----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Teuton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Compost Tea and Organics
> Dear Dr Benbrook: > > I appreciate the tone of your post. > > The problem as I see it, is that a task force on compost issues, including > compost tea, was brought together that did not include any of the advocates, > advisors, or practitioners of compost tea making, specifically Dr Ingham and > some of the firms she works with. > > I don't pretend to understand the politics of who is in and who is out in > creating these groups, but I do know that when you exclude a group of > stakeholders from a process such as this, then issue a finding which > undermines their work directly, the result is not likely to be a satisfied > and happy bunch of campers. > > Any future body formed about the issues of compost tea should certainly > include Dr Ingham or someone who can represent a similar viewpoint. > Furthermore, the group should at least attempt to perform a literature > review, and conduct a sampling of the various commercially produced > products, for both positive and negative aspects. > > It should not be difficult to access the underlying research such a group > relies on for its recommendations. Every effort should be made to be open, > to receive and respond to comments, and to clearly state assumptions, > research needs, opinions of various task force members, and the basis of > recommendations and conclusions. > > It should also attempt to put these things into clear and simple language so > that farmers and other growers as well as consumers understand what is > known, what is assumed, and what else needs to be done. > > Clearly, no one out there has a total, thoroughgoing understanding of all > the details of microbial action in water, soil solution, phyllosphere, > rhizosphere and solid state environments such as drier soils and composting > and vermicomposting environments. Our best researchers, of which Elaine > Ingham is certainly one, admit that we are barely scratching the surface in > terms of knowing who all the actors are, and knowing exactly what each does. > > But, as Russel Bulluck used to like to close his posts: > > "The soil population is so complex that it manifestly cannot > be dealt with as a whole with any detail by any one person, > and at the same time it plays so important a part in the soil > economy that it must be studied. " > --Sir E. John Russell > The Micro-organisms of the Soil, 1923 > > Indeed in one of his pithier posts on a closely related topic, Russ lays out > the reality for us: > > "Here's the good news and the bad news. . . The good news is that pathogenic > strains of enteric bacteria (such as the dreaded E. coli O157:H7) produce > toxins that require a large energy output, and as such, these organisms are > not normally good competitors in the soil environment (being used to the gut > of cows, the bugs in the soil no longer have a constant and rich nutrient > supply or constant and pleasant 37 degrees C temp). The bad news is that > some > enteric bacteria will likely be found in soil! We don't live in a sterile > environment, but luckily, most of the bacteria in soil (and our food for > that > matter) are not harmful. > > > Let me say this. . . the food that we eat (be it vegetable, mineral or > animal) > has bacteria on it or in it. That's right, our food has bacteria in it. . . > millions of bacteria. Our skin has bacteria on it, as well as fungi, mites, > some nematodes (likely as not), and other bugs that literally make your skin > crawl (does everyone feel a little itchy now?). Most bacteria and fungi are > not that bad. If they were bad, we'd not be here! " > > http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/43-html/0129.html > > I personally want organic food to be food grown in a living soil, with a > full and active foodweb. That means, yes indeed, there will be millions of > bacteria on it, of a large diversity, and fungi, and other stuff. That > living food is what we all evolved on; it is what we have eaten for > countless millennia. > > People who want or need sterile food should either not buy organic food (or > conventional food, either, for that matter) or they should cook the heck out > of everything. > > I think the big bugaboo on compost tea down at the NOSB is fear of 0157. I > think every time 0157 is raised as an issue, it should be pointed out that > the big breeders of this pathogen are the CAFOs, especially grainfed cattle > feedlots. It is true that such operations are sufficiently widespread that > 0157 could be on everyone's farm, and that suitable precautions should be > taken; see for example: > > http://www.cog.ca/efgsummer2000.htm#ecoli > > But it is also true that if we really wanted to greatly reduce 0157 in the > environment, we would stop the practice of grainfeeding ruminants. All the > costs associated with this practice are now being borne by the larger > society, including consumers, and organic farmers who are largely not to > blame for it. > > However, I think in this context it is quite interesting to expand Elaine's > suggestion, that a compost made from manure containing E. coli would > contain, after it matured to the point of elimination of this pathogen, the > necessary antagonists to protect crops growing near a CAFO or near fields > where inadequately treated CAFO manures are spread from 0157 infection. > > "Addition of beneficial bacteria and fungi to an apple's surface might speed > the process of removing pathogens through competition and consumption. That > would be some interesting research. So, maybe applying good compost tea > would result in safer fruit, and less likelihood of contamination."