Re: [compost_tea] Eastman vermi report

From: Frank L Teuton <fteuton_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:05:58 -0400

Hi Ted,

I was present at the Vermillenium conference in Kalamazoo Michigan back in =
September of 2000 when this research was first widely reported. In fact, th=
at is where I first met Dr Ingham and got interested in compost tea.

I think you have misunderstood some basic facts in this paper. The 1:1 rati=
o you speak of was based on the daily consumption of earthworms over a 90 d=
ay period, so there were no where near 3.6 metric tons of worms needed to p=
rocess 3.6 metric tons of biosolids. And again, the 1:1.5 ratio was earthwo=
rms to biosolids on a daily basis, not biosolids to earthworms for the whol=
e quantity of material....that would indeed be impractical! ;-)

The Australians have been vermicomposting biosolids for quite some time, an=
d they use highly efficient flow through continuous feed systems of the typ=
e developed at Rothamsted by a team of researchers led by Dr Clive Edwards,=
 now at Ohio State University. Such systems allow top feeding and bottom ha=
rvesting of long, relatively narrow bins held above ground by a framework t=
hat allows mechanization of both feeding and harvesting. See for example:


http://www.vermitech.com/

See especially their discussion of pathogens at:
 http://www.vermitech.com/pm_fr.htm

Anyway, the system setup described by Eastman et al is basic and therefore =
easily transferable to third world countries without the resources to set u=
p the more expensive flow through systems. The logistics of even this basic=
 method compare favorably with many other methods, including large scale co=
mposting.....that is the whole point.

I believe the real reason that worm composting of biosolids is not practice=
d on a large scale in the US has more to do with the potential for a toxic =
kill off of worms from time to time due to contaminated feedstocks from pub=
lic sewage. As you may be aware, many things can be flushed down the drain =
or toilet which are not necessarily worm friendly. Dr Eastman suggests this=
 would be an advantage, in an interview he did with Casting Call www.vermic=
o.com, in that at least we would have a warning when a toxic plume of some =
sort came through the system; we could then track it back to its source and=
 perhaps even apprehend the person(s) responsible.

Another reason related to marketing is the fact that, though vermicompostin=
g does result in the destruction of pathogens, it leaves many viable weed s=
eeds still alive in the final product. Although not a public health menace,=
 lots of tomato seeds in your castings product may not be too popular with =
potential buyers!

As to why they needed to inoculate the materials with pathogens, especially=
 helminth ova, these are increasingly rare in North American sewage, due to=
 improved hygiene and factory farming. They needed the high levels obtained=
 by spiking to run the necessary tests. Yes, they could have taken the whol=
e show to the third world where pathogens are more prevalent, but lacked fu=
nding, I imagine.

Our lack of parasites is not completely without a downside, by the way. See=
 the work of Dr Joel Weinstock on Crohn's Disease, eg, http://my.webmd.com/=
content/article/87/99477.htm

In any case Ted, I believe your ex-partner is mistaken about the practicali=
ty of managing biosolids with earthworms. People are doing it already elsew=
here on a large scale without the problems he and you suggest would prevent=
 it being done.

Re endocrine disruption, Our Stolen Future was first published in 1997. See=
 www.ourstolenfuture.org for all sorts of info and updates on that research=
. Yep, biosolids are loaded with all sorts of nasty bad stuff, and in my op=
inion the organic community has done well to define them as essentially a p=
ig in a poke almost certainly containing synthetic materials in large enoug=
h quantities to matter at least some of the time. Sadly, this is probably a=
lso true for the air we all breathe as well, eh?

But, the biosolids this research was done on certainly were not 'pure bioso=
lids from the days of yore'. There are estrogens in animal excretions, for =
example, and have been since time immemorial. 1997 sewage from Florida pro=
bably contained a representative amount of evil stuff in it, and still the =
worms handled it.

One final note, I am regularly annoyed by the language used in describing w=
hat happens to materials in worm systems based on the assumption that virtu=
ally all of it will pass through the gut of an earthworm. While this is cer=
tainly an important part of the process, my experience tells me that not al=
l materials do pass through the guts of the worms, and that this is not nec=
essarily a problem, since the regular passage of worms in and around non co=
nsumed materials nevertheless is part of a larger process which maintains a=
erobicity, provides micromixing, transports micro and meso organisms all ar=
ound the materials, all of which are very helpful in bringing about a syste=
m digestion of the total mass of material in which the worm consumption is =
only one, albeit important, component.

Off of soapbox,

Frank Teuton
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ted Peterson
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Eastman vermi report


  One of the reasons this may be impractical on a large scale is that item =
referring to amounts of earthworms per amounts of biosolids. Let's forget =
the innoculants right now.

  For the test, they used a ratio of 1:1. There was approximately 3.6MTons=
 of biosolids and 3.6M tons of earthworms. In subsequent tests, the full s=
cale, there were 1:1.5 biosolids to earthworms. So we have a situation whe=
re there are more earthworms per tonnage than biosolids. If a WWTP were to=
 incorporate this type of methodology and the earthworms died for some reas=
on, they would be a the mercy of the provider. If the plant chose to raise=
 the earthwoms, they would have a whole different set of problems.

  The work looks promising and it has long been known that earthworms, like=
 pigs, process human wastes better than almost anything. I think the reaso=
n nobody has pursued it is simply because the logistics of this on a large =
scale of say 200M tons is not feasible. The way WWTPs work is not consiste=
nt. There are all kinds of factors like weather and food types and heat an=
d acid, etc.

  In addition, what does the plant do with the worms when there are no bios=
olids to process? Seventeen percent solids is kind of jelly like. This me=
ans that unless there is a source of O2, there will be anaerobic areas. No=
w, with a 1:1 or 1:1.5 ration, this may be moot but if something happens to=
 the worms, you have zilch.

  My ex business partner is the most knowledgeable worm person I have ever =
met. I asked him once why people didn't use earthworms to process biosolid=
s to class A. His response was that it would take too long because even if=
 you get enough, they will eventually run out of food and leave.

  Now, this report was written in 1997. Endrocine disruptors were barely a =
blip on anyone's radar at that time. The biosolids being treated now are l=
oaded with hormones such as estrogen and I do not think there has been any =
work done on worm and the processing of hormones.

  So again, the report looks promising and I am sure it works. I think log=
istically, it is still impractical for large scale operations.

  I would like to see the same experiment tried at a WWTP with little heavy=
 metals and one close to an industrial area with known heavy metals to see =
how that panned out. It seemed that the only interest here were pathogens =
and the heavy metals were given little attention.

  I am always curious when innoculants are used. It bothers me that they c=
ouldn't get the biosolids certified as containing certain elements then pro=
cess from that. To get the numbers they wanted, they had to artifically in=
noculate the windrows. (Actually at 17% solids, there was not much windrowi=
ng but bedding. There must have been containers to hold the material witho=
ut runnoff.

  Anyway, that's my take.

  Ted Peterson
  EW/SOE
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Kirk Leonard
    To: Compost Tea Group
    Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 12:12 PM
    Subject: [compost_tea] Eastman vermi report


    Googling can be wonderful. Found the Bruce R. Eastman, Philip N. Kane,
    Clive A. Edwards, Linda Trytek, Bintoro Gunadi, Andrea L. Stermer and
    Jacquelyn R. Mobley report of worm tests on pathogen reduction per EPA
    biosolids standards:

    www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/michel/csu.pdf

    And here's an excerpt from a BioCycle story on same:

> ACHIEVING REQUIRED REDUCTION <

> Analytical results showed that all of the pathogen indicators in the =
test
    row had a greater reduction than in the control row. EPA's required thr=
ee-
    to fourfold reduction was achieved in all of the pathogen indicators wi=
thin
    144 hours. Fecal coliform, Salmonella sp. and enteric virus achieved th=
e EPA
    goal in 24 hours, 72 hours and 72 hours, respectively. The helminth ova
    achieved this goal within 144 hours. <

    Worms are really good. An additional value the worms brought in these
    studies was the ability to deal with 80-85% moisture conditions of the
    material. And other researchers have shown that worms can handle metal
    reduction in organic wastes, too!

    So how come there's still no such thing as vermicompost under USNOP?

    Kirk















          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT
               
         
         


---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
    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 Servi=
ce.





Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 10:40:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:20 EST