I agree with kimmsr about the tumblers. The problem with them is they don't hold a lot of volume, so you've put a lot of effort in for a small amount of compost. And the ones in my stores are very expensive. For the price, I could have bought yards of finished compost from the quarry. I bought one of those plastic bins that open on the top and have a "door" on the bottom that you were supposed to shovel your finished compost out of. That was a colossal waste of money. The thing was a snail and bug magnet. Because you can't turn compost in the bin, the outside edges never broke down, thus it was very difficult to get anything out of the "door". In the end, it would have been easier to just have an open pile that I could access better.

Valerie, is your stuff anything like this stuff? No, it's not like kefir grains. It is more simple thing. And easy to make. To avoid long errors with ratios, 100 g of rye flour and 1 liter of water is all what necessary. Put in bottle and let it sit 2 days closed under the lid. Shake it occasionally. It's like milk in color. But the process going there is really complex. Each time when it start the process of evolution (and co-evolution) begin. Natural yests in rye flour are aerobic. From generation to generation the yeasts cells become more and more "anaerobic". In the end (after 2 days) there will be lacto-bacterias and yeasts. Traditionally lacto-bacterias are anaerobic in science and yeasts are aerobic. So, from traditional point of view it is a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic organismes living together. Paradox! The solution of this paradox I've already explained. So, it's white, acidic, sour smell, nice taste, no alcohol.

I found a reasonably good youtube eOrganic webinar from U.C. Davis where they explain how important it is not to use too readily available sources of nitrogen in gardens / farms in order to prevent nitrogen loss due to leaching. Essentially they are trying to get farmers / gardeners to think more about how to tightly couple nitrogen production with usage. This prevents nitrogen loss due to leaching. Having high organic matter in the soil that has not completely broken down is seen as the ideal way to achieve this. Also crops with high enzyme levels are important. My interpretation is that it is important not to view composting always as the ideal pathway to completely break down all organic matter because then it will be too readily available. Admittedly, it is not a black and white world. Soils with high organic matter can accommodate and process even more organic matter than soils with low organic matter. They already have a highly active microbial community. In other words, if I had soils that had very little organic matter and therefore very little microbial activity, I would probably compost organic matter fairly well before incorporating it into the soil. But then as the microbial activity increases I would pile or bin compost less and use direct composting more so as to increase the organic matter and microbial activity even more. Then I would look for plants which tolerate high residue soils. The researchers admit they need more research to draw up better guidelines as to how much un-decomposed organic matter is ideal because it depends so much on soil, weather, and crops. And the researchers admit they need more research to identify which crops and varieties have the highest enzyme levels to assist with organic matter breakdown. But those of us with a lot of gardening experience can probably make some educated guesses. Spinach and bell peppers seem to be on the low root enzyme end. Tomato seems to be on the low to medium end depending on variety. I would probably always bin or pile compost to some degree with these crops. Anyway, the researchers seem to be going the 'Let us conserve our nitrogen better' direction. One reason organic agriculture is more expensive than conventional agriculture is that we fritter away our nitrogen; 10% here, 15% there, 5% everywhere and before you know it we have lost half our nitrogen. Here is a link that might be useful: U.C. Davis - nitrogen coupling

Interesting! And it mentioned that the above ground-covered piles were generally more (although the summary leaves the impression that it was only slightly more) effective. Did you have access to the full article? I wonder if there were any significant nutrient differences? I admit a feeling of satisfaction over the report. It always feels good when data backs up our own bias lol.