Bargebuilder

I did say "most plants" not all plants and I certainly didn't say all habitats. I agree with all your points.

Quite right, indeed some plants such as carnivorous species might be killed by any added fertiliser, but we are really talking about chucking it in the brambles.

The evidence is mounting up! I understand that many of those who hate separating toilets do so with a passion and occasionally in the face of science and fact, but I've searched the internet at some length for any harmful effects of urine on the soil and plant life and the overwhelming consensus is that it does no harm and to the contrary, it supplies water and beneficial nutrients and is much 'appreciated' by most plants. Yes, there can be pathogens and hormones, but these are in such minute quantities that they pose no threat to animal life or humans, and they are readily and quickly broken down by micro-organisms in the soil, as to is any smell. Urine can be a bit strong and can 'burn' sensitive and very young plants and would be diluted in a garden situation, but brambles, nettles, hedgerow shrubs and trees would just be grateful for the neat stuff. So long as it's the prescribed distance from any watercourse, apart from the fact that some people just don't like the idea, I have been unable to find any fact based reason why urine shouldn't be poured into a remote woodland or hedgerow.

Genius! Could they be that clever? This might be another case of only believing anything that corresponds to one's own point of view. Of course cassettes are tipped into the canal and of course urine from composters is dumped there as well.

Or much more likely, the practice is highly covert and more widespread than you believe.

Simply, that there is a lot more planning and effort involved with locating a bit of woodland in a quiet location, carrying a heavy bucket and a shovel to a suitable spot, digging a hole big enough to accommodate the dryish poo and back filling the hole. Even taking the trouble to obtain and carry a spade on a boat shows planning and intention. There is almost no effort involved with bagging a doggy dollop and hanging the bag in a bush.

None of us could possibly know for sure if boaters were burying their ' humanure' in its polythene bag, but I can't see the logic. We are talking about a boater who is socially responsible enough to carry his/her dessicated poo together with a shovel, a distance from their boat to avoid being seen, dug a hole and then knowingly left the humanure in its bag to never decompose; unlikely. More likely that they take the bucket and empty it's contents directly into the hole, or if they've transported it in a bag, tipped it out and put the soiled bag into the rubbish bin. And no, I'm not condoning burying ones poo on someone else's land, but I'm sure it happens. I don't think so.....

Although tempting to chose to believe only statements and speculation that suits ones point of view, we must guard against it. I, as someone who thinks separating toilets can be the best option, happily accept that some separating toilet users tip their urine into the canal. I am also happy to accept that some cassette users and perhaps even a tiny number of pump-out users also use their waterway as a sewer. I would suggest that 'composters' wouldn't put the partly dried out solids into the canal because it would definitely float, unlike the fresh stuff from a cassette. They may well tip the partially composted compost into a hole they've dug in the woods, or bag it and bin it or even fully compost it as they should, although the latter is with little doubt the exception. I would suggest also, if a 'composter' has converted from a cassette to almost eliminate the carrying of containers of liquid waste, they would plumb their urine pipe into the hand basin water outlet so the pee goes directly over the side as it's produced a little at a time. Not great, but much better for the environment than disposing of many litres at once.

I bow to your knowledge in that particular matter. My personal experience from when I owned a barge and used to motor 3 miles off shore to pump out nearly a tonne of 'black' into the sea, was that it almost instantly sank with no trace at all on the surface after a few minutes.

I saw it done once, about nine years ago and I think it was on either the K&A or the upper Thames as that was the route for that particular holiday. I would think, given how disgusting it is, that someone intending to tip the contents of their toilet cassette over the side would be very cautious and make absolutely certain that nobody was looking.

I'm sure you're right, but then, some cassette toilet users tip that over the side too. It could well be that the same sort of people who have converted from tipping their cassettes overboard, have taken to separating and tipping their pee overboard. Neither is acceptable, but at a little pee is better than the entire contents of a cassette I suppose. Their 'dry' toilet is probably in the woods or in a waste bin somewhere, but you'll never change the antisocial habits of some.

I would suggest that a separating toilet isn't appropriate for everyone, and if you are unlucky enough to suffer from a condition that means you always or regularly produce runny deposits, an alternative should be considered. For the occasional accident, dodgy sea food and the like, a bit of extra sawdust would cope fine. One can always retire one bucket until it dries out a little, replace it with a partly full one or a clean one, bringing it back into use a few days later. As for splatter, antiseptic wipes work well, add no extra moisture to the 'compost' but should be deposited in the waste bin of course. A major clean-up is also easy: The lid of the box, attached to which is the urine separator, lifts off completely, so just take it outside, wipe it clean, then spray it with disinfectant spray, wipe it again and reinstall. The separator insert includes a downward pointing shield that directs poo and splatter towards the bottom of the bucket, so the sides of the bucket are shielded and remain clean. There won't be any smell in the heads because the toilet container is under negative pressure. Even passed wind doesn't usually escape during use!

I'm pleased that you are interested in some more detail. I did say half a day for a simple setup and I dad say it would cost a lot more for an oak clad super model such as that pictured; there was no attempt made to deceive anyone. On my boat, the containing box was a cabinet that was already there, cut down to receive the equipment. I didn't offer costs for the box because they can range from 5 scraps of OSB pulled from a skip, or a discarded wooden kitchen worktop, through to ply, faced or otherwise, tongue and groove pine, right up to solid oak. All the bits and pieces, 0.5mm cable, a tiny switch, a vent grill etc. all a few pounds from eBay where all the other components came from. I did include the cost of the vent pipe, but threw you by calling it air duct. The computer fan is simply screwed to the inside of the vent hole in the containing box, so no cost there, well four tiny screws. As you can see, you can spend a lot more, but you needn't.

