WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOT COMPOSTING AND SLOW COMPOSTING?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOT COMPOSTING AND SLOW COMPOSTING?

At first glance, this sounds like a technical question. But I think there is something wrong with the way the question is framed.

Shouldn't the comparison be between hot composting and cold composting? Or perhaps between fast composting and slow composting?

Personally, I would vote for cold composting, which is essentially the same as slow composting.

What is the hurry anyway?

Hot composting deliberately raises the temperature of organic materials to accelerate decomposition. It can reach roughly 57°C to 71°C and can produce finished compost within weeks. Cold or slow composting, on the other hand, allows organic materials to decompose naturally over several months.

I understand the argument for hot composting. High temperatures can destroy weed seeds and many pathogens, which can be important when dealing with certain wastes. But I also wonder whether we sometimes become too obsessed with speed.

Composting is fundamentally a biological process. Why should we be surprised that different organisms thrive at different temperatures?

During hot composting, heat-loving microorganisms become dominant. As the compost cools, other microorganisms return and continue the decomposition process. Slow composting, meanwhile, allows a wider variety of organisms to participate over a longer period.

There is also an economic question here.

Which method is cheaper? Which method requires less equipment, less fuel, less labor and less maintenance?

That question becomes particularly important when we talk about farmers and local governments.

Mr. Ramon Uy Sr. has an interesting philosophy about agriculture. He believes that agricultural policies, programs and projects should ultimately be directed toward making farmers rich. Everything else, he says, should follow.

As president of RU Foundry and Machinery, Inc. (RUFMI), he has been putting this philosophy into practice. RUFMI allows LGUs to test its shredding machines without cost or obligation, enabling them to process market and farm wastes into compost. The raw compost can then be fed to African Night Crawler earthworms to produce vermicast, a premium organic fertilizer.

This is where composting becomes more than garbage management.

It becomes agricultural economics.

Instead of paying to haul biodegradable waste to landfills, LGUs can process it into fertilizer. Instead of buying expensive chemical fertilizers, farmers can potentially use locally produced organic fertilizers. And instead of treating agricultural waste as something to dispose of, we can turn it into something valuable.

RUFMI's Pandayan ng Bayan program adds another dimension by helping farmers repair and fabricate their own farm tools and machine parts.

So perhaps the real question is not whether hot composting is technically superior to slow composting.

The real question is: Which system gives our farmers and our LGUs the greatest benefit at the lowest possible cost?

If slow composting can produce good-quality compost without expensive equipment and intensive management, why shouldn't we use it wherever time permits?

Maybe it is simply a matter of terminology. But I believe we should stop asking how quickly we can make compost and start asking how economically and sustainably we can make it.

After all, the ultimate product we should be producing is not merely compost.

There should be richer farmers, healthier soil and less garbage.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282/08-23-2027