Re: [compost_tea] CACT and Idea for non-tested brewing approach
Hi folks -
Finally got to this e-mail from Chris.....
It was long, and I think when I'm really busy, I don't have the attention
span for long posts. Being guilty of producing long posts, I can't really
complain, but it can take me awhile to read a really long post. But, I had time to
read it, so here goes,
> I found an old post from Elaine that as I recall talks about diluting a bre
> w
> that's gone anaerobic with very cold water. How much cold water (percentage
> of total brew) would it take to bring enough oxygen into the brew to help
> it?
Given that the brew you were diluting is at 6ppm O2, and you use cold water,
aerated to exit chlorine, so we know it is at max oxygen, you are adding water
at say 10 ppm O2, maybe higher if you are at sea level. Coldness is
relative, so let's say water at 65 degrees (18 C). So, 10 ppm O2.
You would need to add an equal amount of water to the tea brew to bring the
water to 8 ppm O2. So, dump half your tea brew into your sprayer tank, and
equal amount of water, and then refill your brewer tank.
OK, but if you were into tea brew that was just about to finish rapid growth
phase, you were just about at oxygen max phase, you could add 10% of the
volume of fresh, cool water to your brew (top off the tank, or purposefully leave a
couple inches of space at eth top of the brew tank before starting?). You'd
add at 16 hours, just to make sure the brew didn't go over the edge into
anaerobic.
So, good idea, Chris! Bravo! I love it when someone sees something I have
not and we can work something potentially useful out. I'll try to get this
idea tested at SFI, but it would be helpful if you other folks out there could
let everyone know your results when you try it.
Elaine
Would it make sense to remove some amount of tea (since there will be a
>
> ton of B reproducing like crazy - reduce that number some) AND add the cold
> water? And when I say "add cold water", I'm thinking serious gallons of
> water here, maybe up to double. (Be kind - I have no concept of what it
> would take -- just want you to know I'm not thinking a couple of quarts of
> ice cubes). I guess the amount it would take to turn the brew aerobic would
> depend in part on the water temp and in part on how much food was there --
> if lots of B food, maybe it would only postpone the inevitable of going
> anaerobic again.
>
> I'm wondering if you could preserve the F by adding oxygen to
> rescue/preserve the aerobic condition, and who cares if a few B and F are
> lost in the process? Better than losing all the F, and the B will be back,
> sure as Schwarzenegger. So, could this work? Could enough oxygen be added?
> Or could it only work in cases where the food was almost run out anyhow?
>
> Stepping away from rescue mode and retiring the firefighting stance for a
> moment, I'd also like to ask if it would be possible to modify the concept
> of CACT to brewing ONE batch of tea.
>
> I'm wondering if we could create a foolproof (hah!) tea making method by
> gradually adding more and more water as the brew progresses.
> This might work best in a Bob type brewer where the container size and
> brew
> size can be varied.
> The idea would be to add the water in steps, diluting concentration
> successively as the organisms grow and thus adding oxygen, cooling the water
> temp
> Would it help to avoid anaerobic crises?
> Would it be a deliberate way to cause and assist the brew to run out of
> food before it runs out of oxygen?
> Make a safer method for the home user who is less likely to test tea?
>
> The value of the method --if it can work -- may be for small-volume brewers
> and home brewers who are not able to test. Logistically, it might be a bad
> idea for those who are going to transport and add water carrier on site. I
> haven't seen a drip irrigation operation so can't envision the implications
> for them.
>
> I am wondering if this technique might prove to be a fudge factor that helps
> to increase the chances that the limiting factor in critter growth would be
> food, and not oxygen, and thus make for a better biological balance in the
> tea than trying hard to produce a highly concentrated tea and risking
> periods of anaerobic brew time?
>
> Paul Sachs was experimenting with stepped additions of food, rather than
> adding it all at once. This would seem to make sense where B is concerned,
> as a way of slowing down the B reproduction and giving the F a chance to
> grow.
>
> Do I understand it right that what we usually try to do is cause food to be
> the limiting factor by limiting food? We have anaerobic conditions if
> there's too much food for the amount of oxygen and available -- in other
> words, if oxygen becomes the limiting "ingredient", Why? because of high
> water temps or inadequate pumps reducing/not optimizing oxygen available or
> number of B reproducing rapidly or both).
>
> I realize this does not address the amount of inoculum that the compost
> represents.
> ***
> This idea I guess is a kind of "broken cookie" gambit. Did anybody ever
> tell you as a kid that the broken cookies are all the same to your stomach
> and taste as good? Well, idea being, we are going to add a water carrier to
> this tea for application anyhow, so why not add oxygen as an ingredient in
> the form of water? The tea will "taste the same" in the soil regardless of
> how many gallons of water carry it there, or when the carrier is added.
>
> If we can reduce the likelihood that an anaerobic tea will be produced by
> the novice tea maker without access to DO and disinclined or unable to use
> lab testing, then it will be much more widely accessible.
>
> So, even if the theory is all wrong, the last sentence contains what I
> consider to be a good goal... I have a feeling Elaine is going to tell me I
> have no concept of how much oxygen the biology can demand when it's growing
> rapidly, and that she will recall folk tales of the little Dutch boy trying
> to hold back all the water of the sea...or perhaps she will next send me to
> a lake with a cooking utensil (slotted spoon)...
>
> Chris Reid
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 09 2004 - 16:05:33 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:04 EST