Talk:Compost/Archive 1

this thing is not NPOV. sorry. not at all. its full of suggestions.

also how to work in actinomycetes

OK, I worked them in, because I like talking about them in my compost workshops, too. Happy now?

I've been meaning to come back and take another stab at this article, so your comments prompted me to. Best first draft I could manage with a headache & it being bedtime. Still lots more to say about active vs passive & ingredients & commercial vs home and... well... there are entire books written on this topic. ;-)  On the right track? Elf | Talk 06:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

All this technical mojo about layering and fibre is all very good, but in my garden I just sling the weeds & kitchen waste on it, wait 6-12 months and what comes out is superb. :-) -- Tarquin

same here :-) - though I've written a fairly deatiled article about compost with which I was thinking of replacing the current page with- would the original writer be offended?? Not the 1911 writer BTW quercus robur

It's best to try and merge old & new stuff together. I think this article suffers from the "scientific" approach and the "practical" approach not blending well. I suggest a short, 1 para opening, then headings for the practicalconsiderations & the scientific analysis. Or, if you like, just add your text as a new section & I'll come along and merge / separate / etc later -- Tarquin 15:06 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

removed POV line about compost activators; "Most of them (in the writer's opinion) are unnecessary." we could probably start a compost flame war over this, but to some extent i agree with this statement, however there are many who swear by compost activators, eg, the biodynamic crowd, also many activators (esp nitrogen rich) are indisputably beneficial, eg, urine, comfrey, lawn mowings, etc quercus robur

Nettles are good. The first spring in my current house, the garden sprouted a fine crop of nettles all over. I spent a day going round with gloves pulling them all up, and after a week the compost heap had dropped by about 30-50 cm. -- Tarquin

Hard to say how old this discussion is without digging through the history, but I think the essential point with the activators is speed. If you have time, almost anything is good enough, but to be efficient, the nitrogen rich activators really help. I am lazy and slow myself. My worms work harder than I do. WormRunner | Talk 06:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great page, as is humus! Seems like the two should be merged, since "compost" and "humus" are synonymous, with composting as a separate topic from compost/humus? I guess it's tricky, though: compost is usually used as a noun, but it's a verb as well... Tsavage 21:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at that, too, and thinking about "compost" vs "composting" last night. Probably something could be done. Elf | Talk 22:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Humus is also in natural situations and to merge it into compost would be confusing and unnecessary.  WormRunner | Talk 22:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree; From a soil scientist point of view, compost and humus are totally 2 different things ! FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I probably agree with the disagreement with my suggestion, as far as everyday usage - occurring naturally vs man-made - but I'm not sure if that's a "correct" usage. I'm curious! The way the articles are right now, it's confusing. What is the distinction from the soil scientist POV? If "compost" means "artificially-produced humus", then, in the Compost/Composting article, it should say: "Composting is the production of humus. Humus produced by composting, rather than in the wild, is also known as 'compost'." And if composting is harnessing the natural process of humification, then that confuses things a little more. Seems like mainly a semantic issue with the current versions of Compost and Humus that makes things a little unclear... :) Tsavage 15:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A soil science definition of humus is the extremely stable organic fraction of the soil. It is not a nutrient source per se, but can hold nutrients in a more available form and has major effects on soil structure.  The bonding in humus is extremely complex.  Compost is a product of partial decomposition of organic materials and is a source of nutrients as well as beneficially affecting soil structure.  It is the result of a purposeful decomposition process called composting.  Humification goes on, but only a small fraction of compost could be said to be humus by that definition.  WormRunner | Talk 01:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * WormRunner: Yeah, that's what I generally thought, too. It was when I read the two articles, Compost and Humus, that I got confused. In Humus, it differentitates been active and stable humus, and says: "Humus which is readily capable of further decomposition is referred to as effective or active humus. It is principally derived from sugars, starches and proteins and consists of simple organic (fulvic) acids. It is an excellent source of plant nutrients, but of little value regarding long term soil structure and tilth."


 * And now I'm not clear on another thing: I thought that fully composted...compost resulted in humus, it just depended on time and care in composting. Is there some limitation to (normal) composting methods that doesn't allow the creation of true stable humus? Tsavage 16:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Humus is essential to soil structure. It is not only about nutrients. If it is written that humus is of no value with regards to soil structure, there is a strong problem with the article :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did some online reading, and it seems clear that compost and humus are in fact used synonymously, as far as the final product is concerned. But compost refers to man-made humus, kinda like pearls vs cultured pearls...

The best reference is Sir Albert Howard's 1943 organic farming classic, An Agricultural Testament. Howard created and popularized modern composting with his Indore method, so he's pretty much the authority. In the book, he says: "The Indore Process for the manufacture of humus from vegetable and animal wastes was devised at the Institute of Plant Industry, Indore, Central India, between the years 1924 and 1931.".

