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.
Frank, I can't get <www.woodsend.org/microbia.pdf>. Is this the company you recommend to test compost? From: <http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/univ/ecoli.html> Montana ImmunoTech and scientists at Montana State University-Bozeman say they have the fastest and most sensitive test yet for E. coli 0157. They plan to develop similar tests for two other food-borne pathogens--Salmonella and Campylobacter. The invention came from research MSU-Bozeman microbiologists Barry Pyle and Gordon McFeters did for NASA, and now the two have teamed up with Montana ImmunoTech to fine-tune the technology. The group has applied for a patent on the process, which uses antibodies to detect key molecules on the surface of the dangerous bacteria. They did their tests on raw hamburger. Grants from the National Institutes of Health and the MSU Program for the Development of Applied Biotechnology have helped pay for the project. Right now the scientists are working on a sample kit. Already one company is interested in licensing the test, said Jutila. Although the test works well on raw meat, Montana ImmunoTech proposes testing live animals before they're slaughtered. That way packers can separate the 1 percent to 2 percent of cattle infected with E. coli 0157 from other animals. Nearly 137 million head of livestock and 7.7 billion birds are slaughtered in U.S. plants each year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jacquie Knight. Here I am worrying whether the one of 4 cows on a non-commercial ranch in a small town could have E. coli 0157 and the article that you cite from which the above excerpt comes says that only 1-2% of cattle in a feedlot/slaughter situation have it. As I understand it, Elaine says that if the pH in your compost tea is above 5.5 - 6.3 that you won't have any E. coli either. What have I missed? What I'm getting at, Frank, is what are the odds of my having 0157 in my CT? I'm just trying to get some perspective on this. The trouble is that no matter how low the odds, the rule still prohibits me from using compost tea if I'm certified organic. Thanks, Merla Frank Teuton wrote: > > 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 > (Zsch�ck 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
