Talk:Effective microorganism

Relevence questioned

EM - or other synonyms are irrelevant. Microbes started life on this planet and continues to provide the glue which enables our natural systems to function. Not to beat a dead horse please visit this attached site and lets go from here. With all due respect. Gerald

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html

• This comment appears to miss the point. EM uses specific combinations of bacteria and yeast that have several desirable properties. EM formulations are both long lasting and dramatic in effect. The existing technology that they most closely resemble is compost tea. This is interesting because compost tea has been used for a very long time both in biodynamic agriculture and in traditional Chinese agriculture, yet scientific understanding, proof of effectiveness, and metrics do not exist. Why should a new variant of something that has never been fully explained await a full explanation before its formulation and use are documented? -- M0llusk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. EM's aren't a drop-in product for septic tanks. Get off it. It's an agricultural product that may have some application in processing raw sewage. I agree that the company makes some crazy claims, but the fact remains that it is an effective product for many different applications and there may be some industrial applications in processing sewage. Just because some South African people couldn't figure out how to use the product doesn't discount it's effectiveness. The biological processes involved are well-known. Take a bucket of poop and spray a strong cultivation of this product. You will see an immediate decrease in offensive odors. Close it up and let it ferment for two weeks and you will have an excellent fertilizer. Probably one of the best fertilizers in existence. This article needs to be about the many proven uses for this bacteria culture, not about one person's frustration about not being able to figure out how to use the product properly. -- n00q (talk) 11:17, 26 Oct 2015 (UTC)
  

• 
  

 EM is a trade´s name, a product-name, near the shortened long name. My understanding - from long years work with to understand EM, with 
´little´ but long home-works with it - is: the main effect is against 
mold, in earth (as improvement, betterment the soil) and in buildings. 
It kills mold-bacterias within less than 24 hours. (Exact 
scientifically I can not do research.) 
The same in earth (soil), where the only (strong) ´good´ bacterias, 
good for the soil, food for the plants, over-live. 
 This EMs - 
the company, which claims the mark EM as saved, I wrote here (in the 
article) some years ago, only ´EM EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS´ as brand-name is saved. I mentioned a link to THE data-base for (international) brand-names. (Everything, this short notes, was deleted. Perhaps the link still exists, if somehow documented this) - 
 can be easy home-made, just with a mix of much less than the about 80 lactic acid  bacterias (from different milk-products), and works. 
 (To apart home-made (from the professional EM) it might not be named as EM, but EM is it, where it is about, and may AS WORD - from brand-owning - not be excluded of from the public. Despite this I would prefere to find an other fitting word, to apart (the home-made) from this.) 
(This (home-made) the EM-Companys will not like and wikipedia has to decide, whether to publish this my text at all, because they like to go to court, only for the claim of the name EM, even without outlook to win this. So decide well. But perhaps this (to court) did change in the meanwhile.) 
(Note: at https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/ at text put in ´em effektive microorganisms´ and there is something to learn about brands with. Despite leaving to me something un-clear: ´international´ !) 
 A special meaning do have microorganisms in Terra Preta. (In 
producing Terra Preta can be used EM as support therefor.)
Thanks the interesst. --Visionhelp 
(talk) 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry this unexact "EM is a trade´s name, a product-name, near the shortened long name.": EM is not a brand-name for ´Effective Microorganisms´. 
Visionhelp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments of original author

My first article from scratch, and had two automatic interwiki links that I didn't have to bring up myself! Darned computer logged me off when I saved so I couldn't see my name in the history log. Oh well, always next time...Now for fine-tuning.

    Schlüggell | Talk 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussions on this article possibly being advertising

If the neutrality is disputed give me some ideas of how this is not a nutral article. All I've done is relate the info of proprietary products from sources of various languages.

This sounds more like an advertisement than a neutral data-driven article. Too bad. If I had been able to access a diversity of information on EM I might have actually bought some.

Oh well.

1>Many companies use this term, it is not even necessarily meant to be trademarked as it is worded in the article. Until recently many companies weren't offering the number of products. And some of the other companies products are inferior at any rate.

2>Other companies that sell these types of products are even more proprietary, EMRO discloses how the product is made AND from what sources - and underwrites many volunteer efforts. And none of it is patented from a test tube culture {like some companies}.

We have been manufacturing and propagating EM in India for the last 5 years and thought we should try and give our inputs in order to get some clarity on the subject.

The facts according to us are as follows. Rest of the issues in terms of citations to prove authenticity and neutrality as an article could be built around it.

1. The word EM is not a generic term, but a brand created by Dr. Higa to give recognition to his original invention. This is clearly stated in his letter to us as well. 2. One could think of this as an advertisement, but the facts are for everyone to see. The technology has been bringing huge benefits to millions of people all over the globe. 3. I guess one has to take a stand to promote a technology at the cost of giving it an ad label, if it can bring so many benefits to the society at large. 4. All except EMRO do not have what we all know as EM. They only possess a close acronym, which has been cleverly made to leverage the popularity of the original EM. 5. Others do not have the blessings of Dr. Higa or EMRO. However, in all their publications and websites etc, they have again used the connection with EMRO and Dr. Higa to give their product line recognition and respect. True that Mr. Mathew Wood (SCD) did his studies under Dr. Higa and was helped a lot by his benevolence. There was no other connection to him or EMRO thereafter. 6. All this does not mean that their products are inferior in comparison to the original EM. 7. My issues are that why mislead the public by drawing connections when none exist and using the brand in an attempt to get market share? 8. If others are so confident about their quality, performance and delivery systems, then why not call their products something different than EM and follow it up with aggressive marketing. 9. Let the better product prove itself on its own merit.

