Re: [compost_tea] Another type chamber, Ted

From: Robert Norsen <bnbrew_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:51:49 -0700 (PDT)

Ted - excuse me but the chamber you described is a dead chamber where there is little air being introduced to keep the stuffed, soaked mud chamber from becoming anaerobic and where there is some washing action on the outside of this perforated cylinder.
   
You compare that with your "open kettle" system where you put the nutrients and compost in loose, stir it with air, then filter the compost from the tea at the end of the brew cycle. I think your system is a big improvement over the two systems you describe. Yes I am very familiar with those systems. Yours is better.
 
Now imagine a chamber where the compost and nutients are in a chamber with enough room and in water so they are free to move. Now introduce air in the bottom to induce violent bubble action in the compost/water mix. Now let the rising bubbles pump water in near the bottom thru a screen/ filter and out thru a screen/filter near the top. retaining the compost but washing the microbes into the TEA. In this very active "washing" chamber the action is enough to keep most of the filter area "washed open' The freedom of action is like your open kettle method but much more intense. It cleans the compost so that wood chips that go in covered with hard-to-remove surface of microbes become "polished", clean within an hour. Less compost is needed since all the life on the compost is removed to the TEA it. The life and soft particulate on the compost is removed to the tea where it circulates lazily in the high nutrient laden water with a high DO2 condition imposed by the many cubic
  feet of
 air pumped thru the extractor chamber every minute.
 
This system was designed 7 years ago to escape the bag and chamber systems then on the market and to remove the centrifugal pump the little guys were subjected to every 3 to 5 minutes all thru the brew process.
 
Over 7 years, out of many hundred users, scattered all over the world, Ted, you told me of one who doesn't like this system. You won't and they haven't identified themselves or described their problem so I can't know what they found wrong. If they would let me know the problem I might be able to correct it. It bothers the heck out of me to have a dissatisfied customer.
 
We have a hundred or so SFI reports. As do some independent testers. Paul Sachs has made a great independent series of tests at the N Y SFI labs. He recorded them and he presents them in an easily read chart at his web site, www.norganics.com
 
I wish I could tell you the name of this amazingly effective yet simple, inexpensive bewer system.and about the wide range of capacity it comes in but advertizing is verboten on the list - Maybe Sunday I can reveal those details Bob

Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net> wrote:
I did desting with a bunch of different filters and even using panty hose. I looked at biomass because I don't have the ability to distinguish different fungi. So I sampled before I filtered and after and made slides. I found the most reduction in biomass using panty hose yet there was still enough to work because that method was used on a vinyard and we did get disease suppression. I think the recommendation is 5% fungi by volume or something close to that for foliar application and that was about what we ended up with by my estimates. I bought different grades of agricultural filters. These are bags that come in different mesh. I think Steve posted a handy conversion table. I just bought sizes from 200 which is small to 1000 which is quite large. They guy who sold me the bags asked what i was doing with them and he said that three layers of window screen would allow the smaller pieces and fungi through and keep out the larger pieces. He said 3 layers of screen comp
 ared to
 about 300 - 500 mesh. He recommended a bunch of different ways to filter.
 
Here is what I did:
 
I built a frame out of pvc. I used 1/2 inch pvc pipe and flexible hose that fit into the 1/2 inch fittings. The frame had two legs with T-connectors at the bottom and quad-connectors 18 inches above that. The flex hose was connected to the frame had two legs and round plastic circles at the bottom and at 18 inches that were perpendicular to the legs. The circles were a little smaller than the diameter of the bags (_at_ 10 inches diameter). I got a soaker head which is a metal cylinder with holes in it and cleaned out the insides that are filled with a foam filter. I wrapped three layers of window screen around it and tie-wrapped them in place.
 
Before I filter, I insert the frame into the bag then positon the soaker head which is connected through a standard 5/8 inch hose to my Wayne extraction pump inside the bag about to the bottom of the bag. I can pump about 150 gallons before the organic and other matter build up on the filter surface. Shaking it up and down knocks most of it off. If any get through to the soaker head, I simply shake it in the brew and it comes right off. The reason I use the frame is to give the suction head the largest possible area to extract the tea through.
 
When I work this way, I get about a 10 to 20% reduction in biomass after filtering. To me, that is an acceptable loss considering that the free suspension method extracts far more fungi, in my experiments, that any bag or chamber system. I determined this by using the exact same compost in the exact same amounts and the exact same volume of water with the exact same nutrients and brewing for the exact same amount of time using the different systems. In my experiments:
 
1. Bag systems were the least successful. Silt buildup on the bottom of the brewer was noticible but not extreme depending on the compost. Aeration was very difficult because air had to get into the center of the bag to stop anaerobic conditions
2. Chamber systems were more successful than bags but as the filter became clogged effeciency and extraction dropped. Silt buildup here was significant enough to promote anaerobic conditions on the bottom rather quickly. Aeration was more difficult because like bags, air had to get into the compost in the center of the chamber.
3. Free suspension and direct aeration that keeps the compost suspended produced the greatest biomass and ran the longest before anaerobic conditions took over.
 
Anaerobic conditions occurred in bag and chamber systems before free suspension systems however, eventually all became anaerobic over time.
 
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Harvey
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Parts for tea brewers


How do you filter out all the compost particles without filtering out the fungi??
Mike Harvey
From: Ted Peterson


If you are using linear air pumps and doing no mechanical aeration (impellers and such) why don't you do away with the bag and dump the compost directly into the water? I have been doing this for two years with my brewers and have great results. Plant assays and soil tests confirm my tea is working as it should or better.
 
Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
----- Original Message -----
From: savenmoney
To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:44 AM
Subject: [compost_tea] Parts for tea brewers


Hi I am a potato grower in Colorado and we are going to use compost
tea this year to try to cut back on the chemicals we use. I have
bought most of my pumps, tanks and things but am having a hard time
finding tea bags. Do I have to buy the mesh and then sew it into a
bag or is there a place I can buy them. Also what size mesh is the
best 20, 30, 35. I have also bought some air stones for diffusers
they are a silica diffuser made with alumina, has anybody used them,
and will they produce to small of a bubble.

Thanks
Justin Rogers





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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





Received on Fri May 21 2004 - 04:42:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:19 EST