# Composting Toilets vs. Holding Tank



## themerryonion (Apr 23, 2012)

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I'm new to boating and couldn't find a thread on this topic. 

We recently bought a 1976 Catalina 27 with no holding tank. We'd like to live on board, which means we have to install either a holding tank or a composting head. We're leaning toward the latter, but I read in the news that Parks Canada was having some issues with composting toilets not working as well as advertised.

Does anyone have any experience with these?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Hint: Most forum search engines are flawed. Try Google with "sailnet composting head" and you find many.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I looked up the article you referenced and found this quote:

"Hill believes one of the problems is that liquid and solid waste are not separated at source. As a result of mixing the two before the urine is screened out, he says ammonia in the feces rises to levels that cannot support the micro-organisms needed for the composting process."

This makes total sense in a public park where there is no chance of teaching people how to use the facilities.

In your own boat if you are a guy you have to sit so your pee stream goes in the pee bottle.
The boat devices are designed for separation, that is what makes them work.

I have no personal experience, a little more searching will net you many commends from people that love them and hate them.

Pros: Simple and saves space.
Most people say the odor is less than with a holding tank even though a perfectly operating tank has no odor either.
I think the concept is that 

Cons: You are dealing with a pee bottle every couple of days, most people just dump it overboard.
They sit a little higher
You have to have someplace to keep a spare 5gal pail of stuff to age before you dump it.
You have to have peat or other stuff to mix in.

In short is is very different. Neither solutions is without issues. 
Hoses, pumpouts, joker valves, clogs etc 
vs.
peatmoss, pee bucket, aging bucket, bucket disposal.

Many people that have the nature type heads love them, a few do not.
Pooping seems to be a personal issue in more than one way.

If you over use it it, more than the number of people expected it can be a real mess.
Over using a holding tank means you have to pump more often which can be a mess if you forget, don't ask how I know.

In any event any issues in a public park have no bearing at all on your 27' boat.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

The search trick is to in google start like this:
site:www.sailnet.com the words I want to search on


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Maybe I should sell parks Canada a separator seat-bowl, so theirs will work. Maybe I should suggest they take a mold off mine, and make their own.
A footrest in the right place deals with the extra height issue.
I have been using a separator seat- composting head for several years now, and, like most people using them, I would never put a conventional head and holding tank in my boat.


----------



## themerryonion (Apr 23, 2012)

I was sort of leaning that way after reading the article. I feel that the lower maintenance and fewer parts would be a real bonus for a composting toilet. 

(Also, thanks for the search tips!)

Does anyone know if you have to buy one or can you make your own?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

We installed a new composting head (Nature's Head) this season. Love it. It's perfect for a two-person full-time crew. Simple. Space saving. Safer. Will never go back.

There is a learning curve. It is different than a standard marine head. But on the scale of plusses vs minuses, a composting head wins hands down for us.


----------



## themerryonion (Apr 23, 2012)

Good to know, Mike. What do you do to dispose of the waste?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

themerryonion said:


> Good to know, Mike. What do you do to dispose of the waste?


Urine goes over the side, every couple of days. We carry two bottles, so never a problem. Waste bucket gets dumped in the bush. Our anchorages are remote and pretty wild -- much like the PNW. If I was out to sea (we're on the Great Lakes), I'd dump over the side out past the 3 nm limit. In urban areas you could take it into a public toilet I suppose. So far, no problem.


----------



## Dreaming (May 14, 2013)

After Reading Breaking Seas and Mr. Damato's experience with a composting head I was discouraged from installing one. 

The other consideration is that if and when I sell my boat, the targeted buyer's are most likely going to want a traditional holding tank system and will see a composting head as a con.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

davidpm said:


> The search trick is to in google start like this:
> site:www.sailnet.com the words I want to search on


Thanks! I learn something every day. Unfortunatly I forget two....


----------



## sfbaysailing (Sep 21, 2011)

I just wanted to add another voice for the composting heads. Bought a Nature's Head earlier this year, and have absolutely loved it. Saved space with no holding tank, fewer holes in the boat, the head does not smell AT ALL, and its so much simpler than a traditional head. We had one issue with small gnats, which we quickly remedied by sprinkling diatomaceous earth in the composting chamber. Never had problems with gnats again.
My girlfriend was a big skeptic at first, and she has also been won over. We are soon going to outfit a boat for a Pacific circumnavigation, and will definitely be replacing any traditional head/holding tank with a composting head.
cheers
greg


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

themerryonion said:


> Does anyone know if you have to buy one or can you make your own?


Buying options people usually get is Natures Head, Airhead, or C-head. Building your own, I think a lot of people just use a 5-gal bucket in a box and add a seat to it.

I'm looking at going with either Natures Head or Airhead but want to see one first which I plan to do at Annapolis in a couple weeks. Then, I'll have to figure out how to take the head/holding tank out of the boat.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Dreaming said:


> After Reading Breaking Seas and Mr. Damato's experience with a composting head I was discouraged from installing one.


That was one of the funniest, grossest things I have ever read.


----------



## gamayun (Aug 20, 2009)

Don't mean any disrespect to SN, but there's a lot of good info about this topic that I was JUST reading about on Cruisers Forum. You can find it by doing a Google search on "cruisersforum composting toilet nature's head". After the research I've done so far and from reading those posts, I'm ready to take the plunge...so to speak.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Dreaming said:


> After Reading Breaking Seas and Mr. Damato's experience with a composting head I was discouraged from installing one.
> 
> The other consideration is that if and when I sell my boat, the targeted buyer's are most likely going to want a traditional holding tank system and will see a composting head as a con.


Well that was more a case of intentional sabotage more than anything, I think. At least it was that or instructions given is such a way that they did not want to follow them. I have heard of few complaints from those who use them. I do think they have a limit to the number of people using it, but other than that it is just a matter of learning how to use it.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

Either a holding tank or a composting head will work. Question is which one will work best for you and you are going about finding out in the right way.

Personally I have nothing but praise for my C-head. I am glad I didn't reinstall a marine head/holding/plumbing system when I tore the old one out. The only thing that would make me go back to a traditional marine head would be a change in the law.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm thinking you won't throw too many parties aboard a C27. However, one downside to a composter is instructing a guest to use it, particulalrly a landlubber. 99% will find it gross.

The irony to me is I don't find them all that more environmentally friendly. Tossing partially decomposed turds in the dumpster doesn't seem right to me and pouring urine overboard is simply illegal in non-discharge areas.

The advantage is getting a bit more usage between emptying than what would be necessary for the fairly small holding tank that would fit on a 27 ft boat.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm thinking you won't throw too many parties aboard a C27. However, one downside to a composter is instructing a guest to use it, particulalrly a landlubber. 99% will find it gross.


Hmmm, not sure what you mean Minn. Have you used one? There's nothing very odd or gross about it. The only real difference is men have to sit. And you have to open the trap door. Everything else happens as-per normal.



Minnewaska said:


> The irony to me is I don't find them all that more environmentally friendly. Tossing partially decomposed turds in the dumpster doesn't seem right to me and pouring urine overboard is simply illegal in non-discharge areas.


Absolutely agree! Raw excrement should never end up in the landfill, and that includes all those people who dump filled diapers, or dog crap into the garbage stream. If you can't fully compost the waste (which takes ~3 months I've read) then it should be dumped out at sea, just like a normal marine head (once you're out past legal limit). Either that or should be dumped on land away from human activity, buried in a shallow hole.


----------



## Godot (Nov 4, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> Absolutely agree! Raw excrement should never end up in the landfill, and that includes all those people who dump filled diapers, or dog crap into the garbage stream. If you can't fully compost the waste (which takes ~3 months I've read) then it should be dumped out at sea, just like a normal marine head (once you're out past legal limit). Either that or should be dumped on land away from human activity, buried in a shallow hole.


I've thought of this a bit lately and I don't think I understand the problem. WHY should raw excrement be such a big problem in landfills? As I understand it, they are built with heavy barriers underneath to keep from contaminating ground water (because, right or wrong, bad things are always going to be thrown in land fills). But, more than that, it seems to me that the half cooked compost recipe will be just as likely to continue cooking in a landfill as out of it, although perhaps slower (but maybe not...don't landfills get very warm, and doesn't the extra heat speed decomposition? Or does getting buried remove too much oxygen?).

Not having children, I also wonder what the recommendation would be for disposing of baby diapers, if the trash is not a good idea. And has millions upon millions of dirty diapers caused any kind of problem?

I think it was the c-head guy, but maybe someone else, who suggested "treating" the waste in a pickle bucket with bleach in order to legally be allowed to dump it. What are your views on this?

Not intending to be snarky, and these are serious questions. Leaving aside any legal restriction, I'm looking at the moral and ethical impact of dumping the waste.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Anybody who thinks that rotting meat belongs in a landfill and soiled diapers do not, knows nothing about biological processes and risks they carry. There is no restrictions on diapers being placed in landfills.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Godot said:


> WHY should raw excrement be such a big problem in landfills? As I understand it, they are built with heavy barriers underneath to keep from contaminating ground water (because, right or wrong, bad things are always going to be thrown in land fills). But, more than that, it seems to me that the half cooked compost recipe will be just as likely to continue cooking in a landfill as out of it, although perhaps slower (but maybe not...don't landfills get very warm, and doesn't the extra heat speed decomposition? Or does getting buried remove too much oxygen?).


