[compost_tea] Re: Re: USNOP Example

From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:33:14 -0700
A reply on bad compost tea testing, rawmanureheads, etc...

> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:02:21 -0700
> From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
> Subject: Re: USNOP Example

... many snips

KL > > I want more than [NOP] 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.

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

Au contraire, Dave, there are ultimately only two operative variables:  the
tea machine and the compost, and if the compost is pathogen-free, voila,
there is no pathogen possibility.  Compost tea is a lot simpler than telecom
servers.  Been there too.  Nine years at Intel.  Know that realm well.

KL > > "Sabotaging?"  Are you sure you meant to put it that way?:)

DA > 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.

Again, au contraire.  "All the weaknesses" are in the machine and especially
in the compost, eh?  If we test the worst possible compost with same
nutrient loads then we know the machine works well.  Challenging, yes, but
not at all complicated.  Could be done anywhere, "ideal" conditions not
necessary (ideal conditions are everywhere, aren't they?).  And I certainly
don't wish to sabotage anything, so I actually resent the implication.

> 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.

Process errors are irrelevant with good compost and a good machine.

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

Gotcha, and again, if the compost is pathogen-free, there is no
process-breaking possibility, even with a bad machine.  And a good machine
can handle bad compost.

KL > > 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.

DA > 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.

I disagree.  Effectively, self-certifying as you suggest is in CTTF
recommendation #4 already, and independent lab tests are part of what I'm
suggesting, too.  We're mincing mice nuts here.  But of course, anything we
come up with would need to pass certification muster... that's the point,
including self-cert, with lab support.  See trust below...

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

Ultimately every human interaction depends on trust.  Every certifier and
NOP have to trust people to do what they say they are doing.  We have to
trust tea machine makers to make good machines, which most are doing.  No
amount of regulation can change that.  What's not worth squat to me right
now is my trust in USDA on compost tea...  Respect for their power, yes -
trust in their agenda, objectivity, truthfulness... that's a ways off.

I just don't buy into their public health argument when no public health
problem has ever been reported, though millions of people have used compost
teas over many centuries, hmm?  The dangers they pose are imaginary,
fantasies that have not been observed either practically or scientifically.

Biology is on our side, a big advantage.  Their data is weak, and yes we
need more specific ACT science but we can win this debate, hopefully without
forcing it, and get on with compost tea use and development, certifiably.
No such problem imagined by USNOP has been reported in reality.  Hopefully,
they will eventually take that as a reasonable record, given decades of
experience.

This whole NOP thing is actually a bit silly because people will use compost
teas whether or not NOP thinks it's ok.  ACT and most all teas and preps are
good and safe things to do.  I am simply pushing back on their blocking the
way.  They should not be entrusted with that power, per my experience.  They
don't deserve it because they have not been honest.  ACT and other compost
preps are definitely not raw manure.  "Rawmanureheads" are wrong here, in
every respect.

Kirk



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:59:26 EDT

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