes it, it doesn’t have a good look. Take a step back and completely remove composting and organic and improved yields from this discussion.
Objectively speaking, discarding critical thinking and legitimate criticism smells similar to those claiming to be able to harvest the power of lightning to power a city for a year, or someone promising blood diagnostic technology (theranos) that from the outset was sketchy to begin with, or someone holding the key to a design of cheap ev car design that car manufacturers are trying to keep secret or oil companies are trying to suppress.
The majority of people on this forum, and in particular those most active and mods are from technical or medical backgrounds. We discussion all topics with reference to peer-reviewed published reports. It’s not sufficient for an idea to be discussed or promogulated by someone with reputation. It doesn’t matter if its free, organic, or low investment.
Actually, the majority on this forum by far are not strictly organic for the sake of it. Most adhere to an Andy Mariani type of logic when it comes to pesticides and insecticides (we care about what works and is scientifically deemed to be safe).
No one is really hard pro or against regenerative philosophy. There are forums, podcasts, etc… that are dedicated to that though. Most people on this forum are only bound to an “it works” philosophy; backed up by data (claims and anecdotal data put aside). And even when there is data, it’s still scrutinized, i.e. the discussions about rootstock compatibility.
If you’re looking for more people interested with the same level of enthusiasm and or perhaps a greater level of engagement in this thread, you’re likely going to have to substantively present peer-reviewed studies backing up the possible potential you are putting forth. Whether it’s a decrease of water utilization by 5% and increase of yields by 5%, or 90% and 90%, everyone here will still be looking for peer-reviewed data. Very few people here are hard bound to be against anything be it GMOs, glyphosate, synthetic insecticides/fungicides, etc…
Hell given the chance, all the hybrid persimmon and pawpaw breeders on this forum would be knee deep in GMO and synthetic whatever if it would help them achieve their goals faster and cheaper.
Again, the “something” wasn’t even studied. It was a “straw man” of the “something” that was studied. What is the “look” , or what should we conclude, when something is consistently misrepresented–and by institutions which, for many, have already discredited themselves on various fronts?
As you can see, I have left the topic alone–if the people aren’t interested, they aren’t interested, and I am happy to continue enjoying it without others on the forum enjoying it with me. I don’t need the bother of being falsely accused of selling snake oil when a) nothing is being sold, and b) I’ve already reaped many benefits from the stuff, myself, so I know it works.
The farmers in Turkey, the farmers in Australia, the farmers in the US–the people who rely on it working–will also continue enjoying it. You all can do as you please, it makes no difference to me.
Actually–not that it matters if anyone believes me or not, but–the farmers who are using this stuff in Australia have reportedly been buying the farmlands of the surrounding farmers (who are going bankrupt) who aren’t using it. There isn’t enough money in farming in Australia, for them, otherwise. Enjoy!
