Re: Compost Tea variability wuz Re: [compost_tea] Re: do meter????

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:10:12 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank L Teuton
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: Compost Tea variability wuz Re: [compost_tea] Re: do meter????


Hi Ted,

I recently bought the CD of a Biodynamic Viticulture event sponsored last f=
all by Allan Balliet igg_at_igg.com. One of the first speakers was Dr. Michael=
 Glenn, one of the inventors of particle film technology (kaolin clay, Surr=
ound [tm]). He reinforced the basic soundness of the idea behind compost te=
a against diseases, site competition, but recited uneven results using comp=
ost teas against apple scab, both alone and in conjunction with particle fi=
lm technology. He suggested that variability in compost tea biology might b=
e the root cause for his uneven results.

When research scientists are saying this sort of thing, it means that the f=
ield is wide open for someone who has, as you claim to, Ted, 23 products wh=
ich will produce repeatable compost tea products if made according to direc=
tions....

Frank:

I'll take this slight from the position that you don't really know what I a=
m doing. I have had to learn a lot of things since I started on this quest=
. I have brewed a lot of tea and read a lot of books. I picked up a coupl=
e of things along the way. The first thing I learned was. "Do not make cla=
ims you cannot substantiate." I have sent, via attachments, two reports fo=
r projects that I have completed that show, through testing that the assert=
ions I make are correct. If I am unsure, I state so. If I am wrong, I qui=
ckly let people know so they can avoid the same mistake or not pursue a nee=
dless inquiry or not follow a needless path.

You do, however, raise some good points. However, I never claimed that the=
 recipes I offer are specifically designed to combat disease. As a matter =
of fact, most of them produce a tea for use as a soil innoculant to revital=
ize the soil or revitalize one's existing compost pile.

With testing we have a problem. The absolute testing associated with the c=
hemical industry is, in many ways, anathma to the organic industry. Let me=
 give you an example. If you read the Park report draft I included in the =
past, you will see that the soil tested lower in some nutrients than at the=
 start of the project. These tests look for available forms but that doesn=
't mean that the bacterial and fungal life in the soild can't produce them =
through enzymatic action if the food web is healthy. This means that as th=
e plant needs nutrients to fight off disease or propagate or feed, it sends=
 out chemical signals to the microbiology. The microbes (if they are there=
) use the plant signals to produce what the plant needs. (This is overly si=
mplified.) So we test the soil and test the plants. The plants tested heal=
thier. Given traditional practice, we should have added all kinds of chemi=
cals to get the amounts in the soil back to the standards "Set by the chemi=
cal industry to promote the use of manufactured chemicals."

So, let's take a look at compost tea. What are we dong in a brewer? We ar=
e growing microbes found in compost. If we brew correctly using tested rec=
ipes, we should be able to produce similar tea within a range of paramenter=
s. The important thing is to remember range. I am not saying the tea will=
 be exactly the same because this is an approach nurtured by the chemical i=
ndustry where exactness can be determined. We have seen the efforts to "ta=
me" the real world with this same exactness lead to vast tracts of land bei=
ng taken out of production because of a number of factors. Not the least o=
f these factors is the killing off, through chemical use and overuse, the b=
asic soil microbiology that made the ground valuable in the first place. =
 

Brewing tea will always result in a series of variables. This is partly be=
cause bacterial life in compost may differ from one batch to another, small=
 temperature differences inside the brewer may promote some bacteria over o=
thers. There may be more pathogens from compost sample to compost sample. =
 If we hang our hats on these "variables" we are sunk. If we put out a pro=
duct that can't meet even some minimum range and each and every batch has t=
o be testes, we are sunk.

I don't know where you are going with this. I have successfully used compo=
st tea to reduce pathogens in biosolids, reduce water usage and increase tu=
rf health in parks and reduce the outbreak of powdery mildew in grapes. Th=
ere are other projects too where people us the tea with rave reviews. You =
know something? I didn't test every batch.

As a matter of principle, what do you suggest I test for that would make yo=
u happy? Given your position, it would seem to indicate that because of th=
e variables, there is no way a product can be made that will meet your crit=
eria.

So, consider the following scenario:

1. I brew tea.
2. I send it off for testing.
3. It test great but it has been 96 hours since I sent the test.
4. That tea is no good because it has gone anaerobic and after 96 hours doe=
sn't represent the tea I had tested.
5. I brew another batch using the same recipe.
6. I send it off for testing because the compost variables make me unable t=
o make anything consistent.
7. It tests great but I can't use it because 96 hours has elapsed and the t=
ea isn't the same.
8. I brew another batch.
9. On and on ad nauseum.

