Hi Lloyd, For me this is the time of the year when I can 'question authority' and ask all the tough questions.
Yes, Elaine claims that the stuff Vicki used was 'pre-compost' or 'not really compost'. Others have said that it did in fact pass through the regulatory requirements of the composting process, still tested high enough in E. coli to be not up to OMRI standards, and so was used in the experiment. I've forwarded separately Bess's own reply, in which she states that yes, she used a compost she knew had E.coli in it, since one cannot study what happens to E. coli if it is absent in the start materials. This is a point upon which she, and Elaine, and the wide scientific community are in agreement, spontaneous generation or 'abiogenesis' of E. coli is not going to happen in a 24 hour compost tea cycle, eh? So realize, this a common point between Bess and Ingham---both agree that if no E. coli is present in the start materials, none will be present in the finished tea. Elaine herself, way back in the spring, said that the compost task force could simply impose a 'confirmed no E. coli' requirement on the compost and ingredients for tea, and solve the organic fresh produce problem that way. Bess agrees. Elaine provided me with a copy of the Bess study some time ago. It describes the compost used: "A manure based compost containing low levels (10-100 MPN/g) of naturally occurring E. coli was used for all compost tea production. The compost was produced from approximately equal parts green waste, mushroom compost, chicken manure and steer manure (Rexius Forest By-Products, Inc., Eugene, OR) and was intentionally chosen prior to destruction of all E. coli." This was not hidden, kept from the public or done under cover of darkness, it was written up right in the 'Materials and Methods' section of the paper. So where's the big crime? Yes, no process information on time, temperature or aerobicity of the treatment of this compost is given. Other people have asserted that it did go through a time and temperature regime like that required in the NOP standards. And, yes, looking at those ingredients we can see a lack of carbon materials and bulking agents, meaning that depending on moisture content, it is quite likely that much of the composting process was operating at sub-optimal oxygen levels, so that the development of the aerobic microbial consortia that typically take out E. coli was likely to be retarded. This is guesstimation on my part, since I don't have the exact process parameters in front of me for this material. Is it so unlikely though, that someone making compost tea would do their time and temperature requirements on such a compost, get similar low E. coli results, and go forward with such material in teamaking? How many people who make tea are following all of Elaine's advice to the letter, using continuous read thermometers and oxygen meters for composting, using a DO meter in their brewer, and all the rest? How many use the percentages of woody materials she recommends in composting? I use the woody stuff myself, Lloyd, but I don't have the oxygen meters, either for the compost or the tea. Consider the concept of a lottery. In a positive lottery your chances of winning big are very small, in a negative lottery your chances of losing big are also very small. People win and lose in such lotteries all the time. >From a regulator's viewpoint the concern is not with what the top half of the class is going to do, but the bottom half, the people who miss a key point, the busy folks who might cut a corner here and there, the undercapitalized small grower who hopes compost tea is going to solve a whole bunch of problems but who doesn't have the budget for a full set of equipment and testing. As far as 'Brinton's work' is concerned, all the stuff I posted was done years ago, before the current aerobic compost tea technology came on line. So, unless he was truly diabolical and did his research in anticipation of ambushing Elaine several years later, it is pretty hard to claim that he created a study to discredit compost teas. Everything by Brinton was there when Elaine wrote the Compost Tea Manual, including the third edition, which still cites to his research. Instead, it is best to see this as a genuine difference of opinion between microbiologists and compost and soil scientists, and to look for common ground that everyone could accept. I agree with Elaine's general thesis that aerobic full foodweb compost tea will reduce rather than grow E. coli. The issue is, then, when the foodweb is less than full---as would be likely from the compost Bess used....how likely is that? How often would that occur across the spectrum of organic growers throughout the US? Let's say Elaine's thesis holds true in 98% of the cases, and not true in 2%. That would be a phenomenal batting average for a baseball game, but a real disaster from a food safety POV. What is needed to get to the necessary level of assurance is a way to test for TQC (Tea Quality Compost) that is 99.99% and then some sure. I believe this is not that difficult, could bridge the gap that exists between regulators, their immediate advisors and Elaine, and get us all something we can work with successfully. It is one thing to attack Dennis Avery, who is a bought and paid for attack dog for the chemical industry. It is another to attack people who have made their