In the current Compost article, the separate definitions for compost and composting are already there - it's correct but not clear. I think things could be easily fixed like this:


 * Rename this to Composting, redirect Compost to it, and update the definition of compost as humus (active or stable) that is artificially produced, by the process of composting.


 * Redirect Humification, which doesn't exist, to Humus, at least, for now...

I suppose I could just make the changes, rather than write about 'em, but... :-) Tsavage 20:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say that both terms are used in a loose fashion by many people. I found an interesting site with several perspectives on the issue:


 * What is the real difference between Compost and Humus?


 * I don't have the time to do any real editing right now. Maybe later. WormRunner | Talk 21:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That was an interesting read: science vs the way things that are need a name. It will also be interesting to see how Wikipedia works it out. :) Compost vs humus is not something I'd thought a lot about, but I'll it a try in a bit if no-one else has! Tsavage 22:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

rock dust
Sorry state of the world seems reflected on this page since an addition I made last week has been removed (without a trace) although it concerns absolutely vital (trace mineral and seriously long term cycle related) compost ingredients. To wit, I added a link to David Yarrow's topsoil page with a good overview of 'rock dust' properties (understanding thereof and subsequent conscious use). I consider this (deletion) all the more offensive since rock dust is nowhere else to be found on wikipedia (anymore) and so I'd like the deleter to explain hirself asap. piet 12:49 GMT


 * Wonderful, deleted again and again without comment; will this righteous asshole come 'splain hisssself? I propose the following change (please discuss); IS: Finely pulverised rock dust can also provide needed minerals, but watch out for rock dust that consists mostly of clay. BETTER: Finely pulverised rock dusts can also provide needed minerals, but watch out for (leached and or trace-poor) rock dusts that consists mostly of clay.


 * Response:


 * 1) In most cases, external links belong in the External links section.
 * 2) The link to championtrees seems to be a promotional site for various commercial brands, complete with brand photos etc. It's hard to separate that from what might be legit, independent research.
 * 3) It's not clear from browsing some of the related links that this really has anything to do with compost--it might be a separate soil additive, but that doesn't meant that it goes in the compost article anyway.
 * 4) Regarding proposed phrasing, "but watch out for" isn't particularly encyclopedic. Elf | Talk 20:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding, that phrase isn't mine and I don't like it either, but, since I was already making major inroads -- by the way, if you study the history of rock dust use a bit you may be suprised how un- perhaps even anti-commercial ((in the sense that statemonies once were)) most of it has been and will most likely remain (since such long term cycles are involved the 'fast' boys lose interest if their head hasn't been trained to see them -- I prefered to let sleeping dogs lie where possible. Did just change the lines into: Finely pulverized rock (Rock_dust - Rock_flour) can also provide needed minerals, as opposed to clay (which is trace mineral poor and/or leached rock dust).
 * I entered John Hamaker into Wikipedia indirectly last november by way of google links for stonemeal and micromineral but they were deleted since). Now, you might say, Hamaker built an outlandish theory to try and sell his rock-grinder designs but I got to know him as a genuine person.

Composting is harmful and isn't recommended in back yards
Sorry, I'm not fond of people dismissing edits with "what a bunch of hooey," but the latest round of edits certainly is. There are *some* things that can occur in *some* compost that can affect *some* people, but it is truly a lie that backyard composting isn't recommended and that it's too dangerous for the average human to undertake. This flies in the face of centuries of backyard composting, decades of current research, worldwide use, and the general state of knowledge in the composting world. I'd want to see a tremendous amount of research literature refuting all that's gone before it. Meanwhile, yes, this article doesn't currently address some of the things that can grow in compost piles (and even in your garden without a compost pile--so look out--) and how they can affect some people. But this set of edits isn't it. Elf | Talk 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Compost and composting
I believe this category should be divided into two. Compost should cover the physical properties of compost its uses and applications (including references to industry standards such as the BSI PAS 100). A second article "composting" would relate to the industrial production of compost and the various associated techniques; this is of particular interest to the waste management industry. Subsections or articles such as "home composting" would remove the confusion between the technical aspects of the composting process and the readers of wikipedia interested in practical composting methods in home gardening. Here is a suggested structure:


 * Category:Composting
 * Compost
 * Home composting
 * Compost toilet
 * Industrial composting
 * Windrow composting
 * In-vessel composting
 * Tunnel composting

I welcome constructive comments! --Alex 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting into home and industrial composting is a good idea. There is no mention of "hot" garden composters (e.g. ) that can be used to dispose of animal waste. I think there is need for greater discussion compostable waste being collected with domestic rubbish -- there seem to be a lot of myths circulating about what actually happens to this and what can be safely added to the bin (at least in the UK). BruceMcAdam (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article is not correct.

