"Billy" wrote in message

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

Oh, he's already in my KF, Fran. I only see his posts when someone else
quotes him, and I usually ignore them. I wouldn't have responded except
that it was a new poster, and Gunny was recommending using the same
agricultural approach that has already so damaged the environment. I'm
about as main stream in organic gardening à la Rodale as one can get. I
try to grow soil, and let the soil grow the plants in an environment
free from man-made chemicals. However, Gunny's recommendation that the
OP get their garden soil tested was sound, but with proper nurturing,
and treatment most any soil will become good gardening soil.

Thanks for the address for SBS http://www.sbs.com.au/
The variety of news broadcasts in Australia makes me feel down right
provincial.

SBS has Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish, Greek, French,
German, Hindi, Arabic, Russian, Italian, and Turkish news broadcasts,
wow.

The best news we get here is from Democracy Now, the BBC, and the
"Journal" from Deutsche Welle. (Did you know that NATO was supporting
the backers of the deposed King Idris, who was installed on the Libyan
throne by the Brits? That's about one sixth of the Libyan population.
Operation Independence for Libya [OIL]. We've been scammed again!

Meanwhile back at the "cultural corner" of the garden, maybe the
Montalbano programs were "touched up" to be less objectionable to a
potential buyer (43 episodes at $10 AU/episode, or at Amazon $12
USian/episode). It didn't seem right that Australians would be prudes,
after all, we got both the criminals, AND the Calvinistic, Puritan,
Taliban style, wacko fundamentalists. The main character in the TV's
Montalbano is kinda a "hunk" type of persona, in a Sicilian working
class setting. No gentrification here. It's all grit, and in need of
repairs. Although a French friend of mine once told me that he liked
seeing the "father stone" underneath the missing plaster on buildings.
Lovey-poo, my wife, has read some of Andrea Camilleri's Montalbano
books, and she was somewhat disappointed with the Salvo Montalbano
character, because in the books he is more of a Georges Simenon's
Maigret type. A 50 something, overweight cop, with a penchant for good
wine, and food.
That reminds me, I haven't had breakfast yet;O)

Ciao.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity
despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

Oh, he's already in my KF, Fran. I only see his posts when someone else
quotes him, and I usually ignore them.

And that is still a sound policy IMO. Their posts soon give them away as
trolls who feel needy for attention.

Thanks for the address for SBS http://www.sbs.com.au/
The variety of news broadcasts in Australia makes me feel down right
provincial.

SBS has Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish, Greek, French,
German, Hindi, Arabic, Russian, Italian, and Turkish news broadcasts,
wow.

But if you don't speak those languages, there's rather limited value to the
mainstream in having them. I'm sure it's advantageous to the ethnic groups
who speak those langusage, but my French isn't even up coping with the speed
of the French news.

I do like the films though and the less mainstream sports. The Tour de
France is on ATM and that is of course well worth watching. It's playing
merry hell with our sleep patterns given that it concludes around 3 am - I
haven't yet managed to watch one stage through to the line - maybe by the
end of the 3 weeks if I build up to it.

Meanwhile back at the "cultural corner" of the garden, maybe the
Montalbano programs were "touched up" to be less objectionable to a
potential buyer (43 episodes at $10 AU/episode, or at Amazon $12
USian/episode). It didn't seem right that Australians would be prudes,

I have no idea what they may have done, but as I said, there is lots of
raunchy stuff to be seen on that channel.

after all, we got both the criminals, AND the Calvinistic, Puritan,
Taliban style, wacko fundamentalists. The main character in the TV's
Montalbano is kinda a "hunk" type of persona, in a Sicilian working
class setting. No gentrification here. It's all grit, and in need of
repairs. Although a French friend of mine once told me that he liked
seeing the "father stone" underneath the missing plaster on buildings.
Lovey-poo, my wife, has read some of Andrea Camilleri's Montalbano
books, and she was somewhat disappointed with the Salvo Montalbano
character, because in the books he is more of a Georges Simenon's
Maigret type. A 50 something, overweight cop, with a penchant for good
wine, and food.
That reminds me, I haven't had breakfast yet;O)

I used to enjoy Maigret.

Ask Lovey-poo if she's read any of Donna Leon's books. The cop hero is well
worth getting to know - set in Venice so stylish in location, urbane in
persona, well written and with corruption lurking like something nasty in
the woodshed. (Apologies for mixing Cold Comfort allusions with vaporetto
fumes)

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity
despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

Oh, he's already in my KF, Fran. I only see his posts when someone else
quotes him, and I usually ignore them.

And that is still a sound policy IMO. Their posts soon give them away as
trolls who feel needy for attention.

Thanks for the address for SBS http://www.sbs.com.au/
The variety of news broadcasts in Australia makes me feel down right
provincial.

SBS has Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish, Greek, French,
German, Hindi, Arabic, Russian, Italian, and Turkish news broadcasts,
wow.

But if you don't speak those languages, there's rather limited value to the
mainstream in having them. I'm sure it's advantageous to the ethnic groups
who speak those langusage, but my French isn't even up coping with the speed
of the French news.

French is spoken about 30% to 50% faster than English, but to be fair,
TF 1, 2, and 3 speak more slowly and use simpler words in reporting the
news (l'actualité) than than other programs do.

The Journal (Deutsche Welle) is in English, and in languages that I
don't speak, I can usually make out the location where video was taken,
and a picture is worth a thousand words. Then again, in the "Romance"
languages, there are the occasional words that come through, loud and
clear, which helps with tuning my ear. Spanish, French, and Italian have
many words that mean and sound the same, but are spelt differently. Then
there are those damn false cognates.

I do like the films though and the less mainstream sports. The Tour de
France is on ATM and that is of course well worth watching. It's playing
merry hell with our sleep patterns given that it concludes around 3 am - I
haven't yet managed to watch one stage through to the line - maybe by the
end of the 3 weeks if I build up to it.
We'er 9 hours different from France, here on the "Left" (west) coast.
Late dinner here is about the same time as early "petit déjeuner" there.

Meanwhile back at the "cultural corner" of the garden, maybe the
Montalbano programs were "touched up" to be less objectionable to a
potential buyer (43 episodes at $10 AU/episode, or at Amazon $12
USian/episode). It didn't seem right that Australians would be prudes,

I have no idea what they may have done, but as I said, there is lots of
raunchy stuff to be seen on that channel.

after all, we got both the criminals, AND the Calvinistic, Puritan,
Taliban style, wacko fundamentalists. The main character in the TV's
Montalbano is kinda a "hunk" type of persona, in a Sicilian working
class setting. No gentrification here. It's all grit, and in need of
repairs. Although a French friend of mine once told me that he liked
seeing the "father stone" underneath the missing plaster on buildings.
Lovey-poo, my wife, has read some of Andrea Camilleri's Montalbano
books, and she was somewhat disappointed with the Salvo Montalbano
character, because in the books he is more of a Georges Simenon's
Maigret type. A 50 something, overweight cop, with a penchant for good
wine, and food.
That reminds me, I haven't had breakfast yet;O)

I used to enjoy Maigret.

Ask Lovey-poo if she's read any of Donna Leon's books. The cop hero is well
worth getting to know - set in Venice so stylish in location, urbane in
persona, well written and with corruption lurking like something nasty in
the woodshed. (Apologies for mixing Cold Comfort allusions with vaporetto
fumes)

Hadn't heard of Donna Leon, but we appear to be the minority. There are
98 holds for "Drawing Conclusions", her latest. I ordered the one with
no holds, "Through a Glass Darkly".

Do you have a favorite?

Thanks.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

"Billy" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Ask Lovey-poo if she's read any of Donna Leon's books. The cop hero is
well
worth getting to know - set in Venice so stylish in location, urbane in
persona, well written and with corruption lurking like something nasty in
the woodshed. (Apologies for mixing Cold Comfort allusions with
vaporetto
fumes)

Hadn't heard of Donna Leon, but we appear to be the minority. There are
98 holds for "Drawing Conclusions", her latest. I ordered the one with
no holds, "Through a Glass Darkly".

Do you have a favorite?

I haven't read them all, but those I have read have all been good. I do
have a soft spot though for 'Death at La Fenice' because it's the first of
the series, it was the first of hers I'd read, and it was just so refreshing
to find a writer who can write well and who can tell a ripping yarn even
when producing light fiction. I like Janet Evanovich, but although she
tells a ripping yarn, her writing is poor (and her editors are obviously not
up to their jobs - eg. she writes about 'couple things' when a 'couple of
things' is what is meant).

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Ask Lovey-poo if she's read any of Donna Leon's books. The cop hero is
well
worth getting to know - set in Venice so stylish in location, urbane in
persona, well written and with corruption lurking like something nasty in
the woodshed. (Apologies for mixing Cold Comfort allusions with
vaporetto
fumes)

Hadn't heard of Donna Leon, but we appear to be the minority. There are
98 holds for "Drawing Conclusions", her latest. I ordered the one with
no holds, "Through a Glass Darkly".

Do you have a favorite?

I haven't read them all, but those I have read have all been good. I do
have a soft spot though for
'Death at La Fenice': a Commissario Guido Brunetti mystery. Hmmm.
Written 2004, and there are still 2 holds on it. Must be good.
This usenet is pretty damn good. I got what I wanted, and it was even in
the wrong group.


because it's the first of
the series, it was the first of hers I'd read, and it was just so refreshing
to find a writer who can write well and who can tell a ripping yarn even
when producing light fiction. I like Janet Evanovich, but although she
tells a ripping yarn, her writing is poor (and her editors are obviously not
up to their jobs - eg. she writes about 'couple things' when a 'couple of
things' is what is meant).


á bientôt
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

On Jul 6, 10:14*pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
hoping to help "Billy" wrote in message


Lame, really lame

FarmI wrote:
Billy wrote:

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

for humor value alone, it was worth reading
the rant about blindly selling something when
the replies that said to read up on things, to
use organic materials/mulches (which often are
freely available), etc.

yeah, that's blindly selling something compared
to going out and buying Miracle Gro, Osmacote and
$15 soil tests. all things that gardeners didn't
need for thousands of years...

gotta laugh,


songbird

On Jul 6, 11:22*am, songbird wrote:
FarmI wrote:
Billy wrote:

Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his
chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following,

Why bother Billy. *I've found my killfile has an infinite capacity despite
the efforts of the trolls to try to repeatedly escape.

* for humor value alone, it was worth reading
the rant about blindly selling something when
the replies that said to read up on things, to
use organic materials/mulches (which often are
freely available), etc.

* yeah, that's blindly selling something compared
to going out and buying Miracle Gro, Osmacote and
$15 soil tests. *all things that gardeners didn't
need for thousands of years...

* gotta laugh,

* songbird

Wow birdie! I had you pegged at no more than a day over 800 years
old. You old Shamanistas are amazing, but ya gotta get out more and
see how the real world has developed since you was a young girl. No
one going to go back to get you folks left behind, so keep up.
"Nothing is... because everything is becoming"

Your objection here (or the pretense) appears to be cost? Is that
correct? You do not see the value in a soil test or buying fertilizer
when you can get it free, Is that your argument? You do not appear to
be pulling a billy trying to use faux google references to falsely
"imply" Miracle GroG kills soil. We all know that is a grossly
exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't
change science and really, emperical data is so much more accurate
than your ilk's taste test method.

As for being free everything has a cost.

Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!

Joining in the laughter!!

Gunner wrote:
....
Wow birdie! I had you pegged at no more than a day over 800 years
old. You old Shamanistas are amazing, but ya gotta get out more and
see how the real world has developed since you was a young girl. No
one going to go back to get you folks left behind, so keep up.
"Nothing is... because everything is becoming"

the real world development i see is to a
large part: ignorant, greedy, poisonous or
destructive to many creatures.

you'd like me to keep up with that?

there is some hope yet, but it is a
long ways to go.


Your objection here (or the pretense) appears to be cost? Is that
correct?

my objection is that the OP stated they were
a new gardener. which means very likely that they
were using a new space. any long time gardener
knows that new soil is often just fine for the
first season and needs no additional nutrients
added to it. short of obvious signs of deficit
(the OP stated none) why add fertilizer? because
we've been raised with cereal in the box and
milk out of the bottle doesn't mean that nutritional
value comes from boxes and bottles.

so instead of saying "yeah, go ahead dump
dilute liquid fertilizers on your garden it
won't hurt a thing." i recommended the OP do
some reading and learn about what they are
doing before adding anything to the soil, and
i pointed them towards organic methods because
they have less chance of being a runoff
pollutant problem and a better chance of
actually nurturing the soil organisms and
maintaining or improving nutrients in the soil
and thus the produce grown therein.

is that clear?

you were the one who came up with the
"selling something" language and i had to
laugh because you were the seller of more
products than i.


You do not see the value in a soil test or buying fertilizer
when you can get it free, Is that your argument?

i do not see the value in getting a soil test
if there are no signs of deficit.

instead recommending the OP get some books
on gardening and reading up on soil will give
them much more for their future efforts than
what they can get by dumping gunk out of a
bottle.

there are many good descriptions of both
fertile soil (and how to evaluate the soil
condition) and various deficits. no tests
other than observation are needed. relying
upon a soil test to tell what the soil
is doing is like using butt probe to tell
what the brain is doing.


You do not appear to
be pulling a billy trying to use faux google references to falsely
"imply" Miracle GroG kills soil.

no i do not have to imply that at all if
i tell the OP to not dump it at all then i've
helped them avoid the problems it can cause.


We all know that is a grossly
exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't
change science and really, emperical data is so much more accurate
than your ilk's taste test method.

if by emperical data you mean millions of
acres of destroyed top soil then you've got
all the evidence you need from dumping "Nute
salts" (whatever those are).


As for being free everything has a cost.

Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!

i dunno how much more burning i'll be doing,
but talking about the carbon cycle from the
rotting of organic materials in the compost
pile (or buried in the ground) and comparing
that to what happens to the carbon when you
make charcoal and the various soil nutrition
aspects of that is probably a much more
scientific process than telling someone "ok,
dump that on the soil".

but whatever.


Joining in the laughter!!

yuk yuk.


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Welcome, to Gunny's world, songbird. No facts, no references, but lots
of pronouncements and innuendo. Enjoy it, if you can.

Gunny enjoys arguments. In part he tries to do this by starting as many
arguments as possible, and as you nail him down on one, he will ignore
it, and attack a different argument (personal experience). Now, you may
feel like some light hearted bantering, but, trust me, he will take it
as a personal challenge to crush you. Personally, I think he is a
"tweaker", but that is an unsubstantiated opinion.

Gunner wrote:
...
Wow birdie! I had you pegged at no more than a day over 800 years
old. You old Shamanistas are amazing, but ya gotta get out more and
see how the real world has developed since you was a young girl. No
one going to go back to get you folks left behind, so keep up.
"Nothing is... because everything is becoming"

Is there any gardening in the above paragraph? If it was me, I would
have told you where you were wrong, and given references to support my
position, but not Gunny. Here he mocks, characterizes (without
substantiating the characterization), and patronizes you in order to
pretend that he is your superior (also no evidence submitted).

the real world development i see is to a
large part: ignorant, greedy, poisonous or
destructive to many creatures.

you'd like me to keep up with that?

there is some hope yet, but it is a
long ways to go.


Your objection here (or the pretense) appears to be cost? Is that
correct?
Here Gunny questions your motives. Has anyone in this newsgroup, other
than Gunny, ever questioned your motives before? More over, he is trying
to put words in your mouth, to the effect that your objection to
chemferts is based on cost.


my objection is that the OP stated they were
a new gardener. which means very likely that they
were using a new space. any long time gardener
knows that new soil is often just fine for the
first season and needs no additional nutrients
added to it. short of obvious signs of deficit
(the OP stated none) why add fertilizer? because
we've been raised with cereal in the box and
milk out of the bottle doesn't mean that nutritional
value comes from boxes and bottles.

so instead of saying "yeah, go ahead dump
dilute liquid fertilizers on your garden it
won't hurt a thing." i recommended the OP do
some reading and learn about what they are
doing before adding anything to the soil, and
i pointed them towards organic methods because
they have less chance of being a runoff
pollutant problem and a better chance of
actually nurturing the soil organisms and
maintaining or improving nutrients in the soil
and thus the produce grown therein.

is that clear?

you were the one who came up with the
"selling something" language and i had to
laugh because you were the seller of more
products than i.


You do not see the value in a soil test or buying fertilizer
when you can get it free, Is that your argument?
Gunny again trying to put words in your mouth, attempting to bring a
discussion to the level of an argument.

i do not see the value in getting a soil test
if there are no signs of deficit.

instead recommending the OP get some books
on gardening and reading up on soil will give
them much more for their future efforts than
what they can get by dumping gunk out of a
bottle.

there are many good descriptions of both
fertile soil (and how to evaluate the soil
condition) and various deficits. no tests
other than observation are needed. relying
upon a soil test to tell what the soil
is doing is like using butt probe to tell
what the brain is doing.


You do not appear to
be pulling a billy trying to use faux google references to falsely
"imply" Miracle GroG kills soil.
I'll take this one, songbird.

Gunny, give an example of a faux google reference that I have given,
please, or continue to show yourself as an idiot.

Now, as far as implying that chemferts kill soil life, I don't imply, I
quote experts.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb...l/dp/088192777
5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1
(Available at a library near you.)

Chapter 1

What Is the Soil Food Web and Why Should Gardeners Care?

Negative impacts on the soil food web

Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does to
a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, and nematodes in the soil. Since these microbes are at
the very foundation of the soil food web nutrient system, you have to
keep adding fertilizer once you start using it regularly. The
microbiology is missing and not there to do its job, feeding the plants.

It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their absence is a great loss. Without the activity
and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the nutrient
system but all the other things a healthy soil food web brings. Soil
structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic," pathogens and
pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening becomes a lot
more work than it needs to be. . .

Plants are in control

Most gardeners think of plants as only taking up nutrients through root
systems and feeding the leaves. Few realize that a great deal of the
energy that results from photosynthesis in the leaves is actually used
by plants to produce chemicals they secrete through their roots. These
secretions are known as exudates. A good analogy is perspiration, a
human's exudate.

