[compost_tea] CTTF Report

From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:18:05 -0700
Anyone besides me put off on the very first sentence of this report?  First
stop, first sentence: "What constitutes a reasonable use of compost
tea?"  Eh? -- wrong question.  What's NOT a reasonable use is much smaller
and
easier to figure out.  Posing the central question in this way introduces an
odd tilt on compost tea.

And please note nowhere does CTTF say this is a "final report" per USDA's
label.  I get that the distance between a "report" and a "final report" is
an attempt by this administration to try to close the book on compost tea.
Watch for strange administrative tricks, like the new NOP scope this past
week.

Test requirements are not nearly as steep as Jeff suggested, imo.  Look
forward to other interpretations.  Seems couple times a year, maybe every
couple years to me, based on your stability is enough, not every couple
teas.  If you make compost on an annual basis, that's two tests.  Not a big
deal

USDA is the villain here.  I think I've railed inappropriately at USNOP.
USDA is the problem.  NOP is several levels down in the organization.  Some
people we should be supporting?

"Personal communication" is cited as a source several times in the report...
personal communication by whom?  Who wrote this?  It's got good stuff in it.

There's some garbage, too - committee mush contributions, I'm sure.

E.g., "Feedstocks such as manure have a high probability of containing
pathogenic
organisms."

All organic feedstocks are likely to contain pathogens, manure is not an
exception.

"All data brought to the Task Force support the notion that compost tea made
from compost and vermicompost, as defined by the NOSB Compost Task Force
(NOSB, 2002), does not represent a risk if compost tea additives are not
used."

HURRAY!??  Looking further, though...

Nowhere in the report are compost tea additives defined... except "molasses,
yeast extract, algal powders" ... A fraction of materials used, and I don't
know of much yeast use ... Most interesting.  Especially in light of
Millner's suggesting
additives are sources of pathogens.  Compost tea additives need to be
defined.  None contain pathogens regularly, to my knowledge.

I personally like that they've made clear that "non-aerated compost tea"
isn't usually made with additional nutrients.  And if I have to call my
hand-aerated, nutrient vermicompost tea an "extract" so be it.  Clear
support for simple teas is good news.  Support for vermicompost is good
news, too.

"Initial experiments presented to the Task Force by Pat Millner
and Will Brinton and duplicated in two microbiological labs
simultaneously, indicated pathogen growth could occur in
compost teas when very low concentrations of molasses... "

And blah blah blah "manuscript work?"  Molasses and manure in closed flasks?
A replication of stupid experiments?  This is pure bias and totally
misleading. Both of these people know better.

Same for "Contamination level of compost teas."  --  Sure, if you were an
idiot and used contaminated water or contaminated or unstable compost or
contaminated nutrients, or pathogen-inoculated materials as most of USDA
stuff on compost tea has, you can get some pathogens!  Surprise!  Anybody
notice the Duffy concentration of ecoli was +20% greater than EPA standards?

Pardon my rant  here.  Here's a final quote I think is a USDA voice
portraying why, I hope.

> Available research has used non-stable compost with readily detectable
populations of human pathogens or compost artificially inoculated with human
pathogens.  For artificially inoculated compost, research has demonstrated a
high degree of variability in final pathogen populations across replications
of the same compost tea production treatment (Scheuerell and Millner,
personal communication). Data currently relate to pathogens suspended in the
tea, rather than the number that survive on the surface of edible fresh
produce after tea is directly applied to plant surfaces. < ???

Thus there's no data on actual danger, then?  Fresh produce or otherwise,
hmm.
For folks here not familiar with compost tea struggles with USDA, this is a
central problem they pose:  "You mean you actually put this stuff right on
fruits and vegies? And then you eat it, unwashed?"  More goofy questions and
premises are hard to imagine...

There's a bunch of other nonsense here too, like post harvest treatments -
Does
anyone use ACT to "treat" foodstuffs after harvest?  I've never heard of
that.  Might be useful, though, hmm?

And finally - please forgive my length - what does this closing comment have
to do with compost tea?:

> "Not all pathogens are necessarily present in all manures, all the time.//
In terms of emerging diseases, Taylor et al. (2001) reported that there are
1415 infectious agents... 217 viruses and prions, 538 bacteria and
rickettsia, 307 fungi, 66 protozoa, 287 helminths. Of these 868 (61%), are
zoonotic, i.e. transmissible between humans and animals, 175 pathogenic spp.
are associated with diseases considered to be 'emerging' Taylor et al.
(2001) show that zootic pathogens are more likely to be emerging .... They
found no association between the disease transmission route and emergence."
< ???

This looks oddly like a list of things USDA would like to attach to compost
tea, and somehow the presence in this document legitimizes that, even though
there is no known, shown or reported compost or compost tea correlation or
association with most of these things.  The few ones that do are manageable.

We gotta get USDA to support compost tea.  Most of the industries underneath
chemical ag are the same as those under compost tea - same equipment, for
instance.  An industrial conversion is not only possible but also promising.
New businesses are emerging.  We can get there from here, economically and
ecologically.

So I hope, anyway.

-- Kirk








Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 20:36:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:12 EST