Firstly, compost is what is technically called a GROWING MEDIUM.

Secondly, compost is NOT, repeat NOT a soil conditioner. Quite the opposite. Soil conditioners are used to neutralise the pH of a soil and improve drainage, aeration, and nutrient levels. Compost, especially newly dug peat compost, is acidic, low in oxygen and very compacted, and adding to soil wont improve either of them.

Soil conditioners are usually alkaline, and usually lime or farm manure is used.

I intent to rewrite this article to correct these inaccuracies. Lincolnshire Poacher 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lincolnshire, I completely agree with the above comments. The compost and composting articles have required reworking for some time. I separated them out some time ago as I thought the process needed a separate article to the product. Happy to support and review your work as you get round to it.

--Alex 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

MSW
The term MSW is not explained int he article, please clarify this. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Generalizability and skew
This is a nice article, but it is definitely written from a European perspective. How about some facts and figures that don't reference the UK or the EU, such as an analysis of compost participation and law in the US and in non-English speaking countries. Also, how about a more extensive scientific explanation of the decomposition processes at work in composting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.142.71 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Origins
There is currently a sentence: "Modern composting originated in European organic farming in the early 20th century." with a citation. I don't have access to that citation so I cannot verify it...but the claim seems extremely bold. First of all, it's not made clear what "modern composting" is. Perhaps the source cited defines "Modern composting" in a narrow way such that the statement was true--but the current article doesn't define what is meant by "modern composting". But I was always under the impression that the practice of composting was quite ancient, and that it was only in recent times (i.e. since industrial processes to produce ammonia were developed that made inorganic nitrogen sources cheaper than organic ones) that farming and gardening moved away from using compost as fertilizer. This source: says that research on composting in the U.S. began in the 1880's, and that many ancient civilizations practiced composting. On these grounds, I am removing that sentence. Cazort (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think most of the comments above can be satisfied by restricting the article here to the product rather than the process, which has it's own article, not to mention the myriad others on the industrial processes .... hopefully I've done that Red58bill (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Jono's rv, the term [compost], does not include a product such as John Innes Compost, a proprietary product being sold by | certain suppliers, which contains no ["compost"] but rather inorganic (chemical) fertilizers, and exactly what those chemicals are remains obscure (ie: NO recipe made public) .... being not sold by the John Innes Center in particular really is irrelevent, it's simply not [compost] and a link to a Wiki stub entirely about purported uses for the product, which doesn't provide the "formula" (beyond making it very clear there's no "compost" involved), doesn't belong on an article about a natural organic substance that's the result of the biological decomposition process (Composting) - I may remove it again sometime, if someone else doesn't Red58bill (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what Red58bill has written, the term [compost] does include growing medium made from decayed plant matter and other materials. John Innes Compost is such a growing medium (or a set of four recipes, to be precise), developed at the John Innes Horticultural Institution in the 1930s. The recipes were release into the Public domain, so John Innes is not a proprietary product, any more than a Caesar salad is a proprietary product. The recipes are available on the web. In the UK, garden centres sell bags of compost, which include other ingredients to make the product suitable as a growing medium, which raw, pure compost isn't. Now, granted, the WP article for John Innes Compost is tragically poor and needs improvement, but that's not a reason to simply remove the link from this page. Jonobennett (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the formulations found for John Innes Compost, "compost" is a "mixture that consists largely of decayed organic matter and is used for fertilizing and conditioning land", and if the lead of the current article stands ("the end result of controlled aerobic decomposition of organic matter"), what this article is about - as it's used in the name "John Innes Compost" (from the early 19th century), the term is a colloquial useage: "Middle English compote, from Old French, mixture, from Latin compositum, mixture, from compnere, to put together" — from the Latin composita ‘something put together’ - with no relation to the term "compost" as discussed here, nor global applicability to the concept of composting, it'd be more appropriate to the Soil conditioner/amendment articles - nowhere have I seen any claim that John Innes compost formulations consist primarily of decayed organic matter, although I suppose "peat" could be weaseled in, but in fact those formulas represent an opposite "value", use of manufactured (or mined) fertilizers ... much different than mixing other things into compost to make it more suitable for particular applications, which in N.America would be labeled as a "planting mix" or "amendment" and anything labeled "compost" would be just that, as in composted manure (labeled by animal species) or mushroom compost or composted biosolids, all of which may be and have been, used as direct growing mediums ... at any rate, hopefully the article itself has been improved and stabilized as about "the end result of the process of composting"Red58bill (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're ignoring the OED's definition of compost, then? Jonobennett (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to how I'm ignoring that definition in saying that "formulae for growing medium" (from the Innes page) is not "decayed organic material used as a fertilizer" (definition from the OED), or in saying that the Innes product simply isn't "compost" in the sense of this article .... you'd be implying peat (acidic and virtually sterile, free of beneficial microbes) is considered a "fertilizing compost" material .... I stand by the assertion that applying the term to the Innes formulations for planting mixes is idiomatic British English, and in particular, the specification of inorganic compounds doesn't fit the article or the OED (the idiom: "a mixture of compost with loam soil used as a growing medium" or the verb: "make into or treat with compost") see this policy and this one and also the info about the current useage in the UK ..... and re use of "straight" compost as a growing medium see BioHome and Biological_Wastewater_Processor Red58bill (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How To Compost
I would like to add in a section on how to compost. Not sure if that fits in the ethos of wikipedia. I do have a link for a 5 step compost that I can use. Please, let me know if I should leave as an external link or make into a section on the page. -- The Robot Champion  talk to me   20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A section would be preferable to an external link to your blog, but please be sure that the material can be sourced to a third party, as using your own site as a source would not fit with the policy on original research. - MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP is not a how to guide but how it is done can be explained. The correct language must be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
As an editor who only casually came across these two articles, compost and composting seem to basically cover the same topic. I think that readers would benefit from having one article instead of two.

