Re: [compost_tea] Eastman vermi report

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:31:25 -0700

Thanks for the response. I reread the paper. They are claiming pathogen r=
emoval in incredibly short times. Given the amount of processing done by t=
he worms they used and the amounts of material processed, lesser amounts of=
 worms would not have controlled the pathogens in the times they stated as =
far as I can tell. So the actual amount of worms is still an unknown. I s=
imply used their ratio for biosolids to worm biomass. I didn't see anythin=
g that stated otherwise but maybe that was explained at the conference. =
 

I know there are existing worm composting operations. There are even some =
in the US but the drawback, as far as I can tell, is time. Worms process s=
lowly unless you have so many worms that food becomes a problem. A small W=
WTP processes _at_200 CU Yds of biosolids per year at different time. Traditi=
onal (old style) plants use drying beds. Newer plants use belt presses and=
 grinders and polymers to get the supernate (2 - 4% solids) to gel (12 - 20=
% solids) faster. This stuff is usually trucked off to compost sites or la=
nd applied.

The EPA has a bunch of rules covering how biosolids are handled. If the te=
st used biosolids from even the oldest type of system, they had to test < .=
02 for pathogens when they left the biodigester and entered the drying beds=
.

Newer plants use aerobic digestion and managed wetlands to process the supe=
rnate and the end result is no biosolids in a compostable form. All the or=
ganic matter is used up as is all the other materials. The oxygen pumped i=
nto the system takes care of the pathogens as does bacteria in the wetlands=
. Heavy metals are still a problem and endrocine disruption is still a pro=
blem.

I first became aware of hormones in drinking water about 5 years ago. When=
 I started looking for information, I found that of the multitude of chemic=
als and hormone derivitives in our water, only about 200 are tested for on =
a regular basis. Some are not even classified as potentially harmful so th=
ere are no tests for amounts.

I personally think that these hormones and other chemicals in the form of p=
ain, heart, anxiety and mood altering meds that contaminate our water are a=
 far bigger problem than currently recognized. I don't know enough about w=
orms to know if they can take these things out of biosolids but it doesn't =
matter because water that contains these never gets to the point in the pro=
cess where the worms can deal with them. However, in tests at our WWTP, th=
ese materials have been found in the supernate and in the biosolids after d=
rying and composting. It seems like composting with or without compost tea=
 does nothing to alter these compounds.

Anyway, thanks for the references. I will follow up and look into them fur=
ther. However, with the directions that waste treatment is heading, I don'=
t think worms are ever going to become a viable part of the WWTP process in=
 this country. There may be some small isolated places where it is tried o=
n a large scale but I don't see it fitting in with the trends I see in the =
industry.

Ted Peterson
EW/SOE
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Frank L Teuton
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Eastman vermi report


  Hi Ted,

  I was present at the Vermillenium conference in Kalamazoo Michigan back i=
n September of 2000 when this research was first widely reported. In fact, =
that 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 ra=
tio you speak of was based on the daily consumption of earthworms over a 90=
 day period, so there were no where near 3.6 metric tons of worms needed to=
 process 3.6 metric tons of biosolids. And again, the 1:1.5 ratio was earth=
worms to biosolids on a daily basis, not biosolids to earthworms for the wh=
ole quantity of material....that would indeed be impractical! ;-)

  The Australians have been vermicomposting biosolids for quite some time, =
and they use highly efficient flow through continuous feed systems of the t=
ype developed at Rothamsted by a team of researchers led by Dr Clive Edward=
s, now at Ohio State University. Such systems allow top feeding and bottom =
harvesting of long, relatively narrow bins held above ground by a framework=
 that 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 therefor=
e easily transferable to third world countries without the resources to set=
 up the more expensive flow through systems. The logistics of even this bas=
ic method compare favorably with many other methods, including large scale =
composting.....that is the whole point.

  I believe the real reason that worm composting of biosolids is not practi=
ced on a large scale in the US has more to do with the potential for a toxi=
c kill off of worms from time to time due to contaminated feedstocks from p=
ublic sewage. As you may be aware, many things can be flushed down the drai=
n or toilet which are not necessarily worm friendly. Dr Eastman suggests th=
is would be an advantage, in an interview he did with Casting Call www.verm=
ico.com, in that at least we would have a warning when a toxic plume of som=
e sort came through the system; we could then track it back to its source a=
nd perhaps even apprehend the person(s) responsible.

