Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
In the vernacular of the local kids: You wish!! David C - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 23 November 2002 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps We should request that the agencies involved take a closer look at the use of chemicals at the same time they are examing the tea issue. Have them look at residuals and food quality as well as the effects on groundwater...sstorch In a message dated 11/13/02 9:54:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, I brought this up to our National Organic/Biodynamic Production Standards committee (Australia)and they have spoken with the CSIRO re research into this issue. David Matthews is an Ex Vet and knows all about this stuff, and has mates in the right places. Now we have to look at research funding, especially trying to get the Organic levies outof the non-organic sphere. But fear not, it is being taken seriously and wheels are in motion. I really appreciate the discussion happening on BDNow to help this issue along. Cheryl Kemp Education and Workshop Coordinator Biodynamic AgriCulture Australia Phone /Fax : 02 6657 5322 Home: 02 6657 5306 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.biodynamics.net.au - Original Message - From: D S Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. Ideas anyone?
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
We should request that the agencies involved take a closer look at the use of chemicals at the same time they are examing the tea issue. Have them look at residuals and food quality as well as the effects on groundwater...sstorch In a message dated 11/13/02 9:54:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, I brought this up to our National Organic/Biodynamic Production Standards committee (Australia)and they have spoken with the CSIRO re research into this issue. David Matthews is an Ex Vet and knows all about this stuff, and has mates in the right places. Now we have to look at research funding, especially trying to get the Organic levies outof the non-organic sphere. But fear not, it is being taken seriously and wheels are in motion. I really appreciate the discussion happening on BDNow to help this issue along. Cheryl Kemp Education and Workshop Coordinator Biodynamic AgriCulture Australia Phone /Fax : 02 6657 5322 Home: 02 6657 5306 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.biodynamics.net.au - Original Message - From: D S Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. Ideas anyone?
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Hi Frank thanks for the reply I've done some more digging locally, we can get compost or tea tested for E Coli for about $30 Aus, reasonably easy - not going to work with tea tho - 24 hour brew then instant application dont leave enough time. 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. Agree here - we have available to us grade A certified organic composted manure from the local feedlot - its been thru all the hoops and passed all the tests - and it is awful stuff - stinks to high heaven and full of salts - its heated anearobic crap - these people have all the good equipment to turn it and have a wide variety of other materials available to add - from straw to vegetable cannery waste - town tip could supply tree waste - but they wont do the job properly - they sell this stuff to conventional farmers based on its NPK equivalent price compared to bagged fertiliser - its cheap but low grade -the process standard in this case is almost worthless as is the organic certification (my opinion) 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. This would be not difficult to test for nor expensive ?? 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? Sounds like these two should be getting together but that does not seem like much of a chance judging from the tone of Elaine's messages Thanks again Lloyd Charles
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Frank, I like what you say, though I'm likely to be more critical than you are about the NOSB and their lack of transparancy as you call it. As far as I can see the NOSB hasn't helped many of the very people like myself who have pioneered the organic movement and it HAS been very helpful to industrial interests. Truthfully, since they are a government creation I don't expect anything else. And I don't expect the government to be helpful in taking responsibility for our own work. They may very well interfere. Nevertheless, I'm 100% behind you on policing ourselves and seeing that we set high standards in both compost making and in compost tea brewing. That is very much needed. If we do that we take the wind out of the sails of government regulation, which I doubt will ever be a true friend. While I'm not personally worried about getting the feared E. coli, I want every assurance that eating anything I grow will be safe for everybody who eats it. Best, Hugh Lovel Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Frank, Thanks for the long and informative response. Hugh Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
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 usedhow 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
Pleomorphism/Orthopathy (was: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps)
On 13 Nov 02, Moen Creek wrote: By the by your belief is miss guided. Your own germs recycling through you will be destructive and could account for chem sensitivities. Thank you Gil, your right on! I wonder! 8-7 It is a while since I regularly monitored the newsgroup misc.health.alternative on Usenet - it has degenerated into a rabble! Dr C endured the brick-bats for months and I saved several of his posts because they added considerably to a train of intuition I've had for many years. Below is a cut 'n paste of one his posts. Gaston Naessens is a notable modern day pleomorphic/orthopathic researcher. For background on Naessens see (et seq): http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/naessens1.shtml Cheerio... Rex ---Cut 'n paste begins--- From: drceephd... (DRCEEPHD) Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:02:35 GMT Subject: Re: Branches of the Hygienic System This question is rather like the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Thanks for the references. I note that the scientists are still trying to determine how the Salmonella bacteria get into the egg and cause it to rot. We are still trying to figure out how the bacteria get through the egg shell, the protective membranes, and the other protective factors in the egg to cause it to rot rather than form a chicken. I find this interesting since the answer was provided very nicely in 1870. In Bechamp's research he discovered that the smallest unit of life in the living organism was not the cell, nor bacteria, but little bodies which he named microzymas. He found these microzymas in all living matter, both plant and animal. He further determined that upon death of a living organism, it was the microzymas that caused the total destruction of the organism to return it to the soil for recycling while the microzymas themselves continued to live. He also measured and published the size of the microzymas. He found that these basic life units were nearly immortal, and resistant to destruction even when heated to carbonizing temperatures. Kind of reminds you of a prion, doesn't it? His research on the rotting of the egg is a further proof of his general theory. He found that the microzymas assist in the normal life functions, but when the conditions for life, or the production of life, are destroyed, the microzymas set about conducting the destruction of the organism while perpetuating their own kind. Thus, in a healthy egg, you wind up with a chicken. When you shake the egg, destroying the possibility of life formation, the microzymas proliferate and even form a higher life form to assist in the destruction of the egg, the salmonella. As you can see from this work and this theory, it is not necessary for salmonella to enter the egg through the shell, they will be formed by the microzymas within the interior of the egg. All this, of course, runs counter current to modern guess work, and proves that the germ theory of an egg rotting is just as false as the overall germ theory of disease. If Bechamp could see all this with his microscope, I would have to believe that you, armed with a modern microscope and darkfield equipment, should be better able to see the same thing. You cannot see these things viewing dead, stained specimens. Dr. C. Ph.D. Sit down before fact as a child. Be prepared to give up every pre-conceived notion. Follow humbly where nature leads, or learn nothing at all. Thomas Huxley. ---Cut 'n paste ends---
