[compost_tea] Re: Re: NOP pr....

From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:43:49 -0700
Steve -- Appreciate the direct feedback, but...

> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:43:19 -0000
> From: "Steve Diver" <steved_at_ncat.org>
> Subject: Re: NOP pr....

> Kirk -

> It is difficult to respond to your posts, since
you include so much innuendo, then on top of
that you "challenge" people to respond after you
have heaped your personal baggage onto their situation. <
This feels like a slam, and I don't get what you're saying.  If by personal
baggage you mean an attitude about USDA, you're right.  I don't trust them
because I believe they have an anti-tea agenda, and that they've amply
demonstrated that.  Is "rawmanureheads" innuendo?  I think that's a pretty
straight-forward statement of fact.  I think challenging people's
thinking is a good thing to do and am happy to be challenged myself.

How was it determined all compost teas were "raw manure?"  Why did Richard
Matthews, NOP program manager, say "We have said no to compost tea" at Oct
2002 NOSB meeting?  Upon what basis?  Why is most of the "research" used
not generally available or peer-reviewed?  Why haven't they supported any
research with good compost and good tea machines?  How is it we're almost
two years into an official NOP and vermicompost and compost teas are still
in limbo, after 10 years of preparation?

How is it a supportive 2002 NOSB CTF recommendation on compost tea got
"amended" by NOP to make tea "not eligible to satisfy" soil fertility
requirements?  When pressed, they will tell you CT can be used like raw
manure, but the only public statement they make bans it, and still stands?
None of this is innuendo.  These are facts.

I gotta break here to say even if you did use raw manure to make
ACT it would not be raw manure when you were done.  Could be good, could be
bad, but definitely not raw manure!  Think that would be interesting to
experiment with, actually.  Anyone done that?
[snip]

> You should be happy that American Phytopathological
Society is dedicating portions of its meeting on
sustainable agriculture, including compost teas. <
Indeed, I am, but based on USDA's track record on tea, I have been led to
expect the worst.  We'll see.  I hope there will be more than "anecdotal
science" reported.  I hope it will support compost tea progress and NOP
adoption, but I have doubts about that.  Gotta agree with John Cowan's
comment, too -- why, in what appears to be a first USDA-supported conference
including compost tea, are we hearing about it in a "phytopathogical"
context?

> Yet, you make it sound like it is part of another
USDA scheme to bash compost teas.  This comes across
very strange and disconnected. <
Don't get what's strange and disconnected about that.  USDA has clearly been
trying to bash compost tea for years, and attempting to use "science" to do
that...

> Dr. Steve Scheuerell published the most significant
literature review on compost teas in a scientific
journal.  He helped the CTTF achieve its goals, and
I'm sure he will do further compost tea research. <
And I appreciate that, but he's also been willing to stand up and suggest
Duffy's sealed flasks were a valid compost tea experiment.  And why is he
willing to suggest manure and compost tea present food safety issues that
have never been observed in the real world?  The increases in produce-borne
disease he suggests are from entirely different sources (and I'm not
actually sure there has been an increase).
[snip]

> But I felt like standing up on this issue and suggesting
that you can be more careful in your approach. Manners
and two-way dialogue go a long way toward building bridges
and working with people and organizations. <
Appreciate that suggestion, too, and that's normally my preferred mode.  But
when people and an organization with as much power as USDA appear to have a
hidden agenda, to not be interested in a fair and balanced dialogue, use bad
science, and do so much behind closed doors, my hackles get raised. I'm also
going to stand up when I perceive something I deeply care about is being
deliberately mis-represented.  I will endeavor in the future to better
manage my anger about this, but I'm not going to stop pointing fingers...
[snip]

> I volunteered, completely ad-hoc, plenty of helpful
insight on the CTTF to this list. <
Believe I have as well and would appreciate your feedback on my proposed
test protocol re-structuring.  Several of us had a pretty good chat here on
list (and off) about that and it really helped my thinking, and I do believe
my comment to NOSB/NOP was both constructive and civil as a result.  My
congresswoman's staff thanked me for it, too.

How do we ensure NOSB makes the best possible recommendation for compost tea
this year
and get it adopted by USNOP next year?  Is this conference going to be just
another impediment?

-- Kirk



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Jun 12 2004 - 15:19:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:21 EST