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

From: dkemnitz2000 <dkemnitz2000_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:10:37 -0000

---
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