It's not a moral or ethical issue Godot. All feces carries pathogens, but human feces carries pathogens of paricular concern to humans. It's dangerous stuff. It's why developed countries put so much effort and resources into treating our sewage waste. It's the main reason our life expectancy in the developed world has shot up -- because we no longer swim in our own poop.

When I grew up I was taught to dump poop out of a disposable diaper before dumping it into the trash. Its been a long time since I've had to change any diapers, but is that no longer done?

You're quite right about the quality of modern landfills. They are designed with impermeable barriers, and are well monitored to try and ensure that toxic waste does not migrate into nearby ground water. That's good, but we all know that these solutions are not perfect (nothing is). It's still far better to divert toxic waste from landfills. Given that we already have well-functioning and easily accessible sewage treatment systems in place, it seems a no-brainer to ask people to use them.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

mikeoreilly said:


> when i grew up i was taught to dump poop out of a disposable diaper before dumping it into the trash. Its been a long time since i've had to change any diapers, but is that no longer done?


hells no!!!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

krisscross said:


> Anybody who thinks that rotting meat belongs in a landfill and soiled diapers do not, knows nothing about biological processes and risks they carry. There is no restrictions on diapers being placed in landfills.


Quite right, there are no restrictions. That doesn't mean it's a good idea (speaking as someone who knows a bit about biological processes and risk ). There's lots of research available. Here's a nice summary from a WHO study on groundwater risks:

_"An analysis of household waste in the UK showed that over 4 per cent of the waste comprised disposable nappies (diapers) of which about one-third may be soiled with faeces. Domestic waste also contains bloodstained materials, such as sanitary pads, tampons and discarded wound dressings and animal wastes, such as dog faeces and soiled cat litter. The potential for pathogens within this mixture of sources is extremely high. ... The fate of pathogens in landfill sites is not understood. Although it is generally assumed that most are rapidly inactivated by the conditions that prevail in the landfill environment, the potential of leachate and run-off from landfill sites to transport pathogens into local water resources should be addressed in situation assessment."_


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

MikeOReilly said:


> It's not a moral or ethical issue Godot. All feces carries pathogens, but human feces carries pathogens of paricular concern to humans. It's dangerous stuff. It's why developed countries put so much effort and resources into treating our sewage waste. It's the main reason our life expectancy in the developed world has shot up -- because we no longer swim in our own poop.
> 
> When I grew up I was taught to dump poop out of a disposable diaper before dumping it into the trash. Its been a long time since I've had to change any diapers, but is that no longer done?
> 
> You're quite right about the quality of modern landfills. They are designed with impermeable barriers, and are well monitored to try and ensure that toxic waste does not migrate into nearby ground water. That's good, but we all know that these solutions are not perfect (nothing is). It's still far better to divert toxic waste from landfills. Given that we already have well-functioning and easily accessible sewage treatment systems in place, it seems a no-brainer to ask people to use them.


Well I don't think dumping the poop out of the diaper is going to help much as there is a lot of it in diaper as well. I don't think putting feces into the solid waste stream is going to hurt anything. Certainly it is biodegradable, and of much less concern then most of the rest of the solid waste. Of course once there is a cap put onto the landfill there is essentially no bio-degradation.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

One other issue, I am looking to live aboard in a marina that has no pump out service in the winter (it is located at the fuel dock) so the ability to empty without a pump out is essential to me. I honestly don't know what the other boats do, as I have not been there in winter but the thought of walking up a cold and icy dock at 2:00 AM on Wednesday night when nature calls is not a good one!


----------



## bratzcpa (Oct 18, 2011)

Getting back to the original poster . . . we installed a Natures Head in our Catalina 27 before our two-month live aboard trip in the Bahamas. 

Bottom line - it worked GREAT. A few bits of strangeness to get used to: guys gotta sit down to pee (hey, we are actually able to do this), remember to empty the pee bucket before it's 100% full.

Absolutely no smell on board. 

We had to "change" to new peat moss after about a month and a half of full time aboard living (two adults). 

This was a HUGE improvement over the messing around with vacuum extracting the tank, leaking pipes, plugged macerator pump, and the smell permeating the plumbing (after a few years).

They seem ridiculously expensive, but well built and solid. Good quality stainless fittings.


----------



## flandria (Jul 31, 2012)

.

[*



COLOR="LightBlue"]Absolutely agree! Raw excrement should never end up in the landfill, and that includes all those people who dump filled diapers, or dog crap into the garbage stream. If you can't fully compost the waste (which takes ~3 months I've read) then it should be dumped out at sea, just like a normal marine head (once you're out past legal limit). Either that or should be dumped on land away from human activity, buried in a shallow hole.

Click to expand...

[/quote]*[/COLOR]
There was quite an extensive thread on this topic a while ago, and, again, the need to dispose of "material" before it is fully decomposed (e.g. the 3 months+) defeats the purpose for me. You would have to be able to transfer the holding tank (and use a new one in the interim) to a location where it can "finish the job". Just how many tanks you'd end up with - and how to securely maintain the ones on shore - adds up to logistics that tell me: stop at the pump-out, once a week or when necessary, and let the marina or municipal sewage system take care of it.

Now, on a 27' boat, there is not a lot of room... but since you are talking "live aboard", you may spend most of your time in the marina, anyway, and make use of on shore facilities much of the time...


----------



## Godot (Nov 4, 2010)

I don't think it is a no brainer at all.

Wet plumbing systems are complicated, and sometimes messy. Also, as mentioned just a post or two up, pump outs often close in the cold seasons (and too often just seem to break and be out of service for extended periods). It has also been quite well reported that heavy rains frequently cause an overflow of the treatment plants (often discussed in other waste threads) dumping large quantities of untreated sewage into public waters. Plus, as noted in your summary above, a large percentage of soiled 'naps' are already heading into the landfill, and that kind of thing should be planned for. Your summary also mentions that the general assumption is that the waste is quickly deactivated. Besides, unless you are going to stop all diapers, tampons (I've seen signs in MENS rooms warning not to dump tampons in the toilet), dog waste, kitty litter, baby wipes (don't flush them, either) and everything else from making it into the landfill, I would think stopping every boat with a composting head from trashing their waste (maybe three gallons worth of partially composted material every few months) is extremely unlikely to produce any kind of measurable result. I suspect that if we all started burying our poop in shallow holes, there would be an awful lot of shallow holes scattered around (I'm guessing that this is illegal, too).

Everything in life is compromise. While landfilling waste might not be a perfect solution, it is no where near clear to me that it isn't amongst the best of many bad choices.


----------



## Godot (Nov 4, 2010)

For what it is worth, I switched to a Nature's Head after not paying attention and overfilling my old holding tank with rather unpleasant and unsanitary results. It scarred me and I swore "Never Again!"

It took a long while to pull out the old system. There is a lot of stuff that goes along with it, jammed into all sorts of unlikely spaces. The new unit is self contained, is simple, with practically nothing to break (the fan is probably the weakest link), and just works. The girlfriend was probably a little skeptical at first (I think she spent a couple days holding "it"); but is now fully onboard (provided I do the pee bottle dumping). The bonus is I now have the room for a new 20 gallon water tank, which will happily double my capacity. Score!

[The waste disposal issue is still a concern, and I'm not feeling terribly guilty at this point, especially since dumping once, maybe twice a year might be enough]


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Any thoughts on Lectra San?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

You could be right about the functional impact. I haven't done or seen an analysis that would answer the question if which is the least damaging. It will be small, either way. 

Where I cruise there's lots of opportunity for the shallow hole solution, but I grant that is not always possible. Hopefully in those urban areas people can head out to sea for a standard dump.


----------



## Godot (Nov 4, 2010)

T37Chef said:


> Any thoughts on Lectra San?


It sounds to me about as close to the perfect solution as you can find. Except I don't believe you can use it in zero discharge waters.


----------



## 4arch (Jul 7, 2009)

We’ve had a composting head for three years now. We wanted very much to like it – and in fact did love it for the first year or so. At first having to constantly empty the liquid container seemed a small price to pay for not having to deal with holding tanks and pump-outs, but now we’re much less convinced. After another recent infestation, we’ve come very close to deciding to remove the composter and to reinstall a conventional marine head and holding tank. We’ve had fruit fly and fungus infestations intermittently and when they occur it’s an absolutely disgusting cleanup job. I think the medium was getting and staying too damp and we've rectified that to some degree (part of which means not using the toilet on port tack!), but the next time I find fungus or fruit flies - I'm done! 

As for the LectraSan, I've heard them pretty widely praised for areas that aren't NDZ. If you're going into NDZ areas you have to keep the regular holding tank in parallel, which takes up a lot of space. They're also very expensive.


----------



## jgeissinger (Feb 25, 2002)

To the OP: You have received a great deal of information and links to previous threads where this has been discussed at length. Those who have composting heads seem generally pleased with them. Remember though, that this is not a random sampling by any means and the reality is that probably 99.9 % of all boats out there that have a head do have some sort of holding tank system. The marine head/holding tank system works acceptably well for the vast majority of boaters, and as has been mentioned before, a composting system not going to be a plus when it comes time to sell your present boat.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Godot said:


> It sounds to me about as close to the perfect solution as you can find. Except I don't believe you can use it in zero discharge waters.


I believe you can still plumb them to a holding tank if needed for those zero discharge zones like Herring Bay.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> Hmmm, not sure what you mean Minn. Have you used one? There's nothing very odd or gross about it. The only real difference is men have to sit. And you have to open the trap door. Everything else happens as-per normal.


I have. I've also used an outhouse and porta potty. They're all gross, by common standards. Doesn't stop me, but I know plenty who won't use any of the above. Period.



> If you can't fully compost the waste (which takes ~3 months I've read) then it should be dumped out at sea, just like a normal marine head (once you're out past legal limit).....


If you're depositing in it every day, the moment you empty it you have nearly uncomposted waste in the mix. What would you do with it aboard to let it compost for 3 months? Therefore, dumping past the limit is really the only option and I doubt their are many that find themselves in legal dumping areas often enough to be practical. Therefore, the same raw sewage from yesterday's deposit goes straight in the trash I suspect.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> If you're depositing in it every day, the moment you empty it you have nearly uncomposted waste in the mix. What would you do with it aboard to let it compost for 3 months? Therefore, dumping past the limit is really the only option and I doubt their are many that find themselves in legal dumping areas often enough to be practical. Therefore, the same raw sewage from yesterday's deposit goes straight in the trash I suspect.


I think that what some folks do is have a spare bucket that is sealed and just thrown in the hold and disposed of after a couple months.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

davidpm said:


> I think that what some folks do is have a spare bucket that is sealed and just thrown in the hold and disposed of after a couple months.


Interesting. News to me that it will continue to decompose without air. That right?


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

4arch said:


> We've had a composting head for three years now. We wanted very much to like it - and in fact did love it for the first year or so. At first having to constantly empty the liquid container seemed a small price to pay for not having to deal with holding tanks and pump-outs, but now we're much less convinced. After another recent infestation, we've come very close to deciding to remove the composter and to reinstall a conventional marine head and holding tank. We've had fruit fly and fungus infestations intermittently and when they occur it's an absolutely disgusting cleanup job. I think the medium was getting and staying too damp and we've rectified that to some degree (part of which means not using the toilet on port tack!), but the next time I find fungus or fruit flies - I'm done!


Put a half cup of diatomaceous earth in the bucket with each new "charge" of peat moss. It will eliminate all insect larvae. Available at any big box garden shop.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

My complaint is that composting heads simply aren't doing any composting, and if the folks who make a product need to misrepresent it in order to sell it...I don't want any part of it.

Sell 'em as "waterless heads" or "dessicating heads" or whatever, and let the customers know up front that they are NOT going to make nice harmless beneficial compost in any way at any time, and I wouldn't object.

But these heads produce sewage, not compost. And sewage brings sanitary risks. And since there are no conventions or standards for getting the "dry" sewage into the sanitary sewage system...I can see that being problematic. After all, Typhoid Mary _knew _she wasn't the problem.

As to the feces from baby diapers, I'd have to expect that an infant has a fairly low risk of passing on typhoid or polio or other infectious diseases, simply because they haven't been on the planet long enough to be exposed to most of these problems. As opposed to adult feces, where the donor has had many years in which to be exposed to many risks from many partners. Likewise, dogs and cats simply don't carry the same diseases that humans do.

No, I think I want a genset and an Incinolet. If I'm going to use a bucket and bags...I can use a bucket and bags. That's called a commode, and no one pretends it makes nice tasty beneficial compost.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> All feces carries pathogens, but human feces carries pathogens of paricular concern to humans. It's dangerous stuff.


I did not know that. I thought only crap from sick people had the pathogens and while all crap was full of bacteria it wasn't necessarily harmful.

I read an article that some folks take poop pills to reintroduce beneficial bacteria back into their gut.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I have. I've also used an outhouse and porta potty. They're all gross, by common standards. Doesn't stop me, but I know plenty who won't use any of the above. Period.


Oh come on Minn. By "common standards" most of what we do to live on a small boat is equally unusual. That's a silly criticism. The commercial composting heads function almost identical to every other toilet. Sit, open a trap door, let 'er rip. What's so different? What's gross?



Minnewaska said:


> If you're depositing in it every day, the moment you empty it you have nearly uncomposted waste in the mix. What would you do with it aboard to let it compost for 3 months? Therefore, dumping past the limit is really the only option and I doubt their are many that find themselves in legal dumping areas often enough to be practical. Therefore, the same raw sewage from yesterday's deposit goes straight in the trash I suspect.


This is a valid criticism. It's true, the last deposits have not been "processed" in any real way. This is why I agree it should not be put into the landfill stream, but as others have pointed out, the impact is negligible. I'm sure all the dirty diapers have a far greater impact. But I agree. Don't dump it into the garbage.

If you can't go out to sea, or find a wilderness zone to dump, or otherwise get the solids into a sewage treatment, then NH makes it easy to have two bases that can be swapped out. The lid allows for air flow so the composting process continues. Swap it out, let it cook, then dump it into the dumpster after the requisite time.

Better still, stick with your standard marine head. They work fine. I'm not saying everyone should switch to composters. There are significant benefits (for those who are not grossed out by it all), but it's not perfect, and there are some downsides. Just like with most things in our sailing/cruising world, there is no one right answer for everyone.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> Oh come on Minn. By "common standards" most of what we do to live on a small boat is equally unusual. That's a silly criticism. The commercial composting heads function almost identical to every other toilet. Sit, open a trap door, let 'er rip. What's so different? What's gross?


You are absolutely right that living aboard has many unusual requirements compared to living ashore. Most of us would look at my master stateroom, with separate shower and head, a centerline queen-king bed and built in settees on each side and consider it a magnificent suite. Almost every non-boater that's aboard thinks it looks like a sardine can, with the aft cockpit above the mattress and only about 20 sq ft that one can actually fully stand upright.

I'm specifically referring to these non-boater's perspective, not sailors, which one may have as guests aboard. We have a ton of them every season. Knowing that a weeks worth of turds are just below that trap would clearly disturb some of the delicate landlubbing flowers we have visit. Then, what about the toilet paper? Do you require it be bagged or can it go in with the compost? Any skid marks before making it through that trap door that have to be cleaned? Any previous urine to gurgle in that bottle they have to aim for? Presumably, you want them to turn the compost when they're done, which will be a different experience from flushing. Unless both delicate and dumb (good entertainment if they are), they will realize they are just mixing it in. Any chance they just won't follow these rules and pee on your compost?



> Better still, stick with your standard marine head. They work fine. I'm not saying everyone should switch to composters. There are significant benefits (for those who are not grossed out by it all), but it's not perfect, and there are some downsides. Just like with most things in our sailing/cruising world, there is no one right answer for everyone.


I agree and I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a composter. Just adding one of the issues to consider. Guests may be grossed out.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> You are absolutely right that living aboard has many unusual requirements compared to living ashore. Most of us would look at my master stateroom, with separate shower and head, a centerline queen-king bed and built in settees on each side and consider it a magnificent suite. Almost every non-boater that's aboard thinks it looks like a sardine can, with the aft cockpit above the mattress and only about 20 sq ft that one can actually fully stand upright.


Wow ... now I'm jealous. Your boat sounds more impressive than my house on shore. Want some more visitors .



Minnewaska said:


> I'm specifically referring to these non-boater's perspective, not sailors, which one may have as guests aboard. We have a ton of them every season. Knowing that a weeks worth of turds are just below that trap would clearly disturb some of the delicate landlubbing flowers we have visit. Then, what about the toilet paper? Do you require it be bagged or can it go in with the compost? Any skid marks before making it through that trap door that have to be cleaned? Any previous urine to gurgle in that bottle they have to aim for? Presumably, you want them to turn the compost when they're done, which will be a different experience from flushing. Unless both delicate and dumb (good entertainment if they are), they will realize they are just mixing it in. Any chance they just won't follow these rules and pee on your compost?


Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to go compost over standard. But just in case people are using this thread as research, let me answer that:


TP goes into the head. Paper composts just fine.
Skid marks? Same as a normal marine head. You skid it, you clean it. However, my experience so far is that it's a lot harder to skid using the NH compared to my old Skippers Head (which will be for sale soon).
There is no "aiming" for urine or feces. Sit and go. The design aligns everything perfectly.
Yes, a churn is necessary. Seems less yecky than flushing, either manually or electrically.
I can't really comment on your concerns about "delicate" visitors. Seriously Minn ... who are these people? I guess we just move in very different circles. Wouldn't they be equally squeamish knowing their turds were now mixed with urine, floating in a toxic sludge mere feet away?

There are some significant challenges with these composting heads. The main one is crew size. I would not recommend any of the commercial options (NH, AH, CH) for full time use if crew size is more than three. Emptying requires that you get more personal with your effluent compared to a holding tank. And yes, there is the challenge of proper disposal.

On the flip side, the benefits include much greater range between dumps (for a two-person crew anyway), a lot less complicated, much safer (no holes in your boat, no toxic sludge to flow anywhere in the case of tank or hose failures), significant space savings (no holding tank, reduced plumbing), and cheaper in the long run (no more paying for pump outs).

I would not recommend a composting head for people who spend most of their time in marinas, or who sail mostly in dense urban areas. On the other hand, if you like to be on your own hook, especially in out of the way places, then the self-sufficiency of a composter is a major benefit.

Again, both have their plusses and minues. I've used a standard head for over a decade on our boats. They work fine. But for our sailing and cruising style, a composting head is a great boon.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> Wow ... now I'm jealous. Your boat sounds more impressive than my house on shore. Want some more visitors .


I hope you realize, I wasn't showing off, but making a point that non-sailors compare our accommodations to their shore experience.



> Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to go compost over standard.


Nor am I the opposite. Just insuring that all points are considered.



> TP goes into the head. Paper composts just fine


That's great, but as we've discussed, it doesn't actually compost in the short period of time. Some users require TP goes in a bag. Yuk.



> Skid marks? Same as a normal marine head. You skid it, you clean it.


Not exactly. Skids in a water flush often take care of themselves, particularly if you lubricate the bowl with a quick flush of water before you sit. If not, you use a brush and flush to clean both. Exactly how do you clean the skid from the composter?



> I can't really comment on your concerns about "delicate" visitors. Seriously Minn ... who are these people? I guess we just move in very different circles.


I'm sure that isn't true. People are people. I'm not saying its everyone, but its just not uncommon.



> Wouldn't they be equally squeamish knowing their turds were now mixed with urine, floating in a toxic sludge mere feet away?


Not in my experience.

Just the opposite. Non sailors just assume that the waste has left the premises the moment they can't see it any longer. As we know, it needs a lot of chase water to get it all the way to the holding tank.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Skid marks? Use a bigger bowl under the seat, or larger coffee filters. Isn't that why they use them?

Actually ToTo, a major Japanese supplier of toilets, invested a lot of money into special porcelain surfacing so that nothing sticks to their bowls. There are indeed folks who spend all of their time working on these issues.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Some users require TP goes in a bag. Yuk.


That was exactly our reaction during our second trip to Isla Mujeres. The first time, we stayed in one of the standard tourist condo hotels. While we were there, we met a lot of great people who lived on the island who introduced us to the possibility of renting small apartments. Much cheaper, a more authentic experience, and in general just a more of an "escape" type of vacation; we were more able to immerse ourselves in a different way of life than the typical rat-race for more crap (no pun intended) at home.

First eye-opener was the requirement of the apartment owner to not put anything in the toilet that you didn't eat first, including used toilet paper. My wife was so grossed out by the prospect that we almost bailed out and went back to a "real" hotel. Fortunately, we came to our senses. It's no problem at all, doesn't stink, no more difficult.... it's just something we weren't used to. I mean, without getting too indelicate, you have to handle the toilet paper once you use it; what's the difference where you drop it? Put it in a garbage can/bag, twist the bag close, and go enjoy the rest of your day.

We felt really stupid the second day, and apologized to the owner for our initial reaction. She laughed, saying "Don't worry about it; I would have thought you were one strange ****** if you WEREN'T surprised at first." Sweet lady.... like everyone else we met on Isla. We've been back a ton of times, and always stayed in private apartments since.

Customs are just customs. That's all. Easy to change.

Barry


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Non boaters have an environmental impact with is, in some ways, thousands of times that of those who live aboard ,while getting downright sanctimonius about we who live aboard boats. What they consider "NORMAL is an environmental impact which would take several more planets to sustain indefinitely. They put their recyclables in the blue box, drive their motor homes to the polls, to vote for the green party, then to the airport to catch a plane to the far side of the planet ,regularly,increasing their environmental foot print exponentially in the process, and preach against hunters, while paying General foods to burn the rainforests for their food supply, all the while, heating 24-7, a huge house, far bigger than they ever need, and driving their gas guzzling cars daily, while criticizing the oil industry for feeding their habits.
Compared to them, the average live aboard's environmental foot print is microscopic.


----------



## themerryonion (Apr 23, 2012)

This is all great information and debate. One thing that no one has touched on is the fact that the boat currently has no holding tank. So I was wondering about installing that vs. a composting head. We are going to have to do something. Now that I've read about pros and cons of each, which is more expensive in the short and long term?


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

themerryonion said:


> which is more expensive in the short and long term?


I think this question depends on the size of the system and if you're going to hire someone else. For my boat, I think a standard head/holding system might be less but I'm still planning to get a composting head.

I just pulled my head out of the boat. Good thing I was planning to do it and didn't try using it. I discovered a 2" x 3" hole on the back side of the holding tank in a spot that could not have been inspected without the disassembly I just did.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

themerryonion said:


> This is all great information and debate. One thing that no one has touched on is the fact that the boat currently has no holding tank. So I was wondering about installing that vs. a composting head. We are going to have to do something. Now that I've read about pros and cons of each, which is more expensive in the short and long term?


Full installation of a new marine head (toilet, plumbing, thru-hulls, holding tank, labour) will very likely set you back as much or more than a new composting head. If it were just the toilet, then you can do it cheaper, although good quality heads (not those cheapo Jabscos) are still in the $500 range. A Nature's Head or Air Head will cost around $1,100. CHeads are even cheaper.

In the long term it's really a no-brainer. You'll never pay for another pump out with a composting head. Unless you're dumping out at sea, a standard head will certainly cost more over time.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

MikeOReilly said:


> Full installation of a new marine head (toilet, plumbing, thru-hulls, holding tank, labour) will very likely set you back as much or more than a new composting head. If it were just the toilet, then you can do it cheaper, although good quality heads (not those cheapo Jabscos) are still in the $500 range. A Nature's Head or Air Head will cost around $1,100. CHeads are even cheaper.
> 
> In the long term it's really a no-brainer. You'll never pay for another pump out with a composting head. Unless you're dumping out at sea, a standard head will certainly cost more over time.


Yea, I think if you are paying for labor there is no way you could in stall a full system for the price of an Airhead/Natures head let alone the cost of a C-head. I think if you are at all cost conscious and you don't want to build your own then the C-head is the way to go it starts at $519. Looks relatively finished as well. I don't like the look of the stirring mechanism, as it looks a bit home made, but seems to work well. No way you are going to get a system installed for under $520 with a traditional system.


----------



## themerryonion (Apr 23, 2012)

I guess I wasn't clear. There is a toilet, but it just ejects into the water directly due to the lack of holding tank. But thanks for the feedback.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

themerryonion said:


> I guess I wasn't clear. There is a toilet, but it just ejects into the water directly due to the lack of holding tank. But thanks for the feedback.


Well the toilet is only a small part of the expense. It will really depend on if you can find space for a stock size holding tank. Holding tanks are going to start at about $500(custom goes way up from there), vented loop at $100, Y valve at $50, hose is about $10 a foot(depending on set up, but figure at least 15 feet), macerator pump $200, deck fitting at $100 and figure at least $300 more in miscellaneous fittings and parts.

Here is a good article:
Installing a Head by Don Casey - BoatTECH - BoatUS

I don't see how you can get in a normal set up for under a grand even with your toilet, but toilets are only about $300 for a usable one. (keep in mind when yours needs to be rebuilt often easier and just as cheap to replace) You have to use quality parts, such as top of the line Trident Hose as anything else is going to stink in a few months or at least 2 years. You don't want to have to re do the hoses any time soon.

Sure you can build your own tank, and use cheaper hoses, but you will likely battle smell for a long time, then rip it all out and re do it properly.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Good points above^^^^, plus the installation of a composting toilet is very much within the abilities of any unskilled boat owner, while a wet toilet, holding tank and all the fittings etc. is a much bigger and more difficult task. If you have to call someone in to install it, it will most certainly end up more expensive than a composting toilet.

The C-head is cheaper, as someone has pointed out, but I think you should compare it very carefully to the Nature's Head before buying one. They are both good products, but not really an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Godot (Nov 4, 2010)

The hardest part about installing my Nature's Head was running the vent hose (I have it heading into the anchor locker...I will be repositioning it slightly this winter).

The worst issue of using it is peeing when on the wrong tack. The composter likes to be level or leaning forward to divert the liquid waste into the pee jug. It hasn't been a huge deal here in the Chesapeake. I imagine if offshore on the wrong tack for many days it could get terribly annoying.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Godot, I've read somewhere on a blog that a fellow put a bead of silicone caulk around the urine diverter to solve this problem. The bead of caulk raises the lip around the edge of the trap door. I can see how this would work. In fact, if I have any complaint about the Nature's Head (and I really don't- it's a great product!), it's that they could have raised the lip around the trap door a little higher to prevent any liquids finding their way into the composting chamber. My head is mounted in a for-aft orientation so I haven't found any problems with either tack, but guests sometimes manage to get some liquids into the composting chamber (peeing standing up probably!!).


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

T37Chef said:


> Any thoughts on Lectra San?


Chef,

It's expensive, and you know that the Maryland legislature is gunning to turn the entire Bay into a NDZ, invalidating the use of Electra-sans, right?

The bill failed to pass in recent years, but people still haven't stopped pushing for it.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Thanks Bub, I didn't know that


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Building your own composter for under $50 is not all that difficult. I raised the lid around the big hole 3/8th of an inch, leaving little chance of liquids entering the solids chamber.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Every "composting" toilet on a boat is just a wet/dry separated _holding tank._

A real composting toilet would need about a hundred yards of inclined ramp under it, so the feces could actually compost during the 90 days it took to get to the bottom of the ramp. The same way it needs about 90 days in every actual _composting _toilet.

Buy a box of clumping kitty litter, skip the coconut husks, the separators, and the flies. Let's face it guys, there are no _composting _toilets on boats. What comes out is just dried feces, not compost at all.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> ....What comes out is just dried feces, not compost at all.


It occurs to me that the reason a "composter" doesn't stink is that there is ample air introduced. Aerobic bacteria doesn't smell, it's low Ox anaerobic bacteria that smells. Use the same high Ox solution on a holding tank and no smell there either.


----------



## bletso (Oct 17, 2013)

We bought a Natureshead at the boat show. I met some people who had one and they convinced me.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

And indeed there are a number of threads online saying that if you've got an adequate vent line on the holding tank, or better yet, two vents lines (fore and aft, etc. to ensure airflow) the tank is unlikely to stink, for just that reason.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Brent Swain said:


> Maybe I should sell parks Canada a separator seat-bowl, so theirs will work. Maybe I should suggest they take a mold off mine, and make their own.
> A footrest in the right place deals with the extra height issue.
> I have been using a separator seat- composting head for several years now, and, like most people using them, I would never put a conventional head and holding tank in my boat.


I am thinking of going that route. what brand do you have?


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Godot said:


> I've thought of this a bit lately and I don't think I understand the problem. WHY should raw excrement be such a big problem in landfills? As I understand it, they are built with heavy barriers underneath to keep from contaminating ground water (because, right or wrong, bad things are always going to be thrown in land fills). But, more than that, it seems to me that the half cooked compost recipe will be just as likely to continue cooking in a landfill as out of it, although perhaps slower (but maybe not...don't landfills get very warm, and doesn't the extra heat speed decomposition? Or does getting buried remove too much oxygen?).
> 
> Not having children, I also wonder what the recommendation would be for disposing of baby diapers, if the trash is not a good idea. And has millions upon millions of dirty diapers caused any kind of problem?
> 
> ...


yeah. I have to say I don't know what would be so terrible about t. it's crap. millions of animals and humans have crapped all over the globe. it's called fertilizer. farmers dump it in their fields to grow your food. it turns to dirt. it's not radioactive waste.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Human crap and wild animal crap couldn't be more different. From pharmaceuticals to additives, by comparison, our excrement is toxic. 

I'm no tree hugger and I'm even more upset at the illogical marine discharge laws (meaning the prohibition of dumping in harbors makes sense, but there is no science to the 3 mile limit for what amounts to a gallon of actual waste). However, I can't deny that human waste has both bacteria and chemicals that are a larger issue than a bear crapping berries in the woods.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

erps said:


> I did not know that. I thought only crap from sick people had the pathogens and while all crap was full of bacteria it wasn't necessarily harmful.
> 
> I read an article that some folks take poop pills to reintroduce beneficial bacteria back into their gut.


Asians have been fertilizing rice patties with human feces for centuries. I don't seem to notice their populations being decimated by feces born pathogens.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Human crap and wild animal crap couldn't be more different. From pharmaceuticals to additives, by comparison, our excrement is toxic.
> 
> I'm no tree hugger and I'm even more upset at the illogical marine discharge laws (meaning the prohibition of dumping in harbors makes sense, but there is no science to the 3 mile limit for what amounts to a gallon of actual waste). However, I can't deny that human waste has both bacteria and chemicals that are a larger issue than a bear crapping berries in the woods.


it's not illegocial.. it keeps it from washing up on the beaches. Remember the Candybar incident in Caddyshack?

It also gives the idiots a target to shoot for, otherwise they -would- be dumping their tanks just off of the beaches (most likely because they would think it is funny)


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> Human crap and wild animal crap couldn't be more different. From pharmaceuticals to additives, by comparison, our excrement is toxic.
> 
> I'm no tree hugger and I'm even more upset at the illogical marine discharge laws (meaning the prohibition of dumping in harbors makes sense, but there is no science to the 3 mile limit for what amounts to a gallon of actual waste). However, I can't deny that human waste has both bacteria and chemicals that are a larger issue than a bear crapping berries in the woods.


i'm not trying to be mean or argumentative but that's a rather nieve way of looking at the world. our toxins are not confined to us. accoring to scientists every body of water on the planet is polluted by our heavy metals and hormone mimicking chemicals. that's why pregnant women are not supposed to eat very much wild caught fish. the fish, swimming in waters that our industry and lawncare have already made toxic, are toxic and eating them will pass on those toxins. but what about your bear crap? is that so pure and clean? like us, the bear is at the top of the food chain. not only is he drinking toxic water, lke the fish and we do, but he is eating lots of those toxic fish. pretty much meaning he is toxic because the body doesn't piss and crap out the toxins it absorbs. it stores them oin the fat cells.

this is why a lawncare professional that has been in the business for 10 years has to, by law, get checked for body toxins every year. the pesticides he uses don't have a low enough LD50 number ( the rating of fatality; lower is deadlier ) to kill a person but he is storing the poisons, he absorbs at work, and he has to be tested to make sure the total toxins in his body don't reach the fatal point.

so, your bear, the bunnies hopping around him, the fish and birds....all of them are as toxic as we are and, if your crap needs to be handled by HASMAT, all their crap does too.

we love to ignore that we, humans, are a part of the system. we aren't some special god's teacher's pet that is elevated above, and separate from, the rest of the planet. we are tied to it like all of the other things that live here. our condition is mirrored in the planet and all her children.

so much false information misleading people into a false sense of security.

it's like this idea that you have to wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap every 5 min or you will die from a deadly contagion. people didn't have those cleaness standards for 99.5% of the time we have been here. the human race didn't go extinct. and, in fact, recent studies hae shown that the bacterial soap, that people just can't live without, is damaging their reproductive systems, just like a lot of the chemicals that are in your food and other consumables do.

the world isn't quite as simple and stratified as THEY would have you believe. it's all a game to make you think everything is just fine if you follow their rules but it's the end of the world if you don't.

crap is crap. like i said, Asians use human feces in their rice patties. millions of chinese can;t be wrong, can they?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Jack, you seem to be conflating or confusing a few facts here. Human faeces is considered toxic to humans b/c it carries pathogens which disproportionally affect humans. Same for all animals. It's the reason you don't want any animal living with their own excrement. It's also the reason developed countries spend so much resources on cleaning up our own crap.

It's just basic biology that affects all animals.


----------



## tjvanginkel (Sep 26, 2006)

To the OP,
Before you start considering the pros and cons of holding tanks vs waterless (I can't call them composting) toilets, you really need to look at the space you have available.
Waterless toilets take more room than a standard marine head and stand taller. Can you fit one with enough head room? 
Holding tanks need quite a bit of space and you need a large access to install it.

We have just gone through this process as our boat had overboard discharge only. 
For us a holding tank was cost prohibitive as it would have to be a custom tank and would have to be very small so not terrribly usefull either. 

We ended up purchasing a C-head. It is a tight squeeze in our head and we tend to sit higher than is really comfortable (Natures head, Air head and C-head only have slight variations in dimensions). We are still working on a remedy for that. However for us it is a good solution. The C-head requires more frequent emptying of the solids than other brands but the convenience of being able to just lift out a bucket vs taking the whole unit apart works for us. We also like that both containers are inside a secondary container so that if the liquids are not emptied at appropriate intervals the spillage remains contained. We have tested this  and I am very pleased to report that all spillage does indeed remain contained.....

We are currently using a C-head full time in our land based living as well and after more than 6 months have not yet gotten around to hooking up the vent as there is indeed little to no smell and it only seems to smell a bit when it is getting full.

We have previous experience with a land based waterless toilet that did not have the separator and our experience would be similar to parks Canada. It did not work very well, was extremely smelly and completely disgusting to empty. It also took up a huge amount of space....
The C-head is comparatively delightful. I can't believe I am saying that....

We have also had fruit fly infestations. We dealt with the one at home with diatomaceous earth and that so far seems to work. On the boat we hung the bucket over the side for a couple days after emptying and that seems to have taken care of them. I assume the eggs would be drowned or eaten by fish. (I realize this is not an option for liveaboards...)

Best of luck in your decision. Either way you end up getting more intimate with your poo than the normal flush and forget......

Tanya


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

captain jack said:


> i'm not trying to be mean or argumentative but that's a rather nieve way......


That's rather hard to believe when parsed out, isn't it?

Anyway, look it all up instead of using your intuitive rice paddy analogy. Heavy metals, pathogens and pharmaceuticals are issues in sludge from treatment plants. None would be the same from wild animals. The sources you refer to, such as drinking from the water, are substantially diluted compared to human consumption, which consumes pure product.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mad_machine said:


> it's not illegocial.. it keeps it from washing up on the beaches. ......


It's exactly that kind of image that keeps people from looking at the math. If I were one mile offshore, how many gallons of seawater would be between us? Do you really think that a holding tank, which would not be solid after being pumped afterall, would not fully dilute?

Let's have some facts instead. A cubic foot of water contains approximately 7.5 gallons. As there are 5,280 feet in one mile, if depth averaged 20 feet, that would be 105,600 cubic feet of water or 792,000 gallons of water for every linear foot of shore out to one mile. Say your beach is one mile long? That's 4.2 billion gallons of water inside that little box. Now contemplate the entire Bay, Ocean, etc.

How many recreational boats are out there and how much will their tanks actually hold?

To be clear, seawater already contains the excrement of every living creature in it and that volume far exceeds anything you and I could possibly add. There is a point where those concentrations are harmful to the environment and that should be the standard, not the silly total prohibition from anyone at anytime.

Did you know that the 3 mile limit is strictly the limit of the Federal Law that allows a State to regulate the shoreline? It has no environmental relevance.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

By the way, for those of us that have been in absolutely clear water Caribbean anchorages that have dozens of boats on moorings that are all pumping directly overboard, we know it's not washing up on shore and they're 100 feet away. It's gross to see it while being pumped over, but it dilutes and disappears within feet.

Now, I'm not advocating that practice, I'm only trying to dispel the rhetoric and hopefully encourage fact based analysis.


----------



## gamayun (Aug 20, 2009)

That frothy mess that "disappears" within a few feet is full of nitrogen. When the reefs, and even the sandy bottoms, are covered with a lush growth of algae, then it is causing a problem. So the solution to pollution is dilution, especially in coral reef areas that are naturally devoid of nutrients, is not the answer. However, if the pH drops enough in our oceans, maybe we'll want more raw sewage...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Can someone explain what happens with a composting head when a crew member has explosive diarrhea? Will it compost?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

gamayun said:


> That frothy mess that "disappears" within a few feet is full of nitrogen. When the reefs, and even the sandy bottoms, are covered with a lush growth of algae, then it is causing a problem. So the solution to pollution is dilution, especially in coral reef areas that are naturally devoid of nutrients, is not the answer. However, if the pH drops enough in our oceans, maybe we'll want more raw sewage...


I knew someone would go here. By dilution, I was countering the suggesting that the Baby Ruth bar in Caddyshack is going to wash up on shore. I was not suggesting it beams off the planet.

You are right, concentration is the real issue. Zero is not the necessary standard. It's not the standard in seawater without humans.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

MikeOReilly said:


> Jack, you seem to be conflating or confusing a few facts here. Human faeces is considered toxic to humans b/c it carries pathogens which disproportionally affect humans. Same for all animals. It's the reason you don't want any animal living with their own excrement. It's also the reason developed countries spend so much resources on cleaning up our own crap.
> 
> It's just basic biology that affects all animals.


i am not confusing anything. asian countries do use human feces to fertilize the rice patties. during vietnam, GI's called the crap buckets 'honey pots'. human feces is richer in nutrients than cow feces.

dogs eat dog feces. it is a fact. it is a survival instinct inherited from their wild ancestors.

yes, developed nations expend a lot of resources dealing with human waste. this is because there are just so many of us. we are over populated, although we like to deny it. it's a matter of magnitude.

look at a landfill. landfills cover acres of ground, amounting to millions of tons of dirt, stone, and rock. each day, landfills take on thousands of tons of trash, much of it household type trash. common household trash often consists of amounts of cleaners and other household chemicals, which are toxic. it also consists of items which contain toxic material, like CFL bulbs. that amounts to thousands of tons of toxic materials every week.

now, we are discussing one man sending a relatively small amount of human feces, at various stages of decomposition, to the landfill, maybe, once every 3 months. in a given area of the country, even one that is full of sailors, only a certain number of sailors will be making such a deposit because only a certain amount will use composting heads. the total, in a three month period, of all of these people with composting heads, if you divide it down to a daily amount, wouldn't even be responsible for more than a hundred pounds of crap a day. that's in a heavy sailing area, assuming all of those with composting heads are dumping into the trash.

compare that hundred...hell, let's go all out and say it's 300 pounds of crap a day. compare that to the thousands of tons of potentially toxic trash that enters the landfill. it's completely inconsequential.

i used to do lawn care. not mowing grass but growing it. that includes pesticide application. if you have a container of super trimec weed control and you wish to use it for confront, a weed control that kills violets, legally, you have to clean all of the super T out of it first. the legal process of doing this is to thoroughly rinse the container three times. by doing that, you reduce the amount of residual super T to an inconsequential amount. my old boss used to have a saying, " the solution to pollution is dilution". the reason is, no matter how deadly a chemical is, if you dilute it enough, it becomes safe.

if i gave you a shot glass full of arsenic, and you drank it, it would most likely kill you. now, if i take that same shot glass of arsenic and mix it with 500 gallons of water, you could drink it without any issues at all.

back to my landfill discussion. a few hundred pounds of excrement, mixed in with millions of tons of dirt, filtered by that dirt and stone, is a pinch of pee in the sea. especially when you compare it to the thousands of tons of other, often toxic, trash that is being handled by the landfill.

a few pounds of poo every three months isn't going to wreck the environment or threaten human survival.

i am not saying that everyone should just crap in the street. that would be living in your own feces. i am talking about an inconsequential amount of partially decayed feces. that's not up to your assessment of living in your own feces.

if you want to worry about something toxic, worry about all the hormone mimicking chemicals that women, on the pill, pass into the sewage, every day. our sanitation technology is not capable of filtering out hormones and it is polluting the water all over the planet. it's harming human and animal reproductive development and nothing is being done about it. add to that all of the hormone mimics that enter the trash through our household supplies. that's a real issue, not a pound of poo.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> That's rather hard to believe when parsed out, isn't it?
> 
> Anyway, look it all up instead of using your intuitive rice paddy analogy. Heavy metals, pathogens and pharmaceuticals are issues in sludge from treatment plants. None would be the same from wild animals. The sources you refer to, such as drinking from the water, are substantially diluted compared to human consumption, which consumes pure product.


you totally missed the part about bears being a top predator and getting the toxins that it's prey animals contain, at a more concentrated level, didn't you?

ok. are you familiar with peregrin falcons? a few decades ago, they almost went extinct because DDT was making their eggshells too thin and birth rates were way down. now the falcons were not in direct contact wth the DDT. it was being used on the ground and birds and other animals were eating insects containing DDT. those animals were eaten by other animals. the animals that ate the DDT conaining animals were eaten by other animals....each layer of predation received a more concentrated dose than the layer before them. all of the animals that got it from what they ate, had it in greater concentrations than the insects that were originally exposed to it. that's how it works. the falcons were at the top of the chain. they got the biggest dose and i almost wiped them out.

the bear in your example? top of the food chain. higher concentrations of toxins.

and as for heavy metals, what do you do with your light bulbs when they stop working? if you throw them in the trash and they are CFLs you are doing much worse than dumping your crap in the trash. CFLs utilize mercury; the number one heavy metal that huans pollute the earth with.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

captain jack said:


> Yes, developed nations expend a lot of resources dealing with human waste. this is because there are just so many of us. we are over populated, although we like to deny it. it's a matter of magnitude.


Yes, the solution to pollution is dilution. That doesn't make the material in question less toxic. It just dilutes it to the point of being inconsequential. Human waste is a toxic mash (toxic to humans), but it can be diluted down to a benign concentration. This is true of any toxic substance. And yes, if only a few people dump their crap into the landfill, then it won't be a problem.

But I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. If you're within reach of a modern landfill you are also within reach of proper human sewage disposal. Why not just dump your crap into a toilet?

BTW, I own and use a composting toilet; a Nature's Head. I love it. Have no problems with it. Dump your crap into the toilet if you have to dump in an urban area. Better still, dump it out at sea, or in a remote dugout on land. I'm not sure what all the huffing and puffing is about.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

it still amazes me that people get upset about not being able to dump their crap into the water.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

I've been reading the post about holding tanks vs composting toilet. I've decided to go the composting route. The problem is the price, from $519 to $879 and up. These are nothing more than pretty plastic buckets with a liquid solid separator ($55 on Ebay), and a stirring stick, seat, vent fan and lid. It wouldn't take much to build one out of wood but the problem with wood is it absorbs liquids so one would want to do it with plastic. I have some solid surface counter top material that would work but that stuff is heavy. Maybe make it out of wood and use a shower pan PVC liner to keep the wood dry. PVC liner is $40 bucks at big box store. I have the wood. $55 for that separator is a bit much for an injected or vacuum formed piece of plastic.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Captainmeme said:


> I've been reading the post about holding tanks vs composting toilet. I've decided to go the composting route. The problem is the price, from $519 to $879 and up. These are nothing more than pretty plastic buckets with a liquid solid separator ($55 on Ebay), and a stirring stick, seat, vent fan and lid. It wouldn't take much to build one out of wood but the problem with wood is it absorbs liquids so one would want to do it with plastic. I have some solid surface counter top material that would work but that stuff is heavy. Maybe make it out of wood and use a shower pan PVC liner to keep the wood dry. PVC liner is $40 bucks at big box store. I have the wood. $55 for that separator is a bit much for an injected or vacuum formed piece of plastic.


Fiberglass is the answer - either wood covered with glass cloth and polyester or epoxy resin or a total fibeglass layup. Same way one would build a custom icebox or your boat.....keeps the liquid out very well.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

miatapaul said:


> Well the toilet is only a small part of the expense. It will really depend on if you can find space for a stock size holding tank. Holding tanks are going to start at about $500(custom goes way up from there), vented loop at $100, Y valve at $50, hose is about $10 a foot(depending on set up, but figure at least 15 feet), macerator pump $200, deck fitting at $100 and figure at least $300 more in miscellaneous fittings and parts.
> 
> I don't see how you can get in a normal set up for under a grand even with your toilet, but toilets are only about $300 for a usable one. (keep in mind when yours needs to be rebuilt often easier and just as cheap to replace) You have to use quality parts, such as top of the line Trident Hose as anything else is going to stink in a few months or at least 2 years. You don't want to have to re do the hoses any time soon.


Maybe where you live but not here - Victoria B.C. Canada. We sell holding tanks from about 129 for a small (6 gallons) to much larger - 30 gallon under 300. There are about 20 or so different sizes. These are thick walled tanks designed as holding tanks though many use them for water. These prices include 3 spun in fittings in the locations the buyer chooses. Vented loops are in the 25 dollar range for 1 1/2" and less for 3/4". The hose (Premium sanitation) runs from about 8 to 11 per foot. The deck fitting is under 30 - same as a water or diesel fill with a different name on it. Y valves are not necessary. If everything goes into the tank it is less likely to turn into hard to remove cement, especially for those who only use the boat on weekends. From the tank to the deck outlet and another outlet to the seacock for overboard pumpout either with an electric macerator or a manual diaphram pump, either bought for under 150.

There is another even simpler and less expensive way if space allows - a gravity tank. The tank has to be above the waterline and behind the head is the best place. The deck pumpout fitting should be directly above the seacock but this isn't absolutely necessary - it does allow easy clearing it the seacock becomes restrictive, but people using this system rarely have this problem. Everything goes into the tank. If offshore the seacock is left open. If inshore it remains closed and you can either pumpout as normal or open the valve offshore where it is legal. You do not need a large boat for this, just some space in the correct place. It fits on my CS27 fine and I know of several Vega 27 owners with gravity tanks that they are very happy with.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, the solution to pollution is dilution. That doesn't make the material in question less toxic. It just dilutes it to the point of being inconsequential. Human waste is a toxic mash (toxic to humans), but it can be diluted down to a benign concentration. This is true of any toxic substance. And yes, if only a few people dump their crap into the landfill, then it won't be a problem.
> 
> But I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. If you're within reach of a modern landfill you are also within reach of proper human sewage disposal. Why not just dump your crap into a toilet?
> 
> BTW, I own and use a composting toilet; a Nature's Head. I love it. Have no problems with it. Dump your crap into the toilet if you have to dump in an urban area. Better still, dump it out at sea, or in a remote dugout on land. I'm not sure what all the huffing and puffing is about.


my point was, way back when this little side discussion began, a statement was made that alleged that any amoungt of human waste to enter the landfill was to be avoided because it would taint the water table. it was like that little pot of crap was worse than nuclear waste, or something. i had just responded to that, trying to put a little perspective back into a discussion that had taken the turn towards the chicken little factor.

by the way, thanks for the input about the nature's head. i am seriously thinking about a compsting head on this cal 27 and i am glad for all the input i can get. the world of boat bathrooms is a new one for me.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Captainmeme said:


> I've been reading the post about holding tanks vs composting toilet. I've decided to go the composting route. The problem is the price, from $519 to $879 and up. These are nothing more than pretty plastic buckets with a liquid solid separator ($55 on Ebay), and a stirring stick, seat, vent fan and lid. It wouldn't take much to build one out of wood but the problem with wood is it absorbs liquids so one would want to do it with plastic. I have some solid surface counter top material that would work but that stuff is heavy. Maybe make it out of wood and use a shower pan PVC liner to keep the wood dry. PVC liner is $40 bucks at big box store. I have the wood. $55 for that separator is a bit much for an injected or vacuum formed piece of plastic.


i was going to post asking about the price. that is a bit steep. this may sound gross, but is it possible to find used composting heads for cheaper?

i would think, with sufficient study, you could make one. pretty much anything that can be bought can be made.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

mitiempo said:


> Maybe where you live but not here - Victoria B.C. Canada. We sell holding tanks from about 129 for a small (6 gallons) to much larger - 30 gallon under 300. There are about 20 or so different sizes. These are thick walled tanks designed as holding tanks though many use them for water. These prices include 3 spun in fittings in the locations the buyer chooses. Vented loops are in the 25 dollar range for 1 1/2" and less for 3/4". The hose (Premium sanitation) runs from about 8 to 11 per foot. The deck fitting is under 30 - same as a water or diesel fill with a different name on it. Y valves are not necessary. If everything goes into the tank it is less likely to turn into hard to remove cement, especially for those who only use the boat on weekends. From the tank to the deck outlet and another outlet to the seacock for overboard pumpout either with an electric macerator or a manual diaphram pump, either bought for under 150.
> 
> There is another even simpler and less expensive way if space allows - a gravity tank. The tank has to be above the waterline and behind the head is the best place. The deck pumpout fitting should be directly above the seacock but this isn't absolutely necessary - it does allow easy clearing it the seacock becomes restrictive, but people using this system rarely have this problem. Everything goes into the tank. If offshore the seacock is left open. If inshore it remains closed and you can either pumpout as normal or open the valve offshore where it is legal. You do not need a large boat for this, just some space in the correct place. It fits on my CS27 fine and I know of several Vega 27 owners with gravity tanks that they are very happy with.


i am interested in that possibility. do you have diagrams of this system or links to such information. presently, i am really thinking of going composting, but the price may be too prohibative. maybe your option might be a more financially viable option.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

captain jack said:


> i am interested in that possibility. do you have diagrams of this system or links to such information. presently, i am really thinking of going composting, but the price may be too prohibative. maybe your option might be a more financially viable option.


Here is one link to a gravity tank install. If you read the whole thread it gets off track because of the sink drain arrangement which I wouldn't use. A tank system totally separate from the sink is the proper way. 
Bulkhead Mounted Gravity Holding Tank - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Here is the system Peter Jacobs installed on his Albin Ballad with lots of pics - he made the tank as well. Easy to follow. Scroll down a few pics for the start and it continues on the next page - "more progress pictures" link at the bottom. Peter's previous boat, an Albin Vega also had a gravity draining holding tank and it also worked well.

........ Mostly About Boats: BOAT RESCUE, PART 16: Lots of pictures!


----------



## harmonic (Sep 10, 2013)

I discovered years ago up in Tonga fish would scoff down fresh poo as fast as they can but wouldnt eat stewed poo out of holding tank,go figure fussy buggers.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

mitiempo said:


> Here is one link to a gravity tank install. If you read the whole thread it gets off track because of the sink drain arrangement which I wouldn't use. A tank system totally separate from the sink is the proper way.
> Bulkhead Mounted Gravity Holding Tank - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
> 
> Here is the system Peter Jacobs installed on his Albin Ballad with lots of pics - he made the tank as well. Easy to follow. Scroll down a few pics for the start and it continues on the next page - "more progress pictures" link at the bottom. Peter's previous boat, an Albin Vega also had a gravity draining holding tank and it also worked well.
> ...


thanks. that may be a less expensive ( read: more doable ) option than a composting head. it's good to have more options from which to choose.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

harmonic said:


> I discovered years ago up in Tonga fish would scoff down fresh poo as fast as they can but wouldnt eat stewed poo out of holding tank,go figure fussy buggers.


lol. that's funny, educational, and it also makes me reconsider eating fish. :laugher


----------



## richardb123 (Apr 11, 2009)

In my opinion the composting toilet is so much better than the holding tank system. It smells less, nothing in fact on my boat. It takes up less space. It's cheaper than a good toilet tanks hoses etc.

When cruising full time in the summer, my wife and I empty it once a month. This takes 5 minutes and is not unpleasant with care.

The urine is sterile and goes over the side, (in the ocean only of course).

Compare this to carrying around a tank of sewage under a bunk. Searching for a pumpout station wasting time going to the pumpout station docking,, and pumping out. This takes far, far more time than emptying the compost. And the pump out station is gross and unsanitary. Inevitably some gets spilled and this is toxic smelly stuff. If you have the holding tank system, sooner or later it will get plugged and you'll have to take it apart. THAT is the most unpleasant task I have done, in my life. You will never have to do that with a composting toilet.

Composting toilets like the Nature's Head (probably the best one) are the biggest advancement in sailing since the furling jib. There is really NO comparison.

Talk to a guy that has one. You'll be convinced.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

richardb123 said:


> In my opinion the composting toilet is so much better than the holding tank system. It smells less, nothing in fact on my boat. It takes up less space. It's cheaper than a good toilet tanks hoses etc.
> 
> When cruising full time in the summer, my wife and I empty it once a month. This takes 5 minutes and is not unpleasant with care.
> 
> ...


they must be good. composting head owners ( 95% of them ) have nothing but good to say of them.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I have nothing against composting heads in general, particularly where there is little alternative, such as a mountain cabin. My biggest gripe is that I feel my non-sailor guests would struggle using one. That's a personal choice.

I often read from users, like above, that urine goes overboard. I would love to hear why its okay to put uric acid and pharmaceuticals in the ocean but not bio-degradable solid waste that has already been liquified with salt water.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I have nothing against composting heads in general, particularly where there is little alternative, such as a mountain cabin. My biggest gripe is that I feel my non-sailor guests would struggle using one. That's a personal choice.
> 
> I often read from users, like above, that urine goes overboard. I would love to hear why its okay to put uric acid and pharmaceuticals in the ocean but not bio-degradable solid waste that has already been liquified with salt water.


