I've been using urine for fertilizer for 20-some-odd years. When used properly it's a fantastic (not to mention - free) organic source of nutrients. To use it 'properly', it's often beneficial to understand that horticulture mainly consists of conditioning soil in order to favor the growth of desired plants. As it seems most people here well understand, anything done to soil will affect its biotic environment and potentials. Knowing the needs, 'likes', and habits of the desired plantings help the grower decide what, and when to make additions and changes to the soil. Since urine is high in nitrogen, it can work well when used in soils where, and when, green growth is desired. Composted (aged) urine is usually lower in nitrogen than fresh, and can be beneficial for boosting levels of phosphorous in soils. Since the bio-availability of nitrogen from fresh urine is very high, dilutions are usually an important consideration (the strength of which can be adjusted for frequency of use and, since urine is extremely water soluble, amount of rain or watering the soil receives.) Another corollary that is important to follow is: unless you are using a VERY high dilution ratio, never fertilize (that includes the use of urine) a dry soil. Using fresh urine in vegetable gardens works best for plants in leafy-green growth stages. For tomatoes and many other fruiting plants, that means prior to the beginning of flowering and fruit set. While some fruiting plants (like zucchini) can handle later growth-stage additions of nitrogen in the form of urine, keep in mind that nutrient and ph balance can easilt be thrown off by the 'over-use' of many soil conditioners and fertilizers. As most gardeners are aware, the nutrient needs and 'likes' of plants is usually measured in N-P-K percentages. Finding the right balance for any planting or bed depends upon having at least a general idea of what you have before you make additions, and the needs and tolerances of the plants being fertilized. Adding too much nitrogen during (or even just before) the fruiting stage of flowering plants such as peppers (a plant well-adapted to sandy soils unable to hold and supply large amounts of available nitrogen) can encourage the green growth of leaves and biomass instead of the fruit the gardener desires. While the buffering capacity of soils differ greatly, a soil test, and knowledge of your individual soil conditions, will help you to get a handle on what additions are 'safe' and appropriate for the planting. Too much nitrogen (in any form, and especially on a dry soil) can 'burn' most any garden plant. Most trees however, can easily handle and benefit from additions of fresh and/or aged urine. Unless a plant is showing signs of nitrogen deficiency, I rarely add urine directly to the soil while the garden is in growth. I'll add it before, and shortly after transplanting, or in some cases seeding, but since young plants can be sensitive to levels of highly-available nutrients and salts, I do not usually put it right up against or 'on' the roots. The idea is to let the roots find it, or let the capillary action of soil moisture disperse it towards the plants. Instead, as i said, I use it on the beds before planting and depending on the crop, just after planting. Then, afterward - during growth - I use it on the 'weeds' (aka... the lawn.) I then collect, or mulch the lawn clippings depending on the needs at the time. Green manure is a good way to sequester and add slower-release nitrogen to soil or compost. Cover crops (especially those for over-winter use) can also use and sequester nitrogen (and thus fresh urine) for later crop availability. Adding a balanced amount to a compost pile can (as many have already commented) also be an extremely beneficial use of urine. Urine from animals differs greatly than that of humans and each species. Urine from cats and dogs can be much too acidic and concentrated for most garden use. Urine from farm animals such as horses and cows can be great additions to soil and compost (especially when gathered by collecting urine-soaked, high-carbon straw or saw dust from barns and sheds.) In short, using urine properly can benefit most any environment. It is a natural part of the Earth's biology and life-cycle. Understanding its strengths and weaknesses can help a grower boost and maintain the healthy biology of any environment. Putting it to work around the house and property can divert what modern society considers a waste, and give the aware gardener another great organic supplement.

I feel like I live on the skinny limb. No better way to live. humbll I am glad you found the lost link. I searched a while but could not find exactly what you described. I can not remember if I have ever seen it but it is certainly similar to others but maybe a bit better because of the exact details she shares which are gold. The whole chimney thing she describes in the outhouse is way super important. And just the other details as mentioned by barbararose21101 were the little things one needs to know because those facts decide success from bad smell. I was way confused about how she closed the cover on living worms. Now I am way confused about carrying dripping, hole in the bottom bucket to the woods. They seem to be adding very little brown to the amount of green poop. But perhaps probably sawdust is a lot of very concentrated brown. I would like to cover my additions to the pot completely and not in a fitful decorative way. Nobody else gets to see my additions to the group pile. I'm just strange that way. Was I looking at a lot of wet sawdust in the illuminating video or was I looking at non well covered additions? I hesitate to go back to review the pictures more closely. In my massively non humble opinion there should 100 percent be a different collection system for much of the pee. Maybe not all. Still way better tha the poopsicle on that Alaska show. Ok spell check is just going to have to learn to deal with poopsicle.

