I'm not quite sure how one bug with an exoskeleton, is any less of an example than another bug with an exoskeleton. What was asked, is how AACT will rid a grower of mites or white flies. I provided the answer and used my personal nemesis, aphids, as my personal example. The simple truth is AACT essentially eats bugs. Its that simple. I would argue that spraying water is NOT going to achieve the same results, based on the fact that water will not eat bugs, or continue to do so long after its been sprayed.
I mention spraying water because I have read here, and on numerous reputable websites, that simply knocking aphids off consistently can provide good control, by exposing them to predators on the ground, hence why they make a poor example. I've never read anything about tea in regards to eating exoskeletons, but I do respect what you do and your experience, and will look into it. If a virulent pest population sprouts up, I would love to test this out, at the least to confirm for myself.
If it was really that simple, and a cheap and effective material could be used to control a wide range of bugs, I would think there would be atleast one example of someone objectively implementing this on scale.
Also, a grower making decisions based on whether or not they've seen commercial evidence of a given practice, is ill advised. The one study you reference has no weight on the subject simply because they didn't achieve the results that I do. If you're making AACT correctly, with the right stuff, then it will work. Plain and simple. Again, no anecdote needed.
Ill advised? Requiring more evidence than opinion to back up such a bold statement? Well I guess that's called skepticism, my apologies for not taking everyone I meet at their word, but it has served me well. Anecdotes aren't needed like you continue to say, and as I originally mentioned. The reference holds no weight because, from your experience, you disagree with it? That's just lovely. I wasen't going to post it because it was conducted by students, and I had my doubts, but to each their own...
I have read your glog, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it is one of the reasons why I lay some substance to this.
I have also made ACT with many variations in input, method and volume, from 1 to 200 gallons. I follow Tim Wilsons recipe, something I am sure you are well acquainted with. Is that up to snuff?
When it comes to organics it is best to look at your garden as a holistic system rather then way we are conventionally taught to think on most subjects which is to break everything down into independent systems. I think the trouble with a good portion of "Science" experiments on organics (and a good deal of other subjects) are the experiments look at things independent of the system they are part of to see how they work. If I studied how a piston worked independent of the car and rest of the engine how far would I get and how well would it work??
I totally agree with this sentiment. Science and the scientific method, is heavily reductionist and can rarely study anything with multiple variables, and frequently reinforces the assumption that the whole is the sum of its individual parts. I am not looking for a lab result where ACT was sprayed against mites in a petri dish, though that would furnish somewhat acceptable results. I look for universities and colleges that implement new ideas on scale, in greenhouses and in the field.
And to round this out. I come from an industry with little, if any, scientific research, and much of current paradigm has come from forum "gurus" like yourself. Fundamental practices have evolved from conjecture, discussion and widespread self-testing, until enough people confirm the results and it becomes acceptable practice. So I am not in the habit of standing up on science and lab results, but do carry a healthy skepticism.
Edited by miguelovic, 30 April 2014 - 11:15 AM.