Root exudates are in the form of carbohydrates (including sugars) and
proteins. Amazingly, their presence wakes up, attracts, and grows
specific beneficial bacteria and fungi living in the soil that subsist
on these exudates and the cellular material sloughed off as the plant's
root tips grow. All this secretion of exudates and sloughing-off of
cells takes place in the rhizosphere, a zone immediately around the
roots, extending out about a tenth of an inch, or a couple of
millimeters (1 millimeter = 1/25 inch). The rhizosphere, which can look
like a jelly or jam under the electron microscope, contains a constantly
changing mix of soil organisms, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes,
protozoa, and even larger organisms. All this ³life" competes for the
exudates in the rhizosphere, or its water or mineral content.

At the bottom of the soil food web are bacteria and fungi, which are
attracted to and consume plant root exudates. In turn, they attract and
are eaten by bigger microbes, specifically nematodes and protozoa
(remember the amoebae, paramecia, flagellates, and ciliates you should
have studied in biology?), who eat bacteria and fungi (primarily for
carbon) to fuel their metabolic functions. Anything they don't need is
excreted as wastes, which plant roots are readily able to absorb as
nutrients. How convenient that this production of plant nutrients takes
place right in the rhizosphere, the site of root-nutrient absorption.

At the center of any viable soil food web are plants. Plants control the
food web for their own benefit, an amazing fact that is too little
understood and surely not appreciated by gardeners who are constantly
interfering with Nature's system. Studies indicate that individual
plants can control the numbers and the different kinds of fungi and
bacteria attracted to the rhizosphere by the exudates they produce.
During different times of the growing season, populations of rhizosphere
bacteria and fungi wax and wane, depending on the nutrient needs of the
plant and the exudates it produces.

Soil bacteria and fungi are like small bags of fertilizer, retaining in
their bodies nitrogen and other nutrients they gain from root exudates
and other organic matter (such as those sloughed-off root-tip cells).
Carrying on the analogy, soil protozoa and nematodes act as ³fertilizer
spreaders" by releasing , the nutrients locked up in the bacteria and
fungi ³fertilizer bags." The nematodes and protozoa in the soil come
along and eat the bacteria and fungi in the, rhizosphere. They digest
what they need to survive and excrete excess carbon and other nutrients
as waste.

Left to their own devices, then, plants produce exudates that attract
fungi and bacteria (and, ultimately, nematodes and protozoa); their
survival depends on the interplay between these microbes. It is a
completely natural system, the very same one that has fueled plants
since they evolved. Soil life provides the nutrients needed for plant
life, and plants initiate and fuel the cycle by producing exudates. . .

.. . . Soil life produces soil nutrients

When any member of a soil food web dies, it becomes fodder for other
members of the community. The nutrients in these bodies are passed on to
other members of the community. A larger predator may eat them alive, or
they may be decayed after they die. One way or the other, fungi and
bacteria get involved, be it decaying the organism directly or working
on the dung of the successful
eater. It makes no difference. Nutrients are preserved and eventually
are retained in the bodies of even the smallest fungi and bacteria. When
these are in the rhizosphere, they release nutrients in plant-available
form when they, in turn, are consumed or die.

Without this system, most important nutrients would drain from soil.
Instead, they are retained in the bodies of soil life. Here is the
gardener's truth: when you apply a chemical fertilizer, a tiny bit hits
the rhizosphere, where it is absorbed, but most of it continues to drain
through soil until it hits the water table. Not so with the nutrients
locked up inside soil organisms, a state known as immobilization; these
nutrients are eventually released as wastes, or mineralized. And when
the plants themselves die and are allowed to decay, the nutrients they
retained are again immobilized in the fungi and bacteria that consume
them.

The nutrient supply in the soil is influenced by soil life in other
ways. For example, worms pull organic matter into the soil, where it is
shredded by beetles and the larvae of other insects, opening it up for
fungal and bacterial decay. This worm activity provides yet more
nutrients for the soil community.

Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1
(Available at a library near you.)

A chemical view of humus, studded with negatively charged oxygen atoms.
Positively charged nutrients such as ammonium, potassium, copper,
magnesium, calcium, and zinc are adsorbed to the humus. These nutrients
can be pulled off the humus and used by plants and microbes.

p.78
ammonium (a nitrogen compound), copper, zinc, manganese, and many
others. Under the right conditions (in soil with a pH near 7, that is,
neither too acid nor too alkaline), humus can pick up and
store enormous quantities of positively charged nutrients.

How do these nutrients move from the humus to plants? Plant roots, as
noted, secrete very mild acids which break the bonds that hold the
nutrients onto the humus. The nutrients from humus are washed into the
soil moisture, creating a rich soup. Bathed in this nutritious broth,
the plants can absorb as much calcium, ammonium, or other nutrient as
they need. There's evidence to suggest that when plants have supped long
enough, they stop the flow of acid to avoid depleting the humus.

That's the direct method plants use to pull nutrients from humus. Just
as common in healthy soil is an indirect route, in which microbes are
the middlemen. This type of plant feeding involves an exchange. Roots
secrete sugars and vitamins that are ideal food for beneficial bacteria
and fungi. These microbes thrive in huge numbers close to roots and even
attach to them, lapping up the plant-made food and bathing in the film
of moisture that surrounds the roots. In return, the microbes produce
acids and enzymes that release the humus-bound nutrients and share this
food with the plants.

Microbes also excrete food for plants in their waste. One more big plus
for plants is that many of the fungi and other microbes secrete
antibiotics that protect the plants from disease. All of these mutual
exchanges create a truly symbiotic relationship. Many plants have become
dependent on particular species of microbial partners and grow poorly
without them. Even when the plant-microbe partnership isn't this
specific, plants often grow much faster when microbes are present than
they do in a sterile or microbe-depleted environment.

p.79
Conventional wisdom has it that plant root are the main imbibers of soil
minerals and that plants can only absorb these minerals (fertilizers) if
they are in a water-soluble form, but neither premise is true. Roots
occupy only a tiny fraction of the soil, so most soil minerals‹and most
chemical fertilizers‹never make direct contact with roots. Unless these
isolated, lonely minerals are snapped up by humus or soil organisms,
they leach away. It's the humus and the life in the soil that keep the
earth fertile by holding on to nutrients that would otherwise wash out
of the soil into streams, lakes, and eventually the ocean.

Agricultural chemists have missed the boat with their soluble
fertilizers; they're doing things the hard way by using an engineering
approach rather than an ecological one. Yes, plants are quite capable
of absorbing the water-soluble minerals in chemical fertilizer. But
plants often use only 10 percent of the fertilizer that's applied and
rarely more than 50 percent. The rest washes into the groundwater,
which is why so many wells in our farmlands are polluted with toxic
levels of nitrates.

Applying fertilizer the way nature does‹tied to organic matter‹uses far
less fertilizer and also saves the energy consumed in producing,
shipping and applying it. It also supports a broad assortment of soil
life, which widens the base of our living pyramid and enhances rather
than reduces biodiversity. In addition, plants get a balanced diet
instead of being force-fed and are healthier. It's well documented that
plants grown on soil rich in organic matter are more disease- and
insect-resistant than plants in carbon-poor soil.

In short, a properly tuned ecological garden rarely needs soluble
fertilizers because plants and soil animals can knock nutrients loose
from humus and organic debris (or clay, another nutrient storage
source) using secretions of mild acid and enzymes. Most of the nutrients
in healthy soil are "insoluble yet available," in the words of soil
scientist William Albrecht. These nutrients, bound to organic matter or
cycling among fast-living microbes,won't' wash out of the soil yet can
be gently coaxed loose ‹ or traded for sugar secretions‹ by roots. And
the plants take up only what they need. This turns out to be very
little, since plants are 85 percent water, and much of the rest is
carbon from the air. A fat half-pound tomato, for example, only draws
about 50 milligrams of phosphorus and 500 milligrams of potassium from
the soil. That's easy to replace in a humus-rich garden that uses
mulches, composts, and nutrient-accumulating plants.
----

Lab tests may tell you where you are starting, but a properly maintained
garden will take you where you want to go.

They did throw you a bone, Gunny-boy: a properly tuned ecological garden
rarely needs soluble fertilizers. That implies that there may be, on the
rare occasion, a place for chemferts.
QED

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.


no i do not have to imply that at all if
i tell the OP to not dump it at all then i've
helped them avoid the problems it can cause.


We all know that is a grossly
exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't
change science and really, emperical data is so much more accurate
than your ilk's taste test method.

Classic Gunny. Do you still beat your wife, Gunny?
No attempt to show that the statement is a lie, just a simple
unsubstantiated declaration that Gunny knows best.

As far as the nutrients from chemferts, and organic fertilizer being
equivalent, Gunny is WRONG. Nitrate is nitrate to be sure, but one
nitrate comes from a salt (that's bad, as you will know if you read the
above), and the other comes from organic material. Just another example
of Gunny-boy's ignorance, or another of his disingenuous prevarications.

Are you an ilk, songbird? Do you have a taste test?
Gunny-boy again makes accusations without substantiation.



if by emperical data you mean millions of
acres of destroyed top soil then you've got
all the evidence you need from dumping "Nute
salts" (whatever those are).


As for being free everything has a cost.
King of the bleeding obvious, Gunny-boy is.

Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!

i dunno how much more burning i'll be doing,
but talking about the carbon cycle from the
rotting of organic materials in the compost
pile (or buried in the ground) and comparing
that to what happens to the carbon when you
make charcoal and the various soil nutrition
aspects of that is probably a much more
scientific process than telling someone "ok,
dump that on the soil".

but whatever.

Not to mention the release into the environment of carbon that had been
long sequestered (gas and oil), instead of cycling the present carbon.
Three hundred and fifty parts per million of CO2 is considered safe, and
we are presently at 390 ppm CO2. As St Molly said, "When you find
yourself in a hole, stop digging."


Joining in the laughter!!

yuk yuk.

Why not? It's Gunny-boy, who is the joke ;O)

Bottom line, Gunny isn't interested at arriving at an understanding.
He, for some reason, wants an argument for arguments sake.


songbird
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

On Jul 8, 10:55*am, Billy cut and pasted
enough of his BS qutoa for the entire month:

Hhey Dr Google, I don't want ya to waste this really good rant ya got
going on but Really the answer is still yes, it is ok to use

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Gunner wrote:


Welcome, to Gunny's world, songbird. No facts, no references, but lots
of pronouncements and innuendo. Enjoy it, if you can.

Gunny enjoys arguments. In part he tries to do this by starting as many
arguments as possible, and as you nail him down on one, he will ignore
it, and attack a different argument (personal experience). Now, you may
feel like some light hearted bantering, but, trust me, he will take it
as a personal challenge to crush you. Personally, I think he is a
"tweaker", but that is an unsubstantiated opinion.

yeah, i figured that out for several folks
already, but if they decide they actually
want to talk gardening practices and actual
experiences then i'd still listen.

Derald does seem to actually grow things
in intensive and small interplantings which
to me is a really productive way to grow a
lot of produce and it does keep the soil
covered more than monocropping and leaving
the ground idle. so he's worth listening
to when he's not on about you or being
idiotically obtuse. i suspect they are
both somehow connected to the agribusiness
or the chemical business or perhaps even
big oil. not that they've had the guts
to give any of their backgrounds here...

tis the season of hot airs...

(btw Gunner assuming someone is one
gender or another on usenet is pointless
as i'm not here to wave my genitalia
around to prove my gardening prowess,
but perhaps that is what you need to
be impressed)


....much snipped...
Gunny, give an example of a faux google reference that I have given,
please, or continue to show yourself as an idiot.

Now, as far as implying that chemferts kill soil life, I don't imply, I
quote experts.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis

i suppose these are just beer swilling
high school dropouts without any actual
soil science experiences... or?


http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb...l/dp/088192777
5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1
(Available at a library near you.)

Chapter 1

What Is the Soil Food Web and Why Should Gardeners Care?

Negative impacts on the soil food web

Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does to
a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, and nematodes in the soil. Since these microbes are at
the very foundation of the soil food web nutrient system, you have to
keep adding fertilizer once you start using it regularly. The
microbiology is missing and not there to do its job, feeding the plants.

....much more snipped...

----

Lab tests may tell you where you are starting, but a properly maintained
garden will take you where you want to go.

but do you need them? i haven't
used one in all my years of gardening.
if i were in a place that had difficult
soils or severe climate (but one reason
i live where i do is that i don't want
to put up with arid soil gardening).


They did throw you a bone, Gunny-boy: a properly tuned ecological garden
rarely needs soluble fertilizers. That implies that there may be, on the
rare occasion, a place for chemferts.
QED

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.


no i do not have to imply that at all if
i tell the OP to not dump it at all then i've
helped them avoid the problems it can cause.


We all know that is a grossly
exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't
change science and really, emperical data is so much more accurate
than your ilk's taste test method.

Classic Gunny. Do you still beat your wife, Gunny?
No attempt to show that the statement is a lie, just a simple
unsubstantiated declaration that Gunny knows best.

i never argue with drunks or people
with guns (if i can possibly know it).


As far as the nutrients from chemferts, and organic fertilizer being
equivalent, Gunny is WRONG. Nitrate is nitrate to be sure, but one
nitrate comes from a salt (that's bad, as you will know if you read the
above), and the other comes from organic material. Just another example
of Gunny-boy's ignorance, or another of his disingenuous prevarications.

