On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:41:46 -0700, lvhippy opined:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:22:25 -0500, J Kolenovsky
wrote:

"Chemical fertilizers rely on an assumption that plants only need three
elements to survive and thrive. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are
those three. This is the equivalent of saying that we need protein, fat,
and sugar to live. While this may be mostly true, pure protein, pure
fat, and pure sugar do nothing to supply the vitamins,minerals, and
diverse supply of bacteria and fungi in our diets. =


J

We have been using ACT and additonal fungi with incredible results.
You might find this link interesting.....

"Fertilization can produce large plants, but it often suppresses
mycorrhiza
formation. Fertilization lacks or even suppresses the other
important benefits of mycorrhiza. Fertilization cannot increase plant
species diversity; it tends to favor large individuals of the few most
vigorous species. Fertilization cannot improve plant survival, but
rather tends to favor a few large plants rather than many smaller
ones.
Fertilization does not make the site unfit for weeds, but instead
gives
them a nearly insurmountable competitive edge against native plants.
Fertilization does nothing to decrease root disease, favor beneficial
bacteria, or improve soil structure, perhaps the most important
effects
of mycorrhiza in natural systems. In a revegetation project,
fertilization
is often a serious mistake."

http://www.mycorrhiza.org/EXPERTflat.PDF

tomj

While a lot of this post is accurate, there are many non-successional plants
which are indicator plants for poor soil structure. The addition of some slow
release, naturally derived nitrogen, and other trace elements (key words "trace
elements") are a great way to put some balance into the soil and alleviate some
of the indicator weeds.

Victoria