caddis;68963 said:What are your thoughts concerning the myco being killed by the em?
...While I have devoted most of my scientific career to the isolation and selection of various naturally-occurring microorganisms for their beneficial effects on soils and plants, my main objective was to find species that were physiologically compatible, and could coexist in mixed cultures. I have found that when these mixed cultures are introduced back into the soil environment from which they were isolated, their combined beneficial effects are often synergistic. Among the beneficial microorganisms that can effectively integrate the soil-plant-microbiological equilibrium include lactic acid bacteria, photosynthetic bacteria, ray fungi (or actinomycetes), yeasts, and mycorrhizal fungi. :D :D :D
c-ray;57178 said:I've played with it for a few years but just starting to get a good feel for it nowI've mixed 1:1:20 (em/mollasses/water) with various raw materials and it breaks things down amazingly fast...and it is a composting process that conserves nutrients, compared to regular thermophilic composting which will always result in a significant loss of nitrogenI am doing a little test right now where I took some culled males about 10 days ago and cut them up roots and all and saturated it with some AEM (activated EM), the thinking here is that these males were in their prime veg mode just at the point of sexing so I am going to let it ferment for a few weeks and then blend it up and feed some plants with it, and compare to other clones of the same variety that did not get the treatment...if I get a chance I will try mixing some of that into the soil of a few plants and see what happens
c-ray;74518 said:haha I notice they also say to keep it out of the sun, well I have done my best to keep this in the sun so far so good
gojo;74529 said:you used some fresh, living plant yes?
gojo;74529 said:When making FPE I find chopping the plant matter in a food processor helps make a more uniform and better FPE.
c-ray" said:I used the vitamix 2hp blender, it is well blended and I will blend it again in a few days when it is well fermented
gojo;74557 said:I'm curious why you want to re-process it?
gojo;74557 said:It seems like that would injure any microbes on the plant matter?
gojo;74557 said:And wouldn't the matter already have been chopped to it's limit the first time you processed it?
gojo;74557 said:I would think that would also add quite a bit of O2 into the FPE?
gojo;74557 said:Or are you including O2 for the first few days/weeks of you FPE creation?
gojo;74557 said:P.S. I've been playing with a Co2 tank, cyclestat timer and hose into the bottom of my EM mixes...I've been bubbling in a closed system with an anaerobic release hose (still testing that ;) ) to vent the excess Co2. This has the benefit of mixing the plant matter, stimulating and feeding the PnSB and mixing things up in general.
c-ray" said:have you tried an aquarium check valve for release? or maybe there is some sort of pressure release valve like a rad cap type thing
ORP: Oxidation-reduction potential shows relative degree of oxidative power or reductive (antioxidant) power of a liquid. ORP is measured with a special probe and an ORP meter on a scale of +1,200 millivolts (mv.) to –1,200 mv., where a score of 1,200 indicates maximal oxidative ability and no reductive (antioxidant) ability, and where a score of –1,200 indicates maximal reducing (antioxidant) capability. However, since true hydrogen and reducing power is influenced strongly by pH as well, ORP alone is only a rough and relative indicator of true oxidative or reducing (aka antioxidative) power of a liquid, and relative hydrogen score (aka rH or rH2 or RH), computed from pH and ORP, is a far more accurate indicator; please see section entitled relative hydrogen score.Relative hydrogen score: Relative hydrogen score, also known as rH2 or RH score, is a score proposed by Clark in 1923, derived from the Nernst equation, which expresses true hydrogen concentration/power in a liquid far more accurately than ORP alone. rH score is computed from pH and ORP, and rH scores run from 0 to 42, where 28 is midpoint, scores approaching 42 indicate maximal oxidative power, and a score approaching 0 indicates maximal reducing or antioxidative power. RH score is often employed in various sectors of the beer brewing industry, in the high-end aquarium world and in the food industry (esp. bottling of juices, etc.) to indicate relative oxidative damage to a liquid product versus relative reducing power (aka antioxidant protection) levels in such a product.Good Levels of ORP: A finished batch of AEM or brew, depending upon exact formula, ingredients and the percentage of sugar sources by volume, will usually exhibit an ORP of below 110 mv at a pH of 3.5 or below, and an rH score of 17.3 or lower. In fact, dependent again on the afore-named factors, the ORP may be as low as –150 and the resultant rH score may be as low as 8.0. A good batch of EM microbial culture will not only exhibit a pH below 3.5, but also an ORP below about 130, and definitely below about 160. If it has been exposed to air for long, then these ORP values may be somewhat higher.
