Re: [compost_tea] Re: Re: Re: Re: non-aerated teas?
This is all very interesting, but makes me think of a question.
As you remember I plan to try making a jimolator:>) into which I was
told I might be able to add a minimal amount of food. IF I had no
way to aerate, as in no nail gun compressor, could I possibly add
H2O2,common peroxide, but very little of the food grade 35% or
roughly 10 times as much of market grade 3%. I am not sure if I have
ever heard it's use discussed here. Any peroxide to be added only
when it seemed to be going anaerobic.
I know people who drink the much diluted peroxide and claim many
health benifits from it's forcing more oxygen into the blood stream.
For drinking, one would have to get the 35% because of the
preservatives added to the pharmacy stuff.
On 11 Jan 2005 at 17:16, soilfoodweb_at_aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kirk -
>
> Yep, all I want is an excuse for a good beer.......
>
> And, yep, it is hard to mess up good compost, but you can if you add
> too many foods to the compost tea mix. The balance is between
> aeration and added foods. You have to get that right.
>
> I would disagree that I have implied that non-aerated teas mean
> automatically anaerobic. I have, many times, distinguished between
> them. Non-aerated with foods added usually are anaerobic, however.
> And I usually note that condition as being bad news.
>
> Adjuvant - hum, careful on the use of that term. It does not just mean
> any kind of material added to something else. An adjuvant CARRIES
> something else.
> It is a term from immunology, meant for a specific type of addition,
> not
> just any additive. I'd have to dig up my old immunology notes to
> recall the specific meaning, but the way you used it made me
> un-comfortable.
>
> The variability issue is why we went to the condition where aeration
> held high enough to prevent conditions where facultative anaerobes
> would win. We wanted to select strictly for aerobe growth.
>
> That message seems to have escaped a minor, but significant, portion
> of the compost tea world. And it seems to be the same group that do
> not understand that just because something exists in aerobic
> conditions does not mean it is capable of growing. E. coli does not
> grow in fully aerobic conditions, when lots of other organisms are
> present that are more capable of using those conditions. Since E.
> coli is a facultative anaerobe, it will be out-competed in those
> conditions.
>
> This is not something where just paying attention to aerobic versus
> anaerobic is adequate. That appears to be what Will Brinton would
> like to pretend I am saying, but in fact, it is not what I said at
> all. Diversity is required and active, growing sets of aerobes, is
> what I said. Plate counts and CO2 evolution do not enable one to
> assess the necessary conditions.
>
> Kirk, be careful when you say this "because as oxygen in water is used
> by microorganisms, the water will take up more oxygen." It sounds
> like you are saying the water is being changed to take up more oxygen
> than it was able to have before the microbes were doing their thing.
>
>
> Diffusion is what has to be considered here. When aerobic microbes
> grow, the use up O2 and release CO2. When O2 is depleted, that means
> a diffusion gradient gets set up. O2 will be reduced at the surface
> of the water, eventually, which will result in O2 movement from the
> higher concentration of the atmosphere into the water. So, that's
> what you meant by "more oxygen", except it is replacement oxygen for
> what was taken up by the microbes, not a higher concentration than
> was present before.
>
> Ah, language. Isn't it fun?
>
> So, now the quiz.
>
> 1. If you put fungal foods into a liquid containing both bacteria and
> fungi, would there be an increased oxygen demand that could drive the >no
> tea into reduced oxygen conditions?
>
> 2. What is the critical information necessary to know if a tea will >will it stick to the leaves.
> work as a foliar spray?
>
> Elaine
> ---------------------------------
> Kirk wrote:
> Elaine -- Got it. Look forward to that quiz and beer (and the
> conversation:-).
>
> I think there were just two points I was trying to make. One, it's
> hard to do bad things with good compost, and two, non-aerated teas
> can be good, too, and not anaerobic. Seems we agree. And yes, I
> understand that maximum diversity (max food web) is the holy grail of
> both composts and teas.
>
> A reason I got on this thread is that while you have not said
> non-aerated equals anaerobic teas, you have implied that many times.
> There is a greater risk there, but the risk also exists with aerated
> systems. "Properly made" is indeed the principal condition. As you
> suggest, I would not use ACT foods in non-aerated teas, except as
> "adjuvants," as I understand that term - something added to a tea
> just before application, not during the tea-making period. I do
> wonder if fungal foods might be ok, though.
>
> I'd also suggest that the variability of non-aerated teas is not
> unique. It is also an issue right now with aerated teas. Compost
> consistency seems to be key to achieving tea consistency, however you
> make it.
>
> I feel a need to qualify "non-aerated" for new folks, in case it's
> not clear. "Aerated" as we're using it means air is pumped into the
> tea tank. Non-aerated is a bit of a misnomer, because as oxygen in
> water is used by microorganisms, the water will take up more oxygen.
> Stirring teas will cause an oxygen exchange, as well, so unless you
> make tea in a sealed container there's really no way to make a
> "non-aerated" tea.
>
> Microorganism foods added to a compost tea will cause oxygen to be
> used more, which is why aeration is a good idea if you want to use
> foods to grow aerobic critters in the tea. The ability of water to
> take up oxygen can be exceeded with too much oxygen-consuming stuff
> in it, leading to low or no oxygen conditions, which is not a good
> thing. Right, Doc?:-)
>
> On another note, I haven't ever used non-aerated tea as a foliar
> spray, but I've heard some do. Would anyone care to say something
> about that?
>
> -- Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 14:26:37 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:43 EST