Question about Sludge

In this case organic is not referring to a style of production, but to a material (or set of materials) added to land. Commercial fertilizer adds no organic matter (bedding, etc.) when applied, but manure and other nutrients do.

Another thought - if biosolids aren`t composted or treated and applied to land or sold as a soil amendment, where do people think they go...it will all go to the landfill. And that is a recipe for disaster as there will be no testing and no possible abatement for leaching or leaking in to the water table. It is actually much safer to have biosolids applied to agricultural land in a responsible way, and that includes appropriate set backs from water and other sensitive features as well as appropriate application techniques and an application program that determines what type of crop is suitable. Remember the ``organic`` lettuce that was contaminated with manure...those kinds of safeguards should be and are in place in a responsible nutrient application program, regardless of the nutrient.

I'd have concerns too... if the truck that showed up had "Tony Soprano, Inc." on the side.

__________________
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Seneca
Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. W. Edwards Deming

Cabin Fever may have a Masters degree based on his studyof sludge but apparently doesn't understand the testing. On the other hand he may understand that the fecal coliform test hides all coliforms in sludge that are not thermotolernt like E. coli and Klebsiella. These are infectious Etiologic agents.

Of course many people don't understand they are dealing with "Etiologic agents [which] are those microorganisms and microbial toxins that cause disease in humans and include bacteria, bacterial toxins, viruses, fungi, rickettsiae, protozoans, and parasites. These disease-causing microorganisms may also be referred to as infectious agents."

It would also appear may not have not read the National Institutes of Health Guidelines Etiologic agents because he may not believe any existed in sewage and water. On the other hand it is possible he may not mind putting us at risk because these coliform are "Agents that are associated with human disease which is rarely serious and for which preventive or therapeutic interventions are often available." Unless I am badly mistaken Biosafety level 2 containment is required in the lab, but it is perfectly acceptable to expose the public to these RG2 agents. That observation is based on EPA's requirement that "Field and laboratory staff collecting and analyzing environmental samples are under some risk of exposure to pathogenic microorganisms. Staff should apply safety procedures used for pathogens to handle all samples."

Escherichia coli K-12 is the only strain not included in Risk Group 2 (RG2) Agents

Fecal coliform (RG2) Agents
Escherichia coli - all enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic, enteroinvasive and strains bearing K1 antigen, including E. coli O157:H7

Klebsiella - all species except K. oxytoca (RG1)

Other coliform (RG2) Agents
Edwardsiella tarda

--Salmonella including S. arizonae, S. cholerasuis, S. enteritidis, S. gallinarum-pullorum, S. meleagridis, S. paratyphi, A, B, C, S. typhi, S. typhimurium

--Shigella including S. boydii, S. dysenteriae, type 1, S. flexneri, S. sonnei

Yersinia enterocolitica

Bioterrorism Agents

Escherichia coli O157:H7
Salmonellosis
Shigella dysenteriae Type 1
Yersinia pestis (plague)
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist.asp#e

I find it hard to believe that anyone would imply sludge or recycled water are be safe if the regulations are followed when no one seems to know what Etiologic agents they are dealing with. Especially, when they have to abide by the Biosafety level 2 lab practices.
-----------------------------
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” - Mark Twain -

www.thewatchers.us
www.deadlydeceit.com
www.sludgevictims.com

Very interesting first post....it will take me a while to digest whatever it was you wrote. While we continue to wait for the first documented case of illness as a result of biosolids recycling, I was wondering if you could suggest what size stopper we should distribute to the people of the USA.

__________________
This is the government the Founding Fathers warned us about.....

As a sludge expert Cabin Fever, you must know one of our problems is that EPA doesn't want to identify any infectious Etiologic agents since it would automatically classify sewage sludge as a hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Act. That in turn would open up a can of worms with drinking water testing since 5% of the required tests may contain any or all of the 30 pathogenic coliform members of the Enterobacteriaceae family that causes infections from blood poisoning, to vascular, to flesh eating, to the Black Plague. They are: Averyella, Budvicia aquatica, Buttiauxella noackiae, Calymmatobacterium, Cedecea, Citrobacter, Edwardsiella, Enterobacter, Ewingella , Escherichia coli, Hafnia alvei, Klebsiella, Kluyvera, Koserella, Leclercia adecarboxylata, Leminorella, Moellerella wisconsensis, Morganella, Pantoea, Photorhabdus, Proteus, Providencia, Rahnella aquatilis, Salmonella, Serratia, Shigella, Tatumella, Xenorhabdus, Yersinia, Yokenella regensburgei.
http://thewatchers.us/deaths/disease...-coliform.html

