Subject: Re: Compost Tea and Organics

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:25:14 -0600

Hi wytze & other saneters following this thread,

Responding to your reply sent today, Thursday, November 14, 2002:

wxn> For once I may disagree with you.

I am not a HACCP expert and am certainly interested in learning your
reasons for not liking HACCP.

wxn> I am not too fond of HACCP since the way it acts, it makes
wxn> impossible all kind of traditional ways of foodmaking and just
wxn> favours large industries.

Could you explain that point by point?

(1):- that: "the way it acts, it makes impossible all kind of
      traditional ways of foodmaking", and

2).- that it "just favours large industries".

wxn> Besides, I do not see a real need.

I was relating to the points raised by Dr. Benbrook. Chuck pointed
out that the organic food movement is under fire by corporate
interests in the industries that conventional food production
systems depend on.

He also pointed out that bacterial contamination was the Achilles
Heel of the organic movement (which is logical, since organic food
is relatively free of contamination from the toxic chemical produced
by the corporate interests mentioned above - so what other front can
they attack organic / sustainable / biological / ecological /
alternative agriculture from)?

Did you read Sal's post (and Sal is a long time and very dedicated
organic grower) in which he stated very clearly his rejection of
eating "shit sprayed" food?

So we have a controversy here. Let's look at compost and EM teas. In
the best of cases, compost and EM teas offer three major advantages.
As I understand it:

1).- Compost teas constitute a way to apply the nutritional elements
     compost offers via irrigation or even via a foliar application.

2).- Compost teas contain growth stimulating phytohormones, which
     are produced by beneficial microorganisms contained in compost
     and intentionally concentrated (by feeding them natural sugars)
     in compost teas.

3).- Compost teas also contain antibiotic substances that have
     proven to be effective against pathogens that cause crop
     diseases. These antibiotic substances are produced by the
     same beneficial microorganisms contained in compost and
     intentionally concentrated (by feeding them natural sugars)
     in compost teas that produce the phytohormones.

Conventional agricultural productions systems make war on all living
organisms except the economic crop itself. Conventional agricultural
productions systems are ideally implemented in a sterile soil.
Ideally, the soil is sterilized before planting in these systems.
The concept of irradiated food is based on the same mentality. I
have talked at length to those that produce and sell irradiation
systems and they firmly belive that all food should be and someday
will be irradiated.

For my part, I am convinced that these people are mistaken (if not
totally insane).

Nevertheless,they are responding to real concerns (the existence of
pathogenic microorganisms) that many people do share.

Since organic / sustainable / biological / ecological / alternative
agriculture is based a different principle, a principle that
involves many beneficial organisms, including beneficial
microorganisms, we must somehow distinguish between good and bad
forms of life.

Beyond that, a totally different mindset is called for.

While off-farm input substitution is a legally acceptable means of
qualifying for organic certification, the major benefits of organic
growing are derived when basing one's operation on an organism based
agriculture, which takes into account the full life cycles of all
organisms involved, beginning with the farmer (who begins by
designing the project and ending with the consumer (who converts the
pineapple into energy, constructs needed tissues with it's
nutritional contents, and is motivated by it in subtle yet important
ways).

Those additional participants, whose performance is significant in
relation to the success of this joint venture (involving a diverse
series of organisms) called sustainable (or organic) agriculture,
can include:

A).- The crop itself;

B).- Soil microorganisms, as well as other microorganisms that can
     dwell on the surfaces (and sometimes within the tissues) of (or
     in symbiosis with) the plant,

C).- Other non-microbial inhabitants of the soil (i.e. earthworms);

D).- Birds, insects, mammals or other either beneficial or
     destructive organisms (see below).

E).- Crop disease organisms;

F).- Crop pests (including vectors);

G).- Predators, parasites and pathogens of crop pests and crop
     disease organisms.

H).- Companion crops, which include:

  i).-  Crop Rotations

 ii).-  Green manures

iii).-  Plants that repel pests

 iv).-  Plants that attractant pests

   v).- Plants that attract other beneficial organisms

  vi).- Plants that contain substances that are extracted and applied
        separately for achieving any of the above.

wxn> Does the overview by Dr. Ingham not give sufficient overview of
wxn> when there is a risk?

I don't think it goes far enough, and I think she agrees with that
analysis, as which is why she's doing the work she's doing at
present.

As I understand it (in simplified terms), Elaine claims that making
compost aerobically produces environmental conditions conducive to
the growth of beneficial microorganisms, which in turn, prevent
pathological microorganisms from growing.

I can accept that. However, she herself has stated that we need to
know more about how that occurs. And that is why she continues to do
research directed at investigating and resolving these issues (which
she will publish when done).

wxn> Her analysis seems to be "haccp" enough to me.

Enough? I don't think it addresses the issue raised by Dr. Benbrook.
In order to really GUARANTEE that food raised using compost teas are
REALLY free of pathological microorganisms, we need to test for
them. And that is precisely what Dr. Ingham has recommended for
compost teas made from compost made from materials that included
materials of an animal origin. (As I understood her, she has
recommended either using compost of a vegetable origin or testing
for pathogens).

Let's just look at what HACCP stands for: Hazard (in this case,
pathological microorganisms), Analysis (testing for them &/or taking
steps designed to insure their absence) via Critical Control Points.
I interpret that to mean that the entire operation is analyzed in
order to determine:

1).- At which points are the Hazards (the presence of pathological
     microorganisms in food), are likely to present themselves and
     infiltrate the operation,;

2).- What can be done to minimize that risk (the concept of hazard
     implies a risk - in this case the risk that a product will
     become contaminated by pathological microorganisms);

3).- At what point and in what way can that risk be observed; and

4).- At what point and in what way can that risk be minimized?

I think the concept is valid and should be extended to other
possible sources of contamination, even for organic food production.
For instance, I know a melon grower whose product was contaminated
by ammonia contained in the water used to form a layer of crushed
ice that is commonly applied to the top layer of a load of boxed and
palletized melons. The ammonium probably got in during the ice
making process.

This friend is the largest private (non co-op) melon grower in the
USA. But no business is so big it can't be wiped out by a few deaths
of even a rash of serious illness traced to their food.
Contamination of one's product is the nightmare of even the
strongest competitors, and not just those producing organic food.

HACCP methodology represents an option I intend to look into
further and would appreciate your amplifying on your comments.

Douglas

.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:08:17 +0100

Hello Douglas and others,

We may disagree less than at first thought, it's just i have grown a
little bit allergic to the word haccp. I do not claim to be a haccp
expert either, but I came across haccp since it was developed and
introduced when my little business was active and I saw trouble
was coming with haccp for small companies like mine.
I am not against the risk analysis part of haccp per se. My biggest
problems are with the solutions that are being prescribed and by
the way haccp is implemented. I'll try to explain: to my
understanding it was originally the WHO who asked for a haccp
system including the primary sector, so really from the land to the
plate of the consumer. Quite soon in the political process the
primary production phase was emitted, so haccp would start as
soon as the products came form the land. I agree with what Allen
said about this. It can lead to the situation that a completely
polluted piece of meat is being handled with all kind of extreme
hygiene measures. One has to make sure that this piece of meat
is stored and transported at a certain temperature strictly etc.
Also, certain cleaning materials have to be used and one can't use
organic cleaning materials under haccp. Certain old ways of
producing foods like are no longer allowed under haccp. Here you
have to think for example about smoking foods on certain types of
wood. Some of these old practices (used safely for hundreds, if not
thousands of years) are just not allowed under haccp. You can
also think about foodproducts that use raw ingredients.
So, in the sphere of solutions it is all based on a kind of
conventional chemical-scientific thinking. Concerning the risk
analysis procedure, I think one has to watch out for similar faulty
scientific thinking in defining what are risks.
I do agree with identifying risks and I do agree this should start with
the primary producers. If I get clean, healthy seeds and foods, I do
not need to take all kind of extra measures in order to not produce
contaminated foods. If the eggs I get are healthy, I need to worry
less when I use them raw.
And if they are not I can do what I want and still be not safe. When
my little seedcompany turned in a cateringservice I always used 90-
95% organic ingredients. I never had one problem with
foodpoisining and I know cause I worked in an office where I saw
the people everyday. Only once there was a small incident and that
could be traced back to a non-organic cheese, which was bought
at the market in a week during summer when it was hot. The
person affected appeared to be in bad health also so all in all it was
a very minor incident. I never did haccp but I did observe the
advises given to kitchenexploiters: be careful with meat (separate it)
do not put very hot and very cold foods to close next to each other
and things like that. Now, with haccp, I have a problem. If I would
want to produce foods for some company, most if not all will ask
for haccp certification. For the price alone I could not afford it and
besides, I refuse to be obliged to use chemical cleaning material
when I know organic ones are just fine.
Concerning compost teas, I learned from the inforamtion posted
here that only in specific cases there can be a problem. Also the
way of how to avoid the problem is known. What more do you
need?  Learning more about how a certain process works, after you
know it is a safe process, is not really haccp but just more learning
about how something works. I hope I made a bit clear how I look at
it.

regards
wytze

.

---

From: Douglas Hinds <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:33:21 -0600

Hello wytze & other saneters following this thread,

Friday, November 15, 2002 you said:

w> We may disagree less than at first thought,

I'm glad.

w> it's just i have grown a little bit allergic to the word haccp.

