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

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:08:39 -0800

Frank:

I don't understand your position. Why do you take what I write out of cont=
ext? The tone of your email seems to me to be one that attempts to belittl=
e my position instead of entering into serious inquiry. I will answer your =
points below.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Frank L Teuton
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:28 AM
  Subject: Re: Compost Tea variability wuz Re: [compost_tea] Re: do meter??=
??


  Hi Ted,

  If I can sum up your position:

  1) you don't guarantee disease prevention

  Frank, nobody can "guarantee" disease prevention using ACT. If you think=
 ACT can, with certainty, "prevent" disease outbreak, you have your head in=
 a far darker place than the sand.

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

  Frank you are wrong here. I test differently than testing just the tea a=
nd I have said this time and time again. You must not read my emails so I =
would suggest you either read them or take a comprehension course because y=
ou are not uderstanding what I am writing. I test tea for biomass, bacteri=
al and fungal density and protoza. I use a 1000x power microscope and I ca=
n see most things. I can't determine diversity but if I see certain elemen=
ts in my samples, I have to assume the others are there too. But I don't k=
now with 100% certainty. It's a matter of indicators. It's like using e c=
oli and salmonella as indicators for pathogens. See these and you know you=
 probably have others too.

  I test the soil and plants before tea application and at various times af=
ter tea application to see if the soil is responding and the plants are res=
ponding. If they are, I have to assume that the tea is working as predicte=
d.

  I could test tea till the cows come home through SFI but even Elaine has =
stated that SFI testing, for all it's value is a limited indicator. The re=
al indicator is how the tea works in the field. I have shown, through test=
ed trends, that my methods work. I can't say I have scientific "proof" bec=
ause I didn't always use a control. However, the data reinforced my statem=
ents instead of refuting them. Do you know what that means? It means the da=
ta back up my assumptions. I even distributed reports I have generated show=
ing that my methods work. So pony up with data. I gave enough data in tho=
se reports so that the methodology can be copied. Try an experiment in you=
r community.

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

  NO, NO, NO! I never stated that pathogens are not a problem. Pathogens =
are everywhere and they are a problem if you create an environment that the=
y like. Create the environment for them and they will grow. Create an env=
ironment they don't like and they will not grow. However, createing an env=
ironment they don't like doesn't mean they go away. They fall asleep and c=
an be reestablished if the conditions are right. By design, if people brew=
 correctly, the aerobes will grow and outcompete the pathogens. Haven't yo=
u read a single thing I have or Elaine has written?

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

  Frank, we cannot deal with what people hope for. I personally hope that =
Bin Laden gets captured but that fact that he isn't caputred doesn't make m=
e throw in the towel. With disease prevention, I have seen ACT work to LIM=
IT THE LEVEL OF THE OUTBREAK. This is significant to me because if it hold=
s true which it seems to do on the vinyards I am working with, it means tha=
t outbreaks can be controlled and sprayed with conventional means on a loca=
l basis rather than spraying the whole orchard/vinyard with pesticide based=
 on temperature and moisture tables. You know, pesticide does work just li=
ke antibiotics in a human. However, we want to change the mental perceptio=
n of using them at the drop of a hat and get people to engage in a more sus=
tainable af approach. ACT is part of that approach. It is not Erlich's (D=
o you know who he is?) silver bullet.

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

  The only possible straw man I set up was the example I gave. It's use do=
es not refute my point. Testing is important. Got it? I just don't think=
 testing of every batch of tea through SFI (There are other labs that give =
equally good test results. I am not singling out SFI here.) is is not as i=
mportant as other testing. Period. I have to be able to say with a degree =
of certainty: "I can repeat this process and get results that fit wihin a r=
ange of acceptability. Frank, that's the QA approach. You don't know abou=
t my background but I can tell you that I have worked with QA/QC models on =
both the development and implementation side. There is no way to guarantee=
 exactly the same results every time you brew. You will get similar result=
s and the similarity is enough to make both valid.

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

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

  Frank I don't see where the above two statements lead to anything. As I =
mentioned before about heads. . . However the programs I run are based on =
the ability to repeat certain elements. They are useless if I don't operat=
e that way. I am involved with putting my methodology into an entire park =
system. Do you think that I can expect the park employees to test every ba=
tch of tea for 750+ acres of parks in different microclimates, near residen=
tial areas, with play areas and without, with baseball fields and without? =
 No I can't so I have to ensure that the formulas and recipes I give them w=
ork and can be repeated with satisfactory results. And all of this has to =
take into consideration the City Worker Goof Factor. Basically it states t=
hat city workers are usually uner a lot of pressure to cut time and costs. =
 I know it might seem like they are a lazy lot but they really work quite h=
ard. They sometimes have to take shortcuts and not finish certain tasks bec=
ause they are losing people and gaining work all the time. This results in=
 a lot of mistakes.

  As far as I can tell, you are the one doing little work and little experi=
mentation. I may be wrong here. Maybe you have a vast database of experie=
nce brewing and using ACT but are hiding it for your own reasons. If you h=
ave data to refute my positions, please send it. I am open to change and I =
can make mistakes. If you see one or more, use data to show me where I am =
wrong. Cheap shots and inuendo do nothing to further knowledge in this for=
um. Data and experience do work. So prove me wrong.

  Now, I don't know what kind of operation you run. I or my partner can gu=
arantee though that we could come to your site, take samples and do some ot=
her investigation and come up with a program that will either save you mone=
y, water or time. I can show you how to use ACT to suppress disease outbre=
ak with some diseases and the ones we don't know about can be set up as an =
experiment to find a solution. You know, for some things, I admit that ACT=
 is useless. For example, ACT does nothing with snails/slugs. I have trie=
d a number of things but the things that work are not ACT. I have used ACT=
 to control ants but that ACT contained a biological innoculant (fungus) th=
at attacked the ant bodies. ACT by itself attracted ants. (That was an in=
teresting finding.)

  So, Frank. Do you want ACT to work for you or not? I/we can show you h=
ow to make it work and save you money and give you a competitive edge in a =
world where people are becoming very afraid of chemicals.

  Ted Peterson
  Earth-Wise/Spirit of the Earth



Received on Tue Mar 16 2004 - 13:39:11 EST

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