I think that consolidating the articles in a way similar to the above would make the topic much easier for readers to parse and editors to improve. It would also make specialized information easier to spin-off into side articles if this topic is one clear overview rather than two over-lapping overviews. NJGW (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would rather that the two separate articles remained as compliments to each other. One is the product and the other it the process. They are both articles of a good length (subjective!!??) and could do with a rewrite to be complimentary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who has extensively reworked both articles [and the Home Composting refered to below], I agree with Alan that the difference between process and result is worth separating, and feel combining them would 'muddy the waters' for some - looking back in the history you can see originally these articles were a confusion of 'how to' info and mis-info Red58bill (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge
All three articles, Compost, Composting, Home composting on the guidelines of "Merge proposal". Compactness is a virtue. Rickproser (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, just do it. Compost is the product of composting, as long as the articles share information, there is unnecessary redundancy which makes the overall concept harder to grasp. Apothecia (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF happened to the Compost Tea page?
Who's brilliant idea was to nuke that page and turn it into an absolute minimal summary, huge fail. Sincerely, anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.153.236 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Potting composts
The article needs to mention seed, potting composts etc as these are also referred to simply as 'compost' (in the UK anyway). 92.25.89.184 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Microrganisms limit degradation in landfill sites
The statement that the lack of microorganisms limits composting activities in land-fill sites I believe is just plain wrong. Old land-fill sites developed a great deal of heat and much decomposition took place together with the release of copious amounts of methans and carbon dioxide. Modern sites are managed to limit rainwater ingress to the absolute minimum and, if one excavates waste material in a modern site it will be found to be relatively dry. Its not the bugs that are missing, it's the water.  Velela  Velela Talk 09:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo caption is factually incorrect and misleading
Spontaneous combustion doesn't happen in compost piles, as the photo caption for this article erroneously claims. It's necessary to keep a compost pile moist, so those workers in the photo are watering the pile. The microbes generate a lot of heat as a byproduct of their activity--the temperatures in a compost pile can range from 150 to 175 degrees F. (in a large pile)! This photo must have been taken on a colder day, so the heat being generated in the compost pile in the photo is appearing as steam NOT smoke. I personally have seen compost piles steam on cold days! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.166.140 (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The composting process
The more I look at this article the worse it seems. As someone who has composted for several decades I can be quite certain that early stages in an active compost heap are usually anoxic. I.e. the oxygen is rapidly used up and a thermophilic anaerobic decomposition phase starts. This is often obvious from the smell (often rather like a brewery !) but also a dissolved oxygen metre will show nil or virtually nil oxygen. It is only after this first active phase when the compost heap is turned for the first time that aerobic decomposition starts, often associated with a second more restrained period of heating.

The microorganisms present certainly include bacteria and later actinomycetes and by that stage also small nematodes, some arthropods and some annelids. However rotifers require such a thick film of water that the compost would be saturated. Rotifers occur in aerobic sewage sludge digestion and in the production of compost from such sources but I have never observed them in traditional compost. The Cornel reference from which this sentence derives is very simplistic and I think it is unlikely to be reliable.

Overall, an article much in need of some detailed research in the literature and expanding. Any thoughts ?  Velela  Velela Talk

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't realize posting a link to a website that I'm affiliated with was a conflict of interest. Apologies! I'm a graduate student at Cornell and we've just launched a vermicompost research website as part of our outreach and extension for a multidisciplinary project that is wrapping up. In the FAQs for organizations I learned that I should post it here so that if other editors think it would be helpful information, they can add it. Thanks! http://www.css.cornell.edu/cwmi/vermicompost.html

I would also like to suggest Cornell Waste Management Institute for an external link. Their site has a lot of great practical and scientific research information. http://www.css.cornell.edu/cwmi/

And forgive me if this is shameless self promotion, but there are very few scientists working in this field and I know there is a large public demand for scientifically verified information on vermicompost in general and the suppression of plant diseases in particular, I wrote a chapter in Dr. Clive Edwards latest book on vermicomposting that exhaustively reviews the available scientific literature on the suppression of plant diseases with vermicompost. I believe the whole book would be a helpful resource for this page. http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9781439809877/

Hope some of this is helpful, thanks (Wiki newbie) Allisonlhjack (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bokashi
You have introduced the concept of Bokashi, but then what? What comes out of the process, how is it used, what are the benefits over backyard composting, etc. EdmCPC (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)EdmCPC 10Nov10

Content sourced to a gardening store's blog
I am a bit frustrated because I posted a complete list of things that can and cannot be composted to replace the current list that is woefully incomplete. Yet it was taken down. I am not going to spend time trying to improve Wikipedia articles if my work vanishes as soon as I post it. The editor who removed it is Mr. Ollie....Mr. Ollie, please respond.AvidGardener711
 * As I explained on my talk page when you asked there, Blogs published by gardening stores for marketing purposes are not appropriate sources. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your store. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of superlatives
"Lady Eve Balfour who was a huge proponent of composting" Can we please stay away from these colloquially misused superlatives and remain objective? We might describe Lady Balfour as an enthusiastic proponent or even a very enthusiastic proponent? Lady Balfour might have been small or large person; I do not know. I doubt that she was huge and even were she to have been so, it is not particularly flattering to describe her so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.40.85 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reason it is desirable is not a reason it happens
"The reason your compost will heat up is the thermophillic bacteria works best as high temperatures." Ignoring the grammar problem, this isn't a reason compost will heat up. Rather, it's a reason one wants the compost to heat up. 99.243.22.211 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bokashi is NOT composting
As I have learned about this... composting is a form of aerobic decomposition. Bokashi is an anaerobic fermentation process. Bokashi really should only be in the see also and should be its own article174.51.189.11 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a video that describes the difference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA78XtHEJg174.51.189.11 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Compost Tea is not a fertilizer
Compost Tea does not have enough nutrients in it to be used as a fertilizer, unless additional nutrients are added post incubation. Compost Tea is basically an extraction method for all the beneficial microorganisms from compost, to be applied to soil. These microorganisms then are used to 'structure' compacted soil, helping in root development, plant-micro interactions, soils transfer of nutrients and water etc. There are few reports in which the compost tea can reduce pathogens. If a correctly made compost is used (i.e. thermo-cycles and free of human pathogens), it can be used on edible plant-parts. A south African company manufactures Compost Tea for any agricultural type, but promotes a safe and quality assured safe product (look at www.ecosoil.co.za). Compost Tea can be dangerouse if made incorrectly and without much thought. Compost Tea microorganisms help to stabilise fertilizers and nutrients in soil which are lost to underground water, erosion etc. and allows farmers to reduce their fertilizer usage over folowing years. Compost tea is to be used as an aid to sustainable farming, not a solution product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovanelli (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Escalate to C
I suggest that this article be escalated to C-class Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of urine
The section on urine has been blanked with a comment that the practice may create a health hazard. Please discuss this issue here before deleting the section again. Joja lozzo  20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Any one please comment on the hazards of urine? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.214.9 (talk) 23:26 4 April 2012 UTC

Industrial Systems
The statement "...world's largest composting facility once fully operational in early 2011 ... is now obsolete. It should be re-written if possible to show what happened or deleted if the result is unknown. In general, articles should (in my opinion, I hasten to say) refrain from such dated items unless a careful watch is kept on the calendar. Dawright12 (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question that so much is in one article - and the quality if the humanure sub section
I found this article redirected from humanure.

I see that human fecal compost is covered in the very lengthy section of "Approaches" A) the humanure item is kind of a mess with no internal structure B) it is not an approach to composting, it is a specific subset of composting C) urine is in a completely different section

I think that it should be a separate article because: A) composting of human waste is a complex subject that is of significant worldwide environmental importance and needs it's own article. There are many approaches to composting human waste as well as detailed scientific and other aspects to document. B) the composting article is getting very over loaded.

The composting article should perhaps be refocused down to what composting means, and the general biological process / principals of composting, perhaps also a list of composting methodologies, with any substantive sub topic getting it's own article.