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
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 (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
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Merla wrote: Frank, I can't get www.woodsend.org/microbia.pdf. Sorry, they just reorganized their website, the article is now at: http://www.woodsend.org/pdf-files/microbia.pdf You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read .pdf files. It is available free to download at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html Is this the company you recommend to test compost? It is certainly one of the best in the US. 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. Consciousness always lags behind reality. Newer surveys, which I cited sources for, indicate the figure at 30%, with summer spikes up to 80%. That's for feedlot cattle, to be sure. http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf 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? I don't know. Can you recall where Elaine said this? pH 6.3 = No E. coli in tea? Alkaline stabilization is a process used in treating sludges. It requires pH elevation to 12 for periods of between 2 hours (Class B) and 72 hours (Class A). One of the listed disadvantages of this method is: There is a potential for pathogen regrowth if the pH of the material drops below 9.5 during storage. (EPA, 1992) www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/alkaline_stabilization.pdf I have heard Elaine say that if dissolved oxygen (DO) stays above 5.5 and a full foodweb is present in the compost/vermicompost, E. coli will be eliminated; she did a recent trial using partially processed vermicompost and got this result. 'One swallow doesn't make it spring', however, and what needs to happen is for other researchers to verify and confirm Elaine's results until we can have confidence that what she asserts will be always true, is in fact always true. 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. Elaine's definition of how to make good compost is not, in itself, adequate to assure that tea quality compost is always made. From the Compost Tea Manual, 3rd edition, page 10: Temperature must exceed 135 F (57 C) for at least 3 days, which means the pile temperature should be maintained above that for 8-15 days, with turning, to make sure that everything in the pile reached temperature for long enough. The temperature should not, however, exceed 155-160 F (68-71 C) and the oxygen level should not drop below 12 to 15% [...] If compost gets too hot, does not heat enough, or becomes anaerobic, the set of organisms in the compost is not desirable. If you use poor compost, the tea will not contain the desired set of organisms. Now, the above are not a bad set of composting standards, to be sure. (The usual recommendation for turning composts is five turnings within the first fifteen days, with temps returning quickly to the required range between turnings, by the way.) But they are designed to get fecal coliforms to less than 1000 MPN/g, not E. coli to less than 3 CFU, as I understand it, which means you still need to test. Another problem is that: Compost for compost tea needs to be SLIGHTLY IMMATURE! That means, a little bit of temperature is a good thingabout 5- 10 degrees above ambient is the desired range. The maturation phase of composting is the final defense against pathogens; the development of the mesophilic microflora finishes off any remaining pathogens while protecting the pile against reinoculation (birds, wild animals, other vectors). Using compost before this phase is complete to make tea increases the risk that some surviving pathogens might regrow, which means it is all the more critical to be sure that the compost has none. 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. Until a thorough survey of organic, biodynamic, and conventional farms is done, with special attention to the issue of all forage versus grain supplemented feeding, it would be best to assume some presence of 0157, and act accordingly. Here is a good article by Dr David Patriquin on the subject: http://www.cog.ca/efgsummer2000.htm#ecoli A quote for Hugh, and you, and you, and you: E.coli 0157 on the farm Industrialized farming practices are considered to be a factor contributing to increased levels of food borne illness associated with zoonotics (2, 12). Regardless, it is safest to assume that most of these organisms, including 0157 are everywhere including
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
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
I do not understand the concern about compost tea. A survey released this week in Oz has found that something like 40% of women and 65% of men do not wash their hands after using the toilet. I consider that any risk from foliar sprays of compost tea pales into insignificance.. Gil D S Chamberlain wrote: Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. Ideas anyone? David C - Original Message - From: Hugh Lovel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Dear Frank, You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to nothing. Everyone has it. Right? 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. Which should prohibit compost teas from feedlot manures, but why prohibit any others? 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. 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. As you can tell, my Scotch blood rises and my gorge swells in anticipation of a truly non-scientific debate (battle) in which significance pales into nothingness and mass is the persuading factor. I feel like 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 Dear Hugh, The fact that we all carry benign strains of E. coli in our guts, and are colonized therewith shortly after birth, does not mean that there are not virulent strains of E. coli from animal sources that we need to be concerned about. The E. coli 0157:H7 issue is covered in a number of places; one recent paper that is interesting is: http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf The infectious dose is indicative of the virulence of pathogenic bacteria, and E. coli O157:H7 has an extremely low infectious dose. In one outbreak the contamination level of E. coli O157:H7 in uncooked hamburger meat was less than 700 cells/patty and some victims ingested very little of the (improperly) cooked meat (Griffin, 1998). The Walkerton water outbreak here in Canada underscored the manure problem associated with 0157:H7: http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/walkertonmed.ht m Now, Hugh, I am willing to accept that BD folks as a group are at low risk of having and spreading 0157 around. But, the NOSB has to deal with a larger universe of people than that, with composts coming from feedlot animals, and with an influx of newbies who may or may not know their excrement from their waxy shoe protectant, if you catch my reference... Compost tea is new. By that I mean compost tea as Elaine defines it, aerobically amplified and nutrient added. Whatever we should say about the Bess study, she showed that you can grow E. coli in a compost tea environment. For the most part E. coli is simply an indicator for the fate of other pathogens, chosen for its ease of monitoring, but in its 0157 form (and a few others) it is a potent pathogen in its own right, and at very low infective doses. The majority of 0157 outbreaks have been meat related, but several have also occured in salad materials, fruit juices, and sprouts. So, concern that 0157 might pass into compost tea through compost and into the food supply through application of tea and retention on produce surfaces is not absurd. It is reasonable, and a small amount of precautionary activity can ensure that we develop