Minne, I've found that guests quickly get the hang of using my composting toilet. I made up a little laminated card (bilingual, of course) with instructions on using the Nature's Head toilet. I also give non-boating guests a quick run-down on how the toilet works as I go through all the other boat stuff with them. No problems so far. A composting toilet is not very complicated to use.

I don't know what you mean by "uric acid and pharmaceuticals". What pharmaceuticals??


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Prescription, over-the-counter, food additives, etc. All present in human waste. 

Uric acid is simply in urine, I only wonder why people seem to consider urine more acceptable to put in the water than #2. I don't object to either, in the right circumstances, to be clear.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Well, speaking for myself and my family, we don't take any medication and we eat only natural food. I suspect our urine is Ok...

I also don't understand how people can use a holding tank, often treated with chemicals, and then dump offshore (3 miles in the US?) and think it's the right way to do things. A composting toilet gives you a number of options that a holding tank doesn't. One can always opt to dump the urine container in a public toilet (thus entering the sewage treatment system) and the solids can be disposed of in a number of different ways, including the flower garden. 

To be honest, the waste from boats is so insignificant a problem compared to land-based sewage that I don't really worry about it.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Prescription, over-the-counter, food additives, etc. All present in human waste.


Yes ... and whether you dump on land through normal sewage treatment systems, or at sea, most of this chemical crap finds its way into our ecosystems. As you know, our sanitation systems do not process much of this chemistry. It gets into the environment either way. So your only answer Minn (if this is your principle concern) is stop your intake of these chemicals, which will be hard to do if you're eating here in North American. Or you can stop excreting .



Minnewaska said:


> Uric acid is simply in urine, I only wonder why people seem to consider urine more acceptable to put in the water than #2. I don't object to either, in the right circumstances, to be clear.


B/c urine does not carry the same load of pathogens (bacteria, viruses and parasites) that is commonly found in human feces. Although this varies from human to human, urine is ~95% water, with the remaining constituents being urea, and various salts (chloride, sodium, potassium). There is usually a trace amount of other inorganic and organic compounds. This is why drinking urine-contaminated water will rarely cause any harm. Doing the same with water contaminated with human feces produces a high risk of infection.

As has often been said on this thread, _dilution is the solution to pollution_. This is why it is acceptable to dump your shyt while offshore. The 3-mile limit is purely arbitrary, much like voting at 18. but it's seems to be a good safe number.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I suppose if the makers and owners of these toilets would just call them _dessicating toilets_, which is what they are, and stop pretending they are _composting toilets_, which is what they are not, I'd be a lot happier.

How about we start an Alice's Restaurant Massacre Movement, and start using the proper name for these things?

Like dried camel chips and cow pies, **** don't stink when it is _dessicated_. Heck, dry it out all the way, mix in enough roughage, and you could even burn it for fuel.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Quite true Hellosailor, but it does begin to compost in the toilet. The user has to have the common sense to dispose of the compost in the best way. Ideally, one would bring it home to complete the composting in the garden. I have dumped mine in the woods, away from any trails, and believe it is a perfectly good way to get rid of the compost. Unfinished composted waste could be dumped offshore, bagged and put in the trash (not ideal) or perhaps even brought to the pump out place to be disposed of. At any rate, you do have a number of options with a composting toilet!


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> I have nothing against composting heads in general, particularly where there is little alternative, such as a mountain cabin. My biggest gripe is that I feel my non-sailor guests would struggle using one. That's a personal choice.
> 
> I often read from users, like above, that urine goes overboard. I would love to hear why its okay to put uric acid and pharmaceuticals in the ocean but not bio-degradable solid waste that has already been liquified with salt water.


 i agree with you. i don't see a whole lot of difference between putting urine in the water or feces. in fact, i don't see how it's not ok to dump it in the water if you are only out 2 miles out but it's ok to dump it in the same water three miles out. it's the same water. that's about as logical as a restaurant with no smoking sections ( you know, it's the same air ). so, yeah, i don't see the difference, either.

there is so much urine and feces in the ocean. the ocean is full of living things swimming in it and flying over it. all of these living things urinate and defocate in the ocean. a pint of piss and a pail of half composted crap, every so often, isn't going to destroy it. everyone is so worried about feces or urine heading back to the beach. how many people, in the water at the beach, do you think just piss when they have to? right in the water where they are standing.

people seem to forget one thing: the earth....all the dirt we stand on including the ocean floor, is made of two things; dead plants and animals and...wait for it....crap.

lol. so, now that we have that thought in our minds, let's go work in the garden...get our hands in some nice rich dirt. :laugher


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> I suppose if the makers and owners of these toilets would just call them _dessicating toilets_, which is what they are, and stop pretending they are _composting toilets_, which is what they are not, I'd be a lot happier.


Agreed. Although, this is true of any "composter." Composting takes time. Your home composter is really just a pile of fruits and veggies until it is given enough time to sit and let the microbes do their work. So too with these heads. But you're right, those living full-time with these heads will produce dried, desiccated feces. It will not go to completion before being dumped.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

copacabana said:


> ..I also don't understand how people can use a holding tank, often treated with chemicals, and then dump offshore (3 miles in the US?) and think it's the right way to do things.


I would be fine with banning holding tank chemicals. You are right, they are the dumping pollution, not the waste. Further, they are not only unnecessary to avoid odor, but ironically make it worse over the long term.

The three mile limit in the US is based solely on the distance from shore that our Federal Government has delegated regulatory authority to the States. If it was 100 miles, they would have chosen that.



> To be honest, the waste from boats is so insignificant a problem compared to land-based sewage that I don't really worry about it.


Amen


----------



## Rusty123 (Sep 28, 2012)

captain jack said:


> i am interested in that possibility. do you have diagrams of this system or links to such information. presently, i am really thinking of going composting, but the price may be too prohibative. maybe your option might be a more financially viable option.


Don Casey describes this approach in detail in his book "This Old Boat". He calls this type of tank a "wide section in the overboard discharge path".

In the same book, Casey makes some points about general issue of overboard waste discharge, similar to those discussed in this thread.

Russ


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Can someone with "compost toilets" explain the following:

1. Can you put toilet paper in the composter? What if someone uses a lot of toilet paper- what happens?

2. What if a crew member has diarrhea? Seems like that would be a mess.

Regards


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

casey1999 said:


> Can someone with "compost toilets" explain the following:
> 
> 1. Can you put toilet paper in the composter? What if someone uses a lot of toilet paper- what happens?
> 
> ...


Toilet paper is fine, it actually helps to absorb some of the moisture, the same thing that the peat moss/coconut husks does. As far as diarrhea goes you might have to add some more of the peat moss/coconut husk to the mix to help dry it up. (same thing that you have to do if the liquids should happen to leak into the solids tank) Should not have a major effect on the process.

Now I agree that it does not completely compost the material, it does do some. And if you use multiple buckets even a full time live-aboard could fully compost if they really felt the need. From what I have read is that a bucket really needs about 30 days without new additions to be useable as compost in a flower garden (not recommended for food gardens). Given most couples say they have to empty once a month this would require the rotating of two buckets. With a C-head that would mean 2 5 gallon buckets, and I believe he (or it may have been another company) sells vented lids to allow it to continue aerobically breaking down. Still less volume than most holding tanks. This would be a good idea if you live in a remote area without trash facilities but really the bag of dung is not much more than a large bag of diapers, without the non-degrading diapers.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Can someone with "compost toilets" explain the following:
> 
> 1. Can you put toilet paper in the composter? What if someone uses a lot of toilet paper- what happens?
> 
> 2. What if a crew member has diarrhea? Seems like that would be a mess.


Hi Casey. #1. We toss paper in. Gets churned up and desiccates very well. We sometimes use "marine" TP, and sometimes just standard 2-ply. The key is to use as little as possible.

#2. Can't say it has happened much with us yet, but unless you were really flooding the compartment (in which case, you should see a doctor), I can't see it being a problem. Might make things a bit moister for a while, but I'd expect the fan would still dry things out.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

what is marine TP?


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Marine (or RV) Tp is designed to dissolve far easier than conventional household Tp.

Easiest solution if Tp is a problem with any head system is to not put it in the head - as is done in many countries.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Any single ply TP is a perfectly suitable substitute for marketed marine TP. 

So, we've talked about TP and diarrhea. Skid marks? Think about it. No flush water.


----------



## captain jack (May 5, 2013)

lol


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

casey1999 said:


> Can someone with "compost toilets" explain the following:
> 
> 1. Can you put toilet paper in the composter? What if someone uses a lot of toilet paper- what happens?
> 
> ...


#1 - You can put TP in the composter, but it will fill up faster. The other thing to consider is if you dump your compost in the woods (like me) or out at sea, you don't want to be leaving paper there. We use a small garbage can with lid lined with a plastic bag for all paper. When it's full we just tie it and dispose of it with our trash.

#2 - This may be a problem as it might not go directly in the hole to the composting chamber. We always keep a roll of paper towels and a spray bottle of vinegar solution beside the toilet just in case anyone "misses". Hasn't happened so far


----------