In conclusion, let us focus on the original EM and present it in its original form and not confuse with similarly sounding words!!

Regards, Sanjay

Biosa is derived from Dr. Higa's work too. Why delete links?

It is all good that the world knows and uses this product.

Let people decide which company to purchase from.

Cheers,

UW

neutrality/advertising

I notice a link to "700" research papers was added. I may be missing something - but these papers dont appear to be in international peer-reviewed journals. I this article appears to be advertising or at the very least is very non NPOV. MidgleyDJ 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*On nuetrality:

To an extent I agree.

This article is describing a "product" of naturally occuring microorganisms that have been formulated to work in conjunction with each and provide a benefit to the earth and the people who live on it. While that sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky, there is no doubt to the many who have used it that it works as described.

The "product" is made, marketed and sold by various companies around the world. So is Honey when it is made in a controlled environment: Beekeeping. Any person who believes in the value of EM technology wants it to be as popular and widespread as honey. I do.

On advertising:

There are other companies that make this product and they are missing from this article. In fact they were removed a few days ago by a Wiki user named EMeric.

Now, I could be all wrong about this, but it makes sense that EMeric is probably this person(Google Search)

So is the article advertising? When all sources of information other than EMAmerica and SCD are removed: Yes.

I use Biosa and market it too.

BTW here's a reference to the Tsumani Relief efforts in Thailand using EM. Does the fact that it comes from an EM producing company negate it's truthfulness?? Urbanwild 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

-30-

Some ideas on how the article is non-neutral advertising

This kind of thing in the intro (which I have now edited out) is what people mean when they say it is advertising:

Only AUTHENTIC EM has the EM logo. EM and "Effective Microorganisms" are trademarked in the United States. Beware of other products claiming to be EM. If the bottle you buy does not say "Effective Microorganisms", such as "Efficient Microbes", then it is NOT authentic EM.

I agree with all the reasons people are nominating the article for deletion, but I like a challenge so I'd like to see if it this shameless piece of spam can be re-written as an encylopedia article, complete with thorough and appropriate references, before it goes on the slush pile. To that end, I've replaced words like pioneered, realized and discovered with claimed. In the absence of research published in a reputuable scientific journal it will be much easier to provide sources to confirm that the alleged innovator of this process claims these things are true than it would be to demonstrate that they actually are. The latter, as several people have pointed out, is beyond the scope of Wikipedia anyway.

I know nothing about the subject but I'm prepared to learn about it and work with those who do in an effort to save it. In the meantime, it urgently needs references and plenty of information about EM's competitors. If the original poster wrote the article in good faith, as he claims, I am sure he will be happy to start work on this immediately. Gruffle Gaw 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although I am not the original author of this article, I am biased by my interest and involvement with EM aka Friendly Microbes [FM], so I am happy to leave the re-write into neutral language to you. I will post material/links in the Reference section for your consideration. Urbanwild 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Urbanwild: The references you added are by "organisations promoting EM technology". If the article is too be saved from deletion it needs independant verification of the claims made. At present it's a list of mainly unsubstantiated claims. Articles in peer-reviewed, mainstream science journals would be a useful place to start. MidgleyDJ 22:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have made some alterations to this article to help it from looking like such a marketing piece. I suggest it needs a lot more focus on the technology and how it works as opposed to the companies behind the creation of products. The article adds to wikipedia through the science and technology, a lot less so through the disambiguation of trademark issues.--Alex 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, though the disambiguation info had to be added to stop the article from being deleted cause other users were thinking the article was a "product placement". 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough background information for this article not to be deleted. Expansion of the science by experts in this will be interesting.--Alex 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting articles

600 published articles?

It would be worth posting some to verify the material in this article. MidgleyDJ 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The database has since been moved to http://www.emrojapan.com. The articles are a mixture of presentations, case studies, peer reviewed documents, and research papers from researchers around the world. The majority of them are from the Kyusei Nature Farm Conferences 1-8. There are peer-reviewed articles that can be found on the net. PubMed has a few on EM-X®. I plan to keep digging around to cite them.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to EM Technology database: over 700 papers published

there you go...Urbanwild 02:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've looked at a few of the articles in the database you provided. They (all as far as I can tell) arent in scientific peer-reviewed journals. Can you point me to properly scientific articles testing the effectiveness of these "effective microbes"? MidgleyDJ 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I Added --SailorOnHorseback (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (forgot to log-in so its listed as anonymous) an article written by Higa and a USDA Micro-biologist Dr. James Parr about their own inability to validate results and a reference to the Dominance principle as their philosophical approach.

I would love to see dis-ambiguations to this page from Beneficial Microorganisms, Beneficial Micro-Organisms, Effective Microorganisms, and Effective Micro-organisms, and Effective Microbes, as the differences in hyphenation and names occur throughout different research. That's beyond my wikipedia skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SailorOnHorseback (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In 2009 the list of papers on EMRO's website was cleaned up dramatically, removing many of the lower-quality white papers and articles. For this section, I added in several peer reviewed references. I hope this helps a bit in this area.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of term

If, as the anonymous user above suggests, effective microorganisms is a generic term rather than (or as well as) a trademark, it should not be capitalised in this article. I have Googled the term and found this seems to be the case, so I am changing this in the article. Gruffle Gaw 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"EM", "EM-X", and "EM Technology" are all registered trademarks in the USA and at least an additional 12 other countries. If that helps. I advise checking with the USTPO and other trademarking agencies.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Visionhelp (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but it is N O T un-important: EM as trademark finding here tmsearch.uspto.gov has nothing to do with EM from Prof. Higa. The only one I found some weeks ago, I can not search now again myself, was: "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS". So, from this, to propagate "EM" as trademark is not reputable (for wikipedia), additionly without the source(s) of the registration(s). WIKIPEDIA wants sources for everything, but not for something important like trademarks . . . [And, PLEASE: the name is not Visionhelp, it is visionhelp or VisionHelp.]

---

Pointing, please:
As "generic term" it did not exist before the first appearance of this product name.
To use it ´generic´ or for similar self-made product, as for example IMOs (Indigenous Mikroorganisms); written in TITLES usual written in capital letters), the clear exact defined brand-name(s) "EM Effective Microorganisms" or "Effective Microorganisms EM" this in this exact order and appearance, as "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS" (I think currently the 2nd one), may not be used for generic, and commercial, use; I just am able to word it this way.
If making EMs in Do-It-Yourself (DIY), with (even much) less than 80 kinds of organisms (lactic acid bacterias), then it IS to call EMs (generic). Or if making, extracting, EMs oneself from IMOs (Indigenous Microorganisms), then it is to call also EMs. I assume (once), this as reason for allowing by law the brand names as they are allowed now only this way.
Visionhelp (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Neutrality disputed

EM technology is a pseudoscience. Web sites promoting EM are either from companies selling EM products, or from the new age community. A particularly blatant example is a "scientific" report from a pakistani research team posted on the emamerica website, claiming to have achieved miraculous improvements in the immune status of breast cancer patients with an EM rice beverage. Another sure sign for quack science are the "EM ceramics", a ceramic material that has imprinted the "resonance" or "energies" of the microorganisms.

Reply: what is real quack is people writing about products, in this case, ceramics, which they have never touched, seen, or used. The bacteria simply survive the process because they can stand heat up to 600 degrees Celsius. I've been using the ceramics for years and they really help keeping water fresh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichnaton (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• This criticism is irrelevant nonsense. First of all, the .info sites that explain EM have no commercial connections. Additionally on this first point it is worth mentioning that all manner of products have bad actors at the commercial level, but that is on no particular relevance. Should Viagra go undocumented because it is a great source of spam? Secondly, Wikipedia is to document practices and beliefs. We do not wait for proof of the existence of God before allowing Christianity to be documented. EM is an extension of compost tea use practices from Chinese farming and Biodynamic agriculture. Proof has always been wanting with these practices, yet their use has continued for many generations. Skipping documentation because of open questions makes no sense, it only relates to the kind of wording, disclaimers, criticism sections, and citations such articles should have. -- M0llusk (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a neutral article

The german article "Effektive Mikroorganismen" in its current form provides a neutral description of the topic. It would be worth deleting the english article and replacing it by a translation of the german one.

If you feel like you can do the translation I am sure it would be most welcome.--Alex 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try when I find the time, but my wikipedia editing skills are zero. Actually this EM quackery is the reason that I started actively participating in wikipedia.

So I have translated the core of the german article:

The use of "effective microorganisms" is also called "EM technology" by the proponents of this concept. "EM technology" is a scientifically not approved agronomic method to improve soil quality and plant growth using a mixture of microorganisms consisting mainly of lactic acid bacteria, yeasts and purple bacteria. According to , the mixture consists of the following organisms:

• Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus casei, Streptococcus lactis
• Rhodopseudomonas palustrus, Rhodobacter spaeroides
• Saccharomyces cerevisiae, candida utilis
• Aspergillus oryzae, Mucor hienalis

The concept of "effective microorganisms" was developed by the japanese agronomist Teruo Higa (Ryuku university, Okinawa) in the 1970s. Higa claims that a specific combination of microorganisms is capable to positively influence decomposing organic matter and to revert a process of decomposition into a "life promoting" process.

Higa invokes a "dominance principle" to explain the effects of his "effective microorganisms". He claims that there exist three groups of microorganisms: "positive microorganims" (regeneration), "negative microorganisms" (decomposition, degeneration), "opportunist microorganisms". In every medium (soil, water, air, the human intestine), the ratio of "positive" and "negative" microorganisms is critical, since the "opportunist microorganisms" follow the trend to regeneration or degeneration. Therefore, Higa believes that it is possible to positively influence the given media by supplementing "positive microorganisms".

This text could replace the technology chapter. The applications chapter could stay, but the starting sentence ("useful applications") has to be replaced. Having translated, I am now not sure anymore if this is not much too neutral. Perhaps it would be wiser to flag the whole article for deletion? EM Technology is such a ridiculous fringe concept that one does not even find contra arguments in the literature. It perhaps shouldn't appear in a serious encyclopedia.

I'm willing to put some edit time in, just to see what this looks like with the German information. -- Paleorthid 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing. I think the article looks better now. I've reverted the "PNSB (photosynthetic) bacteria" back to "purple bacteria", since Purple Non-Sulfur Bacteria are only a subgroup of purple bacteria. And "yeast" back to "yeasts", since there are different quite unrelated yeast strains.

---

I'm rather disappointed at the extremely skeptical tone of this article. Here in Christchurch, New Zealand, the local City Council has been running an EM Bokashi system for home kitchen waste pre-compost processing, selling the bins and the EM-impregnated bran/sawdust mix [1] from Bokashi NZ.

I have one of these in my kitchen right now and I can tell you, whatever is in the little critters, it really works and is not snake oil - at least for the application of dealing with kitchen waste. It sort of pickles the stuff, stops it from going off and makes composting a lot nicer. Our local community garden's composting scheme also swears by it.

What I do know however is that it is difficult to get a straight answer from people as to what exactly the recipe is for the bacteria/fungus mix, as it seems to be semi-proprietary (and presumably this is licenced from the original EMRO organisation or such. Possibly this is what is confusing people here and making them think that this page is an advertisement. But whether or not you think the 'recipe' for EM should be open-source or proprietary, and whether you think it is a 'technology' or merely a useful process, it is most certainly a real thing and it exists, and in my opinion has huge potential and should be explored further.

I'll add a link to Bokashi NZ as they are the source for the EM material I use and I can vouch that they are a real organisation. --Natecull (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I strongly dispute the 'pseudoscience' category tag attached to this article, therefore I am removing it and adding 'organic farming', which is not disputable as regardless of merits, the process is in active use in the organic community in New Zealand. --Natecull (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with the article is that it deals entirely with an untested commercial product - as reported by the inventor himself: " ... the main limitation...is the problem of reproducibility and lack of consistent results" and is just not presented to the standards of an encyclopedia - Wikipedia doesn't support "spreading the word" .... it's "snake oil" to anyone who has some understanding of composting and soil science, and considering there's been no change to date since the original posting, it should be cut down to a simple factual statement of what EM is, a proprietary blend of indeterminate microbes, grown on various substrates anaerobicly, with unknown benefits or usefullness

Red58bill (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nate it's not that the product is "snake oil" in the typical sense, the product probably helps composting, the question is whether it really works any better than the organisms you're already likely to find in your own compost. It's more akin to selling something already readily and freely available from anyone's yard. Like bottling air, and then calling it 'specially formulated oxygen regenerating breathing formula' and slapping a price tag on it. The organisms in any old compost pile are probably just as good, and that's probably all most these products are. I don't think this deserves its own Wikipedia page, as it seems to be just a product range push, with no science to back it up. 196.210.255.208 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just joined Wikipedia so I could join this discussion. A long time lurker, I have never contributed; thank you for your patience.

The discussion seems trapped; managing to be both too broad and too vague at the same time. I feel the article needs to be re-imagined, if you will. There is no arguing that microorganisms can be cultured, and that specific microorganisms are desirable because they are effective at doing some thing or an other. So effective microorganisms can be cultivated, for personal or commercial use. If this is not an advertisement for EM, then we should be able to rename the article to make clear this salient point: we are talking about non-microscopic cultivation of microorganisms that are effective. Like, sourdough starter, bokashi starter, yogurt and cheese bacteria, mushroom propagation, and more. !You don't need a microscope to make sourdough, and bread starters are a poor example of a microbiological culture! Defining the process that EM falls within will hopefully help clear things up. If there is a word for this concept (or better, a Wiki entry) please let me know know and provide a link. Here is my best shot at this:

--- Non-microscopic cultivation of microorganisms

Microorganisms include bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists; microscopic plants (called green algae); and animals such as plankton, the planarian and the amoeba. These organisms can be cultivated, using any one of several methods, for many purposes.

Outside of laboratories, examples of microbiological cultivation include fermentation starters like Sourdough starter, some mushroom cultivation methods, yogurt rennet, cheese, and a certain agronomic applications.

Agronomy There are several commercially available cultivated microorganisms,such as those used in some commercial bokashi composting systems (unavoidable mostly-neutral advertising here).

Process of Cultivation (need examples like rice cakes and mold, Petri dishes, steamed or boiled grains, paper or cardboard, rice water, wild yeast, etc ) also some references and such ---

I am too green to make any sort of change like this, but does anyone think something like this could be better? Then the EM page could be a description of their specific cultivated microorganism(s), and everything's relevance can be reevaluated independent of one another.

