Re: [compost_tea] Re: Re: Re: non-aerated teas?

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:01:24 EST

 
Hi Kirk -
 
Please, please, please, get it straight that I DO NOT say the only good tea
is aerated.
 
Point One
Please, stop responding to me as if I have ruled any anaerobic, or reduced
oxygen, compost tea as being bad. Over, and over, and over, and over,
and.....infinitum, practically, I have said that anaerobic teas will be strictly
bacterial, and there can be benefits from using them. BUT YOU CANNOT GET THE
FULL FOODWEB BENEFITS FROM A TEA THAT CONTAINS ONLY BACTERIA.
 
Can I ask that you respond to me with the statement that you understand
that? Re-iterate what you think you read here. We can then work on the words
you don't understand, so that we can stop having these go-arounds and
go-arounds until I am tired of this.
 
Point TWO
If you do not add foods, but have good, mature compost, the tea may be
not-aerated, but it may not be anaerobic either. Get that word in there, MAY?
 
A non-aerated tea MAY have lots of beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and
nematodes. It might not have any biology at all, because no extraction
occurred during the non-aeration period.
 
An anaerobic tea has ONLY bacteria, and those bacteria MAY be fine, or they
MAY be bad news.
 
Can you please respond that you understand that too? I have responded to
you so many times with these distinctions that I am tired of having to put them
down again.
 
So much of the back and forth between you and I comes from you making a
statement that makes me feel that you don't read my e-mails, or that you skim
over the statements that I make about aerobic, not-aerated, reduced oxygen and
truly anaerobic.
 
 
Point Three
I am NOT talking about animal digestive systems, or anaerobic digestors.
 
I am talking about compost tea. Can we please focus on that habitat, not the
hundreds of thousands of other habitats in the world where other factors
come into play when discussing pathogens and disease.
 
Point four
Please, recall that I asked why you would say that anaerobes are beneficial.
 Blanket statements are dangerous. I can grow you some anaerobes that would
kill every mammal on the planet, if they were allowed to get into water
treatment plants. Luckily we have microbiologists who recognize those conditions
and don't let them happen in drinking water. But you CANNOT say "anaerobes
are beneficial". There are some real doozies of bad guys.
 
Now, please, don't go over board, the way a certain group of people are
trying to make it sound like I am, and say that I say that all anaerobes are bad.
 
I have never said that all anaerobes are bad. Don't put those words in my
mouth.
 
You haven't said that I said that in so many words, but I detect that you
are succumbing to the nonsense that this group is saying about what I have
said.
 
So, as I did in my last e-mail, and repeat here, in really clear words,
although I cannot cover all the caveats that could go with it:
 
Most disease-causing organisms do best in reduced oxygen conditions.
 
Got that? When I say MOST, or GENERALLY, this means "not all".
 
I have never said that all disease-causing organisms were anaerobes. Please
differentiate between most and all.
 
Point Five
Anaerobes can cause diseases in aerobic animals when the disease-causing
organism gets into places in the animal that are reduced in oxygen. The
digestive system, for example. Lungs. Muscles.
 
Most of these disease-causers are not true anaerobes, but facultative
anaerobes. They CAN grow in aerobic conditions. The CAN part of that statement
requires that normal aerobic organisms are not present out-competing the
disease-causer for food,space, water, surfaces, etc.
 
---------------------
So,now, let us differentiate between compost tea and compost. Don't mix the
two situations. Compost has different conditions and therefore
considerations than compost tea. PLEASE don't jump from one situation, which is solid,
to another situation, a liquid, without carefully considering what the
differences are, and informing your reader that you are switching topics.
----------------------
Anthrax is NOT an aerobic organism.
 
Anthrax requires low oxygen in order to grow.
 
Spores of anthrax can be present in aerobic conditions, but that DOES NOT
make anthrax an aerobic organism.
 
Human beings can put on spacesuits and survive in no-oxygen conditions, but
no one would, as the result of finding a human being on a space ship, come to
the conclusion that humans are anaerobic organisms.
 
You look at the metabolism of the organism, and determine if they have
enzymes that can function in aerobic, reduced oxygen, or low oxygen conditions.
Bacillus anthraxcis (hum,that species name is not quite right, sorry) requires
severely reduced oxygen conditions in order to function metabolically. It is
a true anaerobe.
 
When people breathe in the spores of anthrax, it gets into the lungs, which
in certain parts, are in reduced oxygen conditions nearly all the time. If
those spores get into those places, and germinate and begin to grow, you will
be dead. It is VERY difficult to get anti-fungal agents into your lungs
without killing you.
 