Surely you are aware of this 1979 study? -- FECAL COLIFORM AND E. COLI ESTIMATES, TIP OF THE ICEBERGPure cultures of E. coli, Klebsiella and Enterobacter, obtained from hospital patients and from natural waters were tested for their growth patterns by spread plate and membrane filtration procedures at the following temperatures; 35 °, 41.5 °, 43 °, 44.5 °, and 35°C for 4 h followed by 18 h at 44.5°C. Results indicated that 44.5°C incubation produces the lowest population estimate and that the application of the membrane filtration technique also reduced the potential population. Three water samples collected during June, August and November were tested for fecal coliform and E. coli populations, with 11 different media (broth and agar) and
incubation temperatures of 35 °, 41.5 °, 43 °, 44.5 °, and 35°C for 4 h followed by 18 h at 44.5°C. During the study, isolates were collected from all positive MPN tubes at each temperature and from each MF medium-temperature regime, 24 to 50 isolates were collected. From the isolate data
corrected coliform (oxidase negative), fecal coliform and E. coli population estimates were made. A sample of feces was diluted in lake water and maintained at 20°C for 56 days. Samples were collected at various times and tested for fecal coliform densities using five media and the same
temperature regime as for the lake water samples. Data from these studies indicate that, depending on the age of the population being measured, the temperature of the water sample, and the temperature-media-procedure combination used, fecal coliform and E. coli population estimate
techniques measure from 5 to 100% of the potential population.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vr0uq8q480078448/

As an example see http://thewatchers.us/pathogens/test-comparison.html

That is precisely why all such "waste" should be subjected to the entire, hot, aerobic composting cycle which regularly peaks at 65-70 degrees C, and holds there for weeks.
The added benefit of thermophilic bacteria and other microbes, fungi, etc. who make a regular habit of dining on hot, dying pathogens is just icing on that dark, steaming and aromatic cake.

__________________
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.
III

Forerunner, do you have any thoughts about the relative benefits of aerobic vs. anaerobic "digestion"? Aside from the obvious from a composter like yourself. In my neck of the woods, there seems to be more of an appetite (if you'll pardon the expression) for anaerobic digestion of biosolids, perhaps because the perception of a closed unit. I've seen, smelled and felt the end product and it's pretty amazing.

Jim, those were very interesting posts, so please pardon my ignorance as I'm not very good at technical jargon, so this might have been answered in one of the posts.

How long do these infectious agents persist in a soil environment, or in a high temperature composting situation?

__________________
Ever tried? Ever failed? No Matter, try again, fail again. Fail better.

- Samuel Beckett

Majik, I far prefer aerobic; read, "hot", for the reasons given.
I suspect that anaerobic might be preferred for it's shorter duration and consequential reduced expense, and the fact that a carbon source is not required.

Given time and a degree of dehydration, I know that anaerobic does a fair job of decomposition and makes for a serviceable end product, but without heat or chemical interference, the pathogen cycle can remain unbroken in cooler settings.

Maria.... in a soil environment, there are many variables to consider.
In a high temp. compost environment, pathogens begin to die off within hours.
The details can all be found in Joseph Jenkins "Humanure handbook".
I also highly recommend "Rodales Complete Book of Composting", the old, three inch thick hardback edition.

__________________
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.
III

Maria that is a very good question. EPA claims there is no pathogens in Class A compost but it allows 1,000 colonies of fecal coliform (E. coli &/or Klebsiella) per gram based on sludge being dried at 105degC.

However, when desiccated by composting heat they may revive much later as the following study shows:
-- Factors Affecting Salmonellae Repopulation in Composted Sludges
The repopulation potential and recovery of Salmonella sp. and their close relatives Arizona spp. and Citrobacter spp. in sewage sludge which had been composted was examined. Salmonellae growth in previously composted sludge was found to occur in the mesophilic temperature range (20 to 40 degC), require a moisture content of -20%, and require a carbon/nitrogen ratio in excess of 15:1. These results also indicated that some enteric bacteria, upon desiccation, became dormant and in this state were highly resistant to both heat and radiation. Optimal recoveries in the low bacteria sample occurred at the 21% moisture level at 28 to 36 degC after a 5-day incubation. The population increased more than four orders of magnitude under these conditions. The indigenous salmonellae initiating this growth had survived in a desiccated state for over 1 year prior to providing the proper moisture-temperature combination for the repopulation to occur. --- as long as a demonstrated potential exists for repopulation of salmonellae in a commercial soil amendment product produced from composted sludge, a potential
health hazard exists for the user.
APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, Mar. 1981, p. 597-602
http://thewatchers.us/EPA/2/1981-sal...th-compost.pdf

