> Dear Frank,
>
> You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to
> nothing. Everyone has it. Right?
Hugh, the presence of E.coli in water has long been used as an indicator of
the potential presence of other, much harder to test for pathogens. High
E.coli counts mean high risk of the other pathogens. Since animal guts are
the usual and typical places for E. coli to propagate, and it generally
doesn't propagate elsewhere, E. coli is used as the indicator workhorse.
>
> The real question is the presence of E. coli 0157:H7. Can everyone agree
to
> that? It is a virulent pathogen, and it kills. But it is a very SPECIAL
> kind of E. coli. In fact it is commonly found in feedlots. Never elsewhere
> so far as I know, and I've been watching.
Watch more closely, then. 0157:H7 is indeed most commonly found in feedlot
cattle situations, but has been found elsewhere.
http://www.about-ecoli.com/page4.htm
"The E. coli O157: H7 bacterium is believed to mostly live in the intestines
of cattle,1 but has also been found in the intestines of chickens, deer,
sheep, and pigs."
http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf
"It is well known that ruminants (both domestic
and wild) can be asymptomatic reservoirs of
EHEC (Wells et al., 1991; Hancock et al.,
1994; Bielaszewska et al., 2000). The
microbial population of the ruminant is very
diverse and microbes are found throughout
the reticulorumen, as well as the intestinal
tract. Because the gastrointestinal tract is
well-suited for microbial growth it is no
surprise that the ubiquitous and adaptable E.
coli (represented by many strains, including
EHEC) lives in the gut of mammals,
including cattle and humans (Drasar and
Barrow, 1985)."
*********************
"Researchers initially found that 16%
of the animals tested in both beef and dairy
herds were E. coli O157:H7 positive, and as
many as 62% of dairy heifers were
populated with E. coli O157:H7 (Mechie et
al., 1997). Additional studies in Europe
indicated that 18%, 32%, and 75% of dairy
cows, sheep and goats, respectively
(Zschöck et al., 2000), and 20% of feedlot
cattle in the Czech republic were EHEC
carriers (Cizek et al., 1999).
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/feng.html
"Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 was only recognized as a human pathogen a
little more than a decade ago, yet it has become a major foodborne pathogen.
In the United States, the severity of serotype O157:H7 infections in the
young and the elderly has had a tremendous impact on human health, the food
industry, and federal regulations regarding food safety. The implication of
acidic foods as vehicles of infection has dispelled the concept that low-pH
foods are safe. Further, the association of nonbovine products with
outbreaks suggests that other vehicles of transmission may exist for this
pathogen."
**********************
"A puzzling incident was reported from northern Italy, where 15 cases of
HUS, caused by serotype O157 and other EHEC serotypes, was recorded over a
5-month period in 1993 (17). These cases occurred in small towns scattered
over a large area with little apparent connection to each other; therefore,
common food vehicles and exposure to cattle were eliminated as possible
sources of infection. However, data from the epidemiologic investigations
suggested that contact with live poultry or with chicken coops may have been
the source of infection, even though no toxin-producing EHEC strains were
isolated from poultry feces. A recent study showed that inoculating
1-day-old chicks with strains of serotype O157:H7 resulted in rapid
colonization of the cecal tissue of the chicks. The chicks then became
long-term (up to 11 months) shedders of serotype O157:H7, and this
microorganism was subsequently recovered from the shells of their eggs (18).
It is conceivable, therefore, that live poultry were the source of infection
in the outbreaks reported from northern Italy. "
There have been several outbreaks of 0157 infections associated with alfalfa
sprouts, as well, to the point where research is being done to find seed
decontamination procedures:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000012/47/0000124779.html
> Which should prohibit compost teas from feedlot manures, but why prohibit
> any others?
Other pathways for 0157 seem to be possible, and while it is most prevalent
in feedlot manures, it may not be entirely absent in non-feedlot manures.
>
> If we could agree on where 0157:H7 occurs, then blanket testing for E.
coli
> is meaningless. We must test for E. coli 0157:H7.
>
> Forget the rest. How relevant is it? E. coli is not the problem, 0157:H7
is.
