[compost_tea] Re: CTTF Report - Tests

From: compost160 <compost160_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:43 -0000
Personally I'm not concerned with anything CTTF has to say. I know
what is working for me in my garden and that's that. CT has been
around for hundredes of years and used by many many people. Not untill
this big rush of folks looking to cash in has there been any real
concern by our government. Money motivated or truly concerned about
our health, who knows? Compost160.

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "ericgoodenough" <sfo@g...> wrote:
> 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 - 13:51:14 EDT

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