[compost_tea] Re: Re: non-aerated teas?
---
Hello Elaine, Thanks for the advanced microbiology lesson. It is
complex. You explain it so clearly it amazes me; however it does
take some study to sink in. Dennis Kemnitz in KS
In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, soilfoodweb@a... wrote:
>
> 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_a...
> > 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
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Tue Jan 11 2005 - 00:00:52 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:43 EST