[compost_tea] Re: USNOP non-example?

From: dkemnitz2000 <dkemnitz2000_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:24:43 -0000
---Hey Dave those ideas sound great! Now I see funding and work I
don't have time for, staring at me, again. And as Kirk said,"Gotta
go. (Whew)". I feel that I'm running out of time
too.                  Again, I'm not kidding those are great ideas. 
Guess one step at a time will be sufficient. Regards,Dennis Kemnitz



In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, David Anderson <danderson@b...>
wrote:
> 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