life's work in and around the organic and biodynamic sectors, such as Will Brinton and Vicki Bess. It is clear that we have had a massive communications breakdown here between the scientists, regulators, the public and the engaged entrepreneurs and practitioners. Much of the blame for that surely lies with NOSB, which has been pretty uncommunicative about all of this, and not open about the process of gathering information or receiving comments on this subject. That lack of transparency set me on edge against the process from the beginning. It still annoys me, and ought to be done away with, so that people can not only know what the recommendations are that are being made, but also how they were arrived at, the reasoning and data that underpin them, and thus be able to cogently challenge those recommendations based on real knowledge of their foundations. But, I am convinced at this juncture that there needs to be a Tea Quality Compost standard for compost tea used on fresh produce within 120 DOH. At the very least, no E. coli ought to be present. That's a position that can unite a large number of supporters, and keep the compost tea movement operating on all cylinders. I think Elaine's core thesis, full foodweb, full aerobicity, appropriate nutrients = E.coli elimination or reduction, will be borne out in time. But since composts can go through the heating phase, still retain low E. coli populations, and not then carry the full foodweb, the ability to verify foodweb needs to be solid. If there is much of a window of error there, we end up playing the negative lottery. So far I have strongly defended this 'Ingham thesis' against critics who don't seem to even understand it, which I find really disappointing. In the interests of trying to get the discussion past the level of 'we are right and they are evil', however, I am now pointing out that those who don't understand it, or disagree with it, are also not without reasons to suggest that poor compost in a compost tea environment could behave not only ineffectively, but dangerously. Process standards alone may not get the job done, and it seems like the only way to build a concensus that will allow compost teas in organic production is to move to performance standards. For those unclear on the distinction, time, temperature and aerobicity standards are process standards; verified no E. coli in the compost is a performance standard. Ingham and Bess both seem to feel this would work, now the question is, what are the other quiet voices in the compost science NOSB community saying, and why are they saying it? It should not be like pulling teeth to find out. And be sure, Lloyd, that if I buy produce grown with compost tea, I will want a good close look at their practices and procedures. Frank Teuton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frank Teuton > > > > What the Bess study purports to do is falsify Elaine's assertion. Bess > took > > 'good enough' compost that had met process standards, put it in a Growing > > Solutions 25 brewer, measured DO levels throughout, and was able to grow > E. > > coli when simple sugars were added to the mix, under repeated trials. > > > Hi Frank > Whats going on here??? Below is direct from one of Elaine's > messages and she is talking about the material that Bess requested for her > "test" > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu Oct 17, 2002 4:00 am > Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: Testing & NOP Decision > > 'The Rexius material used was pre-compost material. Jack Hoeck of Rexius > made that clear to me in an e-mail from him. He was asked for material > containing E. coli, and that's what he gave them.' > > and again > ' Wil Brinton told me in mid-July (I have the e-mail still) > where he told me he'd never heard of 24 hour compost tea. And he was the > expert the Compost Task Force was using to tell them about compost tea?' > > Somebody is bullsh***ing us! Who do you pick ? > > When I read the Brinton stuff my immediate reaction was this is nothing more > than a direct attempt to sabotage the use of compost teas - clearly biased!! > Typical science 'set the agenda first then design a test to come up with the > appropriate answer' > Ditto (only more so) for the work done by Brian Duffy (the closed flask > experiment) totally irrelevant to the brewing of compost tea !! > > There is big money and big egos behind this dispute. > The work of Bess, Brinton and Duffy should go in the trash can where it > belongs, and some honest testing of the compost tea method be done, using > quality tested compost, clean materials for feed, and the latest successful > aerobic tea brewers, unbiased science - ha! it will never happen eh? > > Understand I am not totally opposed to your point of view - there needs to > be rules - "modern" food transport, processing and distribution methods > provide almost ideal conditions for pathogen growth - lots of moisture, > warmth, lack of fresh air, a long time in the supply chain, and as the big > boys take over organic production there will be problems for sure - which > will no doubt be blamed on the small farmers, 'backyard operators' same as > is now the case with the poultry industry. > Hugh Lovel (as usual) has this right - the best protection for any consumer > is to be looking the producer in the eye when the money changes hands! > > Cheers > Lloyd Charles > >
