GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

20-02-2004, 11:02 AM

(simy1) wrote in
om:

Frogleg wrote in message
. ..
On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?

almost certainly so. when you buy a bag of potassium chloride all you
get is K. When you get manure you get a much more distributed profile.
Check the soil under your chemically grown corn. It has less or no
earthworms. Without earthworms, drainage is worse, root penetration is
worse, if you have a sandy soil, water retention is worse. Further, if
you analyze it after repeated usage, its micronutrient profile is
depleted. Less slugs is the only advantage I am willing to admit.

But if K is all that the soil is lacking in then surely K is all that is
needed to be supplied ?

Regarding earthworms, I have my own anecdotal evidence that "less or no
earthworms" is not the case in an ornamental garden that has only ever
had commercial mulch (from plastic bags!) and factory fertiliser.
Referring back to the book that started me on this line of thought,
there is a reference to a study that indicates that when factory
fertilisers are used properly (i.e. in conjunction with lots of organic
matter and a close eye on the pH) there is no loss of earthworms. I would
certainly be interested in knowing of any later studies that show
differently.

Thanks for the comments.

Ivan.