ORP (aka oxidation-reduction potential): The fresh samples of EM-X which I have tested, from a recently-opened bottle of EM-X sold in the USA, showed ORP scores in the range of +390 to +450 mv. across a series of tests. This is a bit unexpected..... most liquid products of anaerobic EM fermentation show an ORP far lower than this, usually below +150 and often in the negative range, well into the obviously reducing (antioxidant) range, largely due to the presence of simple hydride antioxidants. Indeed, many such liquid EM products continue to show this low ORP even up to one year or more after production and bottling. First, an introduction to the Relative Hydrogen (aka rH) score: Relative hydrogen score is often used in the higher-end realms of the beer-brewing industry and also in managing delicate salt-water aquariums and high-end fresh-water aquariums, and also in managing waste treatment plants and in measuring pollution in bodies of water. rH score is calculated from the pH and ORP and yields a pH-adjusted true measure of presence of active hydrogen, which is also known as reducing or antioxidative power. The rH scale runs from 0 to 42, with 28 as a midpoint, where a score of 0 indicates a substance which is maximally reducing (antioxidative on a primitive chemical level), and a score of 42 indicates a substance which is maximally oxidizing (as in oxidative radicals or pro-oxidants) on a primitive chemical level. On the other hand, rH score must be used and interpreted with care, since the rH score will often NOT reflect the presence of complex biochemical antioxidants (including vitamin C, vitamin E, etc.) Nonetheless, most liquid EM products show a strongly reducing (antioxidative) rH score of 16 or below, even many months after production; this is largely due to the presence of free phenols, which are potent "fast" (primitive) antioxidants, and also of the simpler hydride antioxidants (aka "H-minus" or the negative hydrogen ion, or even referred to by some authors as "atomic hydrogen".)Relative Hydrogen (rH) Score for EM-X: As noted earlier, most EM-fermented liquids show a strongly reducing (antioxidative) rH score of 16 or below. The rH score for samples from a recently-opened bottle of EM-X sold in the USA showed rH scores in the range of 28.0 to 29.8 across a series of tests, indicating a liquid that is essentially neutral or slightly in the oxidizing range insofar as presence of simple primitive oxidizers and antioxidants. This score was somewhat unexpected, due to the scores seen for other fermented EM liquid products, and it serves to underscore the assertion by Dr. Higa and folks within EMRO/EMCO that EM-X is quite different -- in terms of process, properties, and behavior -- from almost all other liquid EM-fermented nutritional products. The rH scores found suggest to this author that any antioxidants present are not simple hydride antioxidants but rather more complex biochemical antioxidants.
"In trying to "define" Kombucha, we know that all strains have both gluconic acid and acetic acid and fructose. We know that it requires at least two microorganisms, a yeast and a bacteria. Acetobacter xylinum is in all of the ferments we've looked at, but the yeast vary. The Bacillus are a new twist that we found by totally ignoring conventional wisdom and isolating organisms just for the sake of isolating organisms (ie: without any regard for whether or not they would affect the ferment). At any rate, whether or not a ferment contains one or both ketos, or the diketo, or itaconnic, or propionic, or lactic, or any of the many other metabolites, is strain AND ferment dependent.If it contains gluconic acid and acetic acid with fructose, it's Kombucha."In Roussin's "Analyses of Kombucha Ferments," he reports "The typical isolations of microorganisms found in the Kombucha samples we examined are:__________________________________________________Acetobacter xylinumAcetobacter xylinoidesAcetobacter KetogenumSaccharomycodes ludwigiiSaccharomycodes apiculatusSchizosaccharomyces pombeZygosaccharomyes (still considered by some to be a subgenus of Saccharomyces)Saccharomyces cerevisiae"
The genus group of acetic acid [vinegar] bacteria, Acetobacter specifically Acetobacter aceti which is also found in milk kefir-grains [but not in water kefir-grains], is also in part responsible for propagating another fascinating mother-culture, known as mother of vinegar [MOV].The mother of vinegar is an ancient name referring to the cellulose film or pellicle, in vinegar. This also shares *similarity with another natural culture used for preparing Kombucha. The pellicle which forms as a similar film on the surface of Kombucha is commonly referred to as a SCOBY [Symbiotic Culture Of Bacteria and Yeast] among kombucha enthusiasts.
What Are the Exact Names of the Organisms in EM, and Exactly What Does Each Do?A lot of folks new to EM seem to become obsessed with one or the other of these questions, asking to know more than simply the names and functions of the three general groups of organisms, which are: * lactic acid bacteria, aka LAB * yeasts * phototrophic bacteriaand wish, instead, to know the names of each individual species....For the USA regional EM microbial inoculant, which currently contains nine (9) claimed primary organisms, the exact species claimed in the formula are shown below. Incidentally, at this time, the Japanese formula for EM as produced by EM Laboratory for EMRO Japan (please recall that there are plenty of other producers of EM culture in the world as well) consists of the same nine organisms. The organisms are listed below, broken into classes: * Lactic acid bacteria (these are beneficial organisms widely found in fermented foods, and in the GI tract of healthy humans and animals): * Lactobacillus plantarum * Lactobacillus casei * Lactobacillus fermentum * Lactobacillus salivarius * Lactobacillus delbrueckii * Phototrophic purple non-sulfur bacteria, aka PNSB (these are widely found in ponds, soil, on plant leaves, in ice, snow and in icicles): * Rhodopseudomonas palustris * Rhodobacter sphaeroides (aka R. spheroides) * Rhodobacter capsulatus * Yeast: * Saccharomyces cerevisiae (these are beneficial organisms widely found in fermented foods, and in the GI tract of healthy humans and animals)As breifly referenced above, EM formulations in the past have also included other organisms than those listed above, such as: * phototrophic bacteria other than the three named above, including Rhodospirillum rubrum * beneficial (non-pathogenic) members of the order Acetomycetes, aka Actinomycetales, such as Streptomyces and other so-called ray fungi, which are really a soil bacteria which happen to look like fungi (incidentally, it is many members of the Actinomycetes order which produce metabolites which are responsible for the musty, mildewey odor of old damp basements and the aged caskets favored by elderly vampires from the dark nether regins of Europe and Russia.....) * a number of websites and even older labels from EM formulations have claimed that some regional versions of EM have contained "actinomyces" (or, alternately, spelled as "actinomycets"), which is one family within the order Actinomycetales (mentioned above), but I suspect that they may not have meant the family Actinomyces, but rather the broader order name Actinomycetales (aka Actinomycetes), which would include the Streptomyces and other so-called ray fungi already mentioned above. * beneficial yeasts other than S. cerivisiae, such as Candida utilis * other lactic acid bacteria than the five species named above * beneficial members of the Streptococcus bacterial family, such as S. lactis or S. thermophilus; these are normal and beneficial members of the gut flora in humans and animals * beneficial members of the Streptomyces family (one of the so-called ray fungi), such as S. albus and S. griseus * beneficial members of the Propionibacterium family; these are normal and beneficial members of the gut flora in humans and animals * fungi (although there has sometimes been some confusion here, on the part of authors of some of these citations, with ray fungi, which are really a bacteria). Nonetheless, various EM formulas have contained fungi, usually representative sepcies such as Aspergillus oryzae and Mucor hiemalis.There is also some evidence that some EM formulations may have included beneficial species from the following families or groups: * Leuconostoc, a family of lactic acid bacteria * members of the Bifidobacterium family (bifidobacteria, like lactic acid bacteria and S. cerivisiae yeast, are beneficial organisms normally found in the GI tract flora of healthy humans and animals). This particular possibility is the least verified and least verifiable, and the hypothesis may well turn out to be specious.My own sense, much as what Dr. Higa relates, is that the exact species and names in EM formulations are not very important, but, rather, it is the synergy and relationship (interdependence) between them which is important.
Lactic acid bacteria: Lactobacillus plantarum; L. Casei; Streptococcus Lactis.Photosynthetic bacteria: Rhodopseudomonas Palustris; Rhodobacter Sphaeroides.Yeast: Saccharomyces Cerevisiae; Candida Utilis (no longer used) (usually known as Toula, Pichia Jadinii).Actinomycetes (no longer used in the formulas): Streptomyces Albus; S. Griseus.Fermenting fungi (no longer used in the formulas): Aspergillus oryzae; Mucor Hiemalis.