Re: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity
Tad may be referring to the addition of e Coli to Alaska humus over a perio=
d of time. I never saw the results but heard e Coli would not grow...I thin=
k KIS machine was used and it was done at sfi Oregon....
Jeff
The point is, still, be careful!
Plant A Row For The Hungry...and read "TEAMING WITH MICROBES: THE ORGANIC G=
ARDENER'S GUIDE TO THE SOIL FOOD WEB."
On May 31, 2011, at 4:49 AM, "evanfolds" <evan_at_progressearth.com> wrote:
> Tad, if you could find that data you refer too where E.coli was undetecta=
ble when deliberately being added after the ACT brew, please do.
>
> I think you're right that that ACT poses an advantage over extracts when =
using inferior inoculants. In fact, I would see this as proof that the E.co=
li issue is, as Mike puts it, "liability and perceived risk over science an=
d data." That "liability" is subjective, especially when the consumer is in=
volved.
>
> Don't others find it interesting that there is no one response of anyone =
having an issue with E.coli or molasses on this forum?
>
> evan
> www.VortexBrewer.com
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > 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=
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 environme=
nts. In
> > > many ways,the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost th=
at it was
> >
> > > made from. The testing I have done supports this. Thus if the vermico=
mpost
> > > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good proba=
bility
> > >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 bo=
lded 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=
system,
> > back in 2002 in conjunction with Dr. Ingham, where e.coli was purposely=
> > introduced. At the end of the brewing cycle it was virtually undetectab=
le. I
> > can dig up the SFI reports if you would like.
> >
> > If the parent material contains no pathogens, and you have a consistent=
brewer
> > and brewing process, then how does compost extract have any advantage o=
ver ACT?
> > Your ACT will not contain any pathogens either. Based on the fact that =
these
> > pathogens are facultative anaerobes, I speculate that ACT could actuall=
y have an
> > advantage, in that there is an aerobic brewing process, where aerobic m=
icrobes
> > could out-compete faculative anaerobes (in this case the e.coli) and re=
nder the
> > tea safer than an extract.
> >
> > So I'm curious if you have any data that shows where extract and ACT we=
re made
> > from the same parent material, proper methodology was followed, and the=
extract
> > 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_...>
> > 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 =
pathogens
> > ONLY. In short, the data showed negative pathogens in parent material a=
nd
> > negative pathogens in extracted parent material liquid. It is pretty st=
raight
> > forward from a food safety perspective. The data is specific to my situ=
ation
> > thus posting it does not provide others with actionable information sin=
ce you
> > are not using my parent material.
> >
> > If you are interested in learning more, you can create your own data se=
t 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 hav=
e
> > pathogens in both your parent material and AACT liquid. Second, you can=
verify
> > the same by testing multiple batches to get a big enough dataset to ana=
lyze
> > where n=30.
> >
> > Also one additional point to consider is that unless you have validated=
your
> > equipment cleaning procedures than your equipment could be a source for=
> > pathogenic biofilm, from say, prior bird or mouse poop. This has nothin=
g to do
> > with AACT and everything to do with equipment design (i.e. 90 degree an=
gles) and
> > sanitation and storage location.
> >
> >
> > All of this is academic and kinda of boring if you are primary using th=
e AACT 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=
Safety
> > Land......
> >
> > At the recent Vermiculture conference I attended there was some great s=
ide
> > 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 mea=
n by this
> >
> > > statement?
> > > "In many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompo=
st 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 environme=
nts. In
> > > many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost t=
hat it was
> > >
> > > made from. The testing I have done supports this. Thus if the vermico=
mpost
> > > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good proba=
bility
> > >that
> > >
> > > the water extract will also be pathogen negative.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the end of the day, it becomes a risk based business decision as t=
o whether
> >
> > > 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 cr=
op growout
> > >
> > > cycle. It is not worth the risk for me. There are other tools availab=
le to me
> >
> > > for use during growout.
> > >
> > > There is no right or wrong to the use of AACT on food crops. I had on=
e grower
> > > tell me that his customers do not keep him from using AACT during the=
growout
> > > 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 primar=
y issue.
> > >
> > > 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 =
compost
> > > >extract.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue May 31 2011 - 12:40:34 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:10 EST