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
D S Chamberlain wrote: Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. This is a job for an Bio-Dynamic farmer who is also a scientist. Can anyone understand journal articles written by researchers on E. coli? Can someone start from the beginning with a skyhook--i.e., some background, then gather all the relevant scientific articles on E. coli 0 157 H:7 and on E. coli in general and pull them together to form a rebuttal to Will Brinton, et al., and publish in a prestigous journal with a bunch of references. Then, doggone it, write a book for laypeople like Our Stolen Future which was the first book I read on endocrine disruption from dioxin, a substance never mentioned on the label of herbicides which contain 2,4-D. Then make a video. The author of Our Stolen Future was a woman who got her Ph.D. in later life and who worked for the World Wildlife Fund. She had amassed all the journal articles and put 2 and 2 together and called together all the scientists from different fields to discuss the implications. After many meetings (I have papers from those meetings.), she wrote the book for laypeople. There are hundreds of scientific articles on endocrine disruption, but the EPA still allows dioxin-containing herbicides on the market because of the same reason that the National Organic Standards are based on "NPK organic" and leave out 24-hr Compost Tea as Elaine's group of researchers are developing it and Bio-Dynamic Agriculture. No matter how impenetrable the political situation is, we have the right and responsibility to put our information out there. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. When I wanted to use Pfeiffer Field Spray on our road and it wasn't registered in Idaho, that gave Randy his opportunity to scream me down when I mentioned the word "Bio-Dynamics" by saying "It contains nematodes." He didn't know whether Pfeiffer Field Spray contained root nematodes or not, but he's acted like he did. He just knew that it hadn't been tested by the state lab. What he said was irrelevant, but he made such a fuss that I never did even get a chance to speak. I think some of those present understood what I was talking about. Brad, our Weed Supervisor later told Randy that he was a jackass and Randy apologized to me at Bonner Cty Weed Meeting in his oblique way. Maybe there's hope. We have to start somewhere to interface with these people who don't have a clue about the things that are most important to us. I heard one of the late night TV talk show hosts make a derogatory joke about something by comparing it to dowsing. It's just lack of understanding. I don't know how long it's going to take, but we have to keep working. I think the Korrows' idea about doing a video is good. I have an excellent video on the patenting of life called "Not for Sale" from Moving Images Video Project, 2408 E. Valley Street, Seattle, WA 98112 206 323-9461, www.movingimages.org>. Their distributor is Bulldog Films, I think. You could do worse than getting in with them. You want professional video people to make the film. There is a filmmaker here who made a video about Sandpoint which I am going to see for the first time on Sunday. You first need to decide what information you want to get across to people about Bio-Dynamics, then you need to find a filmmaker to work with to make it really good. "Not for Sale" has shots from all over the world, really exciting music and is very well put together and edited. I bet this group could collaborate over the net and come up with something that would set the record straight. Merla - Original Message - From: "Hugh Lovel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps > Dear Frank, > > You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to > nothing. Everyone has it. Right? > > The real question is the presence of E. coli 0157:H7. Can everyone agree > tothat? 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.Which should prohibit compost teas > from feedlot manures, but why prohibitany others? > > If we could agree on where 0157:H7 occurs, then blanket testing for E. > coliis 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. > > Please, give me good science, not scare propaganda a la Dennis
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
I do not understand the concern about compost tea. A survey released this week in Oz has found that something like 40% of women and 65% of men do not wash their hands after using the toilet. I consider that any risk from foliar sprays of compost tea pales into insignificance.. Gil I think we are concerned about people who do not wash their hands after wiping a grain-fed cows butt, Gil. I'm not that afraid of the germs I already have. (Hey, I could go on, but I won't! ;-) -Allan
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
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/12/47/124779.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
Re: VIDEO/DISCUSSION Groups was Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
I would love to duplicate the program here, can I $$$ to copy the videos??? SStorch
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
If one counted all the people that had a tummy bug from eating organic food over the the last hundred years it would be a lot less than those who have died or had serious complications over the last 20 years, from agricultural chemicals. The U.S.D.A. has this like a dog with a bone and will chew on it until it has lost its flavour. Cheers, Peter. - Original Message - From: D S Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening?
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
David, I brought this up to our National Organic/Biodynamic Production Standards committee (Australia)and they have spoken with the CSIRO re research into this issue. David Matthews is an Ex Vet and knows all about this stuff, and has mates in the right places. Now we have to look at research funding, especially trying to get the Organic levies outof the non-organic sphere. But fear not, it is being taken seriously and wheels are in motion. I really appreciate the discussion happening on BDNow to help this issue along. Cheryl Kemp Education and Workshop Coordinator Biodynamic AgriCulture Australia Phone /Fax : 02 6657 5322 Home: 02 6657 5306 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.biodynamics.net.au - Original Message - From: D S Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. Ideas anyone? David C - Original Message - From: Hugh Lovel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Dear Frank, You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to nothing. Everyone has it. Right? 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. Which should prohibit compost teas from feedlot manures, but why prohibit any others? 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. 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. As you can tell, my Scotch blood rises and my gorge swells in anticipation of a truly non-scientific debate (battle) in which significance pales into nothingness and mass is the persuading factor. I feel like 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 Dear Hugh, The fact that we all carry benign strains of E. coli in our guts, and are colonized therewith shortly after birth, does not mean that there are not virulent strains of E. coli from animal sources that we need to be concerned about. The E. coli 0157:H7 issue is covered in a number of places; one recent paper that is interesting is: http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf The infectious dose is indicative of the virulence of pathogenic bacteria, and E. coli O157:H7 has an extremely low infectious dose. In one outbreak the contamination level of E. coli O157:H7 in uncooked hamburger meat was less than 700 cells/patty and some victims ingested very little of the (improperly) cooked meat (Griffin, 1998). The Walkerton water outbreak here in Canada underscored the manure problem associated with 0157:H7: http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/walkertonmed.ht m Now, Hugh, I am willing to accept that BD folks as a group are at low risk of having and spreading 0157 around. But, the NOSB has to deal with a larger universe of people than that, with composts coming from feedlot animals, and with an influx of newbies who may or may not know their excrement from their waxy shoe protectant, if you catch my reference... Compost tea is new. By that I mean compost tea as Elaine defines it, aerobically amplified and nutrient added. Whatever we should say about the Bess study, she showed that you can grow E. coli in a compost tea environment. For the most part E. coli is simply an indicator for the
