On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice wrote:
Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.
Oh, would that were true! The reality is that many of the bagged (dry
granular) fertilizers are industrial by-products from smelting metals.
I did a lot of research into this matter last summer. What I read was
enough to convince me. I no longer have the links so you'll have to Google
for them yourself. The basic idea is that, when the products left the
foundry, they were labeled as 'industrial waste', and EPA regs controlled
their disposal and followed the trucks around, leaving a paper trail. Once
they were put in 40# bags they were no longer a regulated waste but had
become an agricultural product. As a regulated waste they fell under a
fairly stern set of laws. As an agricultural product, they fell under laws
which basically said that the label on the side had to be truthful, but
not necessarily complete. That ended the paper trail and any hope of
linking the foundry chemicals with later health effects. Along with the
NPK, you can assume you are pouring generous amounts of aluminum and
nickle (just two of a long list) onto your soil.
Read a bag of lawn / garden fertilizer sometime. Try to determine the
origin of the chemicals inside or even just a full chemical assay. The bag
claims an NPK ratio and shows the balance as filler. If ALL the bag
contained were the specific chemicals mentioned on the label I would not
be nearly so concerned about using it in my garden. However, the list of
chemicals in that bag only begins with the NPK assay and continues with
another long and unspecified (and thus beyond the reach of informed
consent) list.
It's that second list ... the one that isn't printed on the side of the
bag that concerns me. Because of it, if I were to use commercial
fertilizers, I would not know what witches brew of concentrated chemicals
I might be applying to the roots of the food I intended to eat through the
winter. While I also do not know the full assay of the compost I make, I
have study after study to show me that, so far as any single chemical
except carbon and water is concerned, it is a pretty weak mixture. It's
strength is in its breadth and the fact that, having come from living
things, its chemical composition is primarily the chemicals and ratios of
those chemicals that living things have already found useful. They were
mixed by The Master Chemist.
I garden organically. I use outside inputs in the form of tree leaves
(gathered in the fall from urban curb sides in one busy afternoon,
sometimes two), small quantities of greensand and precious little else. I
do not add N, P, or K directly to the soil but let the compost heap sort
things out. This leads to a nicely buffered soil that has not required any
lime in years. Basically, having begun with layers of clay and sand (SE
Michigan was anciently lake bottom), I now have what appears to be some
really nice potting soil throughout my garden to a depth of over 2 feet (I
haven't dug any deeper than that since I started my beds but there was 2
ft. worth of straw and tree leaves in a trench under that 2 ft of soil).
The only pesticide I apply is a well-timed shot or two of BT for cabbage
loopers and some raw coffee grounds for slugs*. I don't have weak plants
so I don't endure much damage. I interplant and just never seem to have
large populations of any particular pest.
Organic methods do not forbid the addition of rock powders nor do they
forbid the use of outside inputs, such as the tree leaves and grass
clippings of neighbors. If in doubt about what chemicals might have been
applied to the grass clippings, simply allow the finished compost to
season for a year or more. There, problem solved. In an organic soil,
nutrients are released at a pretty even pace over the season, so less
nutrients are required since less of them go to waste. This is why the
initial application of fertilizers to healthy ground results in bumper
crops ... they are held in the root zone by the humic compounds until the
roots can absorb them. However, failure to maintain the humus levels
results in soil that can't hold the nutrients in solution for the plants
to take up. That means that increased application levels are needed to
maintain acceptable levels of availability ... and farmers are crying the
blues over this one as fertilizer expenses go through the roof while
yields hold steady or dwindle.
That's how I see the organic / inorganic debate.
Chugga
*I've had the debate over the coffee grounds already. I'm not interested
in any level of theoretical argument about why they couldn't possibly
work. I know from direct experience that they DO work.
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
16:48:00 up 50 days, 17:30, 8 users, load average: 0.62, 0.28, 0.21
21:58:52 up 34 days, 2:11, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00