Having all this in one article is like having an article on cooking that, in addition to general methods of cooking, tries to cover recipes in a single section, and includes in that recipes section a sub-head called, say, preserving that then goes into the in nod outs of food reservation. It's all related, it's ll cooking, but how far into related topics do you go before they need at least a section if not a full article of their own?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennpublic (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I have tried to tidy things up a bit, by shortening and refererring to the other existing pages on composting technologies. We could even make the part on composting technologies shorter still (and move paragraphs across) as this is meant to be an article about compost, not about composting. I have dissolved that category on humanure by putting a small part of it with the top where we speak of excreta as an input material. The rest I moved across to the article on composting toilets where it fits better. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with both these points, and would argue that BSFL and vermiculture are not really types of composting. Using the analogue above, this is like having a cooking article which also covers freezing, drying and pickling.  These things are obviously important and related, but not directly composting, I don't think. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

composting material
is it OK to put shredded bank statements and other types of paper that have print on them in my compost bins - I have heard that the inks used on paper are poisonous. I ask this because sometimes I use the compost I make to grow say tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.106.188 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The main issue with different types of paper is whether or not the microbes will be able to break it down into compost. There is a chance that the bank statements and other kinds of paper might have chemicals that inhibit the microbes and prevent full breakdown.  I don't know if it would affect tomatoes if you could get it to compost - I think probably unlikely, but if you are worried then avoid using any compost containing the paper on your tomatoes. JMWt (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Need more information on odor
I just realised that there is no information on odor in this article (at least searching for odor and odour brought no results). I think this still needs to be addressed. We have more information on odour on the composting toilet page. There we wrote: "a ventilation unit to provide air to ensure aerobic conditions, to allow water to evaporate and to vent odorous gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane". Gases that may develop during composting should be mentioned in this article. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

concerned about age and quality of the sources here
The quality of the references on this page is generally low, I think. They are either primary sources or very old or both.

In my view, any claims should be backed up with recent (ideally within the last 5 years) secondary sources. I appreciate this is not medicine, but if we are making claims about things which impact on health (such as pathogen destruction, safety etc), we need a lot more than 20 year old studies - things have moved on and methods have improved. JMWt (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This article still needs quite a bit of work. If someone has the time, he/she should go through the list of sources and eliminate those that are of low quality and rather add the "citation needed" tag. I did a similar exercise with the page for constructed wetlands recently where I culled down about 60% of superfluous, really old references.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken out all the original references in the composting tea section and added two recent review articles. I would not class these as the best quality, but I am much more comfortable with citing these than making claims which are unsupported and very old. JMWt (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a mess and overly positive as well. This is obviously not RS, but see this about the GHG emissions from composting. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there could be an argument as to whether composting is a net GHG producer on a lifecycle basis (possibly worth a section, I'm not sure), but it is certainly true that there are several drawbacks of industrial composting that might be mentioned, including gaseous emissions, odours, leachates etc. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are uneven. The lede is some sort of free form essay.  Compositing is a technical process and the references should be correspondingly technical.  Too bad because probably a lot of readers come here and what they get is not very serious.  I will try to find a textbook.  --Smokefoot (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Need more information on odor
I just realised that there is no information on odor in this article (at least searching for odor and odour brought no results). I think this still needs to be addressed. We have more information on odour on the composting toilet page. There we wrote: "a ventilation unit to provide air to ensure aerobic conditions, to allow water to evaporate and to vent odorous gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane". Gases that may develop during composting should be mentioned in this article. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

concerned about age and quality of the sources here
The quality of the references on this page is generally low, I think. They are either primary sources or very old or both.

In my view, any claims should be backed up with recent (ideally within the last 5 years) secondary sources. I appreciate this is not medicine, but if we are making claims about things which impact on health (such as pathogen destruction, safety etc), we need a lot more than 20 year old studies - things have moved on and methods have improved. JMWt (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This article still needs quite a bit of work. If someone has the time, he/she should go through the list of sources and eliminate those that are of low quality and rather add the "citation needed" tag. I did a similar exercise with the page for constructed wetlands recently where I culled down about 60% of superfluous, really old references.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken out all the original references in the composting tea section and added two recent review articles. I would not class these as the best quality, but I am much more comfortable with citing these than making claims which are unsupported and very old. JMWt (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a mess and overly positive as well. This is obviously not RS, but see this about the GHG emissions from composting. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there could be an argument as to whether composting is a net GHG producer on a lifecycle basis (possibly worth a section, I'm not sure), but it is certainly true that there are several drawbacks of industrial composting that might be mentioned, including gaseous emissions, odours, leachates etc. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are uneven. The lede is some sort of free form essay.  Compositing is a technical process and the references should be correspondingly technical.  Too bad because probably a lot of readers come here and what they get is not very serious.  I will try to find a textbook.  --Smokefoot (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

