[compost_tea] Re: CTTF Report - Tests

From: ericgoodenough <sfo_at_gwi.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:01:45 -0000
Ted, et al:
I'm not convinced that the inoculation of compost with compost tea
additives will be an acceptable proposition.  I spoke with Eric
Sideman, CTTF chair and asked if adding oat flour to the compost
prior to brewing would present a problem.  I'm not about to quote 
his exact response because clearly this proposition (the addition of
additives to compost just prior to brewing) had not been considered. 
However, his reponse left me with some doubt that additives to the
brew OR the compost would be allowed without further testing.

Some on the list have suggested that a test here or there is a small
price to pay for the lack of data.  Well, I don't think it's as
simple as a "test here or there".  The brewing and use of ACT is very
much a learning process for most of us.  The variables, even for
those with considerable experience are staggering.  With all these
variables we quite rightly want to adjust, improve, tweak, nudge and
urge our teas in different directions with the intent to brew the
best tea for the particular job at hand.  None of us are trying to
make people sick.

For example.  I am a small time brewer.  I brewed 20 50 gallon
batches of tea last year.  In the course of last season's brewing I
used 4 kinds of compost/inoculant, 8 kinds of additives, 8 different
brew times, three different air input variations.  I try to think in
terms of fungal dominated or bacterial dominated teas for soil or
foliar application, respectively.  I also have three different
brewers, each of which is used for different applications.  By me
estimation, I've got about 20 different variations of tea (2 tests
apiece _at_ $15) plus four compost tests (@ $20?) for a total of $680. 
This doesn't even include variations in quantities af additives or
the SFI testing that should be done more often (frankly I'd rather
spend my money with SFI to get me biology right!) I'm faced with a
decision do I:

A. comply with every testing requirement and find  some cost cutting
measures, maybe skip a year of a particular soil amendment?

B.  Cut way back on my experimentation, buy someone else's materials,
accept their recommendations and do what I'm told -- no exceptions?

C.  Do whatever I want and lie about it?

D. Forget about Organic Certification and take my cues from available
(un-proprietary) knowledge base, my heart and Ma Nature herself?

If I thought this was as simple as ordering up a couple of tests for
my compost and tea recipe, then this would not be an issue.  How many
of us have this down to a science?  How much information would get
collected and shared on this chat room if it weren't for the
creativity, enthusiasm, entreprenurial spirit and pure blind luck
discovery that occurs with the freedom to use common sense modeled
after natural processes?

There are concerns about the efficacy and safety of ACT.  We can't
avoid those concerns.  Ideed, we should meet them head on and get
beyond them.  Perhaps that's as it should be.  However, my concern is
that even if we accept the CTTF recommendations and their insistance
on testing as necessary, the bottom line effect will be the slowing
down (stifling, if you will) of the gathering of knowledge about
compost tea and its place in sustainable agriculture.  My real fear
is that this "slowing down" is in fact the intended (if not stated)
outcome of these recommendations.  If I forego the inspiration of
adding a bottle of beer to my brew because it is outside of be
established protocol (requiring an additional battery tests), where
will this experience and subsequent knwoledge come from.  USDA? 
NOP?  Extension Services?  Agri-supply patenting corporations? 

Seems to me that a little cost sharing might be in order here.  Or
perhaps a brand new paradigm.




   --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Ted Peterson"
<ted.peterson_at_t...> wrote:
> Soooo. . . here is how we get around these stupid requirements: 
Since compost without additives in aerated water is ok, we inoculate
the compost we are 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 adding compost that has already been
treated with additives -- which is acceptable.  Notice that there is
no mention of amounts used or how long the additives 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
relatively 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
compromise
>   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 cost?
>   How many/which labs do them?  "Coliform MPN" is not the same
thing as "CFU
>   E.coli", absolutely.  E.coli are a better indicator (a few of
them), of
>   pathogen content rather than generic coliforms, right? Big
difference, seems
>   to me. Coliforms are not normally a problem.  Enterococci are a
small bunch
>   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 no
>   one would use for tea if they have any sense.  I doubt any
sensible person
>   could or would introduce enterococci or propagate them in compost
tea, not
>   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 they
>   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 they
>   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 and
>   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
challenge.
>   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.



Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Fri Apr 23 2004 - 12:01:55 EDT

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