Re: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity
Mike,
Thanks for the response. I've cut and pasted the text that contains my
pertinent question, and then responded according below:
>" I agree that some of the same issues apply to extract and AACT. Both AAC=
T and
> extract have a degree of risk tied to them but not to the same degree.
>
> Liquid extracts are far less dynamic and more dormant spore environments.=
In
> many ways,the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost that i=
t was
> made from. The testing I have done supports this. Thus if the vermicompos=
t
> parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good probabili=
ty
>that
>
> the water extract will also be pathogen negative."
This is the text that I would love to see some data to support. I've bolde=
d the
section I'm referring to, but didn't want to take it out of context.
I've actually done e.coli testing in ACT using the our 5 gallon brewing sys=
tem,
back in 2002 in conjunction with Dr. Ingham, where e.coli was purposely
introduced. At the end of the brewing cycle it was virtually undetectable.=
I
can dig up the SFI reports if you would like.
If the parent material contains no pathogens, and you have a consistent bre=
wer
and brewing process, then how does compost extract have any advantage over =
ACT?
Your ACT will not contain any pathogens either. Based on the fact that the=
se
pathogens are facultative anaerobes, I speculate that ACT could actually ha=
ve an
advantage, in that there is an aerobic brewing process, where aerobic micro=
bes
could out-compete faculative anaerobes (in this case the e.coli) and render=
the
tea safer than an extract.
So I'm curious if you have any data that shows where extract and ACT were m=
ade
from the same parent material, proper methodology was followed, and the ext=
ract
came back clean and the ACT full of pathogens.
Personally I agree that the dangers are overstated in any regard, but I
understand why some of these food safety guidelines are in place.
~Tad
________________________________
From: mikethewormguy <mikethewormguy_at_aol.com>
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 30, 2011 3:11:31 PM
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity
Tad,
The context for the statement is food safety and in regard to negative path=
ogens
ONLY. In short, the data showed negative pathogens in parent material and
negative pathogens in extracted parent material liquid. It is pretty straig=
ht
forward from a food safety perspective. The data is specific to my situatio=
n
thus posting it does not provide others with actionable information since y=
ou
are not using my parent material.
If you are interested in learning more, you can create your own data set by=
testing your parent material and AACT liquid for :
Ecoli
Salmonella
Shingella
Fecal coliforms
Listeria
which are some of the target microbial 'outlaws' in Food Safety Land.
Here is what you can do.... First, you can validate that you do not have
pathogens in both your parent material and AACT liquid. Second, you can ver=
ify
the same by testing multiple batches to get a big enough dataset to analyze=
where n=30.
Also one additional point to consider is that unless you have validated you=
r
equipment cleaning procedures than your equipment could be a source for
pathogenic biofilm, from say, prior bird or mouse poop. This has nothing to=
do
with AACT and everything to do with equipment design (i.e. 90 degree angles=
) and
sanitation and storage location.
All of this is academic and kinda of boring if you are primary using the AA=
CT on
your garden and wash your vegeees before eating.
If you work in commercial ag than all this is all part of being in Food Saf=
ety
Land......
At the recent Vermiculture conference I attended there was some great side=
discussion on food safety and composted dairy manure based vermicompost.
Mike Flynn
Green Quest LLC
BioSpecific LLC
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_...> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Would you be so kind as to post this data, and expand on what you mean by=
this
> statement?
> "In many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost =
that
>it
>
> was made from. The testing I have done supports this."
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Tad
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mikethewormguy <mikethewormguy_at_...>
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, May 30, 2011 1:03:30 PM
> Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity
>
>
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I agree that some of the same issues apply to extract and AACT. Both AACT=
and
> extract have a degree of risk tied to them but not to the same degree.
>
> Liquid extracts are far less dynamic and more dormant spore environments.=
In
> many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost that =
it was
>
> made from. The testing I have done supports this. Thus if the vermicompos=
t
> parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good probabili=
ty
>that
>
> the water extract will also be pathogen negative.
>
>
> At the end of the day, it becomes a risk based business decision as to wh=
ether
> to use AACT on a commercial food crop during its growout phase. It is the=
>market
>
> that the grower needs to convince.
>
> BTW.... I do not have any vermicompost extracts applied during the crop g=
rowout
>
> cycle. It is not worth the risk for me. There are other tools available =
to me
> for use during growout.
>
> There is no right or wrong to the use of AACT on food crops. I had one gr=
ower
> tell me that his customers do not keep him from using AACT during the gro=
wout
> but they just won't buy the product. So what would you do ?
>
> There are many fine uses for AACT where food safety is not the primary is=
sue.
>
> 3 cents...
>
> Mike Flynn
> Green Quest LLC
> BioSpecific LLC
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Mike, I'm sure you are aware that the exact same applies to liquid comp=
ost
> >extract.
> >
>
Received on Mon May 30 2011 - 20:23:54 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:10 EST