I don't think there is a 'best' result from the use of only hand work or only computer work. I have worked through both, and find that a merger of the two methods serves both my time schedule and the product. I prefer hand rendering, with a combination of AD markers, water color, and chalk pastel. But I like the precision of hard geometry to show as precision lines with reference to soft, hand-drawn elements that speak of living things. For that to show clearly, I like to use AutoCad for drafting lines, print that on mylar (nice for graphite, and fun to blend on), then print the final on vellum for rendering. The markers blend nicely on the vellum, and don't bleed. Vellum also allows for backcolor that comes through softly as a background to rendered elements. All that is to say that hand drawing-rendering and computer drafting really work together if I treat them as a hybrid single method, not distinguishing one from the other but blending the two. Because the color is hand rendered, I tend to think about the subtle properties of my plant choices while rendering them--visualizing the plant, its flowering characteristics and true mature size, its shadow at the time of day I am intending to represent, and its resolution with respect to the far background. These things are properties I can focus on because hand rendering does take longer and gives more time to reflect on the choices and their interaction with each other. I even find myself mentally wandering through the space I'm creating while finishing the drawings of them.

I used to have a species book, I would write down the name, common name, where I planted it, what kind of pot it was in if not in the ground, etc. etc. But after a hurricane and the house burning down I lost that. Now I just don't keep track. I got a bit depressed.. divorce, laid off, hurricane, house fire, drought, record freezes... for a while there. I do take pics of everything. Tally HO!

Marla: I agree. The benefits of a data-oriented approach to farm/garden management grow significantly over time as more data is collected. In the beginning the data will be too sparse to see clear trends or come to firm conclusions about, for example, profitability of a crop within a season or profitability of attendance at a market. However, over time I think the ability to draw objective conclusions will become clearer. In other words, trends will start to show up. I only have anecdotal evidence at this point, but I believe many small farmers and market gardeners manage the financial aspects of their farm or garden in an ad-hoc manner. I think one reason for this is a lack of approachable financial management tools targeted specifically at the small farmer/gardener (that's why I thought this thread was interesting). The tools I've tried out so far strike me as too general (Quicken) or too complex (custom Excel spreadsheets). So I think a lot of farmers and gardeners use paper which makes it harder (and more time consuming) to see trends and make data-driven decisions. Businesses in other industries create relatively detailed annual budgets (the planning cycle) and then do their best to stick with them during the year by tracking revenues and expenses. They then iterate over time in an attempt to maximize the likelihood that they will generate a profit each year. I'd love to see these same principles intuitively applied to small farms and market gardens because decisions based on data are (generally speaking) more likely to result in long-term (financial) success. I'm asking the questions above in an attempt to define a good set of features for online (web-based and/or mobile-device-based) tools that do a good job of hiding unnecessary complexity from the small farmer/gardener while still providing sophisticated views into budgets, revenues, expenses, and trends. If you think I'm nuts, let me know! Brett

As for the project, I sit and watch, and watch some more, then mess with it a bit and watch even more. Still simple. I've moved to a two flow through system for larger and then smaller particulates since I do not pre chop food nor bedding of papergoods. I'll have to check in at pjames. If a process is familiar that is comforting because maybe I'm not on a useless track. I'm leaning towards not even sides. Or what many would consider sides. Like why do we need sides to bar air? Something like the orange snow fence would be good but not strong enough, plus the dealing with a tiny bit of fall out. But worms need air. And only on top is not enough. More air = more womrs. Maybe just adding air at the bottom is not enough. Why not 360 degrees? Some systems add air with tubes through the vermicompost. I'm not into tubes. Structual strength is again the issue with sides less than 100%. Some systems pump air into the vermicompost. I prefer less work. I have not yet been super sucessfull at convincing my vermicompost to fall out of the open bottom of the bin. I spend a lot of time poking at it and then putting it back on top of the same bin. Nor are my worms "friendly" with each other. No eggs or small worms since spring. Hard to be fruitful and multiply that way. I have a very small system. Are we bad for hijacking the thread? Some vermicomposters bury food in a circle and the worms travel around are capitalizing on the hurd thing? This would mean they are right. I am still surprised. I do know that when worms want to crawl out of the bottom of a flow through they seem to all want to do it like it is a thing to do. Jump into the abysis. They freely drop into nothingness. I'm pretty much a systems guy, with vermicomposting as part of the system of future rabbits, chickens... Aquaponics too. I walked into a pet store, have not been in one of them in 15 years due to raising human youngens, and get offered a free crayfish so it would not die in the feeder tank it came in with. Crayfish are possibly part of an aquaponics system that is not warm. Maybe they eat worms. It may be better accepted into my family than BSFL. I am working on the foundation of a system.