If anthrax gets into the reproductive organisms of animals, which are again
extremely low oxygen environments, anthrax can cause spontaneous abortions of
calves, or horses, sheep, etc. Once a barnyard has been contaminated by
this organism, you have to move the operation, because the bacillus makes spores
that survive for a VERY long time. It is not living in the soil, it is in a
dormant stage. The spore survives aerobic conditions, but it grows only in
very low oxygen concentrations.
 
So why haven't these terrible diseases taken over the world and wiped out
mammals? Because they get eaten by other soil organisms when the normal
aerobic sets of critters are present.
-----------------------
 
Pathogens are NOT everywhere. Please don't fall prey to that piece of
mythology.
 
It is not usually concentration that determines whether something will cause
a problem.
 
Concentration enters into consideration with respect to "will at least one
of these individuals find a place to grow". Rather like a weed. Produce
billions of offspring in hopes that one will find a place where it can grow, and
make a billion offspring, thus carrying on the species. That's why
concentration is important.
 
But it really is FINDING A PLACE TO GROW that is the real consideration.
 
And skin infections are NOT typically aerobic, but reduced oxygen
conditions, because the disease-causing organism gets INSIDE the skin, finds lots of
food (blood, sterile tissues), where there is no competition, and then the
disease is off and running. Skin infections are hard to cure, because
antibiotics can't get to them. Deep tissue has been compromised, tissue that is
oxygenated by blood, but the pathogen has managed to be introduced into a place
with low blood flow. So, the condition is not aerobic at all.
 
Most pathogens are not aerobes. They may exist as dormant stages in aerobic
conditions,but they require reduced to no oxygen to grow and cause disease.
You need to be more observant of what is actually going on in disease
conditions.
 
But please,I said, MOST pathogens. Don't twist my words to suggest I said
all pathogens are anaerobic.
 
------------------------
Every time you go to the restroom,you are likely to be getting E. coli on
your hands, but fecal E. coli IS NOT A PATHOGEN.
 
E.coli is an indicator that you MAY have contamination with human pathogens.
 We use its presence to indicate that you need to pay attention to the fact
that real human pathogens could be present. You need to track down the
source of contamination, NOW, before a real problem develops.
 
I tried to make it clear to everyone that ACT doesn't have human pathogens,
if ACT is made PROPERLY.
 
I didn't have enough data, scientifically replicated, to satisfy critics.
So, ok, either someone pays to have that work done, or we go through years of
having to do the testing, which will give us the data needed to not have to
test the end-product if the process is documented.
 
I am not making money from compost tea sales; I am not the one pulling in
dollars from every tea machine sold. Why should I have to do the testing?
Every one seems to think that I should do that testing "for free". Why?
 
Let the people pulling big profits from tea machines pay to do the testing.
 
--------------------------
Play with not-aerated teas - the results are so variable that you will drive
yourself crazy.
 
How do I know? I've been there, done that.
 
But if you want to repeat that work, then repeat it. But do a proper job of
assessing oxygen in what ever you are making.
 
That's what is nuts about what Will Brinton is doing - he claims aerobic, or
anaerobic, on the basis of no data about oxygen at all.
 
You cannot decide that something is aerobic based on "there's a bubbler in
there." Nor can you make a statement that the tea is anaerobic based on
"there's no bubbler in there".
 
If you don't aerate, then all you can say is, not-aerated. You cannot make a
statement about aerobic or anaerobic.
 
It's what is crazy about Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott's work. She throws manure
in a bucket, swirls it around, calls it good compost tea, and kills plants
with it. Don't tell me that bad tea won't kill things. Read some of the
papers by "research scientists" that show bad stuff happens with stinky brown
liquid.
 
But, you brought up the stinky comfrey tea thing. As I have said, sigh, so
often that I am getting really tired of saying this yet again, and I know
that I have written it to you at least five times,
 
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS ANAEROBIC DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN"T BE AERATED, AND
REMOVE THE ANAEROBIC PROBLEMS.
 
Comfrey teas, which ARE NOT COMPOST TEAS - ahem, no compost, read Steiner's
book - go anaerobic early on in the tea brew. But you are supposed to let
the fermentation go along until that first stink goes away. The "finished
smell" is unique, but not anaerobic.
 
What is that smell? Well, I don't have words to describe it, but it is NOT
one of the anaerobic smells.
 
It is why you have to do an apprenticeship with a biodynamic person in order
to learn the process and the smells. Go to the BD Today list serve, and
find out who is closest to you and learn from them.
 
