----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Teuton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: NOSB & Compost Tea
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kirk Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Compost Tea Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 6:41 PM > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: NOSB & Compost Tea > > > > On this one, Frank, I don't agree with your two cents. Is Richard Mathews > a > > personal friend of yours? I recall a key, acerbic element of his argument > > that sounds just like yours. > > Never met the man, never even heard of him until I read the minutes, Kirk. > But I do see that if there is not more regulation of what is done to make > compost teas, the 'food safety crisis' problem he mentions is going to be > pretty likely to occur. > > > > Yes, there is potential danger here, but it is > > so much less than Lysol by its very nature that I am comfortable forging > > ahead, without any particular strategy, actually, except biology is bigger > > and better than chemistry. > > > > You are going to have to show me how the Bess material was CFR 503 Class A > > compost based on what Elaine and Jack Houck have said. I would love to > see > > that chain of custody, also. T'wasn't good compost, pretty clearly, and a > > questionable tea machine. Eh? Class A doesn't permit ecoli-laced > material > > for any use above much lower levels than were used. We will figure out > > aeration standards soon, too. > > Class A biosolids compost levels for fecal coliforms are <1000 MPN/g. The > compost Bess used contained E.coli levels in the 10-100 MPN/g range, well > within the EPA 503c regs, unless there were extraordinarily large numbers of > other fecal coliforms present. > > http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/503pe/503pe_5.pdf > > http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/2000/compost/msg00162.html > > It is apparently true that OMRI standards for compost require nearly > complete E. coli eradication, <3 CFU/g : > > http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/1997/compost/msg05799.html > > I looked around for explanations of the difference between CFU and MPN > standards, and found: > > http://www.splammo.net/bact102/102cfunf.html > > http://www.jlindquist.net/generalmicro/102dil3.html > > So it is quite possible to get a virtually E. coli free compost, but Class A > EPA 503 regs do not require anything close to that. > > A negative test for E. coli in compost would need to be <1 CFU/g or 0 MPN/g, > wouldn't it? > > If you want an eyeful on E. coli in compost, read this article, Kirk: > > www.woodsend.org/microbia.pdf > > That article is part of the reason I place a lot more faith in vermophilic > compost than thermophilic compost. > > Remember this, Kirk, if we aren't ::ALWAYS:: right about this, there is a > serious risk of a 'food safety crisis' arising. > > The need for rigorous testing is not the death knell for compost tea > (amplified foodweb culture) technology. To the contrary, it is the sine qua > non for its safe development for fresh produce crops. > > I realize this E. coli business can be taken out to lunch, so to speak, and > I can imagine the fanatics trying to impose a 'Silent Spring' scenario to > get rid of all the birds flying over, and dropping on, farmer's fields. > > I mean, consider the days when passenger pigeons darkened the skies for > hours as a flock passed....or the density of droppings along a wall covered > with Virginia Creeper or similar bird magnet vines. > > We all live, as the microbiology prof told my late father in law, in a thin > layer of fecal material...shaking hands and hugging your kids is fraught > with hazard...;-) > > But still, we do need to put safeguards in place. Get the testing regimen in > place, get everyone to sign on, and let's move this process forward. > > Frank Teuton >
