[compost_tea] Re: Anaerobic Activity

From: Tim Wilson <thegoodjob_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:09:33 -0000

A commercial grower using compost, ACT or LCE should have a microscope in h=
er tool kit and one of the following. As my old buddy Tom would say 'easy-p=
eazy'

http://www.exit15.com/instant-food-test-strip-kit-for-salmonella-and-ecoli-=
p-1360.html

http://ecolisalmonellatest.com

http://www2.dupont.com/Qualicon/en_US/products/BAX_System/bax_ecolimp.html=
 

Tim


--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "mikethewormguy" <mikethewormguy_at_...> w=
rote:
>
>
>
>
> Evan,
>
> You are exactly correct about liability being subjective. That is the ent=
ire point. We are dealing with perception, possibilities, and risk from the=
 customer's context and not the producer's context. All the data in the wor=
ld will not convince a risk adverse grower who sells to a liability sensiti=
ve market who sells to a scared consumer.
>
> I would guess that you have alot of experience with AACT. So I have one q=
uestion that I have yet to get a defendable answer about is :
>
> "How would you recommend sampling and testing a batch of AACT for food sa=
fety pathogens, where the testing takes more than 1 day complete, when the =
actively growing AACT should be used the same day it is made ? "
>
> The silence you hear may stem from the situation that there are not any f=
olks on this forum who work in commercial food crop ag. and have their comp=
ost tea tested for food safety pathogens.
>
>
> Mike Flynn
> Green Quest LLC
> BioSpecific LLC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Tad, if you could find that data you refer too where E.coli was undetec=
table when deliberately being added after the ACT brew, please do.
> >
> > I think you're right that that ACT poses an advantage over extracts whe=
n using inferior inoculants. In fact, I would see this as proof that the E.=
coli issue 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 anyon=
e 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. Bo=
th AACT and
> > >
> > > > extract have a degree of risk tied to them but not to the same degr=
ee.
> > > >
> > > > Liquid extracts are far less dynamic and more dormant spore environ=
ments. 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 vermi=
compost
> > > > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good pro=
bability
> > > >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=
 bolded 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 brewi=
ng system,
> > > back in 2002 in conjunction with Dr. Ingham, where e.coli was purpose=
ly
> > > introduced. At the end of the brewing cycle it was virtually undetec=
table. I
> > > can dig up the SFI reports if you would like.
> > >
> > > If the parent material contains no pathogens, and you have a consiste=
nt brewer
> > > 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 th=
at these
> > > pathogens are facultative anaerobes, I speculate that ACT could actua=
lly have an
> > > advantage, in that there is an aerobic brewing process, where aerobic=
 microbes
> > > 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 made
> > > from the same parent material, proper methodology was followed, and t=
he 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 negativ=
e pathogens
> > > ONLY. In short, the data showed negative pathogens in parent material=
 and
> > > negative pathogens in extracted parent material liquid. It is pretty =
straight
> > > forward from a food safety perspective. The data is specific to my si=
tuation
> > > thus posting it does not provide others with actionable information s=
ince 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 c=
an verify
> > > the same by testing multiple batches to get a big enough dataset to a=
nalyze
> > > where n=30.
> > >
> > > Also one additional point to consider is that unless you have validat=
ed your
> > > equipment cleaning procedures than your equipment could be a source f=
or
> > > pathogenic biofilm, from say, prior bird or mouse poop. This has noth=
ing 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 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 Fo=
od Safety
> > > Land......
> > >
> > > At the recent Vermiculture conference I attended there was some great=
 side
> > > discussion on food safety and composted dairy manure based vermicompo=
st.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 m=
ean by this
> > >
> > > > statement?
> > > > "In many ways, the extract(s) more reflects the compost or vermicom=
post 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. Bot=
h AACT and
> > > > extract have a degree of risk tied to them but not to the same degr=
ee.
> > > >
> > > > Liquid extracts are far less dynamic and more dormant spore environ=
ments. 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 vermi=
compost
> > > > parent materials is pathogen negative than there is a very good pro=
bability
> > > >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 the
> > > >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 avai=
lable 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 t=
he 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 prim=
ary issue.
> > > >
> > > > 3 cents...
> > > >
> > > > Mike Flynn
> > > > Green Quest LLC
> > > > BioSpecific LLC
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrot=
e:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike, I'm sure you are aware that the exact same applies to liqui=
d compost
> > > > >extract.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




Received on Tue May 31 2011 - 15:20:34 EDT

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