Well, after reading your post another time, I’m starting
to better grasp your point. But that college biology 101 student is still in me, and is
tugging at my gut saying… prove it to me … and then prove it to me that you can’t
disprove it -- sorry, being a pain
in the rear is only a hobby… grin. -----Original
Message----- <<So… when I see test results of a given
brewer, I question – are we seeing the results of the materials extracted from
the compost, the brewers capability to grow aerobic colonies or a mixture of
both? I’m making my own judgment
that it’s the latter. In that
case, how can we say a certain brewer is better or worse than another by
looking at the test results? Are
there not too many variables>>> I
don't think it matters as much as you may think it does. First,
you can take the very best Alaska Humus, with its unbelievable numbers and
in the wrong machine get low numbers. Obviously you have to start with a
compost that you know has numbers....but really, you can tell if a machine is
working if you have any kind of decent compost/humus/Vermi. And,
I can tell you that even something as stable as Alaska Humus has variability
from batch to batch, so I don't put as much stock as you want to in uniform
compost. To
me, the SFI numbers tell it all. Forget that most manufactures will try and use
the best stuff they can to get the highest numbers. Remember the line at the
bottom with the "minimum standards" for each category? If the numbers
from a machine meet or beat those, I know am going to
get great coverage. So I then look to cost, size, maintaince, speed and
nutrient/humus/Compost content. It is those ranges on the SFI reports that are
comparable to each other. That is what counts IMHO. Cheers, JEff
compost_tea-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: compost_tea-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |