Trichgnomes
Member
I searched the threads and could not really find one dedicated to EM. There are a lot of good ones, obviously the OFC, CT guides, as well as the application of rock dust, etc., but I thought it would be nice to have a place to compile some information/personal experiences with the use of EM.
Here is something I found somewhat interesting,
[excerpted from a letter from Matthew Wood, co-founder of SCD:] "Comments on the question, "what organisms are in EM?":
This is a very difficult question to answer.
First of all, EM is produced using different methods, different raw materials, different equipment and different environments in many different countries. Therefore, the actual groups of organisms in EM are different in many different countries. They are even differen from batch to batch from the same manufacturing facility. Some critics say this is a problem for EM, because it can produce inconsistent results. However, Dr. Higa teaches that there are many species of organisms that, if combined in a specific way, can create a mixed culture that will have similar effects of EM. He teaches that the "key" is to have a combined culture containing beneficial lactic acid bacteria, beneficial yeasts and beneficial phototrophic bacteria. This is "EM". For example, in Dr. Higa's patents, he lists many many species that could be used to represent these three key groups.
EM is "officially" manufactured in Japan by two companies and "unofficially" manufactured by at least one other company. Each of these companies produce distinctly different EM-1, EM-2 and EM-3. Many variables are different among the methods of the different groups. Yet, Dr. Higa teaches that they are "functionally" all similar. Many people prefer the EM-1 manufactured by EM Laboratory. This company is a part of the International Nature Farming Research Center (INFRC). This is not an organization started, owned or controlled by the EM Research Organization (EMRO). However, EMRO has a "Know-How" agreement with INFRC so that they will receive a royalty for the use of Dr. Higa's technology. In fact, INFRC has been around for much longer than EMRO. INFRC was started, and is
controlled by, Sekai Kyusei Kyo (SKK), which is a religious/philosophical organization founded on the teachings of Mokichi Okada. Another branch of the SKK religion is Mokichi Okada Association (MOA). SKK, through INFRC, is what launched syntropic antioxidative microbe technology to the world during the mid to late 1980's.
This occurred because one of Dr. Higa's students (who was studying EM) was a member of SKK and introduced Dr. Higa and EM to SKK as a tool that fit their philosophy and could be used in "Nature Farming". EMRO was not founded until somewhere around 1994.
Now, back to the organisms in EM. It is as much about the process, as it is about the organisms themselves. Dr. Higa teaches that the process will ensure that only "beneficial" organisms survive.
Most, if not all, manufacturers of EM do not grow EM from "pure culture". They do not grow EM in a sterile environment and they do not use sterile media. So, the dominant species can "drift" over time, largely effected by the substrates used. For example, one of the materials often used is fish emulsion (basically ground up fish parts). If this is pasteurized before using as a culture media, it will not contribute many organisms (depends on how it is "pasteurized"). However, if it is not paseurized, the species of
organisms living on that batch of fish guts will likely grow and be present in EM, if they can survive the process and compliment the other beneficials in "seed EM". As you may imagine, this makes EM-1 a "nightmare" to manage for regulatory and labelling issues. It also means that many of the EM
labels from around the world are often not accurate.
Some of the more advanced producers of EM, such as EM Laboratory in Japan, will regularly "spike" their batches with species from pure culture. They call this "renewing" the cultures. This is probably the best way to maintain consistency (certain species always present in predictable populations), while also getting the species richness obtained from purposely not growing in pure culture. Dr. Higa taught his students that EM made from pure culture is not as effective as EM made naturally from high quality ingredients.
I have taken EM from different manufacturers and had it cultured out on various media, purified to pure culture and then identified each different species. They have never matched the species on the labels or in the literature.
It is because of these issues that many manufacturers have decided not to put species on the label. The less specific they can be, the less chance of "misbranding".
It can also be noted that because of these complex issues (only summarized here), there is no accurate and up to date patent on EM. I think this is because there are so many versions of what is functionally the same thing.
Our company, Sustainable Community Development, LLC (SCD) is committed to providing as much information about syntropic antioxidative microbe technology as we can afford to. Actually we have hundreds of research papers, case studies and reports on file in our office. Unfortunately, we have not had the resources yet to
scan all of this and make them available to the public.
