Re: [compost_tea] Re: C:N

From: L Blair <rlbct_at_clear.net.nz>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:15:01 +1300
Dave, I take your point.
I think it was Kirk who provided the reference to
http://www.ranchomondo.com/compost/cnratio.htm
and I was trying to show that the approach on that page did not seem to be
valid.  Unless there is something about it I don't understand (which I doubt
;)

Lynton

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Anderson" <squtch_at_gmail.com>
To: <compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: C:N


>
> Building compost is not simple math based on those magic ratios.
>
> In the case of any wood product other than ultrafine dust, you are
> very unlikely to fully consume the particle of wood in a 3 week hot
> pile, so you cannot consider all the carbon useable.
>
> Actually, the numbers that I have seen for wood runs much higher, more
> in the 600:1 range. I suppose that they are suggesting the lower
> number as what is available for use on the surface of normal sawdust.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:41:38 +1300, L Blair <rlbct_at_clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > If I was using sawdust ( say 175 and and so carbonaceous) and legume hay
(15
> > and nitrogenous) to
> > make compost and used the 30:1 suggested ratio by weight, I would have
> > (175 x 30) + 15 = 5265 parts Carbon, and (1 x 30) + 1 = 31 parts
Nitrogen.
> > Dividing by 31,
> > I get C:N of 175:1 to start composting with.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Thu Dec 23 2004 - 14:49:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:40 EST