Re: [compost_tea] USNOP Example

From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:02:21 -0700
Kirk Leonard wrote:

> Changing subject here as there's getting to be to many Re's... Thinking
> about bad compost tea testing.
>
>
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:14:37 -0700
>>From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
>>Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: USNOP non-example? - ICTC
>
> ...
>
>>You're getting there. And I think that a test like this would go a long
>>way towards getting their attention. It will also help the machine
>>makers understand what needs to be done, and will lead to better machines.
>
>
> I want more than their attention I want their support.  And Dave, you seem
> to be suggesting "what needs to be done" is not known.  There are many
> machines, both manufactured and home-built, all around the world, that can
> handle pathogens.  And the variables are known, good compost being primary.
> Sufficient air, judicious nutrient use, citrates and saponin are also
> clearly in the mix for pathogen suppression.

All those variables are also the weaknesses of making compost tea and
dealing with pathogens.

I'll give you an analogy to what I have done for a living. In the late
90s I worked on firmware for high availability, five 9s, n+1 servers.
These systems were designed to be up and running 99.999% of the time.
The main computer box sold for $400,000, yet the motherboard was the
same one that was included in $5,000 servers.

What cost that extra $395k? Building a system that does not fail. No
single fan failure could lead to overheating. No single power supply
failure could cause the system to go down. It had to run in our "shake
and bake" room which was basically an oven mounted on a paint shaker.

Under ideal conditions, there was no real difference between the $400k
system and the $5k system. (actually, our system ran slower because of
all the safeguards) But ideal conditions are not what they are looking
for. Not with Servers and not with compost tea machines.

If you want their support, you need to CYA on all those variables that
you mention.

Remember, that you want to idiot-proof the process. You are dealing with
federal regulators, either you CYA or they will CYA for you, which means
they will do exactly what they are doing.

>>But you are only sabotaging one aspect of the brewing process. Are there
>>any "user error" problems with the various brewers that will also need
>>to be addressed?
>
>
> "Sabotaging?"  Are you sure you meant to put it that way?:)

Yes. I absolutely meant that. You you do not design your tests to
intentionally find all the weaknesses, then your tests will not be accepted.

You not only need to test it under ideal conditions, but you also need
to test to see what happens when there are process errors. Otherwise,
you are back to needing tea testing instead of machine testing.

>  I think of it
> as preparing.  A test of tea machines is bound to happen, one way or
> another, seems to me.  Why not just do that?  Why not set some standards?

I believe that I was suggesting a test of tea machines and setting some
standards. I just happen to think that you are going to need to set
tougher standards than you do to be able to force the issue.

What I am suggesting is standard QA stuff. You try and break the
process, then you use that information to make the process better.

> It wouldn't be free, but it would be another opportunity for tea machine
> makers and others concerned about pathogens to get their arms around it.  A
> supply of bad compost (and bio-hazard shipping!), a set of process, machine,
> nutrient specs, test protocols, and a record in a $250 package, maybe.
> Perhaps an SFI or other lab project.

Nope, they don't get to self certify. They ship their machine to the
lab. While researching whether they can meet a standard such a kit would
be useful, but not for actual certification.

> As for user error, manufacturers can do (and have done) a lot to ensure
> people don't screw up, and personally, knowing how much organic
> certification takes, I'm going to trust they'll figure it out quickly.  I
> expect an alar-like thing is more likely as a staged agribiz incident.

I suspect that you are right, in most cases. But your trust in them is
worth squat.

I really doubt that organic certification is tougher than getting
through law school and passing the bar, and I can tell you that an awful
lot of attorneys out there are idiots that are saved by there paralegals
on a regular basis. I know some doctors that are real idiots too.

> This problem was invented by NOP and patrons but biology is not on their
> side.  There's nothing in compost tea we don't encounter every day if we eat
> or grow food.

Yup, we encounter everything on that list of pathogens every day. Even
the pathogens aren't dangerous in small quantities.

> And thanks for more good sprout info, but I still don't buy that there's no
> place for a range of teas or preps for sprouts.  I'm not advocating it btw
> just questioning a rote ban and trusting people are experimenting.
> Appreciate your insights.  If compost tea needs to be a food additive, so be
> it.  I think it'll pass muster even there, done well.  I've even ingested
> bad tea without complications.

My point, and I assume their point, was that there is no experimental
data on it, so the wise course is to ban it until such time as it is
considered safe.

They are not "trusting people are experimenting", as they are probably
aware that there is probably little interest in spending the money on
the testing.

If no one cares enough to pay for the test, then it s not worth testing.
But it is worth pointing out that it should not be used on sprouts
because it has not been tested in that situation.


Again, I am not saying that all of what I am suggesting is necessary to
produce good healthy tea. What I am suggesting is the way to force their
acceptance of the tea. Basically, what it would take to make a
presentation in a court challenge to their rulings.

Dave

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 10:42:17 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:25 EST