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Title: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps I do not understand the concern about compost tea. A survey released this week in Oz has found that something like 40% of women and 65% of men do not wash their hands after using the toilet. I consider that any risk from foliar sprays of compost tea pales into insignificance.. Gil I think we are concerned about people who do not wash their hands after wiping a grain-fed cows butt, Gil. I'm not that afraid of the germs I already have. (Hey, I could go on, but I won't! ;-) -Allan Allan, some times I have had a confusion as to which end you was using. Now I know the source of the the confusion. By the by your belief is miss guided. Your own germs recycling through you will be destructive and could account for chem sensitivities. Thank you Gil, your right on! L*L Markess
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
- Original Message - From: Cheryl Kemp David, I brought this up to our National Organic/Biodynamic Production Standards committee (Australia)and they have spoken with the CSIRO re research into this issue. David Matthews is an Ex Vet and knows all about this stuff, and has mates in the right places. Now we have to look at research funding, especially trying to get the Organic levies outof the non-organic sphere. But fear not, it is being taken seriously and wheels are in motion. I really appreciate the discussion happening on BDNow to help this issue along. Cheryl and David What are the present FOOD SAFETY regulations that apply to use of Compost tea and similar materials on food crops - and I think here would be included things like liquid fish fertiliser, liquid kelp, some of the humate products. ??? Who sets these rules ?? Who enforces them ?? I know I am a bit strange but I dont think it is the place of certifying agencies like BFA co to make decisions based on food safety that affect the whole community, after all crappy compost tea sprayed on conventionally raised crops is gonna be just as unsafe.? Shouldnt this be someone else's patch - the same people that certify the safeness of GMO raised and Endosulfan enriched vegies should be in charge of that?? My local reseller of toxicology just informed me that Endosulfan is still legal on vegetables as is parathion and chloropyrifos - witholding periods of a matter of days from spraying to consumption - but if you want to spray it on grass to feed to beef cattle for export slaughter its six months witholding. (just a sample of what we are up against). This whole deal on CT regs is about multinational money - got nothing to do with consumer safety (or very little anyway) Lloyd Charles
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Frank, You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to nothing. Everyone has it. Right? 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. Which should prohibit compost teas from feedlot manures, but why prohibit any others? 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. 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. As you can tell, my Scotch blood rises and my gorge swells in anticipation of a truly non-scientific debate (battle) in which significance pales into nothingness and mass is the persuading factor. I feel like 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 Dear Hugh, The fact that we all carry benign strains of E. coli in our guts, and are colonized therewith shortly after birth, does not mean that there are not virulent strains of E. coli from animal sources that we need to be concerned about. The E. coli 0157:H7 issue is covered in a number of places; one recent paper that is interesting is: http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf The infectious dose is indicative of the virulence of pathogenic bacteria, and E. coli O157:H7 has an extremely low infectious dose. In one outbreak the contamination level of E. coli O157:H7 in uncooked hamburger meat was less than 700 cells/patty and some victims ingested very little of the (improperly) cooked meat (Griffin, 1998). The Walkerton water outbreak here in Canada underscored the manure problem associated with 0157:H7: http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/walkertonmed.htm Now, Hugh, I am willing to accept that BD folks as a group are at low risk of having and spreading 0157 around. But, the NOSB has to deal with a larger universe of people than that, with composts coming from feedlot animals, and with an influx of newbies who may or may not know their excrement from their waxy shoe protectant, if you catch my reference... Compost tea is new. By that I mean compost tea as Elaine defines it, aerobically amplified and nutrient added. Whatever we should say about the Bess study, she showed that you can grow E. coli in a compost tea environment. For the most part E. coli is simply an indicator for the fate of other pathogens, chosen for its ease of monitoring, but in its 0157 form (and a few others) it is a potent pathogen in its own right, and at very low infective doses. The majority of 0157 outbreaks have been meat related, but several have also occured in salad materials, fruit juices, and sprouts. So, concern that 0157 might pass into compost tea through compost and into the food supply through application of tea and retention on produce surfaces is not absurd. It is reasonable, and a small amount of precautionary activity can ensure that we develop this exciting new tool in agriculture safely and responsibly. This is not a bad thing, nor the end of the world; it just echoes the age old truth that along with greater power ( the ability to quickly multiply the bacterial count of a watery extract of compost a thousand fold) comes greater responsibility ( the need to be even more careful to avoid multiplying a pathogen). I guess this also means, that yes Virginia, it does so matter where your cow pattie comes from;-) I suppose I could say something about stampeding, fear, ignorance, sticking your head in the sand, and really doing your homework on the science of the matter, but I already have enough bad karma for being unpleasant with Jane, so I won't go there But Hugh, there are an awful lot of people out there who think there really is a pathogen problem, including Dr Brinton, and even Elaine herself. Pretending it doesn't exist is not the answer. Frank Teuton - Original Message - From: Hugh Lovel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Dear Frank, The E. coli scare is absurd. I question whether there is a single human on this continent that doesn't have E. coli in their
