Elaine: Based on what Bob described as using identical "pump", "food"
and "brewer" and the only variation in each batch of testing was the
compost being used; Ground Up (wood based) vs. AH vs. North Country
Compost.
If it weren't the pump then it were the Compost used then. Under the
influence of using Fish, Ground Up produced the most of the
micro-organism growth that therefore consumed the most of the O2. and
the AH was the most stable in terms of stimulating the micro-organism
growth.
BTW: I have been using the practice of splitting the "food" 8 hours
apart; adding half the food in the beginning of the first 8 hours and
then adding the remaining one quarter of the "food" in two more food
additions. This practice have reduced the DO plunge in 12th to 18th
hours into the brewing cycle. Does this make sense?
Regards
TaChung Huang (¶À¤j©¾)
-----Original Message-----
From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com [mailto:soilfoodweb_at_aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:34 PM
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: barometric pressure and compost tea
Oxygen levels
Ah, guys, come on. When you provide more foods for microbial growth,
guess what? More microbes grow. If microbes are growing, they use up
oxygen.
There's no major difference between the pumps. The difference is in the
effect of more foods that the microbes can use.
Could you please stop impressing me with the fact that you are
engineers? GRIN? Try to think biology........
This is in response to the following, and a couple of the previous,
posts -
> Bob:
> Thanks for posting your testing results.
> Your numbers actually reveal some consistency that the air pump to
your first brewer is not "identical" to the other two. The DO of the
first brewer is consistently lower, in test 1 and 3, when fish was
used. Fish has more N then Kelp does, I suppose. The third brewer was
also producing less air then
> the second one and it became evident when the fish was used.
>
Please, think if you were dropped into a place where there was a little
fish, just kelp, or double the amount of fish present. You wouldn't
grow on the kelp much at all. You could grow on the fish, and you'd
grow perhaps double on the double amount of fish. Under which condition
would you use more oxygen, respire more CO2?
Think biology, not mechanical.
Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
SFI Corvallis, OR
SFI Port Jefferson, NY
SFI Lismore, NSW, Australia
SFI Hilversum, The Netherlands
SFI Cambridge, New Zealand
www.soilfoodweb.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1=
707
418612:HM/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=124ukap9t/*
http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutai=
tak
enattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595054> Click Here!
<
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egro=
u
pmail/S=:HM/A=1595054/rand=838650859>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
Received on Fri Oct 10 2003 - 08:26:24 EDT