When looking for EM products, please consider buying from our small grassroots company. Your purchase from us support our effort to provide education, research and development with syntropic antioxidative microbe technology. You can buy products from our on-line store at www.emtrading.com.
If you have EM products to sell, please send us an email. We may be happy to offer your EM product at our on-line store." [end of excerpt from letter by Matthew Wood]
I also wanted to quote something concerning the PNSB discussion from the CT thread. However it is from Vinny Pinto, so I am not claiming this to be truth or heavily scientific based, merely that it is his opinion, and something that could be discussed.
(This quote is immediately following the Matthew Wood excerpt on Pinto's website) http://eminfo.vmicrobial.info/moreem1.html#Culture
Incidentally, the above discourse also illustrates why you cannot simply extend or re-activate EM forever by simply making a string of never-ending serial batches of Activated EM with molasses. While the lactic acid organisms and/or the yeast may survive and thrive well (assuming that other stray organisms do not eventually contaminate the culture) across successive serial "activations", some of the helper organisms, along with the phototrophic organisms may not be allowed to awaken and reproduce efficiently or sufficiently,, and thus may suffer successive serial attrition or attenuation, to the detriment of the whole culture, if you attempt to continually serially "extend" consecutive batches of Activated EM (AEM.)
EM is not simply cultured from a batch of older EM on molasses and water, as is done with Activated EM. Rather, to ensure the purity and count of all the species of organisms, EM is separately brewed in three vats, one each for:
EM2, which is the yeasts
EM3, which is the phototrophic organisms
EM4, which consists of lactic acid bacteria
(these three "sub-cultures" are the three component groups comprising EM) each with its own nutrients (for example, the vat of phototrophic organisms does not use molasses as a nutrient, but rather a more suitable foodstuff for such organisms, and the yeasts do not feed on molasses alone.) When these three batches are complete, they are the mixed in a vat in a pre-determined ratio to form EM stock, which is then cultured as a synergistic culture with water and molasses (and a few minor ingredients) prior to bottling, distribution and sale.
Obviously this is the opinion of Vinny Pinto, however an interesting one, and it would be nice to hear some insightful theories/input.
Here is something I found somewhat interesting,
[excerpted from a letter from Matthew Wood, co-founder of SCD:] "Comments on the question, "what organisms are in EM?":
This is a very difficult question to answer.
First of all, EM is produced using different methods, different raw materials, different equipment and different environments in many different countries. Therefore, the actual groups of organisms in EM are different in many different countries. They are even differen from batch to batch from the same manufacturing facility. Some critics say this is a problem for EM, because it can produce inconsistent results. However, Dr. Higa teaches that there are many species of organisms that, if combined in a specific way, can create a mixed culture that will have similar effects of EM. He teaches that the "key" is to have a combined culture containing beneficial lactic acid bacteria, beneficial yeasts and beneficial phototrophic bacteria. This is "EM". For example, in Dr. Higa's patents, he lists many many species that could be used to represent these three key groups.
EM is "officially" manufactured in Japan by two companies and "unofficially" manufactured by at least one other company. Each of these companies produce distinctly different EM-1, EM-2 and EM-3. Many variables are different among the methods of the different groups. Yet, Dr. Higa teaches that they are "functionally" all similar. Many people prefer the EM-1 manufactured by EM Laboratory. This company is a part of the International Nature Farming Research Center (INFRC). This is not an organization started, owned or controlled by the EM Research Organization (EMRO). However, EMRO has a "Know-How" agreement with INFRC so that they will receive a royalty for the use of Dr. Higa's technology. In fact, INFRC has been around for much longer than EMRO. INFRC was started, and is
controlled by, Sekai Kyusei Kyo (SKK), which is a religious/philosophical organization founded on the teachings of Mokichi Okada. Another branch of the SKK religion is Mokichi Okada Association (MOA). SKK, through INFRC, is what launched syntropic antioxidative microbe technology to the world during the mid to late 1980's.
This occurred because one of Dr. Higa's students (who was studying EM) was a member of SKK and introduced Dr. Higa and EM to SKK as a tool that fit their philosophy and could be used in "Nature Farming". EMRO was not founded until somewhere around 1994.
