Re: [compost_tea] Testing procedures for various brewers

From: Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_gardener.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:29:22 -0800

 

<<So. when I see test results of a given brewer, I question - are we seein=
g the results of the materials extracted from the compost, the brewers capa=
bility to grow aerobic colonies or a mixture of both? I'm making my own ju=
dgment that it's the latter. In that case, how can we say a certain brewer=
 is better or worse than another by looking at the test results? Are there=
 not too many variables>>>



I don't think it matters as much as you may think it does.

First, you can take the very best Alaska Humus, with its unbelievable numbe=
rs and in the wrong machine get low numbers. Obviously you have to start wi=
th a compost that you know has numbers....but really, you can tell if a mac=
hine is working if you have any kind of decent compost/humus/Vermi.

And, I can tell you that even something as stable as Alaska Humus has varia=
bility from batch to batch, so I don't put as much stock as you want to in =
uniform compost.

  To me, the SFI numbers tell it all. Forget that most manufactures will tr=
y and use the best stuff they can to get the highest numbers. Remember the =
line at the bottom with the "minimum standards" for each category? If the n=
umbers from a machine meet or beat those, I know am going to get great cov=
erage. So I then look to cost, size, maintaince, speed and nutrient/humus/C=
ompost content. It is those ranges on the SFI reports that are comparable t=
o each other. That is what counts IMHO.



  Cheers,



  JEff




Received on Thu Jul 17 2003 - 01:00:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:29:23 EST