wrote:
Sean Houtman wrote:



The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of
proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that
protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be
returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat
easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in
bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end,
there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it
than before.



According to Malcolm's figures of 2-4% for grass clippings versus
1-2% nitrogen for horsemanure of whatever source for those figures,
can be
explained as not including the horse urea while pasturing. Perhaps the
urea
contains even more nitrogen fertilizer than the manure.

So that would explain why for 5 years of simply mowing was never as
good as
one year of a horse pasturing and the subsequent lush growth.

One of my apple trees where the horse spent a long time in emitting
waste (bathrooming
for the quesy reader) has now become the most outstanding growing
apple tree.

So what I am saying is that I have a experiment to base my opinion,
that having mowed
the field for 5 years with never explosive growth, yet with 1 year of
a horse pasturing that
the trees and bushes and grass are in explosive growth.

And the easy answer is that the nitrogen provided by Horsemanure +
Horse**** is
far more richer in nitrogen than the grass mowed clippings.

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