[compost_tea] Re: Re: CTTF Report - Tests

From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:52:22 -0700
Eric, et al --

> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:01:45 -0000
> From: "ericgoodenough" <sfo_at_gwi.net>
> Subject: Re: CTTF Report - Tests

> 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. [clip] ...his reponse left me with some doubt that additives to
the brew OR the compost would be allowed without further testing. <

I think Eric (both) is right and that whatever you do a couple tests will be
needed.  Another option you perhaps should consider is reducing the number
of variations of tea you use on your FOOD crops and doing your experiments
on non-food crops, where testing is not required.  With so many variations
you must already have a whale of a test bill (not to mention sorting it all
out...) and I did not see any requirement for testing compost, only couple
teas, in the report.  Testing compost is a good idea but not a requirement
here, unless I missed something.

> 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. <

I agree and disagree.  Having to "stabilize" teas used on certified food
crops is a sacrifice.  Experimentation can continue on certified operations,
and certainly will continue in all other settings, though.  I still see the
test requirement as minimal and manageable -- and if you will, imagine what
will happen if USNOP rejects compost tea... talk about a slow down... that
will create an opportunity for active opposition from the likes of Monsanto,
Dow, et ilk... We MUST get USDA to support compost tea, and if that takes
some testing, so be it.  The outcome could have been (and may still be if we
don't speak up...)much worse.

> Seems to me that a little cost sharing might be in order here. <
Ya, USDA money preferably.  I continue to be struck by the fact that their
pathogen alarms are all theoretical and the "research" they lean on most, as
acknowledged in the report, "has used non-stable compost with readily
detectable populations of human pathogens or compost artificially inoculated
with human pathogens." (pg 11)  And never field-tested, hmm?  They need to
fund research using good compost, good machines and well-made teas in field
conditions.

Their paranoia about aerated tea has not been observed in reality.  Ya, they
mealy-mouth now on "notoriously underreported" gastrointestinal diseases,
but I GUARANTEE if any hospitalization or death had ever occurred from use
of compost tea, we would've heard about it.  There has never been a single
report of a disease problem with compost teas.  That fact puts the onus on
them to prove otherwise, imo.

In the meantime, they need to approve aerated compost teas as an acceptable
organic practice because thousands, likely tens of thousands of gardeners
and farmers have been using them successfully for years, and other than not
getting the results we imagined, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE HARM REPORTED.
Yaaagh!  They're way past raw horsepucky on this.

-- Kirk





Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 15:54:50 EDT

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