Re: [compost_tea] Re: CT on NOSB Agenda!

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:04:00 EST

The problem in the NOP compost tea discussion group working on the
recommendation to the NOSB is the human pathogen question. Specifically re-growth of
human pathogens in compost, even after the temperature and turning requirements
have been met in making the compost.

There are no data to show that human pathogens grow in compost tea that is
made with properly made compost.

Although some discussers like to keep pointing out the Bess report that was
given at the Biocycle meeting in 2002, that report did not use properly made
compost. In the paper itself, it says they used pre-composted material.

Please, everyone, understand that the Bess report is NOT in peer reviewed
scientific literature. It was reviewed for acceptability for presentation at the
Biocycle meeting, not for the science in the paper. There are serious
problems with the information presented in that paper, leaving the whole report
highly questionable for it's accuracy.

So, my point of view is that we have lots of data points showing no human
pathogen problems in compost tea, as long as the compost is properly made. But
these data are not replicated, which is a serious problem in trying to make
our case.

There are data showing that poorly made compost, or compost starting with E.
coli, or not-finished compost made with manure, can results in human pathogen
growth in teas with high levels of sugar added to the tea.

My conclusion would be that the NOP regs should say compost tea has to be
made with properly made compost. The RISK is low that a problem would occur, as
not only would the human pathogens have to survive composting, but they would
have to survive the compost tea process, and survive being applied to the
plant. Even on a plant eaten raw, the likelihood that a human pathogen would
survive competition, inhibition, predation, and aerated conditions is pretty low.
The risk is acceptable, relative to the benefit likely.

That may be what we have to get across to congressional representatives. The
more examples of benefit - reduced water use, reduced toxic chemical use,
reduced inorganic fertilizer run-off, reduced erosion - the more clout we have to
demonstrate the positive part of tea. The more data we have showing
no-pathogen survival in compost tea - and replicated data are needed (you CAN"T expect
SFI to run these samples for free, we don't have the money) - the stronger we
can come back at those saying there COULD be a problem. They have no data
showing there IS a problem, but the scare tactics being used are coming across
pretty strong.

Elaine Ingham




Received on Sun Feb 29 2004 - 15:35:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:05 EST