Are you an ilk, songbird? Do you have a taste test?
Gunny-boy again makes accusations without substantiation.

i do have taste tests for a lot of
garden veggies and i sure know the
difference between a strawberry that
hasn't been sprayed with fungicides
and those that have. i love being
able to go out and have breakfast
right in the garden as i'm weeding
or picking without having to worry
about various poisons that are on
most produce that doesn't come from
organic means.

no ilk that i know of, but several
inklings and a severe case of impishness
at times.


if by emperical data you mean millions of
acres of destroyed top soil then you've got
all the evidence you need from dumping "Nute
salts" (whatever those are).


As for being free everything has a cost.
King of the bleeding obvious, Gunny-boy is.

Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!

i dunno how much more burning i'll be doing,
but talking about the carbon cycle from the
rotting of organic materials in the compost
pile (or buried in the ground) and comparing
that to what happens to the carbon when you
make charcoal and the various soil nutrition
aspects of that is probably a much more
scientific process than telling someone "ok,
dump that on the soil".

but whatever.

Not to mention the release into the environment of carbon that had been
long sequestered (gas and oil), instead of cycling the present carbon.
Three hundred and fifty parts per million of CO2 is considered safe, and
we are presently at 390 ppm CO2. As St Molly said, "When you find
yourself in a hole, stop digging."

yep, but the selfish buggers refuse to
stop their behaviors and that means that
millions will be displaced as a result
and likely millions will starve or die
in the mayhem.


Joining in the laughter!!

yuk yuk.

Why not? It's Gunny-boy, who is the joke ;O)

Bottom line, Gunny isn't interested at arriving at an understanding.
He, for some reason, wants an argument for arguments sake.

nothing wrong with that if he could actually
put a coherent argument together. so far i'd
say _not likely_.


songbird

On Jul 9, 1:29*am, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

And still the answer is YES

On Jul 8, 8:23*am, songbird wrote:
Gunner wrote:

...

Wow birdie! *I had you pegged at no more than a day over 800 years
old. You old Shamanistas are amazing, but ya gotta get out more and
see how the real world has developed since you was a young girl. *No
one going to go back to get you folks left behind, so keep up.
"Nothing is... because everything is becoming"

* the real world development i see is to a
large part: ignorant, greedy, poisonous or
destructive to many creatures.

* you'd like me to keep up with that?

* there is some hope yet, but it is a
long ways to go.

Your objection here (or the pretense) appears to be cost? Is that
correct?

* my objection is that the OP stated they were
a new gardener. *which means very likely that they
were using a new space. *any long time gardener
knows that new soil is often just fine for the
first season and needs no additional nutrients
added to it. *short of obvious signs of deficit
(the OP stated none) why add fertilizer? *because
we've been raised with cereal in the box and
milk out of the bottle doesn't mean that nutritional
value comes from boxes and bottles.

* so instead of saying "yeah, go ahead dump
dilute liquid fertilizers on your garden it
won't hurt a thing." i recommended the OP do
some reading and learn about what they are
doing before adding anything to the soil, and
i pointed them towards organic methods because
they have less chance of being a runoff
pollutant problem and a better chance of
actually nurturing the soil organisms and
maintaining or improving nutrients in the soil
and thus the produce grown therein.

* is that clear?

* you were the one who came up with the
"selling something" language and i had to
laugh because you were the seller of more
products than i.

*You do not see the value in a soil test or buying fertilizer
when you can get it free, Is that your argument?

* i do not see the value in getting a soil test
if there are no signs of deficit.

* instead recommending the OP get some books
on gardening and reading up on soil will give
them much more for their future efforts than
what they can get by dumping gunk out of a
bottle.

* there are many good descriptions of both
fertile soil (and how to evaluate the soil
condition) and various deficits. *no tests
other than observation are needed. *relying
upon a soil test to tell what the soil
is doing is like using butt probe to tell
what the brain is doing.

*You do not appear to
be pulling a billy trying to use faux google references to falsely
"imply" Miracle GroG kills soil.

* no i do not have to imply that at all if
i tell the OP to not dump it at all then i've
helped them avoid the problems it can cause.

*We all know that is a grossly
exagerrated lie. Nute salts are the same regardless. Ya just can't
change science and really, *emperical data is so much more accurate
than your ilk's taste test method.

* if by emperical data you mean millions of
acres of destroyed top soil then you've got
all the evidence you need from dumping "Nute
salts" (whatever those are).

*As for being free everything has a cost.

Keep burning that wood birdie, love how that saves the environment!

* i dunno how much more burning i'll be doing,
but talking about the carbon cycle from the
rotting of organic materials in the compost
pile (or buried in the ground) and comparing
that to what happens to the carbon when you
make charcoal and the various soil nutrition
aspects of that is probably a much more
scientific process than telling someone "ok,
dump that on the soil".

* but whatever.

Joining in the laughter!!

* yuk yuk.

* songbird