I tend to use it on ornamentals rather than food crops, but my roses are excellent!

Separating/composting toilet costings. Wooden toilet seat £20 Lidded 20l bucket £10 Separating inset £50 Computer fan £5 Air ducting £15 Urine bottle £5 That's £105, more of course if you long for an oak clad super dooper design, plus a morning's work putting it together: another reason for the increasing popularity I shouldn't wonder.

A full toilet cassette weighs about 20kg, which I find very heavy, particularly if the sluice is a distance from the boat: I didn't have a posh one with wheels. Of course one could empty more frequently, but it only lasts a few days as it is. The poo in a separating toilet is almost all water when fresh and the fan which extracts any smell from the heads draws air over the 'deposits', very effectively drying it out over time. Even after two months with two people adding to the 20 litre bucket, it weighs much less than 20kg and probably less than 10kg, although I've never weighed it. Inevitably there'll be some recent poo that hasn't had a chance to dry, which is why one 'should' use a 3 bucket system if you live aboard. It's not difficult to store 2 full 20l buckets on board, after all, what volume was the black water tank that you used to have that you no longer need, mine was 800 litres. You still need to duct away any pongs and allow oxygen into the buckets to stop digestion going anaerobic, so you need a hose and a computer fan to create a small amount of negative pressure; very easy to do if you're a bit handy.

Actually, a gallon would do no harm either. The lucky plant/shrub/tree would benefit from the water and the mild fertilising effect, and the microorganisms and bacteria in the soil would within hours have neutralised any smell. A thorough, deep watering is better for a plant as opposed to a light shallow watering as the latter encourages the feeder roots towards the surface where they are subsequently more vulnerable to drought conditions, not that brambles will be worried either way. Snap the lid on the bucket, pop the bucket into the car. No mystery there!

I'm happy to address the wee issue for me as a yachtie, it goes into the sea. Far better than our sea toilet where the whole lot goes into the sea! It's worth remembering, that even if you pump-out you can't afford to feel too smug, because in 2020, raw sewage was released into UK rivers on more than 400,000 occasions from sewage 'treatment' plants, amounting to 3 million hours of sewage release according to the BBC news website. That puts into perspective the tipping of a few litres of sterile wee into the undergrowth well back from the waterside.

You'd certainly need to add an awful lot more sawdust! But seriously, I've owned many many boat's over the years from tiny sailing boats to a Dutch barge and during that time I've owned macerating pump-out loos, cassette toilets, sea toilets and a composting toilet. My wife and I are lucky enough to own land and have a compost heap large enough that a local tree surgeon occasionally brings his chippings round to add to it, so processing our humanure when we had the composting loo wasn't an issue. Just for interest sake, our compost heap after turning heats up to 60⁰c for days on end, effectively killing off most nasties.

Leaving to one side your crude language and unfounded accusations. Actually, you couldn't be more wrong on all accounts. I have a yacht which I keep on the east coast and it, in common with almost every coastal sailing boat has a sea toilet. I have no prejudice or axe to grind. I do have a good friend who lives aboard and has 'composted' for some 6 years now, so I am very familiar with what he spent on it and how it works in practice and how keen he is on it having got rid of his old pump-out.

I apologise for needing to correct you, but although dog poo may well be sloppy, the output of a separating loo, even with 'recent deposits' is fairly dry and certainly never sloppy. I'm surprised that if human poo is required to be transported in yellow tiger striped bags, that dog poo isn't, since dog poo is much more unpleasant and is known to commonly contain quite dangerous pathogens and parasites; perhaps it is?

The failure of the C&RT to discourage the proliferation of separating toilets by offering a free method of disposal of the partly dessicated waste has led to at least 700 boats being fitted with them and possibly a whole lot more! The owners, probably chiefly live-aboards, discovered that instead of spending often much more than £1000 on ceramic toilets, pumps and tanks, and hundreds of pounds each year on pump-outs and ongoing maintenance, they could fabricate themselves for not much more than £100 a toilet that didn't smell, was almost maintenance free and needed emptying very infrequently at zero cost. I fear that the genie has abandoned the bottle, especially since many live-aboards would struggle to afford a pump-out setup and will have got used to not having to visit an Elsan point every few days, preferring to compost or more likely bag and bin every two or three months. We might all agree that bagging and binning isn't ideal or desirable, but if the contents of street bins is incinerated anyway and operatives are already aware that bags of dog poo will be amongst the waste and so are prepared and cautious, might using this already existing service be better than dumping humanure in hedgerows or in C&RT bins?

It's worth remembering that part of this discussion led from a district council stating that all of its dog/street bin waste went to energy recovery and it was encouraging people to use these receptacles for raw dog poo, which is much less pleasant and much less easy to incinerate than partially dessicated human waste. The implication was that most local authorities were moving in the same direction. They also approved of using ones household non-recyclable waste bin for the same purpose.

Interesting... Keeping in mind the fact that separating/dessicating toilets produce tiny volumes of solid waste that builds up very slowly over long periods of time, poo bins, whoever supplies and empties them, needn't be very large or frequent along the canal to service those who enjoy the advantages of waterless toilets. A previous poster suggested that disposal facilities should not be provided because only 2% of 20,000 boat owners use them. That's only 400 which I suspect is a gross underestimate, but if the numbers are that small, the amount of partially dry humanure needing to be disposed of every month would be incredibly small.