vamvattube
, can you explain why this photo is a good thing to have on the page? Is it advertising? Does is need something in the text? I don't really understand the point you think it is making. JMWt (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing. Have removed the photo for now. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Category:Composting
Suggest add a link to Wikibooks:Category:Composting. --Lagoset (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. --Lagoset (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fermentation
This edit added information about anaerobic fermentation and silage production. I don't really see that this has anything much to do with composting. It is related to Anaerobic digestion but this is only tangentially related to composting, so I think this is a step too far on a page which is supposed to be about (aerobic) composting. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative to composting
Rather than composting (in which you need to match the carbon with the nitrogen), an alternative is to just make a deep pit in which kitchen waste can be put in (see also http://www.chowhound.com/post/bury-kitchen-waste-garden-composting-bin-684464 ). Every time kitchen waste is put in, it can be covered with a shallow layer of dirt (and/or twigs, ... if you really want to have more carbon mixed in to help it decompose quicker). I'm wondering whether this technique doesn't have a name (it's similar to trench composting, but I doubt we can call it that, since there's little or no C/N matching done). The benefit of this technique is that it's much more practical (can be done every time kitchen waste was created in the kitchen). This is something every family can do, and it also doesn't require someone to have a compost pile (which many find unattractive to have around). Once the pit has been filled, it can also be used to sow on and have vegetables growing on it. Seems useful to have a article on and/or at least an image made to show the technique. KVDP (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not composting, it isn't anything. How could that even work, magic? Kitchen waste buried in the ground, so limited oxygen and without much carbon so limited capacity for aerobic breakdown is almost inevitably going to go anaerobic. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bokashi into the list of contents, too, please
from visionhelp: Bokashi should be a point in the contents-list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionhelp (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bokashi with using the cooked foods trashes as resources for compost AND ´Terra Preta´-producing should not only be a point in the contents-list, it has to be an own theme at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionhelp (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism
from Manofcarbon: Much of this article is identical to section 2.15 "Compost" in "21st Century Homestead: Organic Farming" by Lamont Fedigan (2015), which postdates matching edits. It could of course have been written using Wikipedia as a sandbox, though I doubt this. I have not checked other sections in detail but am suspicious of the whole book.

If you Google the opening of the History section, you will find the above easily, and also part of an unpublished academic paper "Production of compost and its economic importance", by Dr.Sc.Isuf Lushi, University “Ukshin Hoti”, 20000, Prizren, Kosova

In any case this article is classed as Start level, and needs a major upgrade or replacement. Would any colleagues like to join in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofcarbon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the plagiarism problem before. Could you highlight which parts of the article you think might be affected?
 * And I don't think this is "start" category, I had marked it as B for WikiProject sanitation, although on second thoughts, it is more likely C class (I will change that now). EMsmile (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost everything is reproduced in the book, including the Wikimedia. Are these people immune from consequences? Manofcarbon (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is licenced in such a way that content can be reused by anyone. See Republishers for a list of companies who do this. That said, to be compliant with the licence they must state where the information came from, which from what you're saying isn't the case. If you've purchased the book then the best thing you can do is complain to where you bought it from and also the publisher. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, I had thought it was the other way around: book first, then WP article; if it's WP article first, then book then this is better for us. But yes, the book should acknowledge the source. Often they don't though. EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Agriculture, Environment, and Horticulture and Gardening projects all have it as Start-class. Rightly, IMO, as there is no underlying encyclopaedic philosophy. Manofcarbon (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Those projects probably have it as "start" because they haven't re-assessed it for a while. Yes, the article could be improved, but please be more specific what you plan to improve? What do you mean by "there is no underlying encyclopaedic philosophy"? EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regulations?
I noticed that a fair bit about regulations is in the article on Uses of compost. We shouldn't repeat regulations in both articles, as they overlap so much, i.e. regulations for composting and regulations for compost uses overlap. So I suggest to have only a short section here but to beef up the regulations section in the article Uses of compost.EMsmile (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new content
I have written a draft in my sandbox, which you are welcome to comment on. It focuses on what produces compost, what it is, and how it has its beneficial effects on the soil. It introduces an ecological view, in tune with current thinking that organic soil regeneration on a massive scale is needed both to safeguard future harvests worldwide and to sequester soil carbon that has been lost by agricultural practices over the past 200 years.Manofcarbon (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article on compost on Wikipedia has been around for quite a while. Rather than creating a new article from scratch, I suggest you describe here on the talk page what major changes you would like to propose. You can also go ahead and make changes "gently" in the article, i.e. not too many changes at once and always explaining in the edit summary what you have changed and why. Don't make huge major changes in a few hours but spread it out. Then others who are watching the page can follow the progress and see if they agree or disagree. Make sure you use high-quality references for new content. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at your sandbox. Parts of it could probably now be inserted into the compost article. However, the focus of the article is more on composting (i.e. the technologies) than on compost itself (are you suggesting to build up the content about compost as a material?). Some of the content in your sandbox fits better into the article on Uses of compost, e.g. the parts on how it works as a soil conditioner.EMsmile (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do as you suggest: bit by bit. I disagree about where the soil amendment bit fits, for logical reasons. They'll become apparent as we go, but I can't explain in isolation from improvements.Manofcarbon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Green Waste
Should green waste (also known as yard waste) be considered as additional content on this page? In some states, green waste is no longer accepted in landfills and therefore must be composted. Also, green waste can be co-mingled with food scraps to be composted.Gram99 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Green waste would belong in the Ingredients section. This suffers from inconsisent use of sub-heading levels. Some are at an equivalent conceptual level to Green waste, e.g. 2.2 Animal manure and bedding; one is not even about ingredients (Phases of composting). However green waste itself - probably the commonest class of composting ingredient - does appears more than once by implication but not by name under the more generic 2.1 Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, water. Personally I feel that this whole section has become too bitty, with no principle for its content or subdivisions, and that's at the heart of your question.

