Re: [compost_tea] organic??

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:27:02 EST

 
 
There are people getting certification of their compost tea, or more
correctly as I have been told, approval for use of their compost teas from OMRI and
other certifying agencies.
 
The important points are:
 
1. The compost must be made according to NOP rules and regs.
 
Thermal compost must reach 131 F for a full 10 to 15 days, and during that
time must be turned 5 times. This means the compost will stay aerobic, if
those turns are done in response to high temperature being generated. Heat,
which comes from the growth of bacteria and fungi, means there is an oxygen
demand. If temperature reaches above 155 to 165, then the organisms are growing
so fast, they will use up oxygen faster than it can diffuse into the pile, and
the composts will go anaerobic.
 
So, use temperature to tell you what is going on. But that means you have
to measure temperature very often and consistently when the organisms are
growing rapidly.
 
Worm compost is still a bit shaky with respect to certification, but at
least it appears we can use it in teas. More work needed, and there is a
possibility it will be shot down with respect to use, so we need people involved to
make sure sanity is used to develop regs.
 
2. Water, additives, anything going in the brew have to meet NOP regs.
This is the crux of certification/approval. Everything going into the brew
has to be organically approved. Making tea is not like making compost,
where, because of composting processes, non-organic materials can be converted
into organic. A 24 hour brew is just not enough time for that to be the case.
 
3. Molasses is suspect, can't use molasses in tea.
 
I don't hold with that piece of information. Molasses is concentrated
sugar. E. coli can use molasses, as well as many other sugars. Why not write the
reg so it is general, and not leave loop holes? Other sugars can be
problems, so use the words "excess levels of sugar cannot be used".
 
What does that mean? It means that you should not add more sugar than can be
handled by the aeration provided by the machine being used.
 
Too much sugar, and the organisms use oxygen faster than you can get oxygen
into the water, even if mixing and bubbling air through the water. At high
enough sugar additions, organism growth can outstrip any aeration rate you
want to talk about.
 
So, because of this problem in logic in the Compost Tea Task Force
recommendations document, I did not lend my support to the document.
There were a couple more logical errors in the document, which I have
discussed previously so I don't need to talk about them here.
 
As an aside, I have real problems with people who make innuendo statements,
like something being a half-truth on someone's fact sheets.
 
If there is something that is PERCIEVED to be a half-truth, state what is
viewed as being a possible half-truth. Then perhaps someone's lack of
understanding about the real situation could be resolved.
 
But when all that is stated is vague and rather slanderous, it does no good
for anyone or anything. And hopefully, the person making those kinds of
slanderous statements is the person everyone will learn to mis-trust.
----------
Oh, and I don't use language like "it's a piece of junk".
 
I state reasons why a compost tea brewer does not give the results desired.
You all know that I do, and you all are probably tired of hearing me say,
over and over, the reasons why some machines do not get good results. I ALWAYS
give the reasons, I don't say something's "bad" and not explain what exactly
the reason it is that it doesn't meet what we have seen the biology needs to
be to achieve the desired results.
 
The desired results are plant results. You can get part of the benefits
with part of the biology, but you won't get all the benefits if you don't have
all the desirable biology, all the food web.
 
So when someone says they can't get all the benefits, please interpret that
statement properly. They aren't making good compost, or good compost tea.
 
I really appreciate that people on this list have been more vocal against
those using under-handed ways to harm reputations. If there are problems on
the SFI website, please e-mail directly to me, or to SFI to get those things
corrected.
 
Elaine
------------------------------------
 
Well is it organic. Or isn't it. That depends on who is using the
word in what context, according to
which US Govt agency: See whole article at webpage listed; below are
two clips:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/jimriddle012805.cfm


ONE:
Fertilizer label claims are regulated by state fertilizer control
officials,
who belong to the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials
(AAPFCO).

Under AAPFCO's existing definitions the word "organic" has more to do
with
organic chemistry (presence of carbon) than with organic agriculture.
AAPFCO
allows use of the word "organic" on fertilizers that may contain urea,
sewage sludge (biosolids) and other substances prohibited under NOP
regulations. AAPFCO currently allows the terms "organic fertilizer,"
"natural organic fertilizer," "natural fertilizer," and "organic base
fertilizer.


TWO
(...........this clip follows information about several people who lost
certification because they used what
was labeled as organic but was not organic as decreed by the
NOP.........)

Could the same things happen today, now that the National Organic
Program
(NOP) regulation has been fully implemented? The short answer is "yes."
Because the USDA does not control the labeling of fertilizers, NOP
regulations do not apply.





g







Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa








Received on Tue Feb 01 2005 - 14:10:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST