Foam in ACT

Foam in ACT: It has come to my attention that there are some who still rely on lots of foam in tea as an indicator of microbial activity. This is not a reliable way to tell that your ACT has microbial life.

I conducted a search and listed below comments made on the subject by CT Guy and myself dating back to 2008. There are others from Jay, Coot, etc. which I did not include.

Is it possible to make this a locked sticky?

From CT Guy;

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4167337&highlight=foam#post4167337
You're right about foaming not being a good indicator.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=3882391&highlight=foam#post3882391
Personally, I don't consider it a good or bad sign as to the quality of your tea. Smell is a much better indicator if you don't have a microscope. Some of my best teas under the microscope never foamed at all, and some of the worst (almost completely devoid of life) had HUGE foam!

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=3595800&highlight=foam#post3595800
Ignore the foam, it doesn't really tell you anything, other than that you'll have a mess to clean up after!

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=101023&highlight=foam
Foam is not an indicator of a good tea, smell only tells you if it's gone bad, not if you have anything beneficial.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1856040&highlight=foam#post1856040
Again, foam is not a good indicator of high microbial activity.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1855698&highlight=foam#post1855698
I've posted this before, though I don't think anyone believes me, but from using the microscope and verifying with Tim (also does microscope work), foam is NOT an indicator of a good or bad tea.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1776815&highlight=foam#post1776815
I've said this so many times on here, I just think people don't believe me.....Foam is not an indicator of a good or bad tea. I've seen both good and bad teas with foaming. I know whether they were good or bad because I was looking at them under a microscope. I think smell would be a much better casual indicator of quality.

From Microbeman;

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=5050097&highlight=foam#post5050097
On foam, it can be an indicator of proteins being generated in the water from bacterial division and this is how the whole concept that a brew is finished when there is foam got started. I and others, therefore checked this out carefully via microscopy and found that there could just as easily be microbial life, with or without foam.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4925168&highlight=foam#post4925168
I already stated I got foam by simply using molasses mixed with plain water in a brewer. I have done hundreds of tests.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4925168&highlight=foam#post4925168
In my research I have created much foam by simply bubbling molasses in plain water without any compost or other ingredients. Others have reported the same effect using only aloe vera and other substances.

You stated that "2 hrs. later we've got microbe activity"
Without a microscope, (or reagent or agar test kit) you have no way of determining this that I know of.

When I first tried brewing ACT many years ago, I also thought the foam was an indicator of microbial multiplication (like eveyone was saying) but once I began scoping it, I realized how false that indicator is.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=3861973&highlight=foam#post3861973
foam means nothing.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=3762342&highlight=foam#post3762342
Foam can be caused by the release of proteins from microbial activity or worms perishing or it can be caused by the 'type' of water or a substance used in the tea.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=3666731&highlight=foam#post3666731
Basically the foam tells you nothing

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1772078&highlight=foam#post1772078
Before I got a microscope I used various recipes thinking I was getting certain types of brews (e.g. fungal, protozoa, etc.). I thought the thick foam on top always meant the brew was ready. Boy, were my eyes opened.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1754175&highlight=foam#post1754175
I noticed that Elaine stated that the presence of foam is a way to determine that microbial multiplication is occurring. This is unfortunate and is probably old information which she would probably contradict now. Although, foam can be an indicator of microbial life in CT, it is not a reliable one, on its own. I have examined foamy CT, microscopically, which had very little microbial activity and I've had CT that foams up just from adding certain ingredients. Of course, if one does not have a microscope you must evaluate when your CT is finished somehow, so foam combined with the time of the brew and the lack of odors from the foodstock are what you need to use. However, to assume that a great amount of foam corelates to a great amount of microbial activity is likely an error.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=1690726&highlight=foam#post1690726
Foam is not always an indicator that your brew is done. I have looked at ACT with a big head of foam which had very little microbial life. If you have good extraction, sufficient aeration and good quality compost or vermicompost you should have a decent microbial consortia in 36 to 42 hours. Use you nose. Once you can no longer smell your foodstock (molasses, fish, etc) it is a good indication that the microbes have consumed them.

A sticky on this information would be great. I love ACT.

c'mon everybody get happy!

i gotta thank you MM, eased me into organics, and now i'm mad about it. been pouring tea on my compost pile, on my garden plot, on my lawn, fruit trees, flower beds, phytosphere.
pretty much sold on it.

Kind Regards

You're just getting tired of repeating yourself over and over...
To turn that around though, is there any benefit in inducing foam to increase surface area as well as to help break surface tension? A drop of soap to help break the bonds around with the compost.

lol

Microbe, perhaps it would be helpful to teach people what the foam most likely is. It may be due to bacteria or bacterial poo, but ANY DOC (dissolved organic compound) with polarity (with regard to H2O) is going to be able to be pulled out of suspension or solution via foam fractionation, aka protein skimming.

Once I explain how this form of chemical filtration works, one of the oldest forms IIRC, most people are able to grasp it. It's actually much more akin to the froth that gathers on the shores of windy beaches.

I appreciate the thread microbeman! I must admit that I was one of the "nubes" who didn't understand "foam". It takes a while to sift through the hundreds of pgs on teas to find the right info.

Yet again, thank you for regurgitating your wealthy knowledge. I've learned a lot from you and your website. I had the whole concept of teas wrong. Much appreciated

SeaMaiden said:

Once I explain how this form of chemical filtration works, one of the oldest forms IIRC, most people are able to grasp it. It's actually much more akin to the froth that gathers on the shores of windy beaches.

Click to expand...

so that's naturally occurring? i don't have to be grossed out or anything by beach foam?

SeaMaiden said:

Microbe, perhaps it would be helpful to teach people what the foam most likely is. It may be due to bacteria or bacterial poo, but ANY DOC (dissolved organic compound) with polarity (with regard to H2O) is going to be able to be pulled out of suspension or solution via foam fractionation, aka protein skimming.

Once I explain how this form of chemical filtration works, one of the oldest forms IIRC, most people are able to grasp it. It's actually much more akin to the froth that gathers on the shores of windy beaches.

Click to expand...

Ya, like I said 'This or that'

Like you said! I just thought I'd flesh out your train of thought on it for ya, from a fishwoman's perspective.

It's kind of funny, because you folks wouldn't believe what some aquarists go through to get their protein skimmers to foam in the first place, or to make nice, dry foam instead of watery foam. Drives plenty of 'em bonkers.

heady blunts said:

so that's naturally occurring? i don't have to be grossed out or anything by beach foam?

Click to expand...

Well... it probably depends on the beach and what DOCs are comprising the foam, because as I'm sure you know, some beaches are dirtier than others. But in essence, no, there's nothing to be grossed out about. But then... you might want to consider the source of this particular advice, not much grosses me out.

It's the diapers in the sea foam that that gets me to walk further along.
Agave makes drier foam.
Curious though. What's the point of foam in protein skimmers? For that matter, what's a protein skimmer?
I know nothing!

h.h. said:

For that matter, what's a protein skimmer?

Click to expand...

something that skims protein.

Seriously though, it's what I thought it was when she said aquariaists (or however you spell it). It's a machine for removing waste (I'm guessing mostly fish poop) from seawater. Especially aquarium seawater.

h.h. said:

It's the diapers in the sea foam that that gets me to walk further along.
Agave makes drier foam.
Curious though. What's the point of foam in protein skimmers? For that matter, what's a protein skimmer?
I know nothing!

Click to expand...

Foam fractionation is a form of chemical filtration by which certain types of molecules (usually referred to as DOCs, dissolved organic compounds), those which have what I'll call 'hydro-polarity', i.e. they have an end that is hydrophilic (water loving) and an end that is hydrophobic (water fearing).

You need to create as tall a water column as possible, in which you will mix as much air in the form of super-fine bubbles with the water for as long as you can (contact time). When a good balance of the air-water mix and contact time is achieved, those molecules attach their HYDROPHOBIC ends to the air bubbles (this is why the bubbles must[/i be super-fine, larger bubbles have too large a surface area), and are carried up the water column and pushed into a collection cup.

