Re: [compost_tea] Re: CTTF Report - Tests

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:33:47 -0700

Soooo. . . here is how we get around these stupid requirements: Since comp=
ost without additives in aerated water is ok, we inoculate the compost we a=
re going to use for the brew with the accepted additives which is OK. Then=
 we are not adding anything to the water containing the compost but only ad=
ding compost that has already been treated with additives -- which is accep=
table. Notice that there is no mention of amounts used or how long the add=
itives have to be in the pile or where they have to be added just that they=
 are acceptable.

Then, the only requirement would be for compost testing and that is relativ=
ely cheap compared to testing tea.

Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Kirk Leonard
  To: Compost Tea Group
  Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 4:16 PM
  Subject: [compost_tea] Re: CTTF Report - Tests


  I think the price of ecoli and enterococci testing may have just gone up,=
 if
  there's only a few labs who can test to the specs in CTTF Report, hmm? I=
'd
  hope more labs would pick it up, since ACT is likely made in many more
  places, and costs will come down.

  Realistically, folks, there's no way aerated compost tea will be
  supported by USNOP without testing. It's a new form of compost put ON
  edible plants, unlike others. Soil uses are a whole different ballpark, =
or
  bio-park, as it were:). I think the CTTF came up with a good test comprom=
ise
  which seems do-able. So we gotta figure this test piece out, seems to me=
.

  Are these tests really a problem or burden? How much do they actually co=
st?
  How many/which labs do them? "Coliform MPN" is not the same thing as "CF=
U
  E.coli", absolutely. E.coli are a better indicator (a few of them), of
  pathogen content rather than generic coliforms, right? Big difference, se=
ems
  to me. Coliforms are not normally a problem. Enterococci are a small bun=
ch
  of really nasty bacteria, including salmonella, maybe anthrax and a few
  other scary creatures, right?

  I'm not a biologist but I feel like enterococci are irrelevant to compost
  tea, which was my point in sarcasting about CTTF's manure pathogen table =
at
  end in earlier post -- it's about manure, not compost tea or most compost=
,
  as I understand them. And the standards come from sewage sludge, which n=
o
  one would use for tea if they have any sense. I doubt any sensible perso=
n
  could or would introduce enterococci or propagate them in compost tea, no=
t
  to mention want to.

  USDA seems still to want to think of compost tea as raw manure and
  ja-ja-jammed this crap into CTTF report, imo. No compost teas are raw
  manure. Not possible as soon as water and air are added, not to mention
  sun, wind and soil. Are enterococci relevant in compost teas? I think t=
hey
  are when you use regular, other-than-sewage-sludge compost, which I think=
 is
  100% for compost tea...

  If USDA demands more than is reasonable or widely available test-wise the=
y
  should pay for it. After all, there have been no reports of any problems
  over many centuries. Zero on ACT more than a decade, too. But we should
  pay some attention here, hmm?

  Is this CTTF test requirement reasonable? As pointed out in the report a=
nd
  several times posted here, testing in the absence of established data is
  necessary and appropriate, so I don't think we should quibble with some
  testing. Aerated compost tea can meet and likely exceed whatever challeng=
e.
  What about these test requirements?

  -- Kirk










---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service=
.





Received on Thu Apr 22 2004 - 23:05:49 EDT

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