Re: [compost_tea] Re: Re:... soil chemistry facts & USNOP

From: L Blair <rlbct_at_clear.net.nz>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:15:08 +1200
Something that occurs to me (without knowing much of the polictics of it,
etc) is that there could be an intention by some to discredit ACT because it
could be perceived as a threat to conventional practices.
For example, the words being used refer to compost tea.
Well there are two uses for ACT that I know of: application to foliar and
application to soil.
Are they trying to make it illegal to make compost tea at all?
Or is it just the use of it?
Then, what arguments could be made against its use as a soil drench?
(The case against foliar has alreadly been aired (and found wanting)).

My point is that they might be using the argument about possible dangers to
consumers in the case of foliar application.  This is no basis for banning
ACT for soil drenching or drenching organic matter for decomposing it.

Lynton

----- Original Message -----
From: Kirk Leonard <kirk_at_oregonatural.com>
To: <compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Re:... soil chemistry facts & USNOP


> Doc E et al:
>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:39:31 EDT
> > From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: more on soil chemistry facts & USNOP
> >
> > Talk to Tina and Hendrikus about applying pressure, ok?
> >
> > They can talk to a couple of the NOSB folks.
> >
> > Elaine R. Ingham
>
> Done.  Thanks for the suggestion.  How do we get to the rest of NOSB, and
> better yet USNOP?  Anyone have any further insights?  It is imperative
that
> we get NOP at least out of the way of compost tea development and not
allow
> them to disallow it as an organic practice (which they have tried to do).
>
> The CTTF report is done.  A good report with do-able if awkward
> recommendations, which could be better, yes.  We can comment on that twice
> more, officially, when NOSB has adopted and NOP have spoken.  Seems we're
in
> never-ever-certifiable-land otherwise.
>
> Why is it not on the NOSB's October agenda?   It was done last April, and
on
> prior agendas. Pardon my bluntness, but we need to get it onto the agenda
to
> out these sometimes senseless rawmanureheads.
>
> USDA should be funding compost tea research, but short of that, they
should
> definitely get out of the way.  They have invented a problem which has not
> been observed in the real world and need to be brought to the table and
task
> on that.
>
> If anyone has any comments or questions on why I am so strident on this,
> please speak up.
>
> Kirk
>
> PS: Doc can't do this because she had her piece in formulating the CTTF
> report (used to be at
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/meetings/CompostTeaTaskForceFinalReport.pdf.
> If it's not there anymore please let us know), but the rest of us can
submit
> comments on it anytime (NOW is a good time) to NOSB.crops_at_usda.gov.  Take
it
> in.  Good short read even if you're not moved to comment.  More comments
> mean more USDA attention, though, and we want their attention, hmm?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Sep 11 2004 - 01:07:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:28 EST