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Hugh: I think that Frank has a valid point. Obviously poorly made compost tea can contain E.coli, the question is how do we stop it happening? Perceptions are everything, if it can be traced that someone got ill from compost tea then there are legions of highly paid people who will push the perception, right or wrong, that all compost tea is bad. No amount of huffing and puffing will change the perception once instigated, rumour and innuendo is the way that chemical companies fight and there's plenty of suckers out there willing to listen to them. Ideas anyone? David C - Original Message - From: Hugh Lovel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Dear Frank, You're right to a point, mate. The presence of E. coli means next to nothing. Everyone has it. Right? 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. Which should prohibit compost teas from feedlot manures, but why prohibit any others? 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. 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. As you can tell, my Scotch blood rises and my gorge swells in anticipation of a truly non-scientific debate (battle) in which significance pales into nothingness and mass is the persuading factor. I feel like 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 Dear Hugh, The fact that we all carry benign strains of E. coli in our guts, and are colonized therewith shortly after birth, does not mean that there are not virulent strains of E. coli from animal sources that we need to be concerned about. The E. coli 0157:H7 issue is covered in a number of places; one recent paper that is interesting is: http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf The infectious dose is indicative of the virulence of pathogenic bacteria, and E. coli O157:H7 has an extremely low infectious dose. In one outbreak the contamination level of E. coli O157:H7 in uncooked hamburger meat was less than 700 cells/patty and some victims ingested very little of the (improperly) cooked meat (Griffin, 1998). The Walkerton water outbreak here in Canada underscored the manure problem associated with 0157:H7: http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/walkertonmed.ht m Now, Hugh, I am willing to accept that BD folks as a group are at low risk of having and spreading 0157 around. But, the NOSB has to deal with a larger universe of people than that, with composts coming from feedlot animals, and with an influx of newbies who may or may not know their excrement from their waxy shoe protectant, if you catch my reference... Compost tea is new. By that I mean compost tea as Elaine defines it, aerobically amplified and nutrient added. Whatever we should say about the Bess study, she showed that you can grow E. coli in a compost tea environment. For the most part E. coli is simply an indicator for the fate of other pathogens, chosen for its ease of monitoring, but in its 0157 form (and a few others) it is a potent pathogen in its own right, and at very low infective doses. The majority of 0157 outbreaks have been meat related, but several have also occured in salad materials, fruit juices, and sprouts. So, concern that 0157 might pass into compost tea through compost and into the food supply through application of tea and retention on produce surfaces is not absurd. It is reasonable, and a small amount of precautionary activity can ensure that we develop this exciting new tool in agriculture safely and responsibly. This is not a bad thing, nor the end of the world; it just echoes the age old truth that along with greater power ( the ability to quickly multiply the bacterial count of a watery extract of compost a thousand fold) comes greater responsibility ( the need to be even more careful to avoid multiplying a pathogen). I guess this also means, that yes Virginia, it
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Jane Sherry wrote: Jean-Paul did not express interest, I was just lucky enough to be at the farm, ate some wonderful farm food, and mentioned the thread at bdnow. He is well aware of how ridiculous the USDA org regs are as regards e coli, and in fact mentioned that there could not possibly be any e coli in a properly made compost or compost tea! Jean Paul has previously said that he looks to Will Brinton as his composting guru. Brinton, in addition to advising us as to the proper shape of cow horn for prepmaking, is also on record pointing out that there is indeed a substantial possibility that 'properly made' compost and compost tea can have E. coli in it. Look at www.woodsend.org under publications, and make sure you have Adobe Acrobat reader. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but if you are composting in a hurry, and even following the hot composting regs, you may still end up with fecal coliforms (E.coli and a few others) in the hundreds per gram, and can still brew them up into the thousands per ml. It may not happen every time, but apparently it can happen enough to make compost tea on food crops a sort of negative lottery. For that reason, compost tea advocates across the spectrum suggest that compost tea for fresh produce crops be made from certified compost containing no E.coli, especially no E.coli 0157:H7, the pathogenic form most likely to cause problems, found in a recent USDA study in nearly half the cattle herds in the USA. Yes, in really good compost you won't find E. coli, and yes, in really good compost tea E. coli will be reduced rather than grow. Vermicomposting, which composters who have a long cycle are often doing even without knowing it, will crash E. coli pops in as little as 7-60 days, perhaps due to the presence of certain amoebae that worms carry which find E. coli to be especially tasty...and/or perhaps due to other reasons involving the commensal consortia of microorganisms associated with the earthworms. Does everyone out there have 'really good compost'? Frankly I doubt it. Do the process standards required under the NOSB, or even recommended in Dr Ingham's Compost Tea Manual, always result in 'really good compost'? No, I think they do not. Those standards are designed to produce compost which is below 1,000 MPN per gram of fecal coliforms. Compost containing 100 or less MPN of E. coli (the predominant fecal coliform) has been used in reasonable looking compost tea brewers and been made to grow E.coli following various nutrient additions. This compost is well within the accepted norm of 'properly made compost'. So, while it may be true that many or most 'properly made composts' should contain low or no E. coli and not grow them in compost tea making, it is likely also true that some, perhaps even many 'properly made composts' do contain E. coli and lack the antagonists necessary to reduce E. coli, thus allowing growth to take place when suitable nutrients are added in a compost tea situation. Dr Ingham herself accepts as reasonable the suggestion that compost for tea applications on fresh produce within 120 days of harvest be tested and certified E. coli free. I think she knows that not all 'composts' will qualify. Frank Teuton
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Actually, Frank, in that conversation, JP also said it is because of Will Brinton that this e coli mess happened around these compost tea regs, and he didn't sound happy about it. Frankly, I have always understood the current organics game to be about claiming market share. Not at all about producing vital quality food for people. The more the world changes, the more convinced I am that we need locally produced food by people who's face we can see and name we can know. CSA's make more sense than ever. Here in the east coast of US, almost all of the organic food (in health stores) comes from the commercial so called organic farms in CA. It has no taste for the most part, and goes bad after two days and has no vital forces. I recently heard another story about a so called organic farmer who sprayed their farmers' market greens with some kind of 'approved' gas or chemical to make them stay fresher longer and poisoned their downhill neighbors. It pays to know who you are dealing with and failing that to develop powers of discernment. If you're going to trust this government to tell you what is safe to eat, then you're a fool, excuse me! (Yeah, you live in Canada where people don't even lock their doors!) When the margarine producers wanted more market share, who came out talking about clogged arteries from fat? Who has more obese members of the population than America? Certainly, there is going to be bad compost tea along with the good stuff. Just like farmers. If people would stop looking for a magic bullet (compost tea) or 'the great man' (Steiner, the gov't, whomever) to save them, and look to themselves and their own community work on their spiritual development along with other kinds of development, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Blessings, Jane S. From: Frank Teuton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:58:55 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Jean Paul has previously said that he looks to Will Brinton as his composting guru. Brinton, in addition to advising us as to the proper shape of cow horn for prepmaking, is also on record pointing out that there is indeed a substantial possibility that 'properly made' compost and compost tea can have E. coli in it.
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Certainly, there is going to be bad compost tea along with the good stuff. Just like farmers. If people would stop looking for a magic bullet (compost tea) or 'the great man' (Steiner, the gov't, whomever) to save them, and look to themselves and their own community work on their spiritual development along with other kinds of development, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Jane - I was with you until this last paragraph, which sounds like a vote for the blind leading-the-blind. Having spent far more time than I wished I had in communal situations, I vote for everyone think for themselves while following practical charismatic leaders. Psychologist/bodhisatva Ken Wilber provides some pretty strong spiritual evolution models that explain why it is to our advantage to work with individuals who are at least one rung up the ladder of evolution from where we are. His ideas are worth checking out. Otherwise, in many ways, we are trying to solve problems with the same minds that created them. Throw out government advice, sure (but the smart money will use it in a discerning fashion), but I'm cleaving to Rudolf Steiner and the several teachers that his ideas have inspired. I'm not ashamed of knowing less than someone else, in fact, am slow enough to look at almost everyone as a teacher. Aside from this, I'm all for organizing at the local level and think that, ideally, CSA is a route to redemption. Allan Balliett who is currently atoning for delivering the CSA concept to swines
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Jane wrote: Certainly, there is going to be bad compost tea along with the good stuff. Uh huh. And, if the bad compost tea is used on the fresh produce, that means there will be a food poisoning outbreak, and dead kids and old people, and that is just, well, tough luck? Or, B, farmers should only make and use compost tea on fresh produce if it is tested and thus known to be pathogen free? Please forgive my lack of 'spiritual evolution' but, in my view, the effort required to use known compost entities is small and the benefit of assurance of tea quality is large, given the potential risks. Somehow, Oh well and Shrug seem to me unacceptable as a response to this possibility. Frank Teuton
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Allan, we are not in disagreement. I'm all for teachers, as long as one, again, uses discernment, one's own cognitive intuitive powers along with their teachings. It's not Steiner I am knocking--just hero worship blind obedience (ie: Steiner didn't say that, etc etc) JS From: Allan Balliett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:53:07 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps am slow enough to look at almost everyone as a teacher. Aside from this, I'm all for organizing at the local level and think that, ideally, CSA is a route to redemption.
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Oh, well is not at all my response. I am not a scientist, but I bet if you looked up the numbers for those killed or sickened by pathogens in government approved meat (listeria, e coli, etc etc) you'd understand my perspective. I maintain, that this government is NOT to be trusted with my health. It is only a start to certify food is supposedly safe. This government approves all kinds of chemicals are 'safe' to allow industry to dump into my groundwater, earth, air and food. So if you're going to argue that we need government certification, I would argue we need local certification which would be much more meaningful to me. I simply don't trust this government to tell me what is and is not good for me. Shall I go on? What about mercury in children's vaccines? Take your pick. I understand the main intention here is to protect the people from pathogens. But that ain't going to happen. Like our friend down under said, what about the jerk who eats salad after going to the bathroom doesn't have enough sense to wash his hands. This country is lawsuit crazy. This is another good way to make lawyers rich and people poor. Nothing in me is going oh well and shrug about certification. It 's more like oh shit, they're co-opting another good thing to make themselves rich. Jane From: Frank Teuton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:49:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Jane wrote: Certainly, there is going to be bad compost tea along with the good stuff. Uh huh. And, if the bad compost tea is used on the fresh produce, that means there will be a food poisoning outbreak, and dead kids and old people, and that is just, well, tough luck? Or, B, farmers should only make and use compost tea on fresh produce if it is tested and thus known to be pathogen free? Please forgive my lack of 'spiritual evolution' but, in my view, the effort required to use known compost entities is small and the benefit of assurance of tea quality is large, given the potential risks. Somehow, Oh well and Shrug seem to me unacceptable as a response to this possibility. Frank Teuton
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Jane: You sound like the kid who refused to do his homework because 'the universe is expanding'. Yep, there is all sorts of bad stuff out there, the 'gummint' is into it up to its armpits, etc, etc. It is still the case that compost tea can be made well, not so well, and downright badly. It is less obvious than originally put forward how easy it is to do it badly. In trying to tell whether Brinton or Ingham is right about the risk, it is necessary to look at their arguments and data. The Bess experiments at least show it is possible to grow E. coli from stuff that looks like compost (and had passed through the regulatory requirements for 'properly made compost' as far as process is concerned) in something that looks like a compost tea brewer, using recommended nutrients at recommended amounts. From the regulators POV this means 'compost tea' as an unrestricted practice is not acceptable. The restriction of no added nutrients first proposed by the Compost Task Force would eliminate the potential of magnifying foodweb populations through feeding; the other possibility of requiring testing either of the compost or the resulting teas preserves that potential, while imposing other costs. In my opinion, the NOSB was correct in not accepting unrestricted use of compost teas. What needs to happen next is to determine what the necessary safeguards are to permit amplified foodweb culture use for fresh produce growing. It is certainly premature to say 'oh of course it is the evil gummint placing its jackboot on the neck of conscientious compost tea proponents, whose inherent holiness suppresses all pathogen growth of any kind within a 50 meter radius of their passage through the time space continuum.' The science of all this is very far from being settled. I find it remarkable how easily the BD crowd dismisses their own compost scientist's viewpoint and research on this subject. It may be time to take a closer look at this, and be a bit more rigorous and skeptical. Frank Teuton---true, he doesn't lock his doors, but his garage is full of savage attack trained watch worms.which eat E. coli as if it were candy - Original Message - From: Jane Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BdNow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Oh, well is not at all my response. I am not a scientist, but I bet if you looked up the numbers for those killed or sickened by pathogens in government approved meat (listeria, e coli, etc etc) you'd understand my perspective. I maintain, that this government is NOT to be trusted with my health. It is only a start to certify food is supposedly safe. This government approves all kinds of chemicals are 'safe' to allow industry to dump into my groundwater, earth, air and food. So if you're going to argue that we need government certification, I would argue we need local certification which would be much more meaningful to me. I simply don't trust this government to tell me what is and is not good for me. Shall I go on? What about mercury in children's vaccines? Take your pick. I understand the main intention here is to protect the people from pathogens. But that ain't going to happen. Like our friend down under said, what about the jerk who eats salad after going to the bathroom doesn't have enough sense to wash his hands. This country is lawsuit crazy. This is another good way to make lawyers rich and people poor. Nothing in me is going oh well and shrug about certification. It 's more like oh shit, they're co-opting another good thing to make themselves rich. Jane From: Frank Teuton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:49:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Jane wrote: Certainly, there is going to be bad compost tea along with the good stuff. Uh huh. And, if the bad compost tea is used on the fresh produce, that means there will be a food poisoning outbreak, and dead kids and old people, and that is just, well, tough luck? Or, B, farmers should only make and use compost tea on fresh produce if it is tested and thus known to be pathogen free? Please forgive my lack of 'spiritual evolution' but, in my view, the effort required to use known compost entities is small and the benefit of assurance of tea quality is large, given the potential risks. Somehow, Oh well and Shrug seem to me unacceptable as a response to this possibility. Frank Teuton
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Well, Frank, it's clear you're putting words into my mouth and making assumptions based upon your own arguments not mine. Mine is simple. I do not trust government to determine what is safe for me to eat. That has nothing to do with your arguments, which scientifically speaking I am sure are very important. I am not proposing that we throw out all gov't regulations, just that we need someone in charge who is trustworthy. You are welcome to think my opinions are somewhere out there in the time space continuum. Jane From: Frank Teuton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:00:57 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps It is certainly premature to say 'oh of course it is the evil gummint placing its jackboot on the neck of conscientious compost tea proponents, whose inherent holiness suppresses all pathogen growth of any kind within a 50 meter radius of their passage through the time space continuum.'
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Frank, The E. coli scare is absurd. I question whether there is a single human on this continent that doesn't have E. coli in their intestines. On the other hand, the HR 157:H7 strain that is so pathogenic is a feed lot breed. It isn't cattle herds on pasture that have it, it is herds in confinement being fed on grain by-products. This produces a chronic diarhea condition in the cattle and hence they get HR157:H7. My local slaughter house that only slaughters local pastured beef gets tested twice a week and has never had any HR157:H7 show up. It is pathetic when fear stampedes people and they ignore the science of the subject. Best, Hugh Lovel Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Elaine outlined at the Bioneers conference the unscientific ness of the 2 tests they used and also the ludicriousness of having ecoli in an aerobic solution. This situation is just another example of bad science being used for capitialist ends. Need I go on about the corruptness of science in our present age. Science has become a joke. Until there is a united NAtions of science where sciences' own criteria are actually applied to itself and all branches of science are forced to keep up with each other, then science has lost its relevance as any form of authority. It is just yet one more prostitute of business. And this time its Elaine getting screwed by it. Elaine is the biggest threat to the chemical companies that has come along in a long time. She may have felt she was part of the establishment enough to have her work accepted. There are enough examples of 'expelled' scientisits around to show she may well be (is) getting the same treatment. Yet again the rich doing what they can (Joni Mitchell) Glen A Hugh Lovel wrote: Dear Frank, The E. coli scare is absurd. I question whether there is a single human on this continent that doesn't have E. coli in their intestines. On the other hand, the HR 157:H7 strain that is so pathogenic is a feed lot breed. It isn't cattle herds on pasture that have it, it is herds in confinement being fed on grain by-products. This produces a chronic diarhea condition in the cattle and hence they get HR157:H7. My local slaughter house that only slaughters local pastured beef gets tested twice a week and has never had any HR157:H7 show up. It is pathetic when fear stampedes people and they ignore the science of the subject. Best, Hugh Lovel Visit our website at: www.unionag.org -- Garuda Biodynamics - for BD Preps, Consultations, Books Diagrams See our web site http://get.to/garuda
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Hugh, The fact that we all carry benign strains of E. coli in our guts, and are colonized therewith shortly after birth, does not mean that there are not virulent strains of E. coli from animal sources that we need to be concerned about. The E. coli 0157:H7 issue is covered in a number of places; one recent paper that is interesting is: http://www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Callaway.pdf The infectious dose is indicative of the virulence of pathogenic bacteria, and E. coli O157:H7 has an extremely low infectious dose. In one outbreak the contamination level of E. coli O157:H7 in uncooked hamburger meat was less than 700 cells/patty and some victims ingested very little of the (improperly) cooked meat (Griffin, 1998). The Walkerton water outbreak here in Canada underscored the manure problem associated with 0157:H7: http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/walkertonmed.htm Now, Hugh, I am willing to accept that BD folks as a group are at low risk of having and spreading 0157 around. But, the NOSB has to deal with a larger universe of people than that, with composts coming from feedlot animals, and with an influx of newbies who may or may not know their excrement from their waxy shoe protectant, if you catch my reference... Compost tea is new. By that I mean compost tea as Elaine defines it, aerobically amplified and nutrient added. Whatever we should say about the Bess study, she showed that you can grow E. coli in a compost tea environment. For the most part E. coli is simply an indicator for the fate of other pathogens, chosen for its ease of monitoring, but in its 0157 form (and a few others) it is a potent pathogen in its own right, and at very low infective doses. The majority of 0157 outbreaks have been meat related, but several have also occured in salad materials, fruit juices, and sprouts. So, concern that 0157 might pass into compost tea through compost and into the food supply through application of tea and retention on produce surfaces is not absurd. It is reasonable, and a small amount of precautionary activity can ensure that we develop this exciting new tool in agriculture safely and responsibly. This is not a bad thing, nor the end of the world; it just echoes the age old truth that along with greater power ( the ability to quickly multiply the bacterial count of a watery extract of compost a thousand fold) comes greater responsibility ( the need to be even more careful to avoid multiplying a pathogen). I guess this also means, that yes Virginia, it does so matter where your cow pattie comes from;-) I suppose I could say something about stampeding, fear, ignorance, sticking your head in the sand, and really doing your homework on the science of the matter, but I already have enough bad karma for being unpleasant with Jane, so I won't go there But Hugh, there are an awful lot of people out there who think there really is a pathogen problem, including Dr Brinton, and even Elaine herself. Pretending it doesn't exist is not the answer. Frank Teuton - Original Message - From: Hugh Lovel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Dear Frank, The E. coli scare is absurd. I question whether there is a single human on this continent that doesn't have E. coli in their intestines. On the other hand, the HR 157:H7 strain that is so pathogenic is a feed lot breed. It isn't cattle herds on pasture that have it, it is herds in confinement being fed on grain by-products. This produces a chronic diarhea condition in the cattle and hence they get HR157:H7. My local slaughter house that only slaughters local pastured beef gets tested twice a week and has never had any HR157:H7 show up. It is pathetic when fear stampedes people and they ignore the science of the subject. Best, Hugh Lovel Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Jane Sherry wrote: Well, Frank, it's clear you're putting words into my mouth and making assumptions based upon your own arguments not mine. Mine is simple. I do not trust government to determine what is safe for me to eat. Snip I am with you. Gil
Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Title: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Hello all, I tried searching the archives for the results of Elaines testing of the bd preps but for some reason was unable to find them. Does someone have them handy to forward to me so I can share them with Jean-Paul? Thanks, Jane Sherry
