FYI: Sources of composting tools, machinery & software

[ganja din]

@ v,

I wrote "seems", I did not state it as a fact. The carbon sequestering point is not a main reason to make high quality compost.

As to your point, I have considered it before, as have lots of other people and soil scientists. Did you read the email I linked too?

Initial carbon sequestered may be negative, or maybe not (Co2 is created during composting process), I have no data ATM. However, it seems that over time the sequestering could be positive, possibly offering a negative footprint.

There is quite a bit of research on this topic, that is, the Co2 sequestered by compost. I have spent only minimul time reading the research.

Considering biochar is heavily researched as a Co2 sink, and that making biochar emits Co2, I would not be so quick to dismiss the potential benefit of compost Co2 sequestering.

HTH

 

[ganja din]

Sorry MJ, I thought you were V.

 

[maryjohn]

Nobody dismissed! But that's not the same as accepting the claim that high quality compost is significantly better co2 sequestration than homemade, assuming the compost is applied to gardening or farming.

Also would like to hear how backyard compost contributes to excessive nutrient run-off and how it compares to landfill.

 

[ganja din]

Oh yea,

'Buying things' is ambiguous. We all buy things to make compost, be it gas to get free horse manure, scraps off the dinner table, water, etc, etc. Both compost and high quality compost have a positive carbon footprint...but high quality compost as described in this thread attemps to (indirectly) reduce it's foodprint, regular compost does not. So, in a vs. argument, high quality compost should have a smaller footprint than 'traditional' compost.

Thanks

 

[ganja din]

@ mj,

I have never seen a study on that, but IMO its a moot argument. Please see the link to the Rodale article for info and comparisons (regular compost vs high quality compost) on nutrient runoff into streams, and atmosphere (as ammonia). Also, E.coli in high quality compost and runoff is much reduced.

If OM goes to a land fill it will eventually decompose, much faster than non-OM at the landfill. And I assume the OM will assist the microbes in decomposing the non-OM. However, a landfill is designed to deal with dangerous runoff; streams, ground water and lakes are not. Consider how the food chain is affected by polluted water systems...

HTH

 

[maryjohn]

Ganja that is not really an answer.

And you don't count carbon twice. Once when you buy the food is enough, and from there it is waste that can be disposed of well or not so well. If you can use it to make compost that you then use to turn a piece of land into a carbon sink, you have reduced or eliminated the footprint.

Making a claim of carbon sequestration is more than just idle talk. It can lead to grants and such, and in the not so distant future could help get you going.

Re: landfills - the situation you describe leads to massive co2 and more importantly methane emission. Seepage happens. Not always, not everywhere, but it can and does happen, with disastrous effects.

 

[ganja din]

I am not going to have a carbon debate. Please read the scholarly lit. If you want to know more, this is not idle talk. I already provided some scientific evidence (see link), you have provided opinion.

I did not count carbon twice. The carbon cost of something stays with it. Until it is offset by carbon sequesteration, or reduction.

Ummm, gaseous emissions happen just as much with traditional compost as with a land fill situation (or more so, I assume); not so with amended high quality compost. And aren't you one of the people who were saying runoff is a major problem in the 'feeding meat to worms' thread??? Runoff is can be an environmental problem from traditional compost piles (esp. manure composts) and golf courses, etc, to which traditional compost is applied.

 

[maryjohn]

Carbon - NO it is not counted twice. Count it once to produce the food, and add more only if more is spent. Waste does not have a carbon footprint - products do. Think about it. If you pick up waste in a vehicle you count that, but not the original production. Say we trade credits - what you propose would mean I could pick up trash from IBM and get stuck having to offset IBMs practices.

Methane gas and landfills v compost - do some research please.
Runoff - impervious surfaces. First things first.
Runoff - it isn't exactly cumulative in such a simplistic sense. Massive amounts can be handled as long as concentrations are not too high. If everyone composted even using inferior methods like mine, and if that includes farmers, and if that inferior compost is added properly to farmland, we reduce runoff drastically.

You rely a bit too much on advocates of specific technology to give you the big picture. Your compost thing sounds awesome and I would put you in charge of my town compost if I could, but I would insist you live within reality - and a budget.

I also would pay only so much more for high quality.

 

[jaykush]

ganja how do you feel about this paragraph from the second link?

However, Will Brinton (15) of Woods End Research Laboratory takes exception to intensive compost management in “Sustainability of Modern Composting: Intensification Versus Costs and Quality,” (16) an article that appeared in the July-August 1997 issue of Biodynamics. This article reviews two research trials — in Canada and Pennsylvania — that compared compost biology and economics on the basis of compost pile management. The trials examined composts made by the following treatements: No-turn, Manure-Spreader, Front-End Loader, and Compost Turners. Despite the advanced equipment technology and management procedures inherent to the treatments, no appreciable differences were found for oxygen levels, the Dewar self-heating test for maturity, and microbiological parameters. Nitrogen and organic matter losses were greater with increased turning frequency. The costs associated with compost windrow intensity ranged from $3.05/wet ton to $41.23/wet ton of compost. In summary, Brinton argues that low-tech composting methods are just as effective in stablizing nutrients and managing humus. He concluded, "Our view of sustainability is analogous to a reduced tillage approach to maximizing soil quality. By carefully managing composting to achieve proper mixes and limited turning, the idea of a quality product at low economic burden can be achieved."

edit: i think some of the cost offsets can easily be fixed. for example i get my rock dust for free, its a waste product here. no one wants the super super fine stuff but me so i they give it away. the biological inoculates can be made at home as well.

 

[ganja din]

Hey jay

I feel fine about it. That paper is about traditional compost with less frequent manual turning vs traditional compost with more frequent mechanical turning.

It is not about high quality compost. Its about high management compost. Also, many important tests for quality were not carried out. And lastly, Will compared two separate studies he did not conduct.

I'm glad you get free rock dust, your lucky! Its not granite right? Oh yea, Ca is reallly important, hopefully your rock dust is high in Ca.

I was emailing with George Diedig about CMC and he told me once applied kitty litter powder (from a factory), which was 100% bentonite clay. He applied that clay at half the suggested rate of clay-loam. The humus score was 100! That's as high as the test goes and IIRC it is the only time he tested compost with that score.

HTH

 

[jaykush]

I'm glad you get free rock dust, your lucky! Its not granite right? Oh yea, Ca is reallly important, hopefully your rock dust is high in Ca.

i actually have 3 sources for rockpowders. one is a lavarock i know for sure, i also use the not so crushed version too adds AWESOME structure to soil mixes. and replaces perlite with a better CEC to boot. the other two are crushed river rock, which consists of at least 10 types of rock. well 4 types i also use azomite on occasion. i like how it contributes to the "the clay-humus crumb" as that link puts it. all make wonderful additions to the composting process. i am sure if you put your smart brain to work you can find free sources as well.

I was emailing with George Diedig about CMC and he told me once applied kitty litter powder (from a factory), which was 100% bentonite clay. He applied that clay at half the suggested rate of clay-loam. The humus score was 100! That's as high as the test goes and IIRC it is the only time he tested compost with that score.

i know a few people who swear by kitty litter in there bonsai soil for there trees.