When do I get to say: "I trust that the tea I am brewing will fulfill the c=
riteria that it will do what it says without $250 per test testing each and=
 every time?

Many of the recipes available through the Compost Tea Brewing manual work a=
nd my recipes work.

My other answers are preceded with >>>
  Effectiveness needs to be shown with consistency, and therein lies a fair=
 amount of expensive R & D. Can you really guarantee the effectiveness of y=
our teas, Ted, to large scale growers with hundreds of thousands of dollars=
 to lose?

>>> Yes. Remember, though that this is not the chemical industry. Compo=
st tea cannot "cure" any outbreak. Think of it as preventative medicine th=
at you do to aviod disease. Compost tea should be part of your sustainable=
 ag program. Even in an orchard treated with compost tea that experiences =
an outbreak, I suggest they locally treat the outbreak with conventional ch=
emistry. This is far different from spraying an entire orchard or grove ba=
sed on a computer program -- provided by the chemical industry -- when temp=
erature and moisture meet certain criteria.

  If you can, that's great. I hope you realize you have something of substa=
ntial value and that you need to distinguish yourself from those whose teas=
 are not so effective. And perhaps not so safe.

  With one out of ten 'properly made' composts out there supposedly contain=
ing either dormant or thriving populations of pathogens, and one out of fou=
r Americans suffering from foodborne illness every year, it only makes good=
 sense to be prudent.

>>> As far as my researches take me, it seems that pathogens are everywhe=
re. "Watch out Frank! That door knob you just touched was touched by someon=
e who handled compost and didn't wash his hands."

  Let's agree that pathogens are everywhere. They are in the soil, in your=
 bed, in your undies and in your food. Why aren't we all sick all the time=
? Because there are not enough of them to make a difference. What does th=
e food industry recommend? Water that has undergone RO, bleach in the kitc=
hen every time you use a cutting board. There are warnings of salmonella o=
utbreaks at each and every table. Each and every table? The estimates are=
 that each person gets salmonella exposure a minimum of twice per week. An=
d this is from in industry that sells soap, bleach, disinfectant and a plet=
hra of other "antibacterial" agents.

  So, pathogens are everywhere. Yes, they are in your compost but they are=
 not there in numbers enough that will cause you infection. Brew the compo=
st in a brewer and use air and nutrients, you are creating an environment t=
hat the pathogens don't like so they don't grow nearly in proportion to the=
 aerobes. The aerobes eat the food because they "outcompete" the pathogens=
 for it. Yet even in my most efficient brewer, I know that there may be on=
e little nook that can nurture anaerobes and consequently pathogens. Even =
in my best brewed tea, I know there is an element of anaerobes in there. T=
hey are there because they are everywhere. However, just as in the "wild" =
world, they are minimized because the environment isn't favorable to them.

  Now QA/QC. I know a little about this. Every good QC program has built =
into it a range of acceptance. Even the chemical industry and the food ind=
ustry has built-in ranges of acceptability. For example, you buy Campbell'=
s Soup. Did you know that there is a limit for insect parts allowed in the=
 soup? When you eat the soup, you are eating insect parts. Yum, Yum. Do =
you think Campbells' tests each and every can? No, they take random sample=
s and use that as a criterial. The can you get may be a lot more insect pa=
rts than soup.

  When you eat anything, you are eating an element of dirt; even white brea=
d. Anything packaged or frozen contains animal/insect parts. And meat. I=
f you know what was allowed in hamburger, you would neve eat another bite. =
 Yet, your barbaque cooks the stuff out right? Dream on big boy. Some of =
these things are heat tolerant. Luckily there are not enough of them to ge=
t you sick.

  So, to wrap up this rather lengthy response, when I speak about recipes, =
you will notice that I spoke about a range. I am confident that within tha=
t range with all factors being equal, you or I can produce a similar produc=
e from a recipe using similar -- or maybe even dissimilar -- brewing techn=
iques. Just like baking a cake from the same recipe and sticking it in an =
electric or gas or convection oven.

  Ted Peterson
  Earth-Wise/Spirit of the Earth



Received on Sun Mar 14 2004 - 16:36:43 EST

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