Typically these DOCs contaminate the water column, and add to the nitrogen load, which leads to algal blooms, low dissolved O2 levels, if the N is in the form of NH3 then that actually disallows the fish's hemoglobin from attaching O2, and so fish can literally suffocate if the water column has too much ammonia (NH3) in it. This form of filtration is most often used in systems with very delicate organisms that require super-clean water, i.e. miniature reef systems, anything holding fishes from the Elasmobranchii suborders (sharks, skates and rays), invertebrates, tunicates (believe it or not these animals are chordates), sponges, that sort of thing. However, it's also used in aquaculture, freshwater fish such as koi ponds, anywhere you can get the foam to fractionate, basically.

ixnay007 said:

something that skims protein.

Seriously though, it's what I thought it was when she said aquariaists (or however you spell it). It's a machine for removing waste (I'm guessing mostly fish poop) from seawater. Especially aquarium seawater.

Click to expand...

It's basically a tube in which you pump water and, in the better systems usually, include a venturi air injector immediately prior to the mixing column.

Aquarists.

we don't need a sticky just to make this point, but maybe th authors of the current ACT sticky should get together for an update?

a new sticky to replace the old one, with all the latest info at the beginning of the thread would be great.

mad librettist said:

we don't need a sticky just to make this point, but maybe th authors of the current ACT sticky should get together for an update?

a new sticky to replace the old one, with all the latest info at the beginning of the thread would be great.

Click to expand...

So says you...mister

I won't be answering the question again.

I've heard that foam can be eliminated by simply adding fish oil. Never tried it myself but would fish oil cause any problems?

I've always viewed it as a sign of good bubbling. I work mostly by smell. I have an exceptional nose though. I still would rather use a microscope. I just know that the things I brew cause improvements in the plants.

From my work creating liquid cultures(LCs) for mushroom growing, I found that putting more than 5-6% food in the LC made it grow bad things(or nothing at all in clean cultures). Too much food inhibits growth. There are others here(Microbeman especially) who could give you a more precise idea how much food to put in there, but I think in general the rule is less food not more. Too much food can start to make deposits too, which go rancid. I think you mainly need enough microbe starters to get them to reproduce, and then enough food and air to discourage anaerobes. The smell is always better in tea that just gets a light feeding. I've heard it's better to add more food later if the brew needs it, rather than adding too much up front. There was a big talk on another site a couple years ago where some people were talking about doing really long brews without them going bad. I have no idea how accurate all the ideas there were though.

What I am getting at is that the foam isn't necessary, but most likely is just made up of extra crud in the water that just doesn't need to be there(other than molasses maybe). I am guessing the shape of your brewer is factor too. I brew in a one gallon jug, so it tapers at the top, which causes way more bubbles.

Foam caused by rapid microbial reproduction is extremely light and 'fluffy'. It looks different than foaming caused by merely aerating an organic solution. Linseed or flaxseed (same thing) will also reduce or remove the foaming... The earliest emulsified defoamers were milk and cream! so try a bit of that..) It is not harmful to the microbes, but it is an additional food source that will take O2 and time to get through. (It will lower dissolved O2 in the solution)

A pH trending up along with light fluffy foam could indicate rapid microbial growth (in the absence of a microscope for confirmation)... You should be able to easily blow sections of this foam into the air with your lung power

So, not to contradict microbeman, but some types of foaming can indicate rapid microbial growth...

Hope this helps...

JKD

I don't think anybody's saying bacterial growth can't be the source of foam, only that it's not the only source. I would say most often it isn't. While an experienced eye may tell the difference, or at least offer a knowledgeable guess, to the novice, it's only foam and really means very little except it's cool to look at. In most cases it should be ignored.
The best indicator, short of a microscope, is probably a time clock. Follow established recipes and have faith. If they don't work, change gurus.
We have experts here with microscopes saying " do this". Ignore the foam and do it. When you've had time to judge your soil's responses and know your tea, then we can start critiquing foam. At that point though it's purely academic.