[compost_tea] Re: Re: CTTF testing requirements
Several questions and suggestions on this quality exchange among us but I
have to ask up front if we are reading the same report?
>From Doc E today:
> Compost tea brewers will need to test compost used in compost
tea, and if that is pathogen-free, then life is fine, use the tea without
restruction. <
I agree a compost test is best but I didn't see that anywhere in the report.
It tells me teas need testing, not composts. How are you reading this in the
report, or is this a suggestion for improvement?
> If pathogens-levels are below restricted levels in the compost, but still
present, then either do not add anything to the compost tea brew that will
allow pathogen growth in the compost tea - such as molasses or other
sugars - or test the final compost tea to make sure you did not grow
pathogens in the tea. <
Excellent strategy. I look forward to the day we have that set of tables -
air levels to pathogen content to sugar foods? It's in sight, I think, but
not there yet. Tea made well with good compost should not have to be tested
for pathogens.
>From Ted:
> ... No consideration is given for O2 which limits anaerobes. Maybe we
could get certification if we only used compost with no additives. As I
said mentioned after reading the report, milasses is one of the additives
that's OK for comost. No mention was made of simple compost with no inputs
and no testng was done without inputs. <
Agree O2 supply and DO are diminished and under-considered in the report.
On your second sentence though, Ted, the report says tea without additives
is unrestricted, by my reading - recommendations #4 and #6 - it is
acceptable, hmm?
On third sentence, where does it say molasses is ok for compost? Not that
it's not but I haven't seen that anywhere.
Has anyone done tests on "simple compost with no inputs?" I don't think we
have but I can imagine a good compost could make a great tea without added
nutrients, hmm? Makes #4 a viable alternative to testing.
>From Dennis:
> Possibly cause each brewer person will "aerate" at an unknown rate.
> And concern regarding pathogens arises when air (O2) concentration
> gets too low however low that is. And the facultative anaerobes can
> use air. <
I think Dennis was responding to Ted's comment: "Maybe all the additivies
are freaking them out because the end result is uncontrolled." Both are
correct, imo, and related.
Brings up an old saw -- aeration levels for good tea are way too unclear. I
think we've established a ballpark - 10% air to water volume being a
minimum, but have more to discover on useful upper bounds. As I recall, DO
at 2% or less can support facultative nasties, and if you go negative from
there they could grow even better, hmm?
>From Doc E and Dennis:
> > soilfoodweb_at_a... wrote:The testing being required is simple FECAL
> E. coli tests.
> <><><><><<>Also called fecal coliforms. So which procedure is it in
> the reference book of your choice? I'd look it up but I don't have
> the book. Dennis
Not all fecal or facultative coliforms are E.coli, are they? I don't think
so, anyway. I think this is an important distinction. Molecular probes
sound like targeted reagents to me, easier than microscopes.
> So who has the E.coli data? Anyone got data? As in "where's the
> beef", Where's the data to show this test is necessary? Anyone have
> ACT which meets (or exceeds)CTTF's specification regarding E. coli?
Great set of questions. There is no data on actual danger in fields, foliar
or otherwise, to my knowledge. This is hysterical propaganda from USDA. I
don't think there's any danger other than can be done by idiots. If you look
at the research appended to the report, there's actually a bunch of support
there.
Brings to my mind something that's bugged me since I first heard about NOP
and their attitude about compost teas. There's no evidence of any problem
but they insist there is one - in the absence of any information,
appropriately scientific or even anecdotal. Their thinking about compost
tea appears to be purely ca-ca pooey....
Ted:
> Maybe all the additivies are freaking them out because the end
> result is uncontrolled. <
Think so, yup. Chem-heads don't comprehend biology -- too complicated, I
guess. Biology is much bigger than chemistry. A different paradigm than
"more is better" or "one way works."
Dennis:
> So what are we waiting for?
Ted:
> Let's get aggressive with this report and PROVE it wrong.
Ya! So let's go guys and gals. I agree. Let's speak up, make it right.
ACT is much better and safer than NOP has imagined.
Kirk
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Tue Apr 27 2004 - 23:44:09 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:13 EST