Malcolm wrote:
In article
,
writes


wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

(snipped)


I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to
1-2%" Those numbers
suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the
prescence of animals. I have
mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and
vibrant as this year
after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years
horse droppings were from
the lush green grass.

Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other
nutrients as important as
nitrogen.

But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of
exactly where in an
animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse
manure.


I am going to have to look up "my history" on this topic of the
Complimentarity
of plants to animals where I include bacteria as part of the animal
kingdom. I think
it was the late 1990s. I can remember making some assertion that
carbon was
complimentary to calcium since the function of a backbone in both
plants and
animals.

Actually, I am not sure that biologists include all bacteria as part
of the animal kingdom
so that is another item I have to look up.

This is all very important because what is happening here is that the
physics of Quantum
Mechanics is going to make some "order" in the classification of
plants to animals. Prior
to this application of Complimentarity, biologists had a "linear and 1
dimensional one way
view of biological processes between animals and plants".
Complimentarity implies that
the first creation of plants was contemporary with the creation of
animals. So that first life
on Earth was not a sole entity but a group of entities, where they
lived nearby one another
in order to live at all.

There is one obvious Complement that everyone knows-- oxygen with
carbon dioxide in
respiration.

So, what is the complement of Nitrogen in plants? It is probably a
molecule. Nitrogen is
essential for ATP and for DNA. So probably the ATP or sugars is the
complement of
nitrogen.

Now calcium in plants is not the backbone, but carbon is the backbone
in plants. So what
in animals is the backbone? It is calcium. In plants, calcium serves
as a transport system,
but in animals, calcium function is the skeleton and backbone. So it
is likely that
calcium is the complement of carbon between animals and plants.

So perhaps in the above I have located three preliminary Complements
between plants and
animals.

In other words, if all the animals were dead tomorrow, it would be
impossible for life to
remain on Earth for all the plants would soon be dead shortly
thereafter, and vice versa.
This is because of Complementarity.



I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants
and vice versa both
in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however
it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and
plants is a Complimentarity
relationship.

I should write a whole book on this when I return in August.

Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen

I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture.


I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include
the fact that
the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the
digestive process of
bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen.

Go away and learn some chemistry.


Well you do not include the fact that bacteria are animals and that
the computation
of the grass clippings gone through the bacteria as well as the horse
manure gone
through the bacteria. The reason that a lawn given horse droppings
from a grazing horse
is far better than the same lawn given grass mowing, is because the
amount of nitrogen
fertilizer from horse exceeds the nitrogen fertilizer from mowing.




So I suspect Malcolm is
overlooking the fact that
he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would
call the bacteria in
this case part of the Animal Kingdom.

You really don't understand the digestive processes of horses, do you?


You do not understand the conversation and where it is going.

And your claim that it is a "fact" that what I said "replaces a horse
intestine with bacteria intestine" is just a completely meaningless,
indeed nonsense, statement.

If you doubt my figures, which are verifiable, then produce some of your
own.


Anyone can come to the sci newsgroups with their mind made up that
they
hate someone and then fish around for some angle which they think they
can upset or disprove their object of hate.

I do not need a Malcolm who counts how many nitrogen atoms are in a
blade of grass
compared to grass in a horse intestine. I need a chemist who knows the
metabolism of
plants that convert nitrogen to making of proteins and why that
nitrogen is essential, and
why nitrogen is not essential in making of proteins in animals. And
thus, what is the Complement
of nitrogen between animals to plants.


So I want far more of answers than the superficial answers.

Don't accuse me of being superficial, when you can't produce a single
figure yourself.

You are superficial when you cannot answer the flow of the
conversation
and you are proven superficial by your childish attitude now in
leaving
without ever learning anything.




I want actual chemistry of a Nitrogen cycle, just as one can follow
the oxygen and
carbon dioxide complementarity in respiration, metabolism in plants
and animals. I want
the nitrogen to what?? complimentarity between plants and animals.

Then go and find it. I've given you a factual answer and your
non-acceptance of it shows that I wasted my time trying to help you.


You counted how many nitrogen atoms in grass compared to grass in
horse
intestine. That was not my question. My question was why does a field
that
is pastured by horse so much better fertilized than if the field were
simply mowed?
Why does passing through the intestine of a horse a far better
fertilizer. You
countered that question by saying I was wrong. I was not wrong.

You do not want to answer questions, you only want to prove me wrong,
because
you are a hatemonger, not a scientist seeking answers.




What is the compound that is compliment to nitrogen?

I suppose you mean "complement".


For once you got onto the wavetrain of this conversation, but as
usual, you
dropp it as quickly as you enter it in a fleeting moment. Do you know
quantum
mechanics? Do you know the Complimentary Principle. Do you know that
carbon dioxide is the compliment of oxygen in respiration between
plants and animals?

Apparently you do not know any of this.



For respiration we have carbon dioxide compliment to oxygen.
So what is the nitrogen the compliment of?

See above.

Goodbye. I've wasted enough time on you.

--
Malcolm


Good riddance for your aim was never to do science but your sole aim
was to try to
hatemonger and rattle my conversation.

Anyone that replies to a post of Archimedes Plutonium should ask
themselves a question
before they hit the "send key". They should ask themselves, am I
replying because I love
science and love to know some truth, or are they replying because they
said to themselves
"I hate this guy, and aha, I think I have an angle which will disprove
or rattle his conversation".
The majority of replies to Archimedes Plutonium are from hatemongers
who never should have
been in science in the first place.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies