[USCC] Setting Industry Standards

[frank]

David, and composters

>
> Frank,
>What happens if much of the composted manure is found to contain the
>pathogenic strain of E. coli?  
>
Good question. We, all in USCC,  will need to do something to find a 
means to minimize the risk. Perhaps test for E Coli 0157 at point of sale.

>Will that compost producer be placed at
>risk because some persons are overly cautious and allowed the incidence
>of a non-compost related contamination event to influence the pathogen
>testing regime for all composted manures?
>
Yes - that composter will and should be placed at risk until the problem 
is solved to not place all composters at risk. We should not wait until 
someone else discovers their problem. "Overly cautious" !! Living in the 
area surrounded with lettuce and spinach fields being plowed up because 
of no sales, I suggest this is not being overly cautious. Finding E Coli 
0157 in a lot of compost samples will make the clopyralid problem seem 
like someone found a dirty diaper in a compost pile. All I am suggesting 
is the USCC fund a Fact Finding mission to show that we are not affraid 
to look into potential problems and able to police our own to protect 
the public. Once the fact finding mission completes we stop the program 
(hopefully) or make the needed changes in composting procedure and 
monitoring to ensure the public is safe. Isn't this the purpose of the 
USCC???

>  There is no current reason to
>stress about the pathogenic strain of E. coli in composted manure
>because the current fecal coliform testing program the uses EC-MUG media
>tests for the presence of E. coli as the indicator species for fecal
>coliform bacteria, which is a test for pathogen concentrations. 
>
We use the MPN 555 procedure. The E coli test that shows coliform at a 
high, but less than 1000 per gram still passes. It would be nice to know 
if it is the E Coli 0157 strain that is at 1000 per gram we are looking 
at. I suggest another, more specific procedure that goes to less than 
one per 25 grams for the 0157.

> My
>opinion is that labs could add the pathogen test to their list, but it
>shouldn't necessarily be included as an STA test and would really only
>add to the fear factor related to compost use.  
>
I agree. We only add it if we find it necessary during the fact finding. 
But more important we (USCC) have a system set up that will quickly  
take control of these types of problems.  IMO we are so close, having 
all the systems in place, but they are left incomplete and are not being 
used as intended. Testing for E Coli 0157 is an opturinity to show 
regulators, and us, that it works. And that we are not afraid of what we 
will find and can handle problems as we find them.


>Whether the pathogenic
>strain is present or not, the 503 regulations should still be used as a
>guideline for testing pathogens. If there are greater than 1000 CFU/g
>fecal coliform bacteria (E. coli), there is a problem.  If not, the risk
>is low. 
>
>  
>
I would like to see us (USCC) move away from the EPA 503 and develop our 
own limits, (lower than EPA 503) based on our findings. But that is 
another subject. I think 1000 per gram of E Coli 0157 is a little high 
when looking at all the problems we have seen. Before setting a 
standard, or waiting for someone else to do it for us, we should find 
our what is out there. Fact Finding

Frank

>Dave Schellinger 
>W. A. Callegari Environmental Center
>
>  
>

-- 
Frank Shields
Soil Control Lab
42 Hangar way
Watsonville, CA  95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(831) 724-3188 fax
frank at compostlab.com
www.compostlab.com