[compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question

From: evanfolds <evan_at_progressearth.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:20:20 -0000

Tad, I agree with most of what you said. Let me say first that BioDynamic f=
arming is not a panacea. In fact, to me as well, it relates a lot to religi=
on. You can take some good from it, but don't dare take it all. If you read=
 what Steiner said he never intended the methods he brought forward to be t=
urned into gospel. He described what he offered as the beginning, not the e=
nd. He was far more humble in his approach than most realize. It is the dog=
ma created afterwords that muddy's the water and dilutes the message.

Not to get religious, the same thing happened to Jesus if you consider it o=
bjectively. He never taught to create a church, the people who desired powe=
r did this as a means of control, in my humble view. I say this having grow=
n up being fed views by well meaning people who knew far less about what th=
ey say than they know.

The same was true with Steiner. You should read some of his lectures. Start=
 with The Agriculture Course and read his lectures on Bee's as well. He pre=
dicted Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) almost 100 years ago. He gave over 40=
00 lectures in his life toughing on almost every facet of human society. If=
 anything, they are fascinating. He didn't really write books, he gave lect=
ures. To read the things he said are inspiring and broaden the scope of wha=
t we call "science" into a form of spiritual science.

This, as I see it, is the point. By no means am I suggesting we anandon mod=
ern materialistic science. Simply that we view it through a perspective tha=
t allows for subjective experience and results. Too many of us throw the ba=
by out with the bathwater by discounting what cannot be "proven".

The references to conducting excersizes at specific times of year are actua=
lly crucial. We know this from sowing by the moon. The moon's affects are n=
ot gravity. If it was, plants would be growing down. If the moon has supers=
ensible affects on plants, why not other celestial bodies?

Think about it. There is no two snowflakes or people that are the same. Thi=
s is because there are no two places in time on Earth that are exactly the =
same. Even identical twins are not identical. We tend to think materialisti=
cally about DNA because we can make images and ponder its structure. But we=
 don't know it. The same way we don't know water molecules, or atoms, or ma=
gnetism, or electricity. We know how to use them. The energies associated w=
ith the birth of a snowflake, or your own birth, define who you are. This i=
s the relevance behind astrology and how it can be so uncanny.

The time and place you are conceived and born affect you, in the same way i=
t does to the farming activites you perform during certain times of the cel=
estial year. The Earth breathes in and out during the seasons. It has tellu=
ric energies, evidenced by dowsing, lay lines, or the aurora borealis. One =
can grow plants without considering these realities, but I would suggest on=
e can grow better plants by paying attention to them.

We also know this through the idea of holidays, though many have been hijac=
ked by religion in an objective view. Take the idea of the Mayan Calendar. =
I like to call it the ancient calendar, as civilizations have used it since=
 time immemorial. It is not ironic that the Mayan's used the Gregorian cale=
ndar we use only to collect taxes. Especially considering the revolt we are=
 seeing towards these econopmic impulses right now with the occupy movement=
. A group just started in my town. It is spreading and in my view a precurs=
or to a great change in how our society is organized and interacts with its=
elf.

Consider that the Gregorian calendar that follows the sun materialistically=
 through the sky was adopted by the Catholic Church at Constantinople when =
they canonized the Bible. After this point, greater society did not have ac=
cess ot the impulses that guided society up to that point. Back then, when =
they burned 100 books that was all that was left of the evidence. When the =
powers that be replaced this with dogma, this was an almost unknoweably pow=
erful phenoemenon. Read the book The Alphabet Versus the Goddeess, by Leona=
rd Shlain for further confirmation of this regarding the transformative pow=
er of the written word. Again, the powers that be may have been well meanin=
g but misguided at best, but this is a form of control and conditioning tha=
t we collectively do not allow ourselves to recognize. We get diluted by Ho=
llywood movies and teh repetition of December 21st, 2012. You may be intere=
sted to know that the people who have studied the ancient calendars most cl=
osely use the date October 28, 2011 as teh end of the calendar. This is not=
 to suggest the world will end, this is merely what allows people to discou=
nt it, what it does mean is that teh Earth is passing through a energetic r=
eality it has not experienced in 26,000 years. This may not be the place to=
 extrapolate on the evidence here, but it's worth a look.

The ancient calendar has been snakeoiled by people who wish to sit back and=
 watch the world like its a movie. They miss the point. Read Carl Callemans=
' work on the calendars. He associates major transitions in history to the =
impulse of energy associated with ancient calendars. Things one would not n=
otice simply following the sun through the sky. I see this relativing direc=
tly to the thread of conversation here, as it is a variable kept completely=
 seperate from reductionist science.

In regards to your diffuser/air lift analysis, I wouldn't disagree with you=
r assesment of diffusers increasing DO. I am not aware of the science you r=
efer too, but I have personally witnessed a vortex enhancing DO amounts man=
y times relative to the same pump and volume of air using a diffuser.

I digress in regards to DO, you may be right about enhancing a stream with =
DO. I would suggest that there are other ways to consider what a vortex doe=
s to water as opposed to increasing DO. There is a balance to what Nature d=
oes that is beyond my ability to articulate in proof here. The structures o=
f water that manifest when we allow water to circulate, as opposed to being=
 contained and forced to do the things we want it to needs to be considered=
. What happens to a river when it is straightened? All sorts of things domi=
no - decrease DO, erosion, and general degredation. Research the Danube and=
 Rhine in Europe after they were straightened.

In other words, it very well could be that supersaturating water with air v=
ia diffusion and the increase in surface area could be counterproductive to=
 biological growth. I agree that DO is an adequate way of relating availabl=
e air to microbes, but consider the concept of brix. High brix can indicate=
 plant health, but it can also be misleading. The same is true with "organi=
c" agriculture, I agree with you there.

Further, we forget that air is much more than DO. In fact, almost 80% of ai=
r is nitrogen. In the same way humans supplement their health with pharmace=
uticals, we supplement our plants with nitrates. We all know that this is n=
ot necessary with a properly balanced and living soil. It would be interest=
ing to test differnet concentrations of air on biological growth, like is d=
one with CO2 in grow rooms. Read Hauschka's book called The Nature of Matte=
r for a more in depth analysis of the componeents of air and the secret of =
nitrogen in living systems.

I use the worm casting analogy as well. In regards to the chicken and calci=
um, eating calcium does not define a chickens ability to produce an egg. Re=
ad Kevran's book called Biological Transmutation for more specific info. He=
re's some info: http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm

It is the same with osteoporosis. Poor women out there are told to eat more=
 calcium when the forms of calcium ingested are not necessarily bioavailabl=
e. It has been shown in many instances that eating more calcium makes the p=
roblem worse. Nature does not work as directly as we would like it to. This=
 doesn't make our direct investigations irrelevant, but in my view it doesn=
't make the entire story.

Evan
www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe






--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_...> wrote:
>
> Evan,
>
> To me the main benefits of biodynamic farming are not mysterious at all, =
though many of the concepts are not currently supported by science.  T=
he biodynamic farmer puts in dramatically more time and energy into their l=
and, and all of the biodynamic preps are basically good microbial foods. =
 They pay attention to their land, and I think this is the main benefi=
t.
>
> Sure, there's no air diffusers or air lifts in a stream, it's a man-made =
invention but I don't think this proves a point.  If you were to put o=
ne in with an air pump, the stream would have higher DO.  Vortexes exi=
st in Nature. They raise DO levels.  Do they do it as efficiently as a=
n air lift?  Not according to science.
>
> I don't necessarily feel that biodynamics is better than organics as a co=
ncept, though in practice this is probably the case.  Many of the comm=
ercial organic farms are hardly better than their conventional counterparts=
.  I believe that sustainability and buying local are the more importa=
nt steps towards fixing our food system.  I do think there are some wo=
nderful sustainable organic farms that would rival any biodymanic farms, li=
ke Joel Salatin's farm in Omnivore's Dilemma for example, which he refers t=
o as "beyond organic."
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-04-21-polyface-farms=
_N.htm
>
>
> I struggle a bit with biodynamics from a rational point of view in the sa=
me way I struggle with religion to a certain extent.  Steiner says to =
do these mysterious preps at special times of the year and claims that they=
 have certain potency and energy.  As a gardener/farmer, you're asked =
to accept these things at face value because science can't measure everythi=
ng.  Why aren't there more studies relating to biodynamics or properti=
es of water?  Now are the plants happy due to some magical properties,=
 or the fact that for the most part there's good organic practices going on=
 (compost, mulching, minerals, etc...)?  I don't see anything special =
under the microscope when I look at a tea from a vortex brewer vs a more co=
nventional design, and typically a vortex will have a lower DO unless an ai=
rlift or diffuser is incorporated.  But I'm supposed to accept that a =
vortex is better because it changes the properties of the water and imparts=
 energy that we
> have no way of measuring?  All of the word of Steiner?  I do l=
ove the look of a vortex brewer though, it is much more aesthetically pleas=
ing.
>
> I don't want you to take this the wrong way.  I really respect biody=
namic farmers, and I think the produce they produce is truly first class. =
 I just wish there was more evidence to support the more non-conventio=
nal ideas that biodynamics promotes.  I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm j=
ust saying that some of it makes zero sense to me from a rational point of =
view and I wish I could get an answer that didn't involve me having blind f=
aith (which is ironic because I do consider myself Christian).  Maybe =
I need to do more research, or you can point me in the right direction.
>
> As a compost tea brewing industry though, I do think it's important that =
we rely on science as a foundation of our basic practices and beliefs. Â=
 I think ACT still gets a horrible rap, and we come across as snake oil s=
alesmen to many people.  Consistent brewing using high quality compost=
, a good brewer design (vortex or not), proper nutrient inputs (microbial f=
oods), and direct microscopy to evaluate the tea is very important.  I=
 think it's the only way we will ever gain legitimacy as an industry, both =
as applicators and brewer manufacturers.  There is so much we've alrea=
dy learned about aerated compost teas in the last decade, such as proper mi=
cron size (400), desired brewing lengths (typically 24-36 hours), minimum d=
issolved oxygen levels (6mg/l), optimal temps (68F-70F), how fish hydrolysa=
te effects a finished tea, and much much more.  I hope we can continue=
 to promote good knowledge and experimentation as we learn more and more ab=
out ACT and the
> relationship between microbes and plants.
>
> Tad
> www.kisorganics.com
>
> PS:  I have chickens so I was curious about your calcium comment. =
 Wasn't able to find anything online about how chickens produce eggs w=
ith low levels of calcium.  Everything I could find supported the latt=
er conclusion.  I have to feed my chickens a high calcium diet if I wa=
nt good eggs that won't crack or have soft shells.  You may find this =
link interesting:
>
> http://www.afn.org/~poultry/flkman4.htm
>
>
> I have yet to read anything that fully explains how worms convert nutrien=
ts, which would be a good analogy to your previous post.  :)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: evanfolds <evan_at_...>
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 7:39 PM
> Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
>
>
>  
> Stephen, have you ever buried a cow horn and/or utilized what is created =
within it on your garden or farm? You should try it.
>
> The horn is actually buried using cow manure to create BD500 and quartz t=
o make BD501. The plants and herbs (BD502-508) are created using other mean=
s. BD500 is buried during the winter months when the Earth is breathing in,=
 and BD501 is buried during the summer months when the Earth is breathing o=
ut. If you dig around there is long term research that confirms the benefit=
s of this approach. Here's one. It's interesting to note the data on storag=
e losses, which is an indirect association of nutrient density: http://www.=
jdb.se/sbfi/publ/boston/boston7.html
>
> Here's another: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/sorec/sites/default/file=
s/comparison.pdf
>
> Not to mention all the vineyards that use these methods. There is no grou=
p of farmers that pay closer attention to their crops than in viticulture. =
To me, this is a good mainstream indication that it works.
>
> I've seen some pretty amazing results in personal gardens as well. The di=
rect benefits really depend on the relative deficiencies in the garden. It =
seems to fill in the blanks. We call this approach BioEnergetic farming.
>
> Healthy soil is physically, minerally, biologically, and energetically ba=
lanced, like four legs of a chair. If one is left out it cannot stand. "Org=
anics", while better than conventional, is only the materialsitic end of na=
tural farming. BioEnergetics addresses all four components.
>
> Evan
> www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Steyn" <ssteyn_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tim;
> >
> > What I was asking about was those things not easily researched, but cla=
imed
> > nevertheless by people selling the idea.
> >
> > Like Steiner's concepts, like putting a concoction of weeds in a cows h=
orn
> > and burying it on a full moon evening in a manure pile, muttering stran=
ge
> > words and then diluting it 6000 times and still be left with a concentr=
ate.
> >
> > You know what I mean?
> >
> > The vortex is mean to imbue the water with special properties which sci=
ence
> > cannot measure, yet they confer certain properties on the plants when
> > watered.
> >
> > SS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com] =
On
> > Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > Sent: 08 October 2011 18:26
> > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Stephen;
> >
> > That is why the air pump needs to be matched with the volume of water a=
nd
> > pipe diameter.
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are asking concerning vortexes. From my
> > standpoint a vortex is great for creating a thorough mix with no dead z=
ones.
> > There may be some other unknown aspects to what it does to water struct=
ure
> > but that is not something I know anything about and not something easil=
y
> > researched (AFAIK).
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.co=
m> ,
> > "Stephen Steyn" <ssteyn_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tim;
> > >
> > > Maybe, depending on the characteristics of the pump, one need not hav=
e the
> > > diffuser at the bottom of the riser, but partway up the riser. My rea=
son
> > for
> > > adding this is that some pumps quickly run out of volume as the
> > backpressure
> > > increases - until eventually all you are creating is heat with minima=
l
> > flow.
> > >
> > > Tim, I still worry about the advantages of the Vortex route. What are=
 your
> > > gut feelings or findings in this regard?
> > >
> > > SS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.c=
om>
> > [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.c=
om> ]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > > Sent: 08 October 2011 03:05
> > > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com=
>
> > > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm replying to my own post to keep the information under the correct
> > > heading. I wish to point out that in Evan's post under wood chunks in
> > > compost he addressed what I said concerning vortexes but seemed to ha=
ve
> > > missed the point I made stating that a vortex can be created in more
> > simple
> > > fashion using only one riser and return pipe. The water is still allo=
wed
> > to
> > > take the vortex path which it yearns to and this can be adjusted as t=
o
> > > direction and intensity by simply twisting the elbows on the PVC pipe=
.
> > >
> > > There may be a possibility even probability that a vortex increases t=
he
> > > dissolved oxygen (DO2) in water negligibly, however in this situation=
,
> > > scientifically, applying physics, the DO2 is increased via the use of=
 air
> > > lift(s). Actually up to 10 times.
> > >
> > > Concerning the use of diffusers, it has been measured by some science=
 guys
> > > and by me that by using a diffuser at the base of the airlift riser p=
ipe
> > one
> > > can considerably multiply the DO2, over using no diffusers at all. I =
have
> > > posted a couple of papers outlining some studies on airlifts in the f=
iles
> > > section. One details some of the math employed, the other is not grea=
t but
> > > does mention the diffuser issue. They will probably both make your ey=
es
> > > glaze over but this is part of what I went through determining my air=
 lift
> > > diffusion chamber.
> > >
> > > I have posted some photos of efforts of some of my students to build
> > simple,
> > > relatively inexpensive airlift [one is super super cheap $10] and vor=
tex
> > > brewers using only one airlift and riser/return pipe. As you can see =
there
> > > is an acceptable vortex created. They have reported outstanding resul=
ts to
> > > me with their gardens but I'm not one to count on testimonials. Who k=
nows
> > > what they are comparing it to?
> > >
> > > Just so you know, with my advice, they have all switched the air inpu=
t to
> > > the horizontal instead of under the riser pipe.
> > >
> > > One needs to fiddle [or do the math] to get the correct diameter pipe=
 for
> > > the pump. EG. I just ran some trials using 3/4 inch, 1 inch and 1.25 =
inch
> > > pipe with the same pump. The 1 inch and 1.25 inch created an identica=
l
> > flow
> > > but the turbulence was greater with 1 inch and the flow was greatly
> > reduced
> > > with the 3/4 inch. Go figure.
> > >
> > > Salutations,
> > > Tim
> > > Get a duck
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.=
com>
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You can generally follow the instructions to building a vortex brew=
er
> > but
> > > save yourself a lot of extra effort by using only one riser pipe. Not=
 only
> > > is the vortex pholosophy subjectively questionable but you can obtain=
 a
> > > pretty good vortex with one pipe anyway. Do some research a think abo=
ut
> > it.
> > > > http://www.microbeorganics.com/#So_You_Wanna_Build_A_Compost_Tea_Br=
ewer
> > > > BTW, sure you can dump the compost right into the water, so long as=
 it
> > > does not have big chunks.
> > > >
> > > > Salutations,
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > , "somydi" <somydi_at_> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am new to brewing and in my research on making a 5 gallon tea
> > brewer,
> > > I am thinking of making a vortex type. The only information I am not =
sure
> > > about is if I should contain the compost in a bag or let it cycle thr=
ough
> > > the brewer. If I let it cycle then I will need to think about pipe si=
zing?
> > > Having read so much on the benefits of compost tea, I am looking forw=
ard
> > to
> > > making my own so any helpful ideas will be welcomed.
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




Received on Mon Oct 10 2011 - 16:43:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:12 EST