| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Miracle gro
Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, sorry to be thick but Im learning!
|
Miracle gro
chablonski wrote:
Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, sorry to be thick but Im learning! not likely to be needed. many garden veggies will put on more foliage but not much more actual produce to make it worth it. if this is a new garden plot the soil is probably ok anyways. look into rotation planting, green manures, composting, mulching and learn which of your garden plants are heavy feeders and need to be followed by other soil recharging plants like beans/peas. please read up on gardening using organic methods as much as possible. it will save you a lot of later trouble and decrease the likelyhood that you will poison yourself, others or the the environment... songbird |
Miracle gro
In article ,
chablonski CHABLONSKISPAM wrote: Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, sorry to be thick but Im learning! Not to worry. We all started at the beginning. Hang around and ask your questions. Is this Scotts' regular "chemical salt fertilizer", or their organic fertilizer? If it is the former, it is toxic to many of the beneficial microorganisms in your garden soil. If it is the later, it assays at an NPK of 0.10 - 0.05 - 0.10, http://www.scotts.com/smg/catalog/pr...d=prod70308&it emId=cat80014&tabs=usage where as fish emulsion (an organic fertilizer) has an NPK or 5-1-1. What are you growing? Every plant has its own needs, not that you can't get by by using a one size fits all approach at the beginning, but you will find eventually that every plant becomes more complicated as you learn more about it. songbird gave you some good advice, to which I would add no-dig gardening. If you have the time, I'd recommend reading the following: "Vegetable Gardener' Bible" by Edward C. Smith. http://www.amazon.com/Vegetable-Gard...-Gardening/dp/ 1580172121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815454&sr=1-1 (Available at a library near you) "How to Grow More Vegetables" by John Jeavons http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...l=search-alias %3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=How+to+Grow+More+Vegetables&x=0&y=0 (Available at a library near you) 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) 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) -- Manure Chicken Diary cow Horse Steer Rabbit N 1.1 .257 .70 .70 2.