abbeysday:

Ain't wormin' grand!

Just last week I found lots of worms and cocoons in a barrel of "finished" vermicompost sitting unattended in the garage for about 3 months. At harvest, most all the worms and cocoons had been separated (I thought). Finished compost is never completely finished, of course, and moisture content was enough to sustain them...hence my belief that lots and lots of moisture is way overrated. The compost was just moist enough to clump up a little when squeezed.

This also brings up the puzzlement of "the worms must be removed from 'finished' castings or they will expire". Logic would indicate to me that continuous feeding would virtually assure a state of unfinished compost/castings, and ever-relocating worms "moving on up", throughout the bin. A further slap in the face by logic would seem to suggest that "finished" compost would be an excellent bedding material for the new family...and has a residual population already in place.

Or maybe I'm just a little euphoric this glorious day because the Longhorns are, for college football today, what Kelly Slocum is to this forum....champ.

Don't wormin' get grander all the time!

Chuckiebtoo

This also brings up the puzzlement of "the worms must be removed from 'finished' castings or they will expire". Logic would indicate to me that continuous feeding would virtually assure a state of unfinished compost/castings, and ever-relocating worms "moving on up", throughout the bin. A further slap in the face by logic would seem to suggest that "finished" compost would be an excellent bedding material for the new family...and has a residual population already in place.

Not sure I follow the points you are trying to make. Although what you describe IS in fact what happens in systems like the Can Of Worms and the Worm Factory, it is not possible in the static bin as eventually conditions of capacity are reached and the bedding gets reprocessed over and over. Eventually this produces a negative, if not somewhat toxic environment.

Also, are you suggesting that finished compost is or is not a good bedding? I'll assume you mean regular compost rather than vermicompost.
Finished composts and composted manures are an excellent bedding. However, since decomposition is nearly completed, decomposing feed stock is required to produce the protozoa and bacteria necessary to support the worms. I think the downside to compost and composted manures (as compared to shredded paper products, leaves and peat) is that it has a reduced use life as bedding in a bin as it is already closer to the end result, becoming dense and compacted sooner.

Au contrair. My suggestion is that "finished" compost, with the parentheses to denote that it really isn't finished at all, IS, as logic would suggest, an excellent bedding material, as exhibited in my example of the barrel of "finished" compost supporting a whole new generation of vermiculture...without external food or water additives for months. Pardon my confusing sentence structure.

Actually, it's not a suggestion at all, but a fact as the barrel proves, and I just thought it was pretty amazing and one more example of the tenacity of them "poor little defenseless, dependent" worms.

In actual practice, invariably when most all of us separate static bins, the "finished" material is only at some stage of being finished, and thus a perfectly acceptable and quality bedding material..especially so, if the castings are screened.

Sometime way back there when I thought Kelly Slocum was but a mere mortal, she made the astute declaration that "there's no such thing as vermicompost", or "vermicompost is not really compost at all"...something like that...which, though true, is kinda like "Coke" instead of cola. Many internet sellers of "vermicastings" are, in actuality, selling vermicompost at "vermicasting" pricing. At any rate, the composting materials in my plastic bins that happen to have worms in it have never reached the stage of vermicastings totally, or even anywhere close.

The post was both an agreement with your's, and meant to give an example of the ability of worms to adapt to, for instance, less than "a wrung out sponges'" moisture content.

Chuckiebtoo

I agree with you, but only in part. The fact that worms may survive in the unmonitored, set aside bin is noteworthy, but survival isn't the same as flourishing. Nature has some amazing tricks up her sleeve.

Gracie the wonder fish story: a few years ago, we went on vacation and rather than have a fish sitter, I set up an automated feeding wheel for Gracie the goldfish. I tested it for nearly two weeks before the trip and everything was fine. When we returned from the ten day trip, Gracie lay motionless in one to two inches of very foul water. She was not moving or breathing and I looked at her for such a long time in disbelief as I thought of how I was going to tell Abbey her fish was gone. I found the words to tell Abbey how sorry I was and she asked to see Gracie to say goodbye. As we approached the tank this second time, Gracie sprang to life from some kind of suspended animation. I hustled to get her into good water and re setup her tank. Gracie is still with us today! I do not know where the water went, the floor was bone dry. I do not know how a fish could survive in such foul, rank water with no oxygen for any length of time - but she did.

Animal Land story: Animal Land was a small animal park at Lake George in upstate New York, long since closed. The owner/operator once described to me that each fall he collected all the pond goldfish into a 55 gallon drum filled with water, sealed and buried them 6 feet deep in the ground - no food and no air. Each spring, 6 months later, he would excavate the barrel(s) and for the most part, ALL OF THE FISH WERE ALIVE.

Are fish more special or just another example of nature and survival.

The fact that worms may survive in an environment growing more hostile with each passing day is a tribute but I think it would be incorrect to conclude that such and environment is desirable habitat. Worms are amazing as I can think of few creatures that can consume their own excrement without ill effects...hense the expression "eat s!@# and die".

I have read one method of harvesting vermicompost of maximum castings, at the expense of the worms, is to at some point, set the bin aside with no additional feed stock inputs for an extended period so that the worms reprocess the bedding until all resources are exhausted and the worms themselves become the last organic matter to decompose (not sure I favor this treatment!).

Have you read "The Burrow". I was very interested in the theory that a flurry of breading activity may exist not only in the best of worm world's (with lots of food and space)BUT ALSO the worst of worlds. It was suggested that as resources dwindle, the worms breed heavily to produce cocoons before they expire - as though they knew the end was coming and were attempting to ensure the survival of the species.

I have also read (which seems relative) that mature worms may become very sensitive to changes in their environment, while newly hatched and young worms appear to be much more adaptable. For example, it may be possible that a mature worm may not tolerate a bedding that's become dry or very acidic, but a young worm that grows in that environment seemingly unphased.

Another thing I found interesting in Amy Stuarts book, The Earth Moved, was the information about California exploring vermicomposting to handle the large amount of bio-mass from a sewage treatment plant. Since the material is already composted, it was determined that they would need to mix in grass clippings or other greens to furnish the feed stock for the worms.

Then a large portion of "The Worm Book" was dedicated to Cuba's exploration (in the face of long term embargos) of vermicompost / castings to both process waste and produce fertilizer (as well as a high protein food source for animals...and more [yuk]).

All interesting stuff.

(I Attribute these with giving me the idea to attempt larger scale outdoor vermicomposting this coming season - with several large worm bins to further process compost into vermicompost for an even more rich organic fertilizer).

I think vermicompost, like regular compost is 'finished' when you can no longer identify the original ingredients (bedding and food stock). When the bedding looks like fine earth, it's done and time to harvest one way or another.

Now having 'said' all this, it's not to say that most likely, worm bins may often be harvested before their time limit is up - but one might say that at some point in the 2-3 month range, the worms have probably fully processed the bedding and it is time to renew.

Perhaps if we're lucky, we might get our resident Vermigoddess :), Kelly Slocum to comment.

may I chime in?

Yes, abbeysdad, I agree:

I think vermicompost, like regular compost is 'finished' when you can no longer identify the original ingredients (bedding and food stock). When the bedding looks like fine earth, it's done and time to harvest one way or another.

but, just cause the compost is finished, does not mean, the worm harvest is. Sometimes, it takes a while for all cocoons to hatch, and for all worms to migrate or get sorted out.

It depends on what you are harvesting. Worms, or Vermicompost.

IMHO

Moni

That goes without saying as in my original post. Our discussion drifted to the questioning the useful life of the bedding. I can see how finding worms in [very] used bedding, perhaps some that hatched there, might cause one to conclude that fresh bedding isn't important.
My point was really that creatures often survive hostile environments, but rarely flourish there.

But you are correct in questioning what exactly is being harvested - worms or vermicompost. Often (as in my case right now) the answer is both, however it would seem that unless your purpose is breeding worms, eventually the home system would equilibrate to it's capacity and any subsequent "harvests" would be for the vermicompost and to replace the bedding, giving the worms a fresh, renewed environment.

That hostile environment that we humans, using the visions of our naked eye and preconceived notions of "finished" vermicompost (I apologize again, Kelly), ain't necessarily hostile at all to the vermi. Only the castings are.

You have in that bin bedding, compostING materials, lots of critters...many microscopic, worms eating lots of that, and worm castings. If you separate out the castings, at any point in the composting cycle, because we've continued to add materials into the mix, you've made a decision to end the cycle on your terms. There obviously remain all the ingredients sans castings...unless there's an expiration date on decomposition.

BTW 1, abbeysdad, the Animal Land fish story is amazing. What made management decide to bury the fish? Why 6 feet? Why did they go out of business?

BTW 2, I also have just finished preparing 4-4X8 beds for a larger scale outdoor experiment with EF. I look forward to comparing notes with you.

Chuckiebtoo

Well, aside from the fact that it's well published that castings have a somewhat toxic effect on worms, lets simply explore that well processed vermicompost becomes very densely packed which decreases air and moisture transfer. As you know, this texture is far from the light, fluffy bedding we strive for in worm heaven.

BTW 1, abbeysdad, the Animal Land fish story is amazing. What made management decide to bury the fish? Why 6 feet? Why did they go out of business?

The animal park was seasonal - Lake George is a tourist town in the Adirondack mountains. Most of the animals were packed up and moved south for housing in the winter. I guess they just didn't feel moving the pond fish and caring for them during the winter was worth the bother. Why 6 feet deep?, well very simply to get below the frost line to prevent it from freezing. Earth can freeze in the north woods down to about 4 feet. (Really not so amazing when you think of lakes and ponds in the north freezing over every winter and water life just takes it in stride).
I met the owner back in the 70's. He was in his late 50's at the time. He had many amazing stories, like the time he broke his back while wrestling the alligators! And I'll never forget the uneasy experience I had when he and an assistant dragged out an uncooperative, 18 foot, 250 lb. anaconda (and had all they could to get that critter back in the pen.). After all, what do you do if a snake that big gets loose? okay, besides run like hell!
Anyway time passed and as he neared retirement, I heard he sold the business to a larger zoo concern. It remained open for a few years, then the property (of sky rocketing value) was developed as another resort.
--------------------------------------------------------

For my larger outdoor vermicompost 'experiment' this coming season, although not firm yet, I was thinking of using several rather large plastic bins on the north side of my shed. I plan to drill several holes in the bottoms for drainage, a few in the upper sides for air flow, but keep covered to control rain and conserve moisture. They would have a basic initial bedding and be topped in stages with nearly finished compost or finished compost mixed with grass clippings. Each bin would be seeded with 1-2 lbs of worms. I will have a bigger challenge than you in the fall with winterizing.
I'll look forward to comparing notes with you as well.

Congratulations on some outstanding discussion fellas! Wow!

There is little I can add, really, but might be able to clarify some points that seem to be leaving you with questions. One is the idea that castings are or might be toxic to worms. While it would seem logical that a worm, as with essentially all other animals, could not be healthy living in its own waste, research shows that this is not necessarily the case. If I recall correctly, Mary Appelhoff even says this in the first edition of Worms Eat My Garbage. She and I later learned, however, that, as Abbeysdad indicated, earthworms actually re-ingest their own casts over and over, even in the presence of a rich food source, a fact which negates the myth that castings are toxic to earthworms. In fact, some/many systems are enhanced by the presence of dense volumes of castings. Further, there is no evidence that continual re-ingestion causes the castings to eventually become toxic or lose their value to either the system or the worms that re-ingest them. On this same note, there is no evidence that as castings are re-ingested they become "richer" or more valuable to plants, nor is their evidence that they become more stable or "finished". As it is believed that it is the microorganisms that are being gleaned from ingested castings, and as the earthworm gut largely lacks the chemistry that would further reduce the ingested castings, it appears that the ingested casts are merely carriers for microbial life and, themselves, remain largely unchanged by continual re-ingestion.

When castings comprise the bulk of the material in a system, problems can arise, however, but not as a result of toxicity, rather, because the physical characteristics of masses of castings alone are not necessarily optimal for maintaining worms, as Abbeysdad also suggests. They are very dense and hold water with exceptional efficiency. As a result, castings-only systems often become saturated and allow for little oxygen penetration, leading to oxygen-starved worms and/or anaerobic conditions. Worm bin managers who experience these conditions and the corresponding loss of worm biomass often state that the castings killed the worms, which has led to the oft repeated but technically incorrect idea that castings are toxic. Again, it is not an issue of toxicity, but of physical characteristics potentially challenging to the maintenance of optimal bin conditions.

I have seen vermicomposting systems that had not been harvested for five or six years, and to which only feedstock was added supporting massive worm populations in some cases, and with weak, inefficient populations in others. I suspect that the variable is most often in the feedstock and how it interacts with the castings. Some feedstocks (like veggie wastes) carry huge volumes of water, thus using them alone with castings often leads to saturation, while other feedstocks (like some racetrack manures) are very dry, thus the system is enhanced by high levels of castings that hold as much moisture as possible. Some feedstocks are highly unstable, meaning they break down very quickly, thus the amplified biology associated with castings-rich systems may not be pivotal to optimal system efficiency, while others (rice hulls or coffee chaff) are biologically resistant and tend to decompose more quickly with the aid of the amplified microbiology associated with castings-rich system. All of this seems to suggest that whether or not one should harvest the castings regularly depends on the materials being used in the system.

As you can see, misunderstanding can often result when someone hoping to set up a coffee chaff vermicomposting system is asking questions of someone with a great deal of experience vermiprocessing veggie waste only. While the answers given may be technically correct, they are often incorrect for the person to whom they are being given.

As to when the material in a compost bin or worm bin is actually finished, meaning stable; the answer depends on who is asking the question. If the questioner is we who simply operate our home waste management systems for the purpose of reducing landfilled material while making good stuff for the garden, then materials from these systems can be considered finished as soon as they are no longer recognizable as the parent materials, or distinguishable from soil. If the questioner is a horticulturist looking for potting media with particular bulk density or given chemical characteristics, then the material is likely unfinished until it has cured for several weeks or months. If the questioner is a soil scientist trying to determine when the material actually begins to humify, or when it is fully stable and no longer breaking down in any measurable sense, then it will not be truly "finished" for many years. Strange, I know, to think that determining when compost or worm castings are "finished" could have such difference, but, well, it does.

One problem with the internet is that those answering the questions we ask are not always cognizant of these potential differences in perspective. While answers are often correct, they may not adequately address the needs of those asking the questions, thus myths are born, misinformation becomes a problem and Chuckie's head becomes threatened with implosion (I hate it when that happens). I have to say that you two, Abbeysdad and Chuckie, and you, Susan, impress me tremendously with how well you understand the complexities of communicating the technical aspects of vermicomposting systems. You seem to grasp better than most that "technically correct" and "correct within context" are not always the same thing, and ask questions to clarify context before answering. It is people like you who are helping to enhance understanding of the differences between systems and how the experiences of each of us can best be used to help improve education as opposed to increasing confusion, and for that I am profoundly grateful.

Great discussion, folks!
KellyS

We're not worthy!

Thank-you Kelly for yet another great post!

I must confess that perhaps I have been a bit conservative in 'harvesting' the vermicompost to provide new, fresh bedding. I've been using a bedding mix of sphagnum peat moss, compost and leaves and when the bedding appears processed and 'feels' rather dense when fluffing, it seems like time to change.
I still think this is more right than wrong, but following your post, I may let the bedding remain longer (especially since I monitor moisture very carefully and mix wet food stocks with dry ones for moisture control.). In my case, waiting longer could yield a slightly more casting rich vermicompost.

As always, your feedback is very appreciated.

footnote: BTW, I'm not sure you'll recall our discussions, but this harvest is from the batch of worms I was going to use (but didn't) when we 'spoke' last summer about my converting my outdoor EarthMachine into a worm bin. The summer was too hot and the bedding in the earthmachine too dry to introduce the worms, so they remained 'on hold' in the basement.

If the search functions of either this forum or my memory were operational anymore, I'd reference a couple of posts I made several months ago re my observations of bin characteristics seemingly inconsistent with "THE TRUTH".

Kelly, or someone, may remember that after separating the contents of two plastic bins, the anomaly that struck me in both cases was that the vermi seemed to prefer, and thrive in, the goopy, basically anaerobic, slimy, smelly, too-wet stuff...with nothing remotely recognizable as a food stuff (even for a worm)...in the bottom few inches of the bin. Most of the worms and cocoons were located within a squirm up of a worm smorgasborg of microbe-laden fruit and veggie particles "cooked" to any vermi's taste.

That's what I base lots of my seemingly blasphemic commentary upon....first hand, eyewitness, not-for-the-squeamish, stomach-turning, elbow-deep submersion and exploration into an environment not unlike, I suspect, everyone's cute little wigglers prefer.

It's a an ugly truth many wormers, especially indoor, would rather not think about, and it takes the stature of an authoritive icon like Kelly to help us deal with it as she so beautifully did with her last post.

.....I'm choking up....

Chuckiebtoo

And then too...

Kelly got me thinking when she referenced Mary Applehof's "Worms Eat My Garbage". In the second edition, on pages 30/31, Mary wrote:
"If left six months or more, all of the bedding may be converted to vermicast. It can become so dense that the worms have a hard time moving through it. When the material is partially dried and then screened it is impossible to identify the bedding or the garbage that was originally buried. However, normal procedures for maintaining a healthy worm population (discussed in Chapter 10), require that worms be removed from the bedding while still vermicompost, prior to complete conversion to vermicast."

On page 50 she wrote (reflecting on young worms competing with their parents for resources):
"Additionally, all the worms excrete wastes in their castings which have been shown to be toxic to members of their own species." ...

Then on page 78, she wrote:
"As more and more of the bedding and garbage is converted to earthworm castings, extensive decomposition and composting by other organisms takes place. I mentioned earlier that the proportion of castings increases as the environmental quality for your worms decreases. There will come a time when so much of the bedding in the box becomes castings that the worm population will suffer."
She goes on to say that because every system is different, it's impossible to predict precisely when every system requires a bedding change.

Perhaps the art in this science of worming is in determining the right time to harvest vermicompost (and the worms) to maximize vermicast content w/o detriment to the worm population and population growth.

I can't answer your claim Chuckiebtoo that it appears many worms prefer and seemingly thrive in more foul portions of the bin. Obviously there is something that lures them there. Food, temperature, moisture or maybe where the hot omni-babes hang out - there must be a reason we can't see. Then too, we don't know if they are static there, or move in and out of that region with some purpose?

The mysteries of the worm bin - the art and science of vermicomposting - I'm thinking book deal here! - LOL