---Elaine > Ingham, letter to SANET, 18 November 2002 > > Of course, that would require that we had really good tests for 0157 that > could be applied to teas. Such tests seem to be coming online: > > http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/univ/ecoli.html > > So, if the Compost Tea Task Force [I'm assuming that's what it will be > called] wants to get more respect, it needs to be open, inclusive, and > demonstrate strong scholarship as well as outreach and education abilities. > Surely the positive potential represented by compost teas deserves a more > thorough hearing, and the issues of quality control further inquiry? > > Dr Benbrook, I note at Dr Brinton's site: > > http://www.woodsend.org/articles.html?a_uid=1 > > "For a paper by Charles Benbrook regarding the necessity of this > committee-process, click here Commentary " > > I am unable to get the site to open. Can you provide us with your paper > elsewhere, and did you really mean that *this* committee-process was > necessary, or that *a* committee-process was necessary? > > Isn't a more inclusive committee-process likely to advance matters better? > > Thanks in advance for any further light you can give on this, > > Frank Teuton > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chuck Benbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:23 AM > Subject: [SANET-MG] Compost Tea and Organics > > > > I have learned much from the ongoing dialogue re compost and > compost > > tea safety and thank the technical experts for taking the time to walk the > > non-microbiologists among us through the issues/science. I agree there is > > much more to learn re how to assure compost safety and that the U.S., for > > certain, has underinvested in this promising technology. > > > > Still, the unresolved scientific and food safety issues > surrounding > > compost, and especially compost tea, pose a major challenge for not just > the > > sustainable ag/organic community, but also for FDA/USDA and practising > soil > > microbiologists. I appreciate the passion and knowledge Elaine brings to > > this issue, and her patience and clarity in many recent posts, but her > views > > are not universally shared among the relatively small group of scientists > > charged with the responsibility of advising the NOP/USDA re how to move > > forward with the regulation of compost tea applications under the NOP. I > > have had a chance to discuss the recent work of the compost tea task force > > with some of its members and am concerned by the degree to which the work > of > > the task force has come under attack, from a variety of quarters. > > > > We all know that some of the most strident enemies of organic > > agriculture have latched onto compost safety as an Achilles Heel of > organic > > farming and that they will misrepresent the views of scientists, > government > > agencies, the local bartender to make their point and raise concerns. Of > > course they will also fully exploit any disagreements within the organic > > community, a process now under way. > > > > The NOP/USDA, and the compost task force, have to be cautious and > > deliberate in moving ahead, and indeed their recent report and decisions > > could be regarded as consistent with the precautionary principle. There > > must be a very firm foundation if/when NOP/USDA endorses/permits > > applications of compost tea under circumstances that might, even very > > occassionally, result in a heightened risk of E. coli contamination. > Anyone > > who believes that technology and processes now exist, or can readily be > > developed, that would assure food safety following applications of compost > > tea should take their case, and data, to the task force and other > technical > > advisory bodies. But as we muddle toward concensus, the conclusions of > these > > bodies must be accepted, even when some among us feel they are wrong. > > Constructive responses in the face of misguided technical advisory body > > conclusions is to assure that the committees in the future are composed of > > open-minded people lacking conflicts of interest; are given the background > > and data needed to understand the issues they have been asked to review; > and > > to package/present data and information before the committees in clear and > > compelling ways. > > > > The way the organic community deals with potential compost food > > safety challenges will be among the decisive issues shaping consumer > > attitudes and interest in seeking out organic food. I hope everyone with > > scientific/technical skills and experience on these issues will find a way > > to work cooperatively and together to assure that the pursuit of the > disease > > control and agronomic benefits of compost is carried out with a degree of > > patience, caution, and humility, recognizing that there is much we do not > > know and many lessons yet to be learned about the practical control and > > application of these technologies in the real world. > > > > Chuck Benbrook > > >