Allergy's stem from hypersensitivity.

w> I do not claim to be a haccp expert either, but I came across
w> haccp since it was developed and introduced when my little
w> business was active and I saw trouble was coming with haccp for
w> small companies like mine.

w> I am not against the risk analysis part of haccp per se. My
w> biggest problems are with the solutions that are being prescribed
w> and by the way haccp is implemented. I'll try to explain:

w> to my understanding it was originally the WHO who asked for a
w> haccp system including the primary sector, so really from the
w> land to the plate of the consumer. Quite soon in the political
w> process the primary production phase was emitted, so haccp would
w> start as soon as the products came form the land. I agree with
w> what Allen said about this. It can lead to the situation that a
w> completely polluted piece of meat is being handled with all kind
w> of extreme hygiene measures.

That to me is very un-HACCP-like way of doing things.

w> One has to make sure that this piece of meat is stored and
w> transported at a certain temperature strictly etc. Also, certain
w> cleaning materials have to be used and one can't use organic
w> cleaning materials under haccp. Certain old ways of producing
w> foods like are no longer allowed under haccp.

In that case, we are going to adapt HACCP principles to our own
criteria. If HACCP can focus on toxic residues (which it can and
should), a better HACCP will be the result. As I understand it,
HACCP is not like ISO, that has to be administered or supervised by
someone in the ISO club; HACCP to me is a discipline that can be
applied by the people who use it.

w> Here you have to think for example about smoking foods on certain
w> types of wood. Some of these old practices (used safely for
w> hundreds, if not thousands of years) are just not allowed under
w> haccp.

Who's HACCP? You are describing a very unenlightened HACCP
implementation.

w> You can also think about food products that use raw ingredients.
w> So, in the sphere of solutions it is all based on a kind of
w> conventional chemical-scientific thinking.

We will do our own risk evaluation and set up a program based on our
own goals.

w> Concerning the risk analysis procedure, I think one has to watch
w> out for similar faulty scientific thinking in defining what are
w> risks. I do agree with identifying risks and I do agree this
w> should start with the primary producers. If I get clean, healthy
w> seeds and foods, I do not need to take all kind of extra measures
w> in order to not produce contaminated foods.

That is true.

w> If the eggs I get are healthy, I need to worry less when I use
w> them raw.

w> And if they are not I can do what I want and still be not safe.

The same is true with milk. Pasteurizing fecal material along with
milk form tubercular cows is not the solution.

w> When my little seed company turned in a catering service I always
w> used 90- 95% organic ingredients. I never had one problem with
w> food poisining and I know cause I worked in an office where I saw
w> the people everyday. Only once there was a small incident and
w> that could be traced back to a non-organic cheese, which was
w> bought at the market in a week during summer when it was hot. The
w> person affected appeared to be in bad health also so all in all
w> it was a very minor incident.

w> I never did haccp but I did observe the advises given to
w> kitchen exploiters: be careful with meat (separate it) do not put
w> very hot and very cold foods to close next to each other and
w> things like that.

It's a rules based method that deals with known threats. It tries to
insure that good practices are developed, and good will mean what WE
intend it to mean.

w> Now, with haccp, I have a problem. If I would want to produce
w> foods for some company, most if not all will ask for haccp
w> certification.

w> For the price alone I could not afford it

You are talking about something administered from someone outside of
your operation. My impression was that HACCP is a discipline anyone
can administer.

w> and besides, I refuse to be obliged to use chemical cleaning
w> material when I know organic ones are just fine.

If the organic ones do the job, that can be demonstrated and
included in your implementation.

w> Concerning compost teas, I learned from the information posted
w> here that only in specific cases there can be a problem. Also the
w> way of how to avoid the problem is known. What more do you need?

First of all, I'm focusing on the properties that compost tea is
said to possess. These properties are provided by microorganisms. I
want to know more about the microorganisms and the substances they
produce. Compost is simply a medium, an environment that's apt for
the growth of these organisms. There may be other ways to cultivate
them. So what I am interested in is cultivating these beneficial
microorganisms and applying them to my propagative material, crops
and the land itself, whether through compost, compost teas or an
inoculant production tank.

Beyond that, remember the melon growers problem I mentioned. Less
industrialized countries have a particular problem when shipping
food to the USA. At whatever point our market share begins to
threaten the major players (the ones with the well known brand
names), we will become potential targets for being smeared for
something that may not even be true.

Running a series of HACCP-like checks will allow us to demonstrate
that our products left our premises and arrived in a state free of
pathogens. This will help defend us against any unwarranted attacks
or intentionally planted contamination.

w> Learning more about how a certain process works, after you know
w> it is a safe process, is not really haccp but just more learning
w> about how something works. I hope I made a bit clear how I look
w> at it.

You had a run in with HACCP implementations that were simply
additional manifestations of the root of the problem.

In that case, if the acronym HACCP has been co-opted the way organic
and ISO have, if we can't adapt it to our own criteria, knowledge
and experience, we'll just call it something else.

Douglas

.