Basically correct, I think. There are tests coming online for E.coli 0157:H7
that give results in as little as 3 hours. A 24 hour tea could be tested at
hour 21, results known at hour 24 and the tea cleared for spraying with a
negative 0157 test as proof.
http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/univ/ecoli.html
>
> Please, give me good science, not scare propaganda a la Dennis Avery, the
> infamous scientific prostitute. And please don't endorse his arguments by
> wishy-washy agreement that we "have to beware of coliforms in compost
tea."
> We all have coliforms. I don't think there are any exceptions. Compost
teas
> may have coliforms. Sure. Will Brinton is doubtless right. Big deal.
> Coliforms are ubiquitous. Scare tactics? Why succumb to them? Please,
let's
> everyone get their brains on.
OMRI calls for compost to have <3CFU of E. coli per gram. That is
substantially lower than the <1000 MPN/g of fecal coliforms required for
unrestricted use of composted biosolids under the EPA regs, for example. Is
less than 3 CFU a good enough standard for compost tea? This is what the
Compost Tea Task Force will be discussing, no doubt, as NOSB continues to
examine the issue.
I'm putting on
> my breastplate and bucklers and flexing my arms, shoulders, torso and
> legs, preparing to confront the unscientific bastards promoting this
> agenda. I think they know better, the SBs.
>
> Thank God I can laugh.
>
> Best,
> Hugh Lovel
Hugh, I doubt tremendously if Will Brinton qualifies as an 'unscientific
bastard who knows better' on this issue. Among other things, Elaine cites
his works in several places in her Compost Tea Manual, he publishes in
Biodynamics, and he's one of the early publishers on the whole phyllosphere
concept, and the use of compost tea (as he defines it) in that context. The
man certainly has credentials.
Let's all forget, or at least set aside, issues of government, competition,
and everything else that keeps us from examining the core question:
How do we make good health promoting vitality conferring compost tea for
foliar application on fresh produce crops within 120 days of harvest?
Let's start with Elaine's instructions, and use compost that contains 'NO
human pathogens'. Let's be really sure, and test that compost, since we may
be growing whatever is in there.
That should solve the problem, and satisfy the critics at NOSB.
Not everybody makes 'tea quality compost', Hugh. People out there know this,
the regulators at NOSB know it, organic inspectors know it. Here's a recent
post by Elaine from SANET:
November 10, 2002
"Let's clarify the different kinds of compost tea that you might be
concerned with, and ones that you don't need to be concerned with. If I
forget a category, or you see the need to split a category, please chime
n -
First, if you apply tea made from any source more than 90 to 120 days
before the crop surface would be consumed, there are no worries.
Second, compost tea made from plant-based, no human waste compost. E. coli
is not present in the starting materials, not present in the compost. This
category should be of no concern to folks with respect to the human pathogen
question.
Third, compost tea made with food waste material that could have low levels
of E. coli. E. coli is fairly easily reduced to non-detectable levels with
this type of compost. Testing might be necessary to document that E. coli
is not present in the final compost material, and that it is then safe to
apply to food plants.
Fourth, manure-based tea is what the E. coli concern is all about. We can
make compost tea from manure-based compost without any E. coli in the final
tea. BUT people also manage to make compost tea from manure-based compost
that contains E. coli.
The problem becomes, how do you KNOW that you managed to exit the E. coli
from the tea? What are the parameters that allow E.coli (and other human
pathogens) to be destroyed? We have done it, but now we need to understand
what the important factors are in producing these teas routinely.
So, that's where the situation is. Don't go ballistic about compost tea in
general. But on plants that you eat without washing the surface of the
material you are going to consume, stay away from compost tea made with
manure-based compost."
Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
www.soilfoodweb.com
Finally, Hugh, let me also say that because the amounts of compost needed to
produce compost tea are ridiculously small, compared to normal field
application rates, it is more reasonable to seek out the best quality
ingredients, use the best practices possible aiming for the highest quality
of compost, and pay for the testing of it all, than it would be for other
sorts of composting. A few such people in an area could provide 'tea quality
compost' to many other people, and share costs that way very reasonably.
I think there are solutions in this area that don't require that we gird our
loins, demonize those who disagree, and head off to war, in dubious battle.
Gotta not give in to the zeitgeist, eh?
In times of war, prepare for peace, I say...
Frank Teuton
