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

From: Frank L Teuton <fteuton_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:28:40 -0500

Hi Ted,

If I can sum up your position:

1) you don't guarantee disease prevention

2) life would be impossible if you had to test every tea and every compost,=
 so you don't, but just follow the basic rules and recipes

3) anyway, pathogens are everywhere, so what's the problem?

On the first point, that's fine but not what some people had hoped for from=
 compost tea, eh?

On the second, nice straw man....others seem to do more testing, without le=
tting it paralyze them...

On the third, depending on the use of the tea and the quantity of pathogens=
, this could be not a problem (ornamental or cover crop uses, low pathogen =
composts, good teamaking practices) or a serious problem, (raw consumption =
fruits and vegetables treated near harvest with higher pathogen composts an=
d unsuitable teamaking practices).

Sticking our heads in the sand won't deal responsibly with this problem, on=
ly insisting on good QA/QC will do that.

Frank Teuton
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ted Peterson
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:10 PM
  Subject: Re: Compost Tea variability wuz Re: [compost_tea] Re: do meter??=
??


  ----- 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=
 fall by Allan Balliet igg_at_igg.com. One of the first speakers was Dr. Micha=
el Glenn, one of the inventors of particle film technology (kaolin clay, Su=
rround [tm]). He reinforced the basic soundness of the idea behind compost =
tea against diseases, site competition, but recited uneven results using co=
mpost teas against apple scab, both alone and in conjunction with particle =
film technology. He suggested that variability in compost tea biology might=
 be the root cause for his uneven results.

  When research scientists are saying this sort of thing, it means that the=
 field is wide open for someone who has, as you claim to, Ted, 23 products =
which will produce repeatable compost tea products if made according to dir=
ections....

  Frank:

  I'll take this slight from the position that you don't really know what I=
 am doing. I have had to learn a lot of things since I started on this que=
st. I have brewed a lot of tea and read a lot of books. I picked up a cou=
ple of things along the way. The first thing I learned was. "Do not make c=
laims you cannot substantiate." I have sent, via attachments, two reports =
for projects that I have completed that show, through testing that the asse=
rtions I make are correct. If I am unsure, I state so. If I am wrong, I q=
uickly let people know so they can avoid the same mistake or not pursue a n=
eedless inquiry or not follow a needless path.

  You do, however, raise some good points. However, I never claimed that t=
he recipes I offer are specifically designed to combat disease. As a matte=
r of fact, most of them produce a tea for use as a soil innoculant to revit=
alize the soil or revitalize one's existing compost pile.

  With testing we have a problem. The absolute testing associated with the=
 chemical 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 th=
e past, you will see that the soil tested lower in some nutrients than at t=
he start of the project. These tests look for available forms but that doe=
sn't mean that the bacterial and fungal life in the soild can't produce the=
m through enzymatic action if the food web is healthy. This means that as =
the plant needs nutrients to fight off disease or propagate or feed, it sen=
ds out chemical signals to the microbiology. The microbes (if they are the=
re) use the plant signals to produce what the plant needs. (This is overly =
simplified.) So we test the soil and test the plants. The plants tested he=
althier. Given traditional practice, we should have added all kinds of che=
micals to get the amounts in the soil back to the standards "Set by the che=
mical 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 =
are growing microbes found in compost. If we brew correctly using tested r=
ecipes, we should be able to produce similar tea within a range of parament=
ers. The important thing is to remember range. I am not saying the tea wi=
ll be exactly the same because this is an approach nurtured by the chemical=
 industry where exactness can be determined. We have seen the efforts to "=
tame" the real world with this same exactness lead to vast tracts of land b=
eing taken out of production because of a number of factors. Not the least=
 of these factors is the killing off, through chemical use and overuse, the=
 basic soil microbiology that made the ground valuable in the first place. =
 

  Brewing tea will always result in a series of variables. This is partly =
because bacterial life in compost may differ from one batch to another, sma=
ll temperature differences inside the brewer may promote some bacteria over=
 others. 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 p=
roduct that can't meet even some minimum range and each and every batch has=
 to be testes, we are sunk.

  I don't know where you are going with this. I have successfully used com=
post tea to reduce pathogens in biosolids, reduce water usage and increase =
turf health in parks and reduce the outbreak of powdery mildew in grapes. =
There are other projects too where people us the tea with rave reviews. Yo=
u know something? I didn't test every batch.

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

  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 d=
oesn'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=
 to make anything consistent.
  7. It tests great but I can't use it because 96 hours has elapsed and the=
 tea 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=
 criteria that it will do what it says without $250 per test testing each a=
nd every time?

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

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

>>> Yes. Remember, though that this is not the chemical industry. Com=
post tea cannot "cure" any outbreak. Think of it as preventative medicine =
that you do to aviod disease. Compost tea should be part of your sustainab=
le ag program. Even in an orchard treated with compost tea that experience=
s an outbreak, I suggest they locally treat the outbreak with conventional =
chemistry. This is far different from spraying an entire orchard or grove =
based on a computer program -- provided by the chemical industry -- when te=
mperature and moisture meet certain criteria.

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

    With one out of ten 'properly made' composts out there supposedly conta=
ining either dormant or thriving populations of pathogens, and one out of f=
our Americans suffering from foodborne illness every year, it only makes go=
od sense to be prudent.

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

    Let's agree that pathogens are everywhere. They are in the soil, in yo=
ur bed, in your undies and in your food. Why aren't we all sick all the ti=
me? Because there are not enough of them to make a difference. What does =
the food industry recommend? Water that has undergone RO, bleach in the ki=
tchen every time you use a cutting board. There are warnings of salmonella=
 outbreaks at each and every table. Each and every table? The estimates a=
re that each person gets salmonella exposure a minimum of twice per week. =
And this is from in industry that sells soap, bleach, disinfectant and a pl=
ethra of other "antibacterial" agents.

    So, pathogens are everywhere. Yes, they are in your compost but they a=
re not there in numbers enough that will cause you infection. Brew the com=
post in a brewer and use air and nutrients, you are creating an environment=
 that the pathogens don't like so they don't grow nearly in proportion to t=
he aerobes. The aerobes eat the food because they "outcompete" the pathoge=
ns for it. Yet even in my most efficient brewer, I know that there may be =
one little nook that can nurture anaerobes and consequently pathogens. Eve=
n in my best brewed tea, I know there is an element of anaerobes in there. =
 They 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 buil=
t into it a range of acceptance. Even the chemical industry and the food i=
ndustry has built-in ranges of acceptability. For example, you buy Campbel=
l's Soup. Did you know that there is a limit for insect parts allowed in t=
he soup? When you eat the soup, you are eating insect parts. Yum, Yum. D=
o you think Campbells' tests each and every can? No, they take random samp=
les and use that as a criterial. The can you get may be a lot more insect =
parts than soup.

    When you eat anything, you are eating an element of dirt; even white br=
ead. Anything packaged or frozen contains animal/insect parts. And meat. =
 If 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 o=
f these things are heat tolerant. Luckily there are not enough of them to =
get 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 t=
hat range with all factors being equal, you or I can produce a similar prod=
uce from a recipe using similar -- or maybe even dissimilar -- brewing tec=
hniques. Just like baking a cake from the same recipe and sticking it in a=
n electric or gas or convection oven.

    Ted Peterson
    Earth-Wise/Spirit of the Earth






Received on Tue Mar 16 2004 - 12:28:55 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:08 EST