What Can Be Fed To Composting Earthworms?

Unlike the magnificent carnivores, the Red Wiggler (eisenia foetida) earthworms used in vermiculture have very small mouths and do not have the greatest teeth. In fact they do not have any teeth at all! Thus, even though they can eat almost anything that was once alive, it may take them a long time to do it. For example, if you give them a raw carrot they will not be able to do much with it until it starts to decompose and softens up a bit. On the other hand, earthworms will devourer a cooked carrot in a few days. Along the same lines, composting earthworms love newspaper and can consume large quantities of it in a relatively little time; however, they cannot handle paper that is matted together. Thus, newspaper should be shredded before it is feed to earthworms. If you do not have a paper shredder you can add single sheets of newspaper to a wormery as long as they are separated from each other by the other organic material in the worm's bedding. Along the same lines, earthworms love cardboard. If you add large pieces of cardboard to your worm bins the worms will love to live in it but they will not be able to eat it until it softens up and starts to decompose. To clarify this issue, I should point out that earthworms are actually eating the protozoa and microorganisms that cover the newspaper and cardboard, the paper simply gets consumed in the process. A lot has been written about what earthworms like and dislike. For example, they are not supposed to like citrus fruit, especially the skins. On the contrary, I have found that my worms love the pulp of an orange and will also consume the rinds as soon as they soften up. The Red Wiggler Earthworms used for composting kitchen waste, however, would not do well if feed nothing but, or primarily, citrus skins or citrus pulp because large quantities of this organic material would make the worms bedding to acidic. In this respect, everything in moderation applies to earthworm farming. Contrary to what you may have been told, composting Red Wiggler Earthworms also will eat any meat product, the rottener the better! Just be sure to bury the meat and other similar items in the bedding so that they will not attract flies. Again, everything in moderation is the rule here. If you give your composting earthworms more than they can eat (over feed them with meat products) the bins will begin to smell bad which, of course, is a problem if your worm bin is indoors. With respect to home vermiculture, the only type of kitchen waste that should not be put in a worm bin is large quantities of fatty substances like grease, lard and butter. Small quantities of these products are OK and need not be separated from the other table scrapes you feed worms. In short, you can feed your Earthworms almost anything from your kitchen, even egg shells! Over wet, worm bedding can be a problem in home wormeries because vegetable scraps, which are excellent food for composting Earthworms, are 80% water. As a result, the bedding of worms that are feed primarily vegetable scraps will rapidly become muddy. The answer, is to place layers of threaded newspaper between the layers of kitchen waste. This practice also will provide a more favorable carbon/nitrogen balance in the worm’s bedding because the high nitrogen content of the vegetable waste is offset by the carbon rich newspaper. What should not be fed to Earthworms? Any leaf that has an aromatic aroma is not suitable for vermiculture. This includes pine and redwood needles and eucalyptus and pepper wood leaves. Redwood and cedar chips also should be avoided in vermiculture. Very large volumes of dairy and meat products should not be fed to your Earthworms because worms have a difficult time digesting high concentrations of oil and fat. However, as discussed above, small amounts of these ingredients are well tolerated and there is no reason to separate them from the other table scraps that you feed your worms.

