[compost_tea] Re: organic??

From: rhc1050 <RHC1050_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:24:39 -0000

At the risk of bring up a topic that has been covered before I joined
the group, I'd be interested in your (and others) opinion as to the
relative merits of compost vs. vermicast aerobic teas. Having use
compost tea for several years, last year I switched to a vermicompost
inoculum, mostly as it provided a high titre starting material that
allowed for fermentations with little or no lag time.  Spot testing a
couple of batches on single plantings, it appeared the result were
more dramatic than previous treatment with ACT.  Now that I have my
process under control, I will attempt some controlled side-by-side
experiments.  In the mean time, what do you folks think?

Ron Chiarello

P.S. If molasses is a no-no, are there any organic alternatives for
those of us the prefer fermenting to ultrahigh microbial densities

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, soilfoodweb@a... wrote:


> 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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Feb 16 2005 - 16:15:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:46 EST