Emrys81 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

most of this criticism is not directly relevant

Because this article addresses existing methods that have limited, but global adoption the content including citations and criticism should be about what people are doing, what words they are using, and what results they claim. Whether or not there is valid scientific support is another question entirely. There are many other subjects like this. For example, Witchcraft, Falun Gong, Prayer, and Ghost all have articles on Wikipedia, yet there is only a moderated amount of discussion in these articles and their talk pages about proof or related science. It doesn't make sense for this article to have big warnings at the top and long arguments on the talk page after this many years. -- M0llusk (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft and Prayer aren't commercial products. That makes this one an advert, and companies don't automatically get to write articles for their products on Wikipedia, regardless of what a few people say or do. It would thus help in this case to have proof that the products actually work. This one is much more akin to, say, homeopathy than to those examples you mention. 196.210.255.208 (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate for theories, products, processes, etc. which purport to have a scientific basis to be challenged on that basis. The examples you give do not claim to be based on science and in fact claim to be supernatural so a scientific analysis is inappropriate. Jojalozzo 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

New content on application of EM in sanitation

To the people watching this page: Myself and a few others are planning, over the course of the coming days/weeks, to add more content of how EM has been applied in sanitation, what the science is and whether there is any real benefit to using in EM for pit latrines, septic tanks, wastewater treatment plants etc. (so far, the scientific evidence is not there that it would be of benefit, but nevertheless it is quite widely used). If that section gets quite extensive we might later split it off into a separate article.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This planned additional content has now been added. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on "Validation attempts" needs more work

The section on "Validation attempts" needs more work, perhaps a different title would actually be more fitting, or a sub-structure is needed. I don't find this section clear. If I am not mistaken, then the sources cited are only primary sources but not review articles, so they need to be treated with care (when it comes to medical content at least). EvM-Susana (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree that these sources are fairly weak and can imagine that our medical colleagues will be here shortly to complain about the primary sources. The problem is that there are no good secondary sources to use on this - maybe we should take the medical claims out altogether?JMWt (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Let's see if anyone else reacts during the next week or so and if not, then I would say we should delete it. Unless EM is somehow a "hot topic" in medicine right now that we are not aware of, but I doubt it. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on recent edits by n00q (Oct. 2015)

Hi User:n00q: I disagree with your recent edits to the article. And by the way please put new comments always at the end of the talk page, not somewhere in the middle. EM are used in septic tanks and wastewater treatment (with dubious results), so no need to delete those statements about septic tanks. You are making all sorts of changes to the article without providing one single reputable reference for your statements. The research that is quoted from South Africa and Netherlands is sound research. Provide some sound, reliable sources for your statements (not primary research, not adversiting websites of manufacturers), then we can discuss further. As long as you don't supply reliable sources, your statements need to be deleted, I think. If you want to structure the article differently, please propose something. EM is used in sanitation systems, that's why the sections about sanitation are written the way they are and I would say they are well referenced. If you want to add sections on other applications (with good, reliable sources), go ahead. Wikipedia is all about WP:VERIFY. EvMsmile (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EM is an agricultural and health product not a septic drop-in treatment (Oct. 2015)

Hi User:EvMsmile: I'm new here, so I apologize if I didn't utilize the system (ie. the talk page) appropriately, and I apologize for not understanding the process here. This product is extremely effective for some purposes. I do not have any economic interest in this product, and therefore I believe I have no conflict of interest as related to this information source.

It is true that some people and organizations have a fanatical attitude towards this product and that they occasionally make claims that are not provable, esp. when related to the possible health benefits of a beneficial yeasts and bacteria. I support the efforts of Wikipedia to have sound, fact-based information in these articles, etc.

I do not find any articles by the producers of this bacterial culture saying that this product is intended to be a drop-in treatment for septic systems. Therefore, most of this article should be scrapped. WP:VERIFY

Em's are an agricultural product with many uses. The main use of the product is for accelerated, anaerobic composting, for which it is proven effective. The article should reflect that. N00q (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @N00q:, it seems to me that you have two different issues here. First you are challenging the idea that the pit additives discussed on the page are actually "official" Effective microorganisms. Second you are saying that the page should not be discussing the use of EM in sanitation as it is an agricultural amendment.

On the first point, you might be aware that @EvMsmile: along with me and other editors work on WP:SANI, which is an effort to improve sanitation pages on wikipedia - so most of our efforts are in the sanitation field. And I can assure you that there certainly are some who say that EM should be used as a "drop-in" treatment, and we have some references which specifically mention it - such as the Orangi Pilot Project section. So I don't think it matters here whether the quote unquote "official" producers of the EM product are or are not saying it is to be used in sanitation, as we have sources who say that it is.

Where I think there is a bit of confusion is that we have added other sources to this page which discuss "latrine additives" which are not specifically mentioned as being EM. So I think perhaps we need to think (and discuss here) what we actually mean by Effective Microorganisms - is it a "brand", or a concept (like "Organic farming") which is more than just the original developers of the idea? Can it stretch as far as describing the more general (perhaps) issue of latrine additives - which are said to be forms of beneficial microbes which encourage rapid breakdown of faeces? As we were writing the page before, I was thinking these were interchangeable terms, but I am open to thinking some more about that.

