Re: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity

From: Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT)

Evan,

Send me an email at tad_at_simplici-tea.com with your fax number and I'll send=
 you
what I have. I was unable to find any electronic copies but I have the pap=
er
copies in front of me. I've got one that shows 36 different batches of tea=
 with
differing amounts of foods added (kelp and molasses) and brewing times, sho=
wing
that e. coli was not present in the tea.


I haven't tracked down the one that shows the purposeful addition of e. col=
i,
but I'll ask Leon this afternoon when I see him if he knows where it is.

~Tad





________________________________
From: evanfolds <evan_at_progressearth.com>
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 5:49:59 AM
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity

  
Tad, if you could find that data you refer too where E.coli was undetectabl=
e
when deliberately being added after the ACT brew, please do.


I think you're right that that ACT poses an advantage over extracts when us=
ing
inferior inoculants. In fact, I would see this as proof that the E.coli iss=
ue
is, as Mike puts it, "liability and perceived risk over science and data." =
That
"liability" is subjective, especially when the consumer is involved.


Don't others find it interesting that there is no one response of anyone ha=
ving
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 A=
ACT
>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 environment=
s. 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 vermicomp=
ost
> > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good probabi=
lity
> >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 bol=
ded
>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 s=
ystem,
>
> back in 2002 in conjunction with Dr. Ingham, where e.coli was purposely
> introduced. At the end of the brewing cycle it was virtually undetectabl=
e. I

> can dig up the SFI reports if you would like.
>
> If the parent material contains no pathogens, and you have a consistent b=
rewer

> and brewing process, then how does compost extract have any advantage ove=
r ACT?
>
> Your ACT will not contain any pathogens either. Based on the fact that t=
hese
> pathogens are facultative anaerobes, I speculate that ACT could actually =
have
>an
>
> advantage, in that there is an aerobic brewing process, where aerobic mic=
robes

> could out-compete faculative anaerobes (in this case the e.coli) and rend=
er the
>
> tea safer than an extract.
>
> So I'm curious if you have any data that shows where extract and ACT were=
 made

> from the same parent material, proper methodology was followed, and the e=
xtract
>
> 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 and=
 
> negative pathogens in extracted parent material liquid. It is pretty stra=
ight
> forward from a food safety perspective. The data is specific to my situat=
ion
> thus posting it does not provide others with actionable information since=
 you
> 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 v=
erify

> the same by testing multiple batches to get a big enough dataset to analy=
ze
> where n=30.
>
> Also one additional point to consider is that unless you have validated y=
our
> 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 angl=
es)
>and
>
> sanitation and storage location.
>
>
> All of this is academic and kinda of boring if you are primary using the =
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 S=
afety

> Land......
>
> At the recent Vermiculture conference I attended there was some great sid=
e
> 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 AA=
CT 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 environment=
s. In
>
> > many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicompost tha=
t it
>was
>
> >
> > made from. The testing I have done supports this. Thus if the vermicomp=
ost
> > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good probabi=
lity
> >that
> >
> > the water extract will also be pathogen negative.
> >
> >
> > At the end of the day, it becomes a risk based business decision as to=
 
>whether
>
>
> > to use AACT on a commercial food crop during its growout phase. It is t=
he
> >market
> >
> > that the grower needs to convince.
> >
> > BTW.... I do not have any vermicompost extracts applied during the crop=
 
>growout
>
> >
> > cycle. It is not worth the risk for me. There are other tools availabl=
e to
>me
>
>
> > for use during growout.
> >
> > There is no right or wrong to the use of AACT on food crops. I had one =
grower
>
> > tell me that his customers do not keep him from using AACT during the g=
rowout
>
> > 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=
 
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 co=
mpost

> > >extract.
> > >
> >
>


 

Received on Tue May 31 2011 - 12:50:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:10 EST