My FT system is working well at present. I harvested a bucket (10 litres) of castings today just by using a shovel in the access hole. It sure beats bending down and scraping! I just checked, and already some more has fallen in the hours since I harvested. As an excercise, I went through the bucket of castings and found about 30 - 40 worms and a few cocoons, probably not enough to justify the time spent. I decided to put them back in, as they can keep working the castings until I am ready to use them, which will also help stop them going smelly as they dry out a bit more. My defnition of FT is that raw material goes in the top, and the finished product comes out the bottom. Simple as that. I would love someone to prove that they can get air to flow through what is essentially 2 feet of mud. The open area at the bottom does increase the surface area exposed to air, and worms working the bottom probably cause a bit of added aeration, but I really don't see a system of air galleries from top to bottom that would be required for air to flow. If this forum software wasn't so weird, I would add some photo's.

Further off topic for advertising I would also estimate how long the limited life expectancy of a cloth worm bin will last compared to your sturdy system. 3 years vs 30 years? Horribly off topic. Do you really believe the breathable cloth material does what it says it does? It is used in high end sports clothes. They advertize it is rain proof yet lets persperation vent. ??? All the labels say this. All the salesmen say this. Everybody belives this. Apparently the material does this. I must be from Missouri because I just don't believe it. Yet the worms seem to. It seems like a great system yet it does not meet my needs of build it and forget it (except for harvesting great vermicastings) for 100 years. I love the worm inn idea, it is genius. I want a flow through system not of cloth, but still of genius. So another worm bin is of interest. Until then I will putter around with my various buckets and pails. And have a great time doing so. Maybe I don't want a new well working system. That would take all my fun away.

Flow throughs sound neat. But I don't think that with a new place to make livable, an old house to clear and sell, and a new garden, that I can be playing with my worms as much as I like. I know that you don't like pre-processing, and boy, do I get it. But I've been thinking: since your setup is small, and knowing that you built it from gathered worms, which I imagine took a lot of time to get to a good number, that you probably DO need to pre-process. Or, of COURSE bigger is nice, if it can be done! What I learned when I went crazy several years ago and filled up my whole laundry room with worms (and made my house unlivable) is that anything that makes it go faster is pretty much worth it IF compost is your goal. I hate to use the electricity (and the time washing the machine, whatever it might be, AND the energy to do that too) to process it. But I found sticking baggies that I use and reuse and reuse into the freezer does a really good job of breaking things down. Or any container that you might have. I like baggies because I can mold them to fit whatever space there is. If your bin is too moist, you can even drain the liquid from the baggies on the yard or flowers so as not to waste it. I freeze all mine now, except yard stuff. It's worth the guilt about power for the time savings. Because, well, I'm gettin' up there! I don't have all the years left that I used to! I had lots of patience back when. But now, if I'm growing black gold, dammit, I want it sooner rather than later. :D

Chuckiebtoo - I appreciate both your love of worms and the processes associated with using them for 'composting'. However, based on a growing body of reading-based 'knowledge' and a small but growing bit if first-hand experience, I don't share your "almost magic" perspective of what worm guts do. While there is little - but some - doubt on my part about the "fact" that worm-gut-processing does indeed "add" some beneficial component to the output, I am beginning to strongly suspect this is yet another in a long and growing list of "scientific facts" that is technically/scientifically "true", but practically/real-life exaggerated. In order to illustrate my point and attempt to demonstrate that I am not just being "contrary", let me provide an example in a completely different field. Some years back - over 2-decades - a graduate student working in completing their Master's degree in fisheries performed a perfunctory examination of the effects of "over-crowding" spawners in a couple of TINY streams in the state of Washington. As part of the requirements for a Master's degree in fisheries, one must produce and "publish" the work at least through the university's press.The field work was "good" and the results were unambiguous: It was scientifically "true" that above a certain density, increased fish numbers resulted in reduced production. The scientific explanation was not complex: increased numbers of spawners meant that fish were constructing their redds (salmon 'nests') on top of previous spawner's nests, and thereby destroying the first one. Sounds perfectly "reasonable", and there was not doubt about the "scientific" fact. However... "More fish "allowed" in the river means LESS fish production" was a clarion-call to commercial fishermen. They could now claim the SCIENTIFIC "high ground" and DEMAND that fisheries managers prevent "over-escapement" by allowing the commercial fishermen to catch more fish out in the ocean before they reached the spawning streams and "harmed" the stock. Commercial fishermen are among the most politically powerful groups in the natural resource exploitation/management community. They were very capable of hiring "scientists" (in this case AKA "biostitutes") to "verify" the "scientific proof of the "danger" of "over-escapement", Soon - VERY SOON - "over-escapement was the watchword for every government "scientist/fisheries manager" in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, it became - BY LAW - a requirement that the state fisheries managers incorporate "over-escapement" prevention in the state's salmon management plan. Where's the 'flaw' in the above, "you" ask? The "science" was performed in an excruciatingly small "piece of the world". TWO, SMALL (you could STEP across them), streams in the Puget Sound drainage. Secondly, ALL subsequent "science" performed around the subject was directed at "proving" the concept of "over-escapement", NOT TESTING/CHALLENGING IT, which is exactly what Science, REAL Science, is supposed to do! In fact, when a few scientists tried to point out the error of applying the result of a VERY small scale scientific project to a GLOBAL scale, they were shouted down. To put it mildly. The result has been a STEADY decline in salmon production in the State of Alaska. The almost complete collapse of salmon fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington. I am reminded of "What are you going to believe, me (the "scientist") or your lying eyes." By the way, when confronting the voodoo witch-doctors - aka fisheries scientist proponents of "over-escapement - I would ask; "What did all these salmon do before we humans came along to "help" them with their "over-escapement" problems? True to their form, those witch-doctors raised up in violent anger, but had to initially tuck tail and run. However, as is so desperately sad with today's "science", they simply went off and schemed an explanation. It goes like this. "What we are doing is "leveling" the peaks and valleys in the long-term population trends, thereby assuring a STABLE SOURCE OF SALMON FOR THE COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERIES. (Emphasis mine.) This rationalization - by way of "science" - is the bread and butter of the priests of the religion of science that pervade the scientific community today. They can "explain" ANYTHING they want to, and when challenged, simply retort to laymen that it is "too complicated" for "you" to understand, and simply screech "Heretic" at those that have the technical ability and credentials to point out the obvious flaws in their ecclesiastical assertions. Was all the subsequent "science"of "over-escapement" "peer-reviewed"? Yes, at least most of it. Was all the subsequent "science" published in a "peer-reviewed" journal of "SCIENCE"? Most of it, yes. Was all of that peer-review highly corrupt? MOST OF IT, YES! And so goes most of what I have seen in the past 40+ years as a professional "scientist". I "see" the same sort of thing with worm "tea", worm "compost", and other "scientific" "facts" about the "magic" of worms. Is there "scientific proof" that the "output" of a worm's gut is "better" than the "input". Yes in proper context. Is there a MOUNTAIN of evidence that such "betterness" is something less than the "magic" so widely claimed? Yes, also I would assert. Having said all of the above, I am perfectly "fine" with using terms like "magic" to report on surprising results we all observe in our hobbies and personal passions. I do it myself. As Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying: Any technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. So, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the beneficial effects of "worming"; I acknowledge that the "scientific "truth" " of those "facts" are "scientifically" undeniable, but I am increasingly convinced that the magnitude of those effects are greatly exaggerated when applied to the "real world". In the case of the topic of this thread, I remain comfortable with suggesting to fulofwin that all of the extra effort of "worming" MAY not produce the "magic" results he/she has read/heard about. I believe he/she is probably capable of evaluating the relative merits of the comments he/she receives in his thread regardless of who posts them. I don't think you and I disagree as much as it might appear. I think the primary difference in our points of views is a matter of degree: You "love" worms, and I just "like" them. Paul This post was edited by pskvorc on Wed, Aug 27, 14 at 14:40