Death By Tonsilectomy

As readers of this blog know, I have spent a fair amount of time over the past couple of years writing about the deteriorating state of medical care in the United states. Recently, a young black girl was pronounced brain dead after have undergone a simple tonsillectomy at the prestigious Children's Hospital in Oakland California. Unbelievable as it may sound, she simply bled to death postoperatively as her parents stood by her side pleading, in vain, for hospital personal to do something to stop the bleeding and save their daughter's life. To date, hospital officials have refused to comment on the specific events that led to this youngsters tragic death (sighting the dead girls right to privacy) other than to suggest that "These things just happen." Implying that, if a hospital performs enough of any surgical procedure, no matter how simple, someone eventually is going to die. If the inevitable malpractice suit is settled out of court (as most certainly will be the case) and the records are sealed, we may never know, as the late Paul Harvey would have said, the true story behind this senseless death. In any case, what the hospital bureaucrats say is true, at least to a point. Indeed, one in every 15,000 children who undergo a tonsillectomy dies from the procedure. It is quite another thing, however, to argue that a post-tonsillectomy death is inevitable and, thus, acceptable just because it is rare. This case stinks to high heaven of criminal malpractice and the hospital personal who stood by not lifting a finger, other than to provide a tonsil basin to collect the blood, to stop this poor youngsters post-operative bleeding should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison. The surgeon who failed to check on his patient after surgery should lose his medical license and be forced to spend 10 to 20 years in prison. May Rutherford, director of clinical quality at Children's, obviously, should be sacked! Understand, that it would have been one thing if the child had died in the operating room while the surgical team was frantically doing everything in their means to stop the bleeding. It is quite another for them to simply abandon her while she bled to death. In this respect, it is important to realize that this child would not died were it not for the utter incompetence of the entire staff that was charged with her care. The primary culprits include the surgeon who performed the tonsillectomy; the anesthesiologist who obviously did check on her closely enough postoperatively; and the nurses who, after surgery, stood by and watched her bleed to death, without lifting so much as a little finger. Amazing! To muddy up the waters even more, it is questionable that a tonsillectomy was even appropriate for a child who suffered only from a sleep disorder. What were these people thinking?

Addendum to America In Decline

My conservatives friends and relatives who have read galley proofs of America In Decline are of a single mind. They are confounded by some of my recommendations for righting our floundering ship of state which, to them, at best smack of socialism and, at worst, pure unadulterated fascism or communism. One reviewer went so far as to remark that "Carl Marks would be very proud of your latest rendition of his Communist Manifesto." I understand these criticisms and take them very seriously. I am now in my 78th year and, in my view, am becoming increasingly more conservative with each passing day. However, having said this, we are now living in a twenty-first century world that is much different than it was when I entered this world in 1936. Pure capitalism was king in those days, and rightly so. It is hard to argue that these United States would have become the economic juggernaut it was in twentieth century were it not for the liberties granted to us in the constitution and our capitalist way of doing things. In my opinion, the concept of equal opportunity for all to become the best they possibly can be, which is one of the foundation blocks of capitalism, is largely responsible for the successes we American's have achieved since the nation's founding 238 years ago. Unfortunately, over time, equality of opportunity has morphed into, and become badly confused with, the socialist concept of equal outcome for all. While it is true, as the socialist are wont to remind us every minute of every day, it is the height of unfairness that some people are born smarter than their fellows while others enter this world dumber than a box of rocks. Fairness, or lack of same, however, is not the issue that should concern us. Everywhere you look in our imperfect world unfairness abounds, the question is how do we best deal with the cards that are dealt to us. In days long past, when anyone capable of performing manual labor could find employment that paid enough to support a family, innate intelligence was far less important than it is in today's world of high technology. Nowdays successful people are paid for their intellect not for their ability to swing a hammer or shovel dirt. As I harp on incessantly in this book, the socioeconomic problems our nation faces today are worsening by the day because the mean IQ of the nation is falling one to one and a half points each generation. As a result, less intelligent members of our society will find it increasingly more difficult to find meaningful employment with each passing year. There is no magic bullet that will magically increase the mean IQ of our nation any time soon. There are ways to smarten up our population, as I have discussed at some length in previous chapters; however, in the short run, we must play the cards that we have been dealt and face up to fact that the principals of pure capitalism will not be enough to dig ourselves out of the deep hole into which the liberal have throw us. The key to the nations survival as a viable economic force is simple and straight forward, we must put our people back to work! For this to happen we must provide them with jobs that pay a decent living wage and force those who are able bodied to take the jobs that are made available to them. As discussed a length above, bringing back manufacturing jobs from abroad and curtailing illegal immigration are two important keys to the social and economic revitalization of our nation. Unfortunately, at this point in time, a fair amount of social engineering will be necessary to achieve these goals. Some of these measures, including the stiffening of import tariffs on goods that are now manufactured in third world countries; some degree income redistribution; and the implementation of a livable minimum wage for intellectually challenged people who are trying to raise a family will, admittedly, be difficult for conservatives to accept. However, what are the alternatives? Unless we are willing pay a fair price for manufactured goods like tennis shoes or commodities like lettuce or string beans, can we expect that they will be produced by American workers? If not, where will the tens of millions of intellectually challenged people, who are not destined to be employed in high tech jobs, find employment? If we do not put such people back to work at meaningful jobs, is it not likely that they will turn to lives of crime or, worse yet, life-long government dependency? It seems to me that our governmental policies must reflect, rather than ignore, the realities of the changing demographics of the world in which we live. If, in some instances, governmental policies that smack of socialism and isolationism are necessary to bring about meaningful social change then we conservatives must grit our teeth and accept those realities, at least until we can right pour floundering ship of state. I will be the first to abandon the socialistic measures I reluctantly suggest in this book if someone can come up with better solutions so the socioeconomic problems we face. So far, no one has done so and, if we continue down the present path of increasing governmental dependency, we are domed, sooner rather than later, to become a socialist wasteland like Greece. That, of course, is simply unacceptable! For those who have not read The Bell Curve, and believe that we are all born with we are all born with essentially equal IQs, the answer is to expand programs like head start which are designed to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. Those of us who believe that there is a significant genetic basis for intelligence should focus on governmental programs that, over time, will increase the mean IQ of our citizens by, among other things, reducing the birth rates in low IQ women and eliminating the immigration of low IQ Mexicans into our country. Yes, some of these policies will smack of socialism but, none the less, they are necessary Perhaps the biggest criticism of America In Decline pertains to my suggestions that, at least on the near term, trade policies which snack of isolationism and tax policies which, to some degree, redistribute the nation's wealth, will have to be implemented so that people with low IQs can make enough money working at low skill jobs to support a family. Again, governmental policies such as these are socialistic and, as such, repugnant to the vast majority of conservatives, including me. However, at this point in time, given the hand we have been dealt, I fail to see a viable alternative to the changes in social policies that I suggest in America In Decline. To continue down the road we are now headed is, as I've said repeatedly, simply unacceptable.

