I think if you do more research you will find that thermophilic bacteria are just as essential to the composting process as are the fungi. I'm not at all sure why you would presume to think all previous research or the reports of some very active composters here would necessarily be in error..

Composting microorganisms

If you read about it from reputable sources, you'll see that both bacteria and fungi play major roles. The fungi are most active in the hot composting phase, where the temperatures are high enough to kill the bacteria. According to Cornell Ag, see below, "Bacteria are responsible
for most of the decomposition and heat generation in compost." Those bacteria are predominantly aerobic (needing oxygen). In fact, one of the products of composting is CO2.

http://compost.css.cornell.edu/microorg.html

Edit: Oh, apologies to gardengal, I didn't realize I was posting the same reference link that you did!

What the authors of the 1998 Cornell Composting paper say is at odds with the research cited by the 2001 Microbiology and Molecular Biology Research paper. In particular, Cornell writes; "Most fungi live in the outer layer of compost when temperatures are high. Compost molds are strict aerobes that grow both as unseen filaments and as gray or white fuzzy colonies on the compost surface."

whereas, authors of the MMBR paper cite research stating; "Thermophilic fungi are the chief components of the microflora that develops in heaped masses of plant material, piles of agricultural and forestry products, and other accumulations of organic matter wherein the warm, humid, and aerobic environment provides the basic conditions for their development."

The Cornell Composting paper does not cite research. The MMBR paper cites 275 different papers. Sorry, I'm not at all convinced by the vague generalities of the Cornell paper.

Dan, please re-read what I said; "...much of the heavy lifting...". I didn't say all, I didn't say only. My point is that the role of fungi is very much underappreciated. If you read the MMBR paper, despite citing 275 articles, the authors say over and over again that fungi have not been adequately studied.

Please. The 275 papers cited in your reference here didn't all argue that fungi were the dominant decomposers in a compost pile. That number is pretty irrelevant. So let's not play games with reference counting. I have enough faith in Cornell ag that they wouldn't be posting for popular contemporary consumption research that wasn't accurate anymore. You seem to be suggesting that the Cornell work was posted in 1998 and forgotten about. There are many other assessments that are consistent with it. For example ...

https://web.extension.illinois.edu/homecompost/science.cfm

"Of all these organisms, aerobic bacteria are the most important decomposers."

You might also have a look at this 2013 paper (67 references, and oops, your 2000 reference isn't one of them!) which makes clear the importance of both bacteria and fungi. The importance of each depends on the temperature.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079512

In this paper, it is shown that even after thermo-composting, there is a lower temperature post-thermophilic curing phase where the bacteria repopulate, and do much additional decomposition work.

It is of some interest that municipal waste composters need high temperatures to achieve sanitation by killing bio-pathogens, but their piles are highly aerobic. This paper makes the point that, for that reason, a lot of effort has been expended on this one thermophilic stage, which is largely fungal. The MMBR paper is talking about that phase. Whether in windrows, or aerated static piles, these municipal piles aren't covered. You'd think they'd be up to date on the best way to do composting, don't you?

I would agree that the role of fungi in composting is perhaps underappreciated, and probably hasn't been adequately studied. But let's not twist that into an argument that fungi are necessarily the dominant decomposers.

Yes, but we could all form a fungi appreciation and study society, and smoke magic mushrooms as we fend off the bacteria from our compost. Fonzie wouldn't have a chance against that.

"The Cornell Composting paper does not cite research. The MMBR paper
cites 275 different papers. Sorry, I'm not at all convinced by the vague
generalities of the Cornell paper."

This is a review of the literature on thermophilic fungi, summarizing the current knowledge, with a bit of information from the authors' studying various fungi under laboratory conditions. They list a whole lot of papers on the topic because that's what a literature review does. It doesn't make it any more authoritative, just convenient for someone wanting to get up to speed on a topic.

*************

"the authors say over and over again that fungi have not been adequately studied" That's standard in any research paper. It means "we need more funding".

**************

"Of particular interest to me was the bit about a compost heap needing
C02. High concentrations of CO2 contribute to the action of the fungi.
Keep your pile covered, especially when it is hot."

Where does it say that?

Did you mean this? " The concentration of CO2inside composts can be as high as 10 to 15% (74); therefore, it is likely that its assimilation plays nutritional and morphogenetic roles in the development of thermophilic fungi, which are the primary components of the microflora of such habitats."

... That's saying that they found high concentrations, but whether it was a byproduct of metabolism or a necessity of the plant metabolism was not stated.

****************************

"Much of the heavy lifting in compost is being done by thermophilic fungi, not bacteria."

You are reading far more into that paper than is there.

They actually say this: "Thermophilic fungi develop in composts during the high-temperature phase, succeeding a mesophilic microflora"

I think there is a tendency - especially on fora such as this one - to over-think composting :-) Being typical humans with a naturally curious bent, we want to know why things work the way they do, especially those more esoteric, nature-controlled processes that have to do with growing plants, generating produce/fruit and other horticultural mysteries. We like to be in control and knowledge is control :-)

But composting does not require any human intervention to occur. It has been happening as long as plant and animals have been on planet Earth and will continue to happen indefinitely, with or without our input.

Do we need to know the precise methodology involved to be successful in composting? No!! Organic matter will decompose and create compost whether it is sheet composting (much like nature composts), cold composting or an actively managed hot compost. All the output will be remarkably similar - the difference is just how long the process takes if left to its own devices versus human interaction. Given that, it is not even critical to know the percentages of C (browns) versus N (greens), how much oxygen gets into the pile or even what exactly the material is that is being composted, only that it was once a living organism. As the saying goes - "compost happens" :-)

Is there an advantage to knowing exactly how the process works? Maybe, maybe not. Considering the end result is likely to be the same or almost nearly the same regardless of the process and our understanding of it, the 'science' of composting can help to hasten the process and possibly improve the output by varying or broadening the feedstock but that's about as detailed as one needs to get.

I think the point being made here is not how you get compost to "happen", but how you get it to happen most efficiently. So from that perspective, precise methodology and knowing how the process works has advantages. No, maybe you don't really NEED to know that. But, you know, if you do things quite wrong, compost won't "happen". For me, with a very long growing season, I need compost 9-10 months out of the year. As such, it makes a difference to me how fast I can make it happen.

Let's not call it "over-thinking", but at least just scientific curiosity. If that isn't appropriate to this forum, I'll have to find a more informed forum.

I beg to differ!! 'Right' or 'wrong', compost WILL happen - any dead plant or animal matter will decompose and the end result is compost. It just may not happen according to your specific timetable :-) And I'm not at all convinced that knowing the "precise methodology" has all that much bearing. Really, all you NEED to know is keep the particle size small (increased surface area), use a varied feedstock, attempt for a 1 part green to a 4 part brown ratio, keep the pile moist (not wet) and aerate frequently to add oxygen and you will inevitably result in a decent compost in 3 to 6 months. Having multiple piles (at least 3) will result in finished compost production year round, which is what my growing season is :-))

I agree with GG that once you have a sequence of heaps going the speed is not important. (I also garden year round and have 5 compost heaps - there's always some ready to use.)

You can only get precise methodology if you are weighing and analysing your inputs ... something that would be done in research but totally not needed for the average composter.

About the only thing you can do "wrong" with composting is pile up too much wet grass clippings and kitchen waste and have it go anaerobic and smelly. Or pile dry stuff in a dry cave for future archaeologists.

"Really, all you NEED to know is keep the particle size small (increased
surface area), use a varied feedstock, attempt for a 1 part green to a 4
part brown ratio, keep the pile moist (not wet) and aerate frequently
to add oxygen and you will inevitably result in a decent compost in 3 to
6 months. Having multiple piles (at least 3) will result in finished
compost production year round, which is what my growing season is :-))"

Oh, you DO need to know some precise methodology, I guess.

We're not talking "precise" as in weighing and analyzing inputs. We're talking about methodology.

I compost leaves. Loads of them. Far more than kitchen and garden waste. They come down in December (yeah, this is central Texas, go figure) and I first need them composted by February. So the idea of a "sequence of heaps" sounds nice, but it doesn't work if your heaps are getting built once a year.

I had a neighbor who wanted to compost in a big (but lazy) way. He made a huge pile, and never turned it. Totally anaerobic. I joked with him about it, and suggested that it wasn't going to do what he wanted it to do. He dug into it a year later and, deep down, highly compressed, rather little was actually composted. Yep, that was wrong.

I'm puzzled about what sounds like taking offense at a somewhat scientific discussion about compost. Is that really what's going on here? If that discussion doesn't interest you, just don't read it.

@gardengal, there is no way your technique will give good compost in 3-6 months 'inevitably' where I'm at.

Granted, that's because the pile will be frozen solid for about three months, maybe four. ))

By "precise methodology" I was referring to analyzing what microorganisms did what and at what temperature and how important their relative merits were. I'm not sure any of that is particularly necessary or overly useful.

And I would question that what your neighbor did was "wrong" - that is just imposing your standards of composting to his process, which is neither here nor there nor right or wrong. Just different. Yes, it may take longer than a year for a cold pile to degrade and compost but it will.......in its own time.

And no one is taking offense at any sort of scientific discussion but the OP's post immediately initiated a discussion on what the relative merits of bacteria versus fungi were in the compost and how well-respected and established sources were either right or wrong. And my observation of that was that this sort of highly focused discussion is overly complicating what is essentially a dead-easy natural process (pun intended!). As well as being confusing to anyone new to composting and potentially discouraging with its technicality.

I teach classes on composting and nothing will get the students' eyes glazing over faster than getting too technical. And it is really not necessary to do so. There is no right or wrong way to compost, only a fast way or a not so fast way. Either way, you will still get compost. Compost does happen regardless of the method or one's understanding of the science behind it :-)

"Granted, that's because the pile will be frozen solid for about three months, maybe four. ))"

If you are out there turning it at regular intervals and maintaining the proper composting temps (i.e., a "hot compost"), there is no way the pile will freeze solid regardless of what your air temperatures will be. Maybe Lloyd - who gardens in a cold climate and is a master composter - can speak to that as well.

My neighbor was disappointed in his pile. It didn't do for him what he wanted. That rates a "wrong".

My apologies for glazing over eyes.

There are lots of things that will "happen" regardless of one's understanding of the science behind it. Nutrition is one. Just eat, and you'll be OK, right? That was the common understanding several hundred years ago. Sometimes the science behind things offers advantages and stimulates creativity.

Depends on a lot of factors. All my normal sized household style composting methods freeze solid. A large windrow will freeze solid under some conditions and in others continue to compost all winter long. It certainly is not worth my time and effort to try to compost all winter long given that it will start up all my itself in the spring. Keep in mind that Manitoba winters are pretty darn cold most of the time.

And there is also probably not a huge need for much compost in a Manitoba winter either :-))

You got that right! Although a few of the more ardent gardeners have already started asking for some for their starting thingies. I keep a couple of small containers that can be thawed out for them. A few people who know I will not be composting large piles anymore have already spoken for the last windrow of mature compost I have.

I assure you , my climate is cold enough the piles will freeze regardless - it's quite comparable to Lloyd's manitoba winters. Anyway, I wasn't trying to disagree, just pointing out local conditions do make a difference for any rules about 'inevitability.' I'm also a fan of lazy composting - cold is fine, I do turn, but I can also wait. That's my choice, though.

I have not covered my compost pile for a long time and if composting required a cover in order to function our forests would be oceans of dead leaves.

Excellent discussion, people!

I submit that, yes, nature 'decomposes' organic matter all by itself with no help from people.

Composting is an effort to speed up the process, make things look neat in our yards, etc. Only humans do 'composting'.

Perhaps splitting hairs but I think terminology is important. Piling stuff up in a certain way and saying 'nature does that' is not quite accurate IMHO. We create conditions with our piles that seldom occur naturally. Find a hot pile in nature, for example.

That, and a big 'yay for underappreciated fungi' are about all I have on this topic this morning. It's too complicated for an amateur like me on a Monday. :-]

Only humans do 'composting'.

This is a very narrow interpretation of composting and I believe it IS splitting hairs :-). 'Compost' (the noun) is broadly defined as "organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment" and 'composting' itself (the verb) as "nature's process of recycling decomposed organic materials into a rich soil known as compost. Anything that was once living will decompose. Basically, backyard composting is an acceleration of the same process nature uses. By composting your organic waste you are returning nutrients back into the soil in order for the cycle of life to continue. Finished compost looks like soil–dark brown, crumbly and smells like a forest floor."

Does nature 'compost'?