According to EPA bacteria will survive for up to 12 months in soil and 6 months on plants. However, Chuck Gerba reported in 1986 that bacteria may survive for up to 16 months.
Control of Pathogens and Vector Attractions
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r92013/625R92013.pdf
http://deadlydeceit.com/exposure_sludge_biosolids.html

1996 -- "Pathogen Destruction and Biosolids Composting" in Biocycle of June of 1996,"There is some evidence that coliforms and Salmonella sp. can survive prolonged exposure to temperatures of 55 C." They cite a study done by Droffner and Brinton (1995) using DNA gene probes, where they detected E. coli and Salmonella sp. in samples collected from an in-vessel composting facility after the first 15 days of active composting at a temperature above 55 C. In Table 5-4 Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens in A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule, composting time and temperature requirements for within-vessel composting method was 55 C or higher for three days! Droffner and Brinton found that it
took 56 days and 90 days for the densities of Salmonella sp. and E. Coli, respectively, to decline below the detection limit...These investigators also "cite evidence of mutant strains of E. coli and Salmonella sp. resistant to thermal environments in composting." (p. 68)

So just out of curiousity JimBynum what do you think should be done with sludge?

oops double post

__________________
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
John Wayne

Cabin, you have earned my full respect and I bow down to your superior intellect you have a 'lots of smarts' or something.
Thank you
Columbia,SC
please post the picture of your 'bubba' teeth one day again, loved that.

__________________
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
John Wayne

Patt, you usually have a much larger viewpoint than what you just expressed. Assuming you read all the foregoing and the references, perhaps you could speak to the issue?

Nobody has said it, but it's generally agreed it's not supposed to be off-loaded into the ocean. Certainly the Dave Matthews Band was roundly chastized for spreading sewage from their tour bus on some hapless folks below the bridge.
It's real clear that biosolids are going to be spread on the earth.
I'm really interested in this subject. I read what Joel Salatin has to say about the carrying capacity of the earth and I respect Cabin Fever and his balanced response to my query.
My mind doesn't process information like yours or Cabin Fever's or Jim Bynum's but folks like me are following along here - a lot of us have read the Humanure book. Quite a few of us have "waterless loos" and have to figure out what to do with our our mini bio-solid processing plants. So why get your back up over what JB said? Why not contribute something kindly of your own?
What about giardia? Have I got that spelled right?

I don't think any type of farming can be considered 'sustainable' unless the circle is completed - the waste returned to the ground and used as fertilizer.

However, I think it is only wise that - as I think is the case most places? - the waste is used to fertilize feed grains that go to livestock, so as to add another step between us and any pathogens left in the waste.

And, the heavy metals/ toxins can be a rare - but real & something to consider - issue if the waste is mixed with poorly controled industrial wastes. Makes me thing 2wce as well, and I'm _for_ the use of this resource in growing crops.

A good thread, with real concerns in both directions.

--->Paul

Are you talking about my baby picture?

__________________
This is the government the Founding Fathers warned us about.....

I am just reading along too because honestly I don't have an opinion on it yet. 2 people I respect: Cabin Fever and Forerunner have brought up the excellent point that it has to go somewhere. We aren't all going to stop producing waste anytime soon. That's just reality so I am curious if Mr. Bynum has actually thought through what we should do with the stuff. It's easy to say don't do this but you have to have a solution for the problem at some point too.

LOVED the bubba teeth! Why can't all thread drifts be this much fun?????
And what a precious little kid! Thanks, Cabin Fever!

I was involved in the operation of a waste water pre-treatment system treating the effluent from chemical tank transport trailers. We discharged to a huge regional WMA that had pioneered sludge farming for brownfield reclamation. Their facility was located adjacent to a Superfund site [yeah I know NJ has more of those than anywhere else] and the sludge was being used to reclaim the exterior areas of the Superfund location.

We had to have an analysis performed monthly and then file a self monitoring report. Anytime our analysis showed that we exceeded a parameter of our permit, we were fined by the sewer treatment WMA.

Unfortunately, this was all after the fact! If we were high on hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents or Phthlates; the pre-treated water was already down the drain and had been added to the waste stream being processed.

The head of the WMA indicated that the fines were because we made it harder for them to meet the state requirements regarding the allowable levels remaining in the treated water and sludge.

The EPA also got involved in identifying the facilities cleaning the chemical tank transports but they focused on the facilities that had not yet established pre- treatment capabilities.

We had every incentive to improve our performance as the cost of non-compliance was high. I spent around $250,000.00 to improve our pre-treatment system.

It worked yet the termination of a night supervisor meant that the night shift took shortcuts which defeated the abilities of the treatment system allowing alot of 'stuff' to still go down the drain. Our lab always called b/4 coming to pull this month's samples and waited for the day when I was able to get the best results. I can only hope that the WMA was able to treat the stuff that went down the drain...