Have you noticed that there is a Green waste stub? Filling this out first would be a good idea, with an aim to minimise what needs to be in Compost. The same principle might then be applied to other sections that obscure the Compost big picture with their detail.Manofcarbon (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I see now what you mean about the compost article, Manofcarbon. I'll have a first go at restructuring a bit now.EMsmile (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I have done a major revamp now. Hopefully it makes a bit more sense now (more work is needed). The information about green waste is now more prominent. I see this as an overview article which has many spin-off articles, such as the one on vermicomposting or composting toilet etc. EMsmile (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with the overview goal. Quite a lot of the present Compost page is specific to Aerobic Decomposition, which unbalances everything. But do some people think that Aerobic = Compost and anything else is an interloper?Manofcarbon (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean here with "interloper" but are you based in the U.S.? If yes, then indeed there could be an issue with what composting means... I came across this issue while working on the article on composting toilets. Check what I wrote there based on expert advice: "The term "composting toilet" is used quite loosely, and its meaning varies by country. For example, in English-speaking countries, the term "anaerobic composting" (equivalent to anaerobic decomposition) is used. In Germany and Scandinavian countries, composting always refers to a predominantly aerobic process." We might need a similar explanation also here, ideally with a reference. EMsmile (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117112037/http://www.klickitatcounty.org/solidwaste/fileshtml/organics/compostCalc.htm to http://www.klickitatcounty.org/SolidWaste/fileshtml/organics/compostCalc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable References
Reference 9, Reference 38, and Reference 33 are blog posts. Reference 32 and Reference 37 are business websites. All references should be checked for reliability. If found to be unreliable sources by another user, these references and their respective content in Compost should be removed or a more reliable source should be found.--Maw057 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Please go ahead, Maw057. EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information
The last sentence of the second paragraph ("When available ammonium is not used by plants it is further converted by bacteria into nitrates (NO−3) through the process of nitrification") is irrelevant and confusing at the beginning of the article. If still included in Compost, it should be moved to the 'Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, water' subsection.

The last sentence in the Bokashi section ("Newspaper fermented in a lactobacillus culture can be substituted for bokashi bran for a successful bokashi bucket" can be removed. Wikipedia is not a How-to-Guide.

In the Animal Manure and Bedding section, "The amount of manure composted on a livestock farm is often determined by cleaning schedules, land availability, and weather conditions" can be removed as the exact amount of manure available does not contribute to the understanding of compost. --Maw057 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please go ahead, Maw057. EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To Be Added
The 'Phases of Composting' section could be described in more detail (perhaps scientifically) to better understand the process. What is actually happening in terms of nutrient exchange and conversion?

External links to terms such as "mesophilic" and "thermophilic" should be added for better understanding. Maw057 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please go ahead, Maw057. But don't add external links but rather links to the other existing Wikipedia articles. EMsmile (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in "Fundamentals"
In "Fundamentals", it says: "The most efficient composting occurs with an optimal carbon:nitrogen ratio of about 10:1 to 20:1.", citing reference 4. This is a bad interpretation of the text in the reference. What is meant there is that _finished_ compost, not the input materials, should have a carbon:nitrogen ratio in that range of values. 2001:8A0:6CC9:E801:D0AB:D0E5:51FE:7ABA (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. What would be a better statement, relating to the input materials? And a better reference? That reference used there doesn't strike me as a very good one - I think it should be replaced. EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)