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Hello all, I tried searching the archives for the results of Elaine's testing of the bd preps but for some reason was unable to find them. Does someone have them handy to forward to me so I can share them with Jean-Paul? Thanks, Jane Sherry Oh, please, Jane, tell me what Jean-Paul wants with lab work from the physcial preps!! The testing of the BD preps by BD Now! through SFI pretty much went the way Chris apparently expects the film work to go. However, I think I was willing to give my co-workers a little more rope, which, unfortunately, means a little more time. Only enough funds were raised to test one BD prep, which, to date, has not been done. Finally, when the funds for testing the preps were finally forwarded to me (which was some time ago, but not that long ago in the scheme of things), I was in the midst of the pre and post BIODYNAMIC CONFERENCE landslide of me-oriented extra labor, which has not abated at this time for reasons I do not care to discuss on-line. In the meantime, there is a lot of discussion from the Organic certification people about not allowing the use of manure based compost teas in food production. (Which is probably Jean Paul's interest: to 'know' that there is no e-coli in the manure-based preps) Personally, I do not feel that right now is an appropriate time to associate BD with compost tea because, of course, the preps are not compost tea but they may wind up 'banned' from organic farms along with manure-based compost teas. I'll pose this question to Hugh Courtney and see how he feels. I think it is very important that we set aside our personal interests and act responsibly with and for the preps in the eye of a less-than-understanding public. I could be overly protective, however, and will leave it to Hugh to make the call. Does that help? -Allan
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Because I am not interested in how the preps tested, I did not follow that thread, hence my misunderstanding that they had in fact been tested. Jean-Paul did not express interest, I was just lucky enough to be at the farm, ate some wonderful farm food, and mentioned the thread at bdnow. He is well aware of how ridiculous the USDA org regs are as regards e coli, and in fact mentioned that there could not possibly be any e coli in a properly made compost or compost tea! Apparently I have not learned my lesson to keep myself out of these political bruha's. Was only wanting to share some of your good work with JP, who is something of a soil magician, and was curious ONLY after I brought it up. Take your rescue remedy, and failing that drink a lot of oat straw tea my dear! Jane Does that help? -Allan
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Sorry if you read me wrong, Jane. My intention was not to chastise you but simply bring you up to date. No emotional energy here. I have total respect for Jean-Paul, which is why I was curious about why he would care about the physcial attributes of the preps. Your remark about 'political bruha' seems to trivialize the actual state of things. It is important to understand that if the USDA says that manure-based compost teas are 'dangerous,' it's not going to be acceptable to the customers of we non-certified organic practitioners to provide them food that 'shit has been sprayed on.' Anyone to steps in the realm of reason in regard to this will really be putting themself in jeopardy should any of their customers become ill for any reason whatsoever after eating a meal containing tea blasted produce. Let me be clear about this, though: the USDA is just discussing the sanctions on tea right now. This is not, as far as I understand, part of the certification rule currently. (Lloyd? Frank?) Ironically, I have been thinking of adding oat straw tea to my daily routine. That and 1m hypericum 3x daily for a few weeks. Thanks for the post, Jane -Allan
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
Dear Allan, Sounds as if there may be a case for the use of radionically potentised preps in America if the USDA persists with the compost tea regulations. What is the use of 3x Hypericum on your crops. It is trying to rain here today so we will keep our fingers crossed. Regards from the Land of the Wizards of Oz. James - Original Message - From: Allan Balliett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Sorry if you read me wrong, Jane. My intention was not to chastise you but simply bring you up to date. No emotional energy here. I have total respect for Jean-Paul, which is why I was curious about why he would care about the physcial attributes of the preps. Your remark about 'political bruha' seems to trivialize the actual state of things. It is important to understand that if the USDA says that manure-based compost teas are 'dangerous,' it's not going to be acceptable to the customers of we non-certified organic practitioners to provide them food that 'shit has been sprayed on.' Anyone to steps in the realm of reason in regard to this will really be putting themself in jeopardy should any of their customers become ill for any reason whatsoever after eating a meal containing tea blasted produce. Let me be clear about this, though: the USDA is just discussing the sanctions on tea right now. This is not, as far as I understand, part of the certification rule currently. (Lloyd? Frank?) Ironically, I have been thinking of adding oat straw tea to my daily routine. That and 1m hypericum 3x daily for a few weeks. Thanks for the post, Jane -Allan
Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps
- Original Message - From: Allan Balliett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Search for results of Elaine's testing of bd preps Allan - Dont forget I'm an aussie so just watching this unfold from the sidelines at this stage but was after clarification as to whether this was being treated as a food safety issue - across the board - or as a certification issue - a rule for organic producers. My feeling is that the people driving this will go the food safety route because conventional farmers using teas are the real worry to the chemical companies,they dont stand to loose much more money on the organic side. And yes it will affect us in time - if you guys loose we will follow suit no questions asked. It is important to understand that if the USDA says that manure-based compost teas are 'dangerous,' it's not going to be acceptable to the customers of we non-certified organic practitioners to provide them food that 'shit has been sprayed on.' Anyone to steps in the realm of reason in regard to this will really be putting themself in jeopardy should any of their customers become ill for any reason whatsoever after eating a meal containing tea blasted produce. And if they scratched their backside and dont wash their hands, or if they run three huge stinking dogs in the house and get sick after eating your produce you are still in trouble! Let me be clear about this, though: the USDA is just discussing the sanctions on tea right now. This is not, as far as I understand, part of the certification rule currently. (Lloyd? Frank?) Keep us posted please Lloyd Charles
