[compost_tea] Re: NOP and CT

From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:49:14 -0700

Allison -- Since you plucked Doc E's whack on me about this subject I'd risk
another try at clarifying where USNOP is on CT.

USDA-AMS-NOP regard CT as "raw manure" today, not allowed within 120 days of
harvest, per a statement Tom J was finally able to extract from them about
nine months after he asked, several times. I believe he posted that USDA
letter in our
Yahoo space on receiving it early this month. So NOP does not today support
CT as we all likely use it; and it is not "approved." These are facts, but
they also represent a specious, untenable position. Not long for this
world, I trust. CT is OK, if you follow on here. USNOP is full of BS (not
baking soda...) on CT.

There is no NOP "rule" on CT, so certifiers are able to approve it as they
choose, and both USDA communication and lack of it can be as weird or
confusing as imaginable. WA, OR, ME, NOFA certifiers are approving compost
teas. Hooray! I don't know who Tom P's (CA?) or Steve P's certifiers are
but clearly they are stepping up and certifying it, as are others, I
imagine. Where the heck is Texas, not to mention Arkansas and Alaska? Where
are the multitude of other private and non-US NOP certifiers? CT is OK by
many certifiers.

OMRI has always supported CT, even as some certifiers did not for a time
last year, per the rule of thumb Elaine stated, but I believe you can use
anything in CT that's not prohibited in the NOP "National List" available at
the USDA/NOP web site. Per NOP's Q&A on materials, CT materials don't need
to be certified or OMRI-listed, just not prohibited ones. Compost should
meet 205.203.x.x... standards (actually, it should be better... a nose and
touch test is likely better.:-) but materials are less limited.

While not "NOP-approved," CT is NOP-certifiable when made with good compost
or vermicompost and natural nutrients. There is no new news here... CT is
OK under the USNOP, intrinsically, even if USDA themselves don't get why or
how. I think it's called common sense, common law, common practice, maybe
an element of democracy or good organic methods they don't yet get? CT is
OK under USNOP even if they don't say so yet. They will, I believe. Many
certifiers already do.

The NOSB recommendation you quote is current - most recent, anyway. It is
an August 2002 NOP staff radical rewrite of an April 2002 NOSB
recommendation, though it is clearly not being applied by either NOP or
certifiers, nor is it what the NOSB Compost Task Force said April before
last, darnit! But that's another subject.... USNOP's position on CT is
definitely, and I think deliberately, not clear. But CT is OK...

The key in resolving this confusion today is certifiers. If your certifier
approves your uses of CT, you are home free. If not, look for another
certifier. (As arrogant as it may be, an NOP-certified certifier can certify
anywhere, I believe.) Other than materials on the National List, USNOP does
not certify materials, only certifiers, by the way. Is this anal enough
yet?

No? Ultimately, it's a USDA call, not NOSB or certifiers. Unless USDA
takes certifiers to task on CT, certifiers are in charge. And there's no
way USDA-NOP can not eventually support CT, hmm? I suspect with Doc E's
new inputs, NOSB will once again support CT, but better this time.
Un-anally, CT is not NOP-approved yet. I personally think it's ok to use
freely.

The Compost Tea Task Force Doc E mentioned is an NOSB group recently
established to take another NOP look at CT, presumably to make a rule or
incorporate CT in the "Final Rule?" Doc, what is the objective? And when
you get a chance, how goes it...?

For those tea makers who don't care about organic certification under the
USNOP, all of this is irrelevant. You can and should do whatever you want
to do. (..safely, please not anything dangerous.:-) Go AACT! Go all
beneficial CTs! Attack Congress if necessary!_at_:-) Grrr! CT is not only OK
it's organically excellent!

Might it be interesting or illuminating for us to have a thread on what
certifiers all over are saying about CT? USNOP is a CT sideshow, imo,
needing attention and direction but behind the proverbial 8-ball on CT so
far. NOP certifiers and organic growers are a more sensible bunch, eh? WA
and OR Tilth came around, MOFGA and NOFA came around, etc, who else has come
around? I'd like to know. Where's AK?

-- Kirk

PS: I believe the operative word in Thomas G's last comment about WA's
concern on chelated materials is "synthetic" as NOP generally disallows use
of "synthetic solvents" for any purpose. As for asking "someone on the
board" - from whom (NOSB) I think you could get as many different responses
as there are members - asking Doc E seems to me to be doing that at this
point.

----- Original Message -----
  From: allisonhornor
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:16 PM
  Subject: [compost_tea] Re: NOP and CT

  Hi all,

  I'm very interested in the dialogue about the NOP and whether or not
  they support the use of compost tea. I found the compost Task Force
  reccomendations on the NOSB website and they said: "since compost
  teas are curently under review, they are not eligible to satisfy
  section 205.203 (c) at this time." That specific section is the one
  regarding soil amendments and compost in the final NOP standards. Of
  course, being a scientist, I have no idea what all of this government
  speak means, are they allowed or not allowed? Maybe we could ask
  someone on the board.

  http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/NOSBrecommendations/CompostTaskForce.pdf

  Take care,
  Allison













------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/0PSxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Received on Thu May 29 2003 - 00:45:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:29:17 EST