Obviously, we don't need worm castings from the POV of soil structure, because they are very fine and reduce aeration/drainage. Micro-organisms in container media aren't necessary for healthy plants, and their populations are notably influenced by other cultural factors to the point where they are often boom or bust. So, lets look at them from a nutritional POV, and leave lots of room for any discussions that might not agree with what I say. I think it would be a good idea to first define what our goal is when we provide supplemental nutrition to our plants. I've thought about that, and this is what I came up with and saved for use in conversations like this: Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our containerized plants get all the nutrients essential to growth and good health, we would probably first want to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution). At this point, you (used collectively) can accept these premises as worthy goals or argue against them. If accepted, we should then necessarily examine our efforts at supplementation in the light of whether or not our efforts bring us closer to or limit our ability to see the goals implemented. YMMV, but I'd be interested in how to improve on what I said. What's in worm castings? What nutrients? The fact is, we don't know. We have no idea what they supply, or how much of any particular nutrient they supply. Their contribution to any increases in soil biota populations would only serve to break down the soil faster than it would normally break down w/o them. How then, do we know if we are limiting our ability to reach our goal. We need control over what we supply, and plants are best served when the ratio of nutrients in the soil are matched as closely as possible to the ratio at which plants actually use those nutrients. IOW, WCs don't supply anything you can't get from a well-made fertilizer that provides all the essential nutrients in a favorable ratio. The fact is, in light of the goal, they have as much or more potential to be limiting than beneficial. Changing topics ....... I think if you rearrange your thinking about your starting point for building a better soil so it's more like: Start with a ______ (fill in the blank with a coarse material or materials that ensure you can actually amend what you start with). If you start with potting soil, how can you amend it? You'll need to add well over 50% of other coarse materials (like pine bark) to get it to a point where you can water correctly. If you have more than 50% bark, didn't you actually 'start' with bark; or, maybe the better question is, wouldn't it then be a bark-based soil instead of a soil based on whatever potting mix you're using as the filler? I suggested a goal for nutritional supplementation, so how about a goal for the quality of your soil? From my perspective, an appropriate medium is a medium that allows us to water to beyond the point of saturation, at will, so we're flushing the dissolved solids (salts) that are present in tapwater and fertilizer solutions; this, w/o the plant having to pay the penalty of reduced root function, or perhaps wrecked root health, due to those prolonged periods of soil saturation after watering correctly. All the dissolved solids in tapwater and fertilizer solutions are left behind and accumulate in soils whenever we're forced to water in sips, which is commonly employed as a strategy to help avoid the sogginess that limits root function and wrecks root health. It's important to realize that a healthy plant is not possible w/o a healthy root system. If you have established goals that include healthy and attractive plants, it's critical that you have a plan to avoid the limitations imposed by over-watering and an accumulation of dissolved solids (salts) in the soil solution. Not every grower fully understands the dilemmic issues associated with inappropriate soils that force the plant to pay a vitality tax resultant of an unhealthy amount of water being retained for extended periods when we water correctly – which is to say, when we flush the soil to limit salt build-up. On one hand, we have the potential for over-watering, and when we act to avoid it by offering dribs and drabs of water here and there, we have high salt levels to deal with. It's easy to see how we all might benefit from use of a soil that allows us to water so we're flushing away excess salts without limiting our plant's vitality via waterlogged soils. You can see that getting to the point where you can water correctly w/o problems is a worthy goal. I should also say, there are ways to get you to that point w/o a lot of difficulty, just by employing some simple methods/arrangements that force excess water from the soil. Al

According to the article in the em-ess-em, part of the reason for denial of permit was that the plaintiff did not show evidence for all components of the product - thus no permit could be granted. That was the reason for denial. The denial was given in part due to the mixture not having all the components listed. That's right: plaintiff cannot name all the constituents in his product. Moreover, the Civil papers (not at the provided link above) state that TPR violated two statutes: operating w/o a license and using an unregistered pesticide (used to repel bark beetles). That is: he's denied a license and the plaintiff goes out and markets it anyway. This is the fact pattern. It is not in dispute. The clue is that the guy had to hire the PLF to get someone to represent him, and they are not arguing on the merits of the case, but rather that the matter is one of free speech. Free speech has doodly to do with health, safety, welfare and environmental protection - the things that the DPR is charged to protect. Having lived in Sacto during the time Arcade Creek was the most impacted urban waterway in the country due to homeowners and maintenance companies dousing their gardens with roundup, I can understand why an agency may want to know what someone is putting in their goop, as it is their job to keep goop out of receiving waters. PLF and other right-wing outlets want you to believe that CA is trying to regulate worm poop. This ham-handed attempt to paint gummint as bad surely works with some. But CA is not trying to regulate worm poop. Very easy to comprehend when one looks at facts and not PLF blogs or Redstate comment threads. Not hard at all to comprehend. HTH. Dan

Depending on the price you may or may not be getting 100% worm castings. The NPK according to the North Carolina Department of Agronomy shows the average NPK values at 1.1-0.34-0.40. That's really low but like other manures which are also low in NPK. The benefit to the soil is what counts most. There are also trace elements in it but "trace" is the keyword in so much as they are too small to really matter. Then again trace elements are only needed in very tiny amounts.

Thank you for the ideas! I didn't have the spigot open but went ahead and opened it. Will be more mindful of air flow. Like I said, they seem to be doing their job and there is no bad smell otherwise. when i checked just now when i went to open the spigot there were no worms down below. You are right, a little more info would have been helpful :) I opted for the $79 version of the worm factory rather than the "new and improved" worm factory 360 that costs around 120 - seems like the biggest difference is the "worm ladder" on the WF360 which supposedly is to help the worms who get stuck down below (selling point?), as well as a different lid that allows you to stack trays on, and a tool kit. well i had the tools laying around, and a shallow plastic tub from the dollar store works just fine to set the trays on :) so far i am really enjoying my worm bin... it really is very cool... has anyone else had this problem?