  Another reason related to marketing is the fact that, though vermicompost=
ing does result in the destruction of pathogens, it leaves many viable weed=
 seeds still alive in the final product. Although not a public health menac=
e, lots of tomato seeds in your castings product may not be too popular wit=
h potential buyers!

  As to why they needed to inoculate the materials with pathogens, especial=
ly helminth ova, these are increasingly rare in North American sewage, due =
to improved hygiene and factory farming. They needed the high levels obtain=
ed by spiking to run the necessary tests. Yes, they could have taken the wh=
ole show to the third world where pathogens are more prevalent, but lacked =
funding, I imagine.

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

  In any case Ted, I believe your ex-partner is mistaken about the practica=
lity of managing biosolids with earthworms. People are doing it already els=
ewhere on a large scale without the problems he and you suggest would preve=
nt it being done.

  Re endocrine disruption, Our Stolen Future was first published in 1997. S=
ee www.ourstolenfuture.org for all sorts of info and updates on that resear=
ch. Yep, biosolids are loaded with all sorts of nasty bad stuff, and in my =
opinion the organic community has done well to define them as essentially a=
 pig in a poke almost certainly containing synthetic materials in large eno=
ugh quantities to matter at least some of the time. Sadly, this is probably=
 also true for the air we all breathe as well, eh?

  But, the biosolids this research was done on certainly were not 'pure bio=
solids from the days of yore'. There are estrogens in animal excretions, fo=
r example, and have been since time immemorial. 1997 sewage from Florida p=
robably contained a representative amount of evil stuff in it, and still th=
e worms handled it.

  One final note, I am regularly annoyed by the language used in describing=
 what happens to materials in worm systems based on the assumption that vir=
tually all of it will pass through the gut of an earthworm. While this is c=
ertainly an important part of the process, my experience tells me that not =
all materials do pass through the guts of the worms, and that this is not n=
ecessarily a problem, since the regular passage of worms in and around non =
consumed materials nevertheless is part of a larger process which maintains=
 aerobicity, provides micromixing, transports micro and meso organisms all =
around the materials, all of which are very helpful in bringing about a sys=
tem digestion of the total mass of material in which the worm consumption i=
s 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 ite=
m referring to amounts of earthworms per amounts of biosolids. Let's forge=
t the innoculants right now.

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

    The work looks promising and it has long been known that earthworms, li=
ke pigs, process human wastes better than almost anything. I think the rea=
son nobody has pursued it is simply because the logistics of this on a larg=
e scale of say 200M tons is not feasible. The way WWTPs work is not consis=
tent. There are all kinds of factors like weather and food types and heat =
and acid, etc.

    In addition, what does the plant do with the worms when there are no bi=
osolids to process? Seventeen percent solids is kind of jelly like. This =
means that unless there is a source of O2, there will be anaerobic areas. =
Now, 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 eve=
r met. I asked him once why people didn't use earthworms to process biosol=
ids 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=
 loaded with hormones such as estrogen and I do not think there has been an=
y work done on worm and the processing of hormones.

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

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

    I am always curious when innoculants are used. It bothers me that they=
 couldn't get the biosolids certified as containing certain elements then p=
rocess from that. To get the numbers they wanted, they had to artifically =
innoculate the windrows. (Actually at 17% solids, there was not much windro=
wing but bedding. There must have been containers to hold the material wit=
hout 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. Kan=
e,
      Clive A. Edwards, Linda Trytek, Bintoro Gunadi, Andrea L. Stermer and
      Jacquelyn R. Mobley report of worm tests on pathogen reduction per EP=
A
      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 th=
e test
      row had a greater reduction than in the control row. EPA's required t=
hree-
      to fourfold reduction was achieved in all of the pathogen indicators =
within
      144 hours. Fecal coliform, Salmonella sp. and enteric virus achieved =
the EPA
      goal in 24 hours, 72 hours and 72 hours, respectively. The helminth o=
va
      achieved this goal within 144 hours. <

      Worms are really good. An additional value the worms brought in thes=
e
      studies was the ability to deal with 80-85% moisture conditions of th=
e
      material. And other researchers have shown that worms can handle met=
al
      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 Service=
.





Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 16:07:56 EDT

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