[compost_tea] USNOP & Compost Tea - a survey and comment

From: Kirk Leonard <kirkleon_at_open.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:00:16 -0800
Yer local USNOP and compost tea nut reporting in again. Hopefully there is
some information or amusement here for everyone.

This is important because what USNOP does on compost tea, still up in the
air, will have a serious effect on the future of both all compost tea use.

I recently did an amazing thing, going out to all USNOP certifiers to learn
what they were actually doing on certifying with compost teas. Amazing in
two respects:  how irrational USNOP has been about compost and compost teas,
versus how accepted it is by organic certifiers and growers.  If you take
out the few certifiers who've seen no demand and 90/120 day rawmanureheads,
80% of USNOP and 100% of EU certifiers are certifying with compost teas.
USNOP has no legs to stand on in opposing compost teas, which they have
done.

USNOP not only tried to ban compost tea as an organic practice (!), they
have also tried to make it difficult to use, and they have not succeeded.
Their schtick is pure pc pap, and few accept their bogus position - there is
no evidence of any problem.

For those who may not know, USNOP has declared that ANY compost tea is raw
manure, a pathogen danger, and they've trumped up a bunch of goofy stuff to
allege that, but they have never documented their problems appropriately.
NOSB has taken exception at every step, thank goodness.

The fact that USNOP apparently never documented their compost tea schtick
for certifiers (or NOSB) is outrageous.  Documentation is a core element of
all organic certification.

I posted a comment to NOSB earlier this year, since their Crops Committee
was looking at better compost tea certifying standards, and now I want to
take a bunch of it back.  There is no reason compost teas of any kind should
be subjected to special laboratory testing. I was fooled into buying in to
USNOP's testing scenario. It is not reasonable, justifiable or practical.

Certifiers and growers know better. In my experience, certifiers are
intelligent, diligent, conscientious, and have a good bit more integrity
than USNOP.  Organic growers will not endanger any crop as USNOP has
imagined with compost teas, hmm?  It simply does not make economic sense for
anyone who wants to certify, produce or sell organic products.

NOSB is working on and may forward a compost tea recommendation to NOP this
next meeting, 2/28-3/3.  If you agree with my suggestion or have a better
suggestion, please send a comment to them asap.  The email addresses are in
the
header below.

Kirk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Leonard" <kirkleon_at_open.org>
To: <NOSB.crops_at_USDA.gov>
Cc: <Katherine.Benham_at_USDA.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:20 AM
Subject: Compost Tea Survey & Comment

Dear NOSB Crops Committee,

In the past two weeks, I have done a survey of USNOP-accredited certifiers
about compost teas. I heard from 25% of them and what I discovered is both
statistically significant and eye-opening. Ask a certifier if you want to
see the raw data.

Compost teas have long been approved, with conformant materials and the
concurrence of the certifier, as a basic organic practice under EU organic
regulations. USNOP policy on compost teas, never documented for certifiers,
apparently, is so poor that several EU certifiers won't certify with compost
or teas under USNOP, only EU standards.

Most US certifiers are using the NOSB 2002 Compost Task Force (CTF)
recommendations, without sugar restrictions, or the Final Rule to certify
with compost tea, most without any restrictions. Those who can't be certain
of the compost, per the Final Rule, use the 90/120 day manure rule.

Only 20% of US certifiers use the 90/120 day raw manure rule exclusively,
ostensibly USNOP's policy.  60% approve tea use without restrictions.

Compost teas have been and are used by many certified growers, domestic and
international, for many years, and it is widely approved under EU
regulations. No certifier disallows compost teas.

On a CTF point which was out of proportion: The CTF report on compost teas
cited a potential problem with molasses or added sugars. No certifiers noted
this as an issue. Perhaps because molasses is a natural microbiological
stimulant widely used for other purposes, perhaps because no grower or crop
problems have ever been reported, perhaps because it's easily managed,
certifiers are not concerned about the use of molasses or other sugars in
compost teas.

Certifiers and growers can and should be entrusted with decisions about
compost teas, as they are for all other elements of certification under
international organic standards. Special laboratory testing should not be
required.

So I would amend prior suggestions on compost tea guidelines and suggest the
following:

> If compost is made per the Final Rule and CTF 2002 recommendations,
> sanitary conditions are maintained in all equipment, material storage and
use,
> water is acceptable for crop application,
> only allowed materials are used,
> and the certifier concurs,
> compost teas should be certifiable, allowed without restrictions.

> Supporting laboratory testing for manufacturers of compost tea equipment
or contract tea suppliers, to provide certifiable equipment and services,
would be an appropriate, additional economic stimulus.

Maybe I've been around too much manure, but this -- what certifiers are
actually doing -- makes much more sense than what USNOP has done on compost
teas. It has been made clear to me that both certifiers and growers would
appreciate both more clarity and practicality on composts and teas.

I appreciate what you have done on compost teas and hope this helps get to a
USNOP resolution.

Sincerely, and in good tilth,

R. Kirk Leonard
P.O. Box 4489
2250 Strong Rd SE
Salem, Oregon 97302
503-391-6735
kirkleon_at_open.org







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada



Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Feb 19 2005 - 23:03:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:47 EST