Free markets had existed in this country until the 1880's or so when the government started going after the robber barons. It also exists in other parts of the world to a greater degree than here. While we can agree that the government should probably have some influence, it is the extent which is the most debated. IMHO, I do think that the government should intervene to break up monopolies. Monopolies can set prices not based on supply and demand as the free market would dictate, but on an artificial price set by the company. That makes them bad for a free market and creates great inefficiencies because the companies have very little incentive to improve their production, cost structure, innovate new products, etc. A country with a bunch of monopolies (even government run monopolies) will fall behind other countries and regions with more competition. Democracy is inefficient in that decisions cannot be made and implemented arbitrarily like they could under say Stalin and Saddam. In a democracy when someone asks you to jump, you ask why. In a more authoritian regime, the response would be how high. It is true that these regimes tend to be more corrupt and use more violence, but that is part of human nature and is to be expected (sorry, just being realistic). You almost never hear of benevolent dictators either because they don't exist or because someone more violent wants to take their place. A system of representative democracy such as that found in a parlimentary system should be the next step to evolve in this country. Unfortunately, the two parties in power will do everything they can to not let that happen. Of the 535 members of Congress, there are 2 independent members (not R or D's). The parties in power have created almost unsurmountable barriers for independents or third party candidates. In the last election, 98% of the incumbents were reelected. What kind of odds does that give other candidates? Parlimentary systems usually employ proportional representation. In that regard, it reduces disenfranchisement of the population because the votes are allocated in proportion to votes cast for a party. Usually there is a floor set like 10 or 15% to gain entry. There are other differences such as the lack of an executive office and other nuances (no confidence votes, cabinets selected by coalition, prime minister not president has most powers, etc) most of which could not be implemented here without major revisions to the constitution. I attached more information. I for one, am very disenchanted with the 2 parties in power and would like to see other parties such as the Libertarian, Green, the Constitution Party, and others elected to public office. The current parties encompass ideas and supporters who are at odds with each other (in Democrat's case, environmentalists and labor unions). On top of all of these issues, people who are appointed to fill government positions are insiders in the industries they are supposed to regulate. That is why I am against especially the federal government trying to pass these "one size fits all" policies across the country. This country is diverse and it simply doesn't work. I used to be optimistic about goverment interceding and "doing the right thing", however, in the last few years, optimism has turned to reality, and it has sunk in. That doesn't mean I am optimistic, it just means that I have the "I'll believe it when I see it" syndrome. I don't want anyone to get the idea that I am an anarchist or anything. I am an environmentalist at heart and try to do my share to achieve those goals. I am a proponent of finding alternative sustainable energy and reducing our emmissions of greenhouse gases. (I am actually hoping to be in a zero energy home in the next two years). I just have a different approach. Instead of government taking the initiative, I think the initiative should start from the people. Education is key. Also, get rid of any tax credits or incentives that cause people to pollute or look for "traditional energy" in the federal regulations, and leave those decisions to people in the states and the markets to innovate. It is tough to change the mindset of 2 senators from each state and one representative in Congress out of the 535 members in order to change national policy. It is much easier to influence your town, city or state by getting people out of office or pass decisions in local or statewide referendums. Here is a link that might be useful: Parlimentary System Definition

One good place to start is with this idea that a kitchen needs to be remodeled every five years and of course necessitating all new appliances. Ironic you should speak of refrigerators. I just replaced mine a few weeks back. Yes, it seems that it should last more than 28 years, and yes it's possible it could have been repaired but repair costs would likely have been near the cost of replacement. Sometimes, though it's better to repair than replace, but that's another topic. I did some thinking about cost comparison between the two refrigerators. Neither were bottom of the line, obviously nowhere near top of the line. In 1982 I paid about $675 (plus tax) for a refrigerator, the cheapest available about then IIRC was around $500-$550. I don't recall if I paid extra for delivery and disposal. I might have but since I don't remember I won't include it. This was 1982 dollars which according to The Inflation Calculator puts it at $1480.92 in 2009 dollars. So if I bought a comparable one, which I did, I should expect to pay $1480.92 and possibly more for delivery & disposal. I bought one for $380 (plus tax), including delivery which means I could buy nearly four for the price that I paid for my old one. Practically speaking, this means that if this lasts more than seven years, and I have no reason to believe it won't, I'll be money ahead by comparison. Plus it supposedly uses "much less" electricity about which I'm skeptical but waiting to see how the bills compare down the road. Even discounting any allowance for different dollars, it was nearly $200 cheaper than my last one. It's missing one feature I fear I might miss, but has a few other features I like and were only available on much more expensive models back then. Water heaters OTOH, are troubling to me. I don't see any reason why a water heater life should be 1/4 - 1/2 of what it was only a few decades ago. But it comes down to a simple thing. We in North America seldom buy for quality, despite what we purport. We buy for price and always try to get it cheaper, or at least the illusion of it being cheaper, that illusion for which many will pay any price.