Re: [compost_tea] Re: Re: USNOP non-example?

From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:06:37 -0700
Thanks Kirk,

As I'm rather new to compost tea, I was unaware of the whole story
involving NOP and CT, so I was only basing my comments on what you
posted and the link. Do you have a link to more information on this at
the NOP level?

more comments below

>>I think the report was a good one and that it came to the right
>>conclusions *for now*. We are, after all, talking about our food supply.
>>I just wish they were as conscientious when it come to approving
>>chemicals for use on our food.
>
>
> I absolutely agree, Dave.  I get kinda mad, though, thinking what they've
> done to ACT and manure and haven't done on chemicals.

Yeah, but that is a different battle. If you bring that up during the
discussion, it won't help.

We want chemicals held to the same standards as ACT, not ACT held to the
same standards as chemicals. Gotta take the moral high road on this one.

>>I really am on your side here, but I've got a lot of experience battling
>>bureaucracies, and I have come to learn that there is often a good
>>reason when they throw up a roadblock in the early going.
>
>
> I don't disagree with this but their roadblocks on compost tea are still
> over the top.  Rather than support good research on it, eveything they've
> done (this is NOP - NOT NOSB, who have supported tea twice now) seems aimed
> at banning it.  Richard Matthews' (NOP program manager) declaration at NOSB
> meeting in Oct 2002 - "We have said no to compost tea." - took a lot of
> people by surprise, I'm sure.  They have less data for their stance than we
> have showing tea is beneficial and not pathogen-ridden.  How did NOP arrive
> there?
> ...

They are allowed to have less data for their stance. It is a public
safety stance.

The presumption is that it is unsafe, therefore the mass of data has to
be overwhelming. You have to fill the gaps in the data one way or another.

Yes, they should help fill those gaps, but the USDA is a political
organization. And I will tell you right now that I have yet to see
republican fundraisers with tables set up at organic food stores. They
know the political leanings of those that care about organics. Sure it
is changing, but until the republicans start crying out, the current
administration isn't going to fund that research.

So if the data is not overwhelming, we need more data. We need to
provide it. That includes negative data. Challenge the good data and
find the weaknesses.

> I believe they have evidenced an agenda that's about banning compost tea or
> at least delaying their support for it as long as possible.

While you are probably correct, it is a waste of energy to fight on the
"agenda" front unless your data is enough to fight them in the courts
with their presumption of public safety.

The only other way that I can see to make an impact is to get the
organics buying public involved. It has worked before, but I'm not so
sure that they are sophisticated enough to understand the CT issues. And
I really don't want to be the one with a petition at the farmer's market
to put "aged shit" on their veggies. You need someone that is a lot
better marketing genius than me to pull that one off.

Getting the idiot-proof brewers and additional data built up is a much
better use of energy.

> "On" the sprouts was part of my question.  I don't think you'd use tea like
> that with sprouts, but don't know, which is why I asked.  And what if your
> tea tests "pathogen-free?"  Per Doc E and others, there is pathogen-free
> compost out there, remember.  Why couldn't you use that with sprouts?  The
> ban as I read recommendation #9 includes even teas for nutrient purposes,
> and I'd sure think there is some serious benefit possible there.

Here is my *guess*, and it is only a guess. And I am basing this on the
assumption that we are talking about sprouts grown in water, not the
young plants grown in soil that are sometimes called sprouts.

First off, recently sprouted seed gets the vast majority of its
nutrition internally. There is not need or value to added nutrients
because it takes time for the sprout to develop the ability to use
environmental sources of nutrition.

Second, you are adding the CT to an extremely moist environment that is
not guaranteed to be aerobic. Without chlorophyll those plants are not
generating any o2. Even if there is o2, it is an ideal environment for
all that wonderful fungi in your CT to grow on the sprouts. Yum! Fuzzy
sprouts!

Third, CT is not an approved food additive. You are basically adding 3
day old CT directly into the food supply.

My guess is that the reason that they said "no CT on sprouts" is that
they are a different situation than normal veggies, and there is no
research done on them. No research, no approval.

>>What I recommend for the next step would be to build a system, damn the
>>cost, that can repeatedly deal with a pathogen overload. By overload, I
>>am talking about doing something like going 50-50 compost and raw
>>manure, with a good concentration of molasses added. <
>
>
> I think such systems are already out there and sent a comment to NOSB
> suggesting systems should be the focus of tests, not tea batches, since
> ultimately what's tested (over and over and over...) is the system, so I
> agree strongly here.
>  ...

Has anyone in the tea industry produced a tea brewer testing standard? I
know the doc has done testing on machines for consistency, which is a
good thing from a consumer perspective, but I am talking about a real
hard core standard like you have to meet when you produce telecom equipment.

Please, inform me of which system never turns out a bad batch without
you knowing it. Then, let's see if we can get a bad batch out of one by
*not* following directions. Fresh chicken manure, air pump placed next
to the outlet of an in-vessel compost system biofilter, 5% molasses,
water temp at core body temp, and let's run the test at 8,000 ft.

I suspect that any system that does not have a built in DO monitor
attached to a monitoring computer would fail my version of a broken
test. The computer would give you a pass or fail on the batch.

Then write up a spec for this "ultimate class" system, Get three
different manufacturers to make one to that standard,and force a study
on tea from that class of machine.

Then classify several lesser standards, and in what conditions you can
use the tea from that class of machine.

In the regulatory area, you need to start out by going for the sure win
situations. You need something that it is impossible for them not to
accept, because they know that they will lose in court if it goes there.

>>Okay, I suppose that something like that might be over the top, but the
>>point is that you have to start meeting their objections and not just
>>objecting to their objections.
>
>
> Ah, would that we could understand better what their objections were.  Since
> we aren't privy to USNOP's deliberations, that's a toughie...  How is it a
> positive NOSB tea recommendation in 2002 got turned into a negative
> USNOP-edited statement that compost tea was "not eligible to satisfy" soil
> fertility requirements?  Has anyone actually heard their objections?
> Clearly the data doesn't support this conclusion.

Then go after any and every imaginary objection.


>
> Gotta stop. (Whew!?)  Headed to Seattle today to spend some quality time
> with a bunch of other compost tea folks at ICTC meeting!  Whoo Ya!

Well, while you are up here, give a wave to that big mountain to the
south. I should be wandering around on the west side of her.

Dave


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Fri Jul 16 2004 - 01:17:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:24 EST