Re: [compost_tea] What I think is important

From: Matthew Graeff <phishphan12_at_comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:47:07 -0500

Tad,

Wasn't your Dad head of the ICTC (International Compost Tea Council) a
few years back? Whatever happened with that?

I think a certifying council is a great idea, and SFI was supposed to
be the be all end all of that, I think. It seems they were corrupted
along the way, and that may stop newer brewers or people that got
burned for thousands of dollars in tests to be very skeptical of
certification of any kind.

No, there doesn't have to be a competition, but that may attract more
flies than just another convention. Have an ACT brewer category,
extractor, hybrid (both ACT and LCE). I would compare it to a beer
festival. You know not everyone's going to win, most people are just
there to catch a buzz. :) I think it would be cool to get there and
get down to the nuts and bolts of ACT versus explaining it to everyone
and their sister that walks up to you the basics of ACT (unless you
enjoy that of course).

Getting the standards down for testing I think would be the biggest
hurdle, other than getting everyone in the same room.

I could be totally off on all this, but I think it sparked a
discussion within the group.

Matt
On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Tad wrote:

> I've been following the recent posts regarding a competition between
> commercial tea brewing units. With the right controls in place (it
> sounds like they were not there according to Steve at the Texas
> event), it could have some benefit.
>
> However, rather than a competition, I think a certifying agency or
> some industry standard would be far more beneficial to ACT as a
> technology. There are many different designs that make acceptable
> tea, meaning they extract the organisms into the liquid medium and
> provide adequate aeration to keep dissolved oxygen levels above 6 mg/
> l. Granted, some will be more efficient, cost-effective, or more
> aesthetically pleasing, but provided the above conditions are met
> then a brewer design could potentially qualify.
>
> An agreed upon definition about what ACT is and isn't, what it's
> purposes are, main benefits, and what claims can be made that are
> proven to be accurate and not based on conjecture or anecdotal
> evidence/opinion.
>
> How many brewer manufacturers actually own and use a microscope and
> dissolved oxygen meter to test their tea quality, and base their
> recommendations upon that data? I see crazy claims all the time.
> Some companies claim you can refrigerate your ACT for up to a week
> (Vermicrop), or brew continually as long as you want, adding compost
> and foodstocks, but never actually testing the tea with a microscope.
>
> If we want to legitimatize our industry, we need to establish
> conventional methodology that is supported by accurate data and
> direct microscopy. Otherwise, all we have is some bubbling brown
> liquid, with no idea if it contains the proper sets of organisms,
> with good diversity and biomass.
>
> I think once we have some standard for our industry, the next step
> would be to collaborate on the subject that Bobby eluded to: How can
> we improve our ACT (based on brewer design and inputs) to maximize
> plant growth across a variety of media and environmental conditions?
>
> I'm sick of hearing that ACT doesn't work because people use a 10
> gallon aquarium pump and airstone from Petco, or listen to claims
> that are unsupported by any data or microscopy.
>
> My 2 cents,
> Tad Hussey
> www.kisorganics.com
>
>



Received on Wed Feb 01 2012 - 15:53:36 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:17 EST