If you don't, then you get to repeat what they have learned - if you put it
out when it isn't done, you can cause damage.
 
It's why Steiner put in "timing cues" in the biodynamic process, like bury
at the beginning of the new moon, and wait until some other celestial sign
occurs to harvest it. Make sure it was buried in a certain kind of container,
with something else over it. He was setting up the proper habitat to make
sure the right organisms were selected.
 
So, next time I talk with you, there will be a quiz. Did you read this far
in the e-mail? You will have to answer a couple simple questions about what
I said. If you answer correctly, I'll buy a round of beer for you. If you
don't answer correctly about what I wrote, I'll just set you down at the
computer and make you read this. Grin!
 
OK? Not angry here, don't read it that way. Just really tired of saying
something over and over and not having you get the information.
 
Elaine
 
 
 
 
Kirk wrote:
mm, I'll do my best to respond, being at best a novice on microbiology. I
also am not seeking to defend anaerobic teas. As much as Brinton's last
article could be debated, that and earlier work he's done do indicate that
good teas can be made that are not "aerobic" as in ACT aerobic. Again, I'm
willing to believe healthy water (and compost contents) will keep itself
aerated - if nutrient loads are controlled.

> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:01:38 -0500
> From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: non-aerated teas?
>
> In my experience, most of the disease causing organisms are facultative
anaerobes, and when oxygen drops too low, then the disease-causers are in
an environment that allows them to finally "win".
>
> So, I'd really like to understand the basis for your statement, Kirk, where
you say the anaerobes are beneficial. I don't have any evidence to say that
is true. <

I'm referring primarily to the 95+% of E.coli, which are mostly facultative
anaerobes essential to the working of animal intestines, and I BELIEVE there
are beneficial anaerobes that work in compost, as well, though I can't name
them. I am simply relying on experience of compost piles that have "gone
anaerobic" (nose test) but are brought back around with aeration and good
compost results in the end. They appear not to have harmed the compost, so
I regard them as beneficial, adding to the decomposition/recompostion
process. And it seems to me if anaerobes were always bad, no one would be
using anaerobic digestion.

> And when other folks say they get good results from anaerobic tea, but
they have done nothing to show that the tea is indeed lacking in oxygen,
then I can't agree with their conclusion that they are using anaeorbic tea.

But you can't definitively state they weren't either, hmm? I really don't
know about anaerobic teas... don't think I ever made one. And I tend to
agree - again, believing that good water and good compost will support good
oxygen conditions, aerated or not.

> What they have evidence to show is that, when they don't aerate tea, don't
put any food into the tea, then the tea can, sometimes, give some pretty
interesting results. <

Real good results in my experience.

> Kirk, you also wrote that some aerobes are dangerous. Again, where do you
have that as evidence? Human pathogens that are found in sewage are
facultative anaerobes. There may be other fully aerobic human pathogens,
but they are in completely different habitats than the ones we consider in
the world of soil, or manures, whatever. <

Anthrax is an aerobic bacterium, and I have been led to believe the bacteria
associated with skin infections, for example, are aerobic critters, as well.
I'm not thinking tea, per se.

> Your statement was:
> "Most anaerobes are beneficial, some aerobes are dangerous, and
facultative critters can be a problem are what I've learned here. Only
concentrations of nasties are a problem, though, not the method used to make
the tea, hmm?" <

I over-generalize here, mea culpa, but we know that pathogens are
everywhere, so it is not their mere presence that presents problems, it is
elevated concentrations of them. Plant and animal immune systems adapt to
deal with them, with the support of soil organisms, oxygen and sunshine,
sometimes antibiotics. Which gets me back to a question I asked a while
back: Is it possible that anaerobic teas can have beneficial antibiotic
effects? I really don't know but it seems possible.

> I don't understand the last sentence either. Would it be possible to
clarify a bit, so I could understand? The method used to make the tea
results in good guys or bad guys growing, or not. So, how could there be a
blanket statement about method? <

Didn't mean to make a blanket statement about method... but it sure seems
like you may be doing that.

Your opening comment was interesting - "most of the disease causing
organisms are facultative anaerobes." What about all those other anaerobes?
What proportion of anaerobes are facultative vs. strictly anaerobic?

Do I need to say this was about non-aerated teas, not anaerobic teas? The
former I have a lot of experience with, the latter none, as far as I know.

What about those really stanky comfrey teas and the good results reported?

Kirk











Received on Tue Jan 11 2005 - 00:00:44 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:43 EST