Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:05:52 +0000 "Manning, CB" wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
snip


Somehow, in passing through the bodies of animals and insects, these N, P, K
etc atoms are transformed in a vital way.

You see, I refuse to think that animals are _merely a transportation_ mechanism
for plant kingdom. I believe that in the process of passing through the bodies
of animals and insects that plant food becomes transformed into plant
fertilizer.

I believe animals came in existence not just as a tranportation and scattering
mechanism but for chemical transformation of plant food into plant
fertilizer.


It could be the benifit of animal manure is that it's more concentrated (and both
mechanicaly and chemicaly broken down to some extent) than the original plant 'meal'.
It will be mostly bacterial and fungal action that will make the carbon, nitrogen etc.
accesible to the plant regardless of the source (plant, animal manure or animal
bodies).

Perhaps all plant fertilizer has to be processed by bacteria and microorganisms.
But what I am really trying to peer into is something on the lines of the
mechanisms of photosynthesis. There are probably only a few scientists on
Earth who are experts in photosynthesis. Experts who know the molecule by
molecule details of the process.

In the same vain, I am trying to peer into a relationship of animals to plants with
regard to nitrogen. An inverse or reverse Commensalism relationship that is as
abstract and profound as the process of Photosynthesis.

If humans never existed on Earth, the forests and grasses and all plants would
be fertilized by animals and microorganisms. I contend that this plant would
become barren of life if not for animals and microorganisms. That the plant
kingdom cannot transform and transport nitrogen and other fertilizers without
animals.

So, the question I really have is what does the animal body do to nitrogen that
plant bodies find it impossible or extremely difficult to do to nitrogen? Do animals
transform it from gaseous nitrogen to that of solid nitrogen or chemically bind the
nitrogen into solid form?




elements in it, the rabbit had to eat a plant that contained those elements.
The plant extracted the elements from the soil. So at best, the rabbit manure
puts the nutrient back onto the soil. Agricultural use of manure works since
it is applied to land where the animal's feed source did NOT grow, so in a
sense, you are importing nutrients from somebody else's field. Nitrogen-fixing
bacteria can be important, especially those associated with legumes, bayberry,
and other plants.

Perhaps the legumes are the plants that are the most self reliant of all plants in
that they harness bacteria to make their own fertilizer. But I suspect that even
these legumes would quickly die if no animals or insects existed.

Plants can be happily grown on non-animal food sources - sugar, salts (potassium
phosphate, magnesium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and a few others depending on plant)
and abit of iron.

I disagree and you are being contradictory to your above. I suspect these
plants strip the remaining nitrogen and then all die.


Most animals provide no benifit to plants, they just want to eat them. There are

I disagree. If plants could speak I bet they would say "please come here rabbit
and eat my shoots and please drop some pellets". I bet that fruit of most plants
is considered by plants as what exrement is considered by animals.


however many examples where the plant has managed to take advantage of this fact, and
may now be dependent on it. Without animals some species would suffer (those which
require insect-mediated pollination for example) but i doubt the plant kingdom would.

It is obvious that Earth had natural fertilization long before any humans ever existed
and that the animals were this natural fertilization network. Your above
statements are lacking in commonsense in the commonsense that every animal
excrement and body when dead is a fertilizer for plants. Your above dismisses
that obvious reality.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies