Re: [compost_tea] What I think is important

From: Brian Leslie <damoclesone_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:59:16 -0600

Comparison of products is nice. The standards issue won't be resolved until=
 we can agree amongst ourselves what is a good recipe for making tea that i=
s compatible with the various different methods employed by the commercial =
product.

In the meantime, might I suggest an alternative: recruit a tester that woul=
d agree to test prototypes lent (and returned) via mail by competitors. The=
 benefits of a mail-in competition are many:

1. We don't want to test how well the inventor can use his or her product. =
We want to test how a competent composter or agronomist can use the equipme=
nt with instructions given by the inventor. A mail-in competition would ind=
uce dispassionate trials and simulate how the brewer would perform being us=
ed by the next person.
2. Deciding the standards has already been cited as problematic. This is no=
t going to be settled any time soon, as we are still vigorously debating th=
e (de)merits of various brew ingredients (e.g., denatured fish hydrolysate)=
 and considering a wide range of variables (e.g, airlift count). This can a=
ll be finessed temporarily by subjecting all entries to the same source of =
compost, the same source of water, the same source of light, the same envir=
onmental conditions (i.e., air, temperature, hemisphere), the same measurin=
g equipment and method (this one is critical) and the same source of use (t=
he tester).
3. Fuel is expensive, and as a frugal graduate student, I would be seriousl=
y bummed out by a competition that I will never be able to attend. A tea-of=
f with present competitors will only be beneficial to those present, since =
it would require a lot of scrutiny, note taking, etc. before anyone can rea=
ch realistic verdicts or implement anything practical other than saying "oh=
 I'll buy this one." Mail-in competitions are useful in other industries, s=
uch as in the computer component industry, and have the advantage of being =
*publishable* for those unable to travel to in-person comparisons.
4. This almost doesn't need to be said, but it still important: a mail-in c=
ompetition reduces the chances of cheating, sabotage, or infighting. If the=
 recent disputes over paramagnetism and patents are any indications of this=
 e-community, we are a passionate bunch and might let the compost hit the f=
an. That would certainly harm the credibility of the event and CT in genera=
l.

After a few mail-in trials and establishing more solid lists of the major p=
layers, then I think we would be ready for a serious tea-off. Thoughts?

Brian _at_ Baton Rouge, Louisiana

On Feb 1, 2012, at 14:06, Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> Matt,
>
> The ICTC sort of fell apart, I don't think there was enough momentum and =
interest, and people got busy with other things. My father was the Preside=
nt at the time I believe, though it was right when I got into the business =
so I may be remembering things wrong.
>
> I like your idea for a convention more than one for a competition. Stand=
ards for testing would be a huge issue, as well as coming up with an agreed=
-upon definition of ACT and what claims we can and cannot make as an indust=
ry. I know the general public has no idea was ACT or compost tea really is=
. Half the time people conjure up images of throwing raw manure in a barre=
l for 30 days.
>
> From: Matthew Graeff <phishphan12_at_comcast.net>
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [compost_tea] What I think is important
>
>
> Tad,
>
> Wasn't your Dad head of the ICTC (International Compost Tea Council) a fe=
w 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 th=
e way, and that may stop newer brewers or people that got burned for thousa=
nds 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 fli=
es than just another convention. Have an ACT brewer category, extractor, h=
ybrid (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 hurdl=
e, other than getting everyone in the same room.
>
> I could be totally off on all this, but I think it sparked a discussion w=
ithin the group.
>
> Matt
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Tad wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been following the recent posts regarding a competition between com=
mercial 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. Ther=
e 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 co=
nditions are met then a brewer design could potentially qualify.
>>
>> An agreed upon definition about what ACT is and isn't, what it's purpose=
s are, main benefits, and what claims can be made that are proven to be acc=
urate and not based on conjecture or anecdotal evidence/opinion.
>>
>> How many brewer manufacturers actually own and use a microscope and diss=
olved oxygen meter to test their tea quality, and base their recommendation=
s 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 tes=
ting the tea with a microscope.
>>
>> If we want to legitimatize our industry, we need to establish convention=
al methodology that is supported by accurate data and direct microscopy. Ot=
herwise, all we have is some bubbling brown liquid, with no idea if it cont=
ains 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 unsupp=
orted by any data or microscopy.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Tad Hussey
>> www.kisorganics.com
>>
>
>
>
>


Received on Wed Feb 01 2012 - 16:13:49 EST

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