[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Regulation of compost teas (was: NOSB loses its head)

Hello David & other saneters following this thread,

You added to the great truth and ending by asked a good question:

DM> I believe there is a great truth here, in that whatever "food"
DM> is provided for a microbial brew should provide ... the NATURAL
DM> food suite they would normally be feeding off.

Or a little more concentrated (enriched) w/o altering the balance of
the envelope.

DM> Maybe the compost used in any tea should include more than the odd
DM> smattering of rotted root material.

The source of the raw materials being composted varies greatly from place to

DM> Next task : see if any patterns exist between plant and root compositions
DM> [obviously chlorophyll !];

Roots don't need chlorophyll, leaves do.

DM> and in their composted products. [I always thought roots were
DM> fairly rich in the sugars banned by the regulations

The sugars contained in roots are in a balanced form in combination
with the plants living tissues, rather than the concentrated result
of an industrial process.

DM> - does this mean - because of their sugar contents, their use
DM> (eg waste beets fed to brews) too might also face Official
DM> Banishment ?]

Sugar cane waste is one of the principle sources of both bacterial
and vermicompost made in tropical and subtropical areas and AFAIK no
problems with organic certification have arisen.

The bacteria or earthworms feeding on the raw plant material
transform it into compost, which is not the same as adding sugar or
molasses to compost teas (which is the reverse - it's going
backwards in time, and adds the concentrated industrial product
rather than the original organic residues).