Re: [compost_tea] Re: CACT and Idea for non-tested brewing approach

From: Robert Norsen <bnbrew_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:37:19 -0800 (PST)



chris reid <reidchris_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks for the response, Elaine.

Bob Norsen and I discussed this further, and also Kirk Leonard very
patiently helped think it through. We could still use your help in
understanding a few points.

I think where we left it (jump in here if I'm wrong, Kirk) is with these
thoughts and questions:

1. Still the best way not to go anaerobic is to remember: LESS IS MORE
(food that is) and a good recipe, plus colder water. ok

2. The success of this method depends in part on how badly overfed the
microbes are. Way too much food and it is unlikely to do the job without
dumping out part of the tea and refilling with de-gassed water. Either follow a well tested recipe or use a DO2 meter. If you ae using a O2 meter and find DO2 dropping too low there are some ways to cope: Remove the source of more food and microbes (the extractor chamber of a Bitti or BobO, the compost bag of some other brewers. Continue the aeration with the aerator directly in the brew tank ( Bob's system) Cool the system. sombody said Ice. I think that is a good choice. Doesn't add much water but really drops temp. 1 lb of ice is equal to 144 lbs of 32 F water to cool the brew.

3. I think the next place we have to be careful with this idea is the
pump's capacity. What happens to a pump that's on the brink of #gals it can
handle when you top off the brew with more water? In terms of oxygen in the
brew, does the extra water slow the rate of addition of oxygen? I don't see this as a factor Moral:
Have extra capacity. Don't brew at the top of your pump's capacity. That is a hard point to find. Many runs with a DO2 meter to find that. It turns out that a bigger air pump costs less than a DO2 meter. and a dam sight more reliable!

4. When it's time to apply the tea, do we need to make any adjustments in
gal per acre? We were trying to understand what adding water actually
did -- I think Elaine would say "exit the notion of dilution" because we
added space and oxygen for more microbes to grow, and helped keep some
existing microbes from going inactive. However, the number of microbes per
gallon is likely to be less with this added water, depending on how far into
the brew the additional water was added. Should we adjust gal per acre
accordingly by simply subtracting the water added from the water we would
normally use as the carrier for the application? (EXAMPLE: if we were going
to apply 5 gal per acre, and had to add 195 gals of water to be able to
spread it on an acre at the 5 gal/acre rate,
I'm easily confused. If you did add water instead of using ice ( little dilution) or use your vaccum on blow to add air and save the brew that way - If none of those choices available then dump 10 gallons of a 50, add cold water and finish the brew? Well was the tea so rich with microbes that it over loaded the brewer? Then dilute as if the tea was all good. If the tea was overloaded because the air supply was too low - then isn;t every brew going to be low in microbes or low in O2? So you would want to dilute less. 2 or 3 to 1 of tea rather than 5 or 10 to one, if you had started with super excellent tea. I think the tyical gardener farmer without a microscope and a lab is going to have to depend on recipes, following proceedures and be satisfied that ACT is good thru a wide range of ACT quality and application rates.

Another moral - brew lots of ACT- dilute to get it carried, apply more. More ACT is MORE. Applying 10 gallons of actual tea to the acre is NOT twice the cost of applying 5 gallons. 10gpa is like say 10% more than applyinf 5 gpa. The ACT is a small part of the cost.
AmI making things clear like rich ACT?

Chris Reid





---------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Received on Wed Feb 11 2004 - 00:18:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:04 EST