Gosh, I'm no "expert", but I find this hard to believe! Worms have been around for centuries and are a part of natures' plan. Over-filled landfills from we wasteful human beings are not.

Sandy

German scientists also produce tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases - does that make them evil? Even if they are right, which I doubt - but I am no expert - please focus on the facts we can be sure of - organic waste diverted from a landfill through a worm into your garden has far more benefit to you, me and all of mankind than being locked up in a land fill somewhere doing nothing - I would not be surprised if the increased plant growth of your garden with castings offsets the worm bin carbon footprint by many orders of magnitude. Just the carbon saved in not sending an extra bag or two of trash to the dump every month is probably many times what the worms might produce. And the carbon in the trash bags not used, and on and on... the positive value far outweighs any "evil" a scientist can conjure up  even on a carbon based scale.

I think they are specifically talking about large scale worm farms, as several studies point to worm density and amount of greenhouse gases produced (studies are not conclusive yet though). This seems to be the only but major downfall of vermicomposting, especially considering moving large amounts of waste to be processed by worms. Hopefully more studies will be done though

I'm sure they do produce greenhouse gases but so what. releasing carbon that has been stored in the form of oil and coal for eons is exponentially more significant. All the while reducing the habitat for organisms that sequester that carbon for many years (killing trees for stip malls and track homes). Those are the things we need to worry about if we are concerned about greenhouse gases.

I'm with plants77. The CO2 released by the worms is CO2 that was recently taken up by the plants, so as far as CO2 is concerned, it's 0 sum. At least that's my understanding as a biochemistry teacher.

As far as the benefit to growth of future plants, reducing tonnage going to landfills.... That's all on the plus side.

The nitrous oxide (NO) is more worriesome than the CO2, but it also comes from multiple other sources.

I'd like to see a large vermicomposting system compared to the large cattle or pig farms as to CO2, NO and methane production. (Methane, released when cows fart, is 20x worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I don't know how NO compares.)

I remember hearing that cows need to consume 15 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of meat. That's 14 lbs of CO2 and methane etc. Some of that 14 lbs can get used as fertilizer, but not all of it. If I remember right, chicken was "only" 7 to 1.

Totally off topic, but good information to reduce our meat consumption, granola with oats (grain), and nuts has 'complete' protein, meaning the right mix of all the amino acids we need. You can get the right mix of amino acids from any 2 of the major sources of plant protein, legumes, grains, nuts. How about a peanut butter sandwich?

Well, according to the link to the article I posted, worms produce a third of all nitrous oxide gas. Nitrous oxide is 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Worms suddenly become just another source of greenhouse gases and converts one problem to another.

Meh. There's the scientifc 'fact' that aerobic compostigng produces nitrous oxide versus methane from anerobic.

But imo the interpretation of that fact is really just sensationalism.

I know we all here have emotional attachments to these wonderful creatures, but if it turns out that the costs outweigh the benefits in the end and cause more harm, more sustainable waste processing alternatives must be turned to. At the very least, large scale landfill conversion to worm processing farms might have to be dealt with caution until something can be done about the emissions

NOT so - worms don't produce the N2O, bacteria do, a naturally occuring process that in fact is vital for a healthy soil ... animal manures produce the majority of N20 caused by human activity, and proper composting will sequester the nitrogen compounds instead of releasing them to the atmoshpere .... worms get a bad rap, but that scientists asumption it's the worms fault ignores the necessary presence of the bacteria - it's what worms eat after all, no bacteria, no worms

Bill

And a title "Worms are killing the planet" isnt intended to elicit an emotional response?

It's just another part of the nitrogen cycle. There's science, and then there's scientific interpretation. I hear dihydrogen monoxide is pretty bad for the environment and your health.

To be fair, industrial anerobic composting for energy generation does have many advantages.

IMHO, worms are part of the earth's circle of life. They have been around since I don't know when. I am sure if the worms were to be eradicated because "Worms are killing the planet", we will have much bigger problems. We will probably have more of the nasty critters taking care of our garbage. I am really getting goose-bumps here.
Otis

I like the reply from geneccs above. Without looking at all of the facts and chemical equations, it seems that worms do many many times more good than they could possibly do harm. I doubt that this debate will go very far.

According this guy

http://www.redwormcomposting.com/general-commentary/do-earthworms-contribute-to-global-warming/

The answer is NO! *celebration*

Metabolism produces gases in all plants and animals. Why point the finger at worms?

Interesting concept. I couldn't find anything that put a specific percentage of the 'blame' for increases in N20, but by far the burning of fossil fuels for industry and vehicles is the largest contributor to the increase in it in the atmosphere. As the largest consumers on earth of these products, Americans have the lions share of 'blame.'

Activity of earthworms in the soil does produce greenhouse gas, but so does much of the wildlife of the worlds oceans. The 15% increase of greenhouse gasses since the industrial revolution tells me that the worms don't have a thing to do with global warming. This is our problem to solve and the solution is not to eliminate any naturally occuring species, like worms or cattle.

Science is good, but why don't they look for a viable source of energy that is available to everyone and stop wasting time trying to figure out how much gas an earthworm has? Scientists-sheesh. I bet they even got a grant for that research. Cheryl

Just wait a couple years. The same scientists will be over global warming and will be predicting a new ice age. I don't believe any of this nonsense.

Some scientists are already predicting the next ice age. In the 1970's scientists expected us to be in an ice age by now. I have heard that the polar ice caps are growing faster now than at any other time in recorded history.

There is so much that we don't know.

Isn't the Ice age a result of global warming? With all the ice caps melting and shifting the ocean currents and all?

If the ice age was the result of global warming, wouldn't that suggest that the earth's climate is self-regulating?

But think about what you are suggesting... The warmer it gets, the colder it gets. The growth in the polar ice camps is the result of the melting of the polar ice caps. You are not being consistent with yourself..... Unless the earth's climate is self-regulating.

You haven't watched "an inconvenient truth" have you? Even the B rated disaster movie "The Day After Tommorrow" is aware of this concept.

can we not keep that socialist voodoo science out of gardening? When I was a teenager it was "global cooling". Next was "global warming". Now it's "climate change". They'll call it whatever gets them their next gov. grant to study something they'll never be able to control even if they understood it.

dirtdigger you are so right we would have very few problems with out government grants.
whats the next McGuffin (Fear Word) to be used.
I will stick with worms!

Curt

I feel like I've been reading the minutes from the latest Tea Bagger party the last few posts. Science is a journey, not a destination. Yes, theories change as more and more research is done. And more research does need to be done and heaven forbid that those lefty scientists get grant money. I'm reasonably sure that the German (if they were american would it make a difference?) scientists aren't trying to stop vermicomposting all together, just learn more about the possible implications. It seems farcical that people in touch with the earth enough to enjoy raising worms to compost waste material would doubt the mass consumption of previously sequestered carbon deposits would have no effect on the climate as a whole. Call it 'global warming' call it 'climate change', call it what you will, but please don't fool yourself into believing that mankind isn't well on his was to seriously goofing up this plant. If I can have a few worm bins for some free fertilizer and to make my garbage cans a little less full, I'm all for it. Sorry for getting preachy, but the 'anti science/anti intellectual' sentiment brewing around these parts is unproductive at best.

I love the name calling, it always adds credence to an argument.

I decided the best way to deal with the anti-science and name calling was to ignore it. We're not going to convince them anyway, so why put the effort in to it? Let the link fall down lower and it will be out of our way.