Aaron Neville

Heidelberg here. We should do some sort of meetup/networking event. Maybe a garden blitz or some sort of workshop.

Elizabeth Geller wrote:I can’t help but notice that nobody that responded to this thread has actually used one of these types of bins!

I know it’s an older thread, but I hate to think that someone might run across it and pass on buying an excellent tool that would be perfect for their particular situation because of the comments here.

Based on 8+ years of experience with Algreen SoilSavers, the answer to the OP’s question is yes, you can make great compost with a plastic bin unit.  

I’d be happy to share more information and address some misconceptions if anybody is interested.

This seems like something a sales rep would say.  

Also, nobody said they had no experience.  The bins I have used and observed others using are way too small to contain a cubic meter of material, the recommended minimum for achieving thermophilic levels.  Mesophilic are fine, but can require their own set of rules for proper management.

12 liters does sound rather small to me.

Worms will self-regulate their population once it reaches capacity. I would transfer them to a 60 liter container, or remove half the population to a separate container.

Also, I’m not suggesting that it’s a good thing to stress your worms, but I saw a video in which the worm farmer was surprised by the number of cocoons he found in a flood and drain aquaponic setup. Perhaps the worms in the system felt that they wouldn’t survive and shed their cocoons to prepare the next generation in case they died out.

I think most people around here refer to them as the Jean Pain method.  Perhaps that may help your search for additional information.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Some people may want to use something like a tree bog, where trees are planted and a toilet is installed among them, or some may want something like an arborloo, where a hole is dug and the trees are planted after the hole is filled.

Some may want to compost in-situ or some may wish to transport to a separate composting location, for aesthetic reasons or any other.

Some may wish to separate urine, some may want to produce biogas, some may want to integrate other infrastructure like ventilation or running water. Some want to comply with local regulations.  Everyone's circumstances are different, and it's not always a matter of want or wish.

In my opinion, Terra Preta Sanitation is superior to the system proposed by Joe Jenkins. It integrates lactofermentation, biochar, and vermicomposting, all of which are antipathogenic by themselves, and integrated together can produce finished results in 60 days (30 days lactofermentation, 30 days vermicomposting).

https://sswm.info/sanitation-systems/sanitation-technologies
Whatever your particulars are, there's an app for that.

Chris Kott wrote:I read that one of the ways people often do a keto diet wrong is to have too high a ratio of protein to fat, as in, too much protein throws a wrench into things. Can anyone explain this mechanism, and what the appropriate ratio is? I had an article I am still looking for that explained it, but I browsed it and lost it.

-CK

The process is called gluconeogenesis.  Excess protein is converted to glucose which triggers insulin production.  Most recommendations are for less than 5% daily carbohydrates, around 15% protein, and around 80% fat.  The most important to trigger ketosis is keeping carbs down, the other two are a bit more flexible.  

Also important to note, those numbers don't necessarily reflect dietary input.  If you've got body fat to lose, let some of that 80% come from your own stores, no need to chug olive oil or butter to get to the 80%.

I think it's also important to emphasize that weight loss is considered a side effect, not the main goal.  What many people experience while hoping for weight loss is rather body recomposition, which could mean that weight doesn't change (immediately) but that other metrics can be used to measure results, like the circumference of fatty body parts, like abdomen or thighs.  People may lose fat but gain muscle so overall weight stays the same or even increases.  It might take as little as a day to enter ketosis, but as much as 12 weeks to be fully keto-adapted.

In regards to keto, Stephen Phinney is one of the most knowledgeable researchers, and possibly has the longest career studying ketones and the effects of eating ketogenically of anyone still alive.  In this video series, he gives an excellent overview of what it is, and how it works.

I'm not exactly saying that you're trying to hide data, but your reasoning feels a bit like "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." As though you're willing to ignore evidence because you have a vested interest in it not being true.

It was certainly a difficult period of time for a plethora of reasons. But I'm not buying in to your suggestion that the reason that collectively, the entire nation suddenly became obese was because of hostages in Iran.  For that to even make sense, people would need to have been SO stressed out over it that their cortisol levels were through the roof, and while theoretically possible, occam's razor suggests that the more likely cause of obesity taking hold of everyone simultaneously was due to their adoption of the new dietary guidelines.  I can't even think of a plausible scenario to explain how disco was responsible for widespread obesity.

It's not that I want to focus on that period and block out everything else. But it certainly seems to me that you want to focus on everything else and block out that period. Hence, obfuscation.

John,

Please don't hear what I'm not saying. Of course the data continues beyond 1984, and I'm not saying it should be ignored, but to instead ignore the sudden change so that we can focus on the stable degression of health in the 40 years following (while emphasizing that we don't know which of many factors are responsible) is obfuscation.

As I wrote,

Low and stable until 1976, elevated with rapid increase by 1980.

There is an elephant in the room, a blaringly unasked question there: what changed during this short window of time to affect national statistics that dramatically? It was not a sudden, nation-wide gluttonfest, nor was it an anti-exercise pandemic.

There may be many factors at play, sure, but point me to one factor (or even several if you're so inclined) which had a massive dynamic shift between 1976 and 1980, other than the dietary guidelines. Not to conclude that THAT factor was THE factor that changed everything, but just to identify, THIS ONE changed during that period and could have played a role.

Hiding behind "well we just don't really know or understand the complexity" is how the cigarette industry avoids litigation for cancer and cardiovascular disease.

John Suavecito wrote:Since 1977, there have been a lot more changes than more carb.  More fat, fewer vegies, more sugar, bigger portions, more soda, more meat, way more pills from Big Pharma,  more toxins, more processed food, more video games, more sedentary, Less hiking and camping, most young people staying indoors, young people don't ride bikes anymore, etc.  Deciding its due to the carb isn't clear. Others blame meat, processed food, sugar, etc.  

You make it sound like I'm talking about trends which have changed slowly over the last 40 years, between 1977 and now. Rather, I'm talking about changes immediately following the introduction of the dietary guidelines and the changes apparent in the very next data point collected by the CDC (every four years) in 1980.

See, for example, the charts presented in these depositions.



Low and stable until 1976, elevated with rapid increase by 1980.