Now, back to the organisms in EM. It is as much about the process, as it is about the organisms themselves. Dr. Higa teaches that the process will ensure that only "beneficial" organisms survive.
Most, if not all, manufacturers of EM do not grow EM from "pure culture". They do not grow EM in a sterile environment and they do not use sterile media. So, the dominant species can "drift" over time, largely effected by the substrates used. For example, one of the materials often used is fish emulsion (basically ground up fish parts). If this is pasteurized before using as a culture media, it will not contribute many organisms (depends on how it is "pasteurized"). However, if it is not paseurized, the species of
organisms living on that batch of fish guts will likely grow and be present in EM, if they can survive the process and compliment the other beneficials in "seed EM". As you may imagine, this makes EM-1 a "nightmare" to manage for regulatory and labelling issues. It also means that many of the EM
labels from around the world are often not accurate.
Some of the more advanced producers of EM, such as EM Laboratory in Japan, will regularly "spike" their batches with species from pure culture. They call this "renewing" the cultures. This is probably the best way to maintain consistency (certain species always present in predictable populations), while also getting the species richness obtained from purposely not growing in pure culture. Dr. Higa taught his students that EM made from pure culture is not as effective as EM made naturally from high quality ingredients.
I have taken EM from different manufacturers and had it cultured out on various media, purified to pure culture and then identified each different species. They have never matched the species on the labels or in the literature.
It is because of these issues that many manufacturers have decided not to put species on the label. The less specific they can be, the less chance of "misbranding".
It can also be noted that because of these complex issues (only summarized here), there is no accurate and up to date patent on EM. I think this is because there are so many versions of what is functionally the same thing.
Our company, Sustainable Community Development, LLC (SCD) is committed to providing as much information about syntropic antioxidative microbe technology as we can afford to. Actually we have hundreds of research papers, case studies and reports on file in our office. Unfortunately, we have not had the resources yet to
scan all of this and make them available to the public.
When looking for EM products, please consider buying from our small grassroots company. Your purchase from us support our effort to provide education, research and development with syntropic antioxidative microbe technology. You can buy products from our on-line store at www.emtrading.com.
If you have EM products to sell, please send us an email. We may be happy to offer your EM product at our on-line store." [end of excerpt from letter by Matthew Wood]
I also wanted to quote something concerning the PNSB discussion from the CT thread. However it is from Vinny Pinto, so I am not claiming this to be truth or heavily scientific based, merely that it is his opinion, and something that could be discussed.
(This quote is immediately following the Matthew Wood excerpt on Pinto's website) http://eminfo.vmicrobial.info/moreem1.html#Culture
Incidentally, the above discourse also illustrates why you cannot simply extend or re-activate EM forever by simply making a string of never-ending serial batches of Activated EM with molasses. While the lactic acid organisms and/or the yeast may survive and thrive well (assuming that other stray organisms do not eventually contaminate the culture) across successive serial "activations", some of the helper organisms, along with the phototrophic organisms may not be allowed to awaken and reproduce efficiently or sufficiently,, and thus may suffer successive serial attrition or attenuation, to the detriment of the whole culture, if you attempt to continually serially "extend" consecutive batches of Activated EM (AEM.)
EM is not simply cultured from a batch of older EM on molasses and water, as is done with Activated EM. Rather, to ensure the purity and count of all the species of organisms, EM is separately brewed in three vats, one each for:
EM2, which is the yeasts
EM3, which is the phototrophic organisms
EM4, which consists of lactic acid bacteria
(these three "sub-cultures" are the three component groups comprising EM) each with its own nutrients (for example, the vat of phototrophic organisms does not use molasses as a nutrient, but rather a more suitable foodstuff for such organisms, and the yeasts do not feed on molasses alone.) When these three batches are complete, they are the mixed in a vat in a pre-determined ratio to form EM stock, which is then cultured as a synergistic culture with water and molasses (and a few minor ingredients) prior to bottling, distribution and sale.
Obviously this is the opinion of Vinny Pinto, however an interesting one, and it would be nice to hear some insightful theories/input.