But either way, there are references to sanitation systems which specifically refer to EM, so I don't support your assertion that "most of the article should be scrapped". As per WP:VERIFY, if the sources are reliable and mention the use of EM in sanitation, we can include them.

On your second point, I agree that the aspects of agricultural amendment could be increased and improved - I'd just point out again that this was not our focus as part of WP:SANI. That said, any further statements about the positive impacts of EM as an agricultural product need to include reliable sources, not just an opinion - which ideally means peer reviewed journals. I'd encourage you to add what you know, with good references, to support your claims that EM is a valuable idea in agriculture.

In conclusion, we have worked on the sanitation aspects of EM because we believe it is possible that readers might hear of the "Effective microorganism" concept with relation to latrine additives. I hope that explains why the page looks like it does. I'm very open to seeing the agricultural use explored some more, providing there are good references to any claims or assertions made about it. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion @JMWt:. It is important that this article clearly reflect the work of Dr. Higa and that it accurately present information regarding Effective Organisms for readers.

• No citations provided for stated claims I see no citation in the article stating specifically that Effective Microorganisms or any of the related types of products are specifically designed, recommended or marketed as a drop-in treatment for traditional sewage systems by Dr. Higa or any of the related organizations that produce and/or promote their products. The 'claims' that are actually made by Dr. Higa et. al. are generally related to a kind of environmental philosophy about the soil and the atmosphere, and although at times they may seem slightly esoteric and unprovable, they should be represented accurately and with specific references.

• It is a bacterial culture EM is a bacterial culture and it works very well for sustainable agricultural uses, including converting human waste into compost, when used properly. Use of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) to convert bio-waste into compost is well-known and well-documented in many articles on PubMed etc. In the sanitation group, your interest seems to be related to reducing sludge in septic systems so that the muck doesn't need to be dug out as much. EM doesn't do that. It's a bacterial culture, that when cultivated properly, can overpower pathogenic types of biological activity (bacterias etc.) and reduces odors by converting chemical energies into lactic acid (primarily) instead of yucky, stinky stuff like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane etc.

• The article is accusative There are many claims made in the article regarding Dr. Higa's (or his agents) claims. There is only one document used as a reference to support those claims, and the article is primarily about sustainable farming and agriculture, not about municipal sewage processing systems. There are some passing references in Dr. Higa/Dr. Parrs article that mention using EM to process municipal waste, but no specific claims regarding the use of EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems. His discussion of municipal waste is centered around the usability of the output, and doesn't relate to the technical aspects of existing waste management systems. Over two-thirds of the wikipedia article discusses a use for the product for which I see no supporting documentation as a claim made by the manufacturer, the inventor or anyone who could be reasonably considered an agent for the product. The entire portion of the wikipedia article that discusses EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems should be removed or at least reduced to articles that mention EM specifically and that involve cultivation of the bacteria. It should be sufficient to state that it is not recommended as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems and then to have some discussion of how lactic acid bacteria are being used around the world to process faeces into compost.

• Claimed benefits The section entitled "Claimed Benefits" references an article that lacks documentation of methods used in testing and the claimed benefits listed are not even related to EM specifically. It's misleading. Also, since scientific methods aren't mentioned, it's reasonable to assume that the author didn't take the time to learn how to cultivate the product. Information for cultivating this product is freely available from the manufacturer and from other sources to anyone who is actually interested in how EM work.

• Cost Aspects section is pure conjecture EM is a bacterial culture. One teaspoon full of the culture is all that is required to produce as much product as anyone could ever use. Regardless, the entire Cost Aspects section is based on an article that doesn't reference the product specifically, nor is it written in a way that would indicate that the author has any experience with lactic acid bacteria and their effectiveness at safely and cleanly converting human waste to wonderful, rich, beautiful compost.

• Soil Micro-biology Dr. Higa's (and other's) work is related primarily to soil-biology and sustainable agriculture. There are many well-documented instances of their Effective Micro-organisms being used around the world to clean up all kinds wastes. It's not a drop-in solution for traditional sewage treatment systems and there are no referenced claims that it reduces solids. Over two-thirds of the wikipedia article is spent discussing it's use as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems, which is unfounded. The remaining portion makes some non-specific, negatively oriented comments about his philosophy. It doesn't accurately discuss his soil philosophy (of which EM is an integral part), nor does it discuss how incredibly awesome bokashi composting is. The bokashi technique has been proven over and over, all around the world to produce excellent compost from all kinds of bio-waste in 2-6 weeks instead of the months and months that traditional aerobic composting requires. That is an amazing thing and it should be reflected here.

• Documented Claims/Benefits The behavior of Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are well-known. They consume free chemical energy (such as carbohydrates and proteins) and produce lactic acid rather then ammonia or hydrogen sulfide, or methane, all of which stink. It's not rocket science. It's known stuff. It's what Dr. Higa claims, and it's true. It works. EM contains some 80 different organisms but it's primarily just a culture of environmental lactic acid bacteria and some related organisms. When poop is fermented with lactic acid bacteria, competing organisms are drowned out by the lactic acid that is produced, so that the output is hygenic. It's good stuff, especially in agricultural communities, but it doesn't reduce sludge in septic systems, and I don't see any verified claim by any responsible entity to that effect.

There are many inaccuracies in this article. Also, it just seems argumentative and hostile towards Dr. Higa, and his philosophies in general. After reading the Wikipedia article, I am led to believe that Dr. Higa makes all kinds of wild claims about the usage of EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems, which is simply not true. If you read Dr. Higa's writings, then you would know that he has some interesting theories about the types of biological activity that occurs in different kinds of soil and that he believes bacteria are capable of reducing certain kinds of problems with all kinds of bio-waste. He makes some very specific statements about EM, which are easily proven, and are generally well-known and well-documented, and a bunch of philosophical kinds of statements about the environment and 'types' of bacteria and 'types' of soil, which are not so easy to prove. This article needs to reflect the facts clearly and without bias.

As a reader, after reading the wikipedia article, I should have a general understanding of the well-known facts related to environmental lactic acid bacteria (EM) and their use in converting biological kinds of wastes into useful compost, and a general understanding of Dr. Higa's philosophy regarding soil biology and sustainable agriculture, and I shouldn't be led to believe that Wikipedia believes EM is good or bad because of a generalized statement in an article without scientific process about an unrelated group of products, as the Cost Aspects section states. N00q (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. When I read your text, I see Dr. Higa, Dr. Higa, Dr. Higa... Should this article be all about what Dr. Higa said about EM? I thought it was wider than that. Anyhow, I am not that keen to be drawn in on a detailed and endless debate about EM in general. Perhaps the best solution would be to take out the parts about use of EM-based additives in sanitation, move it to a new article and then just leave a cross reference. Once the sanitation part is elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you could re-do the article as you like (provided other Wikipedia editors agree). What do you think, JMWt? The title of the new article could be "Additives for pits and septic tanks"? EvMsmile (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved section to pit additive JMWt (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks.EvMsmile (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Lemma "effective microorganism"

The lemma 'effective microorganism' is weak, why? Because : 1) the referred to micro organisms species are named and classified already (see subsection: Possible constituents and hyperlinked WP articles) 2) There is no solid reference for made up statement in LEAD 3) the statement : "An effective microorganism (EM) refers to any of the predominantly anaerobic organisms" is not true and lacks any reference and any sense. Nowhere in Microbiology is a class of 'effective something'. 4) The adjective 'effective' in the cited 1st statement of the former LEAD is only a selling-argument of the company not a suitable description of the made up lemma 'effective microorganism (EM)' 5) recent reverts are rather vandalism, because they come with costs of deletion of additional references and sensefull slight adjustments of LEAD section, borrowed from the article of the trademarked product Coca Cola. --77.179.224.17 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are changing the focus of this article, which is about a class of ineffective products, to a specific company's product. You are also making this article worse, by switching instances of the name to an unnecessary acronym, adding unsourced opinions such as 'vaguely states', switching out encyclopedic tone for informal english ('was made up by'), adding back flat out incorrect grammar ('in a four years organic farming field'), and restoring a statement that has been tagged as needing a source since 2009. You are welcome to improve the article, but these are the opposite of improvements. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrOllie: thank you for your contributions to WP! Your points can be addressed easily. Please consider that I do know of microbiology, biology etc.pp. professionally. Please, consider that english is not my first language. Please, fix any language issues in my edits. Please, see the German article on EM which I did start to shape to it's recent form, including category:pseudoscience, which I also did ad to this english article, first. The German article is way better than this article, and I do like to push up this one to the standard of the German one. I do like our co-operation, though!

Addressing your critiques:

1. "focus of this article, which is about a class of ineffective products" -- please give references for this 'class of ineffective products' that this article was about. Is there any "effective microorgansism" product or EM outside EMRO's trademarks and its licensees? If so, I would like to know the references and place them into this article to support the "focus of this article", which is not referenced at the moment in violation of WP:LEAD
2. "switching instances of the name to an unnecessary acronym" -- do not get you here. In fact, the 1st statement in the lead section which narrows the lemma effective microorganism with EMRO's trademark (EM) is wrong.
3. "adding un-sourced opinions such as 'vaguely states'" -- the cited statement in this context simply is vague, from a scientific point of view (taking into account that the autor of the cited statement is a science professor). But you could fix this statement easily?
4. "switching out encyclopedic tone for informal english ('was made up by')" -- o.k. but this pseudoscience really was made up. How not to give this pseudoscience false reputation by an encyclopedic tone -- I am not a native english speaker, would you fix this problem, pls.?
5. "restoring a statement that has been tagged as needing a source since 2009" -- pls. write out what you mean, do not get you here.

My critiques:

1. As a start, would you please give a source for the 1st statement in the lead section: "An effective microorganism (EM) refers to any of the predominantly anaerobic organisms .." as I requested many times, since you seem to protect this false statement.
   1. This unreferenced statement seems to be rather sales dep. speach. of EMRO
   2. Term "Effective Microorganisms" was invented by founder of EMRO.
   3. Term "Effective Microorganisms" refers to a product of EMRO or its founder since its invention.
2. The "(EM)" in the first statement in the lead section refers to a trademark by EMRO (EM and EM-1 are!) not to an acronym of article's lemma 'effective microorganism' - the boundaries of EMRO's product line and universally framing the lemma go down hill by this false narrowing.
3. There is no new class of 'effective m.' in Microbiology! Otherwise give refernces please.
4. Named Microorganisms come in masses and(!) these masses of a class/species do not all have exact same characteristics (e.g. DNA, which varies even amongst a species) rather fulfil majority of qualifying points of a list of characteristics (per definition) - there is no such list for your proctected lemma "effective microorganism" in the 1st statement
5. There is no good tradition for a very broad definition of a term/lemma "[xyz] microorganism refers to any of (..) anaerobic organisms" in a mixture! The EM (up to 80?) constituents are not specified - no source for that, nowhere! So, if 1st statement of this article was true, any micro-organism in a mixture of micro-organisms containing anaerobic or facultative anaerobic microbes could be referred to as "An effective microorganism (EM)", which is nonsensical.

You are welcome to protect and conserve the article, but the article has multiple issues, violates WP:LEAD and your protectionisms are the opposite of improvements. Thank you, --77.179.8.93 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

not other possibility this comment to add than edit this . . . References 1, "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS" trademark, http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A6wwvhy.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=EFFECTIVE+MICROORGANISMS&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionhelp (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of my links, infos, knowledge, until now: Trademarks, IMOs

Two trademarks are, currently, as far as I may understand: ´Effective Microorganisms EM´, and ´EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS´. Following products ´EM1´ or ´EM-1´, I don´t remind. (There will be more products names branded.)
The last named, EM-1 or EM1, is with molasses the so called ´Activated EM´. Which is to multiply per doubling with water once a week, up to 30 times.
The EMs is the base, the primary product. Which is possible to multiply: ´end-less´; but no must also. (Which ´seems´ is not liked to be revelated too open.)
At least from one german own recipe EM-product producer I know he was taken to court, because of using the ´trademark´ name EM, which is NOT a trademark. Therefrom they did win at court. No such judge-call was won. But this is just not the intention.
Sources of this are to find ´easy´ in the internet. I sadnessly did not save or document the links the sources. Sorry. And these have been ´just´ german sources, maybe some in english also.
By the way: the product´s name should be written ´Effective Microorganisms´, my opinion.

• Indigenous microorganisms:
  

Korean natural farming, Indigenous microorganisms
In nature with rich soil can be extracted ´easily´ the indigenous microorganisms (IMOs) from there. This I did not see written there. But is to find in the internet, too, and instructions. Sorry, I cannot just do this efforts currently. Just saying, please. Thanks.

By the way: Worm compost is liked to be told as the best compost. Worms do have about 80 gut bacterias. Reminds to the 80 kinds of lactic acid bacterias in EMs. But I cannot really say, whether there is a connection. But if having such compost, the instruction to extract IMOs can be used to for from this soil, too, just saying once.
Visionhelp (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I checked my saved links: here they are. (I recommend to look for in english reliable sources appearing, for not just to trust machine translated sites texts.)
The first URL is the origin, the second link the translating site.

Lactic acid bacterias and others: scientifically

• Microbiology
  

http://www.biologie-online.eu/mikrobiologie/mikroorganismen.php
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biologie-online.eu%2Fmikrobiologie%2Fmikroorganismen.php

• A product
  

https://lactoseven.com/de/produkte/lacto-seven-4/
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flactoseven.com%2Fde%2Fprodukte%2Flacto-seven-4%2F

• Bacterias, Uni Münster (Germany)
  

https://hypersoil.uni-muenster.de/0/08/01.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhypersoil.uni-muenster.de%2F0%2F08%2F01.htm

Non-scientifically

• An overview, simple
  

https://dschjoti.wordpress.com/tag/effektive-mikroorganismen/
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdschjoti.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Feffektive-mikroorganismen%2F

• A more detailed overview
  

https://www.bunkahle.com/Aktuelles/Gesundheit/Effektive_Mikroorganismen_EM.html
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bunkahle.com%2FAktuelles%2FGesundheit%2FEffektive_Mikroorganismen_EM.html

• Sanitation
  

https://www.em-sanierung.de/5
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.em-sanierung.de%2F5

• On mold
  

https://www.em-sanierung.de/de/content/843/143/em-anwendungen/haushalt/schimmel
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.em-sanierung.de%2Fde%2Fcontent%2F843%2F143%2Fem-anwendungen%2Fhaushalt%2Fschimmel

(The translation website http://free-website-translation.com/?de)

Here still the two links as sources of the brand-names (from the revisions-history, in the english and the german article):
EM Effektive Mikroorganismen https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/registerHABM?lang=en
EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS https://trademarks.justia.com/789/44/effective-microorganisms-78944425.html

Visionhelp (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Bokashi contains infos about EMs also, and IMOs and links (in References).
--Visionhelp (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Is the wiki biased? Is it lacking material on the short-term benefits, the household uses and the scalability of the bokashi method?

The probable biased treatment of the subject is a concern, regarding the few possibilities and the lack of waste management culture that applies in most of the world. 213.44.154.175 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)