What would a Head of Lettuce Cost if Farm Workers Received a Decent Livable Wage?

We all know that most farm workers live in a state of abject poverty. Having said this, just how much more would we have to pay for agricultural products, such as lettuce, if farm workers were paid a decent living wage? That's the sixty four thousand dollar question. Economists at the University of California Davis have studied this issue at some length, I believe the results of their research will surprise you. Presently, a head of lettuce costs $2.99 at WalMart. Only six percent, or 17.94 cents of what consumers pay for the lettuce goes to the farm workers who raised it. Ninety four percent, or $2.81 of the cost of that head of lettuce goes to the farmer, truckers, middle men and retailers. At present the migrant workers who cultivate and pick the lettuce are paid a mean annual wage of around $13,500. The vast majority of these workers are illegal aliens from Mexico because Americans refuse to perform stoop labor for a meager $6.50 an hour, and rightly so I might add. Now back to the question I originally asked. What would the head of lettuce cost at WalMart if farm workers were paid a decent wage? Let's say $26.00 an hour or approximately $54,000 a year? The cost paid the farmers, trucks, middle men and retails would remain unchanged at $ $2.81 but the farm labors share of the pie would increase four times to 71.76 cents a head; thus, the cost of a head of lettuce, that originally cost $2.99 when produced by wages approaching slave labor, would cost a whopping $3.53 if produced by workers who were paid a decent wage. How many people, do you think, would stop buying lettuce if they had to pay $3.52 a head for it rather than the $2.99 it now costs when Mexican illegal's produce it? More importantly, do you think Americans would be willing to work in fields if they were paid $54,000 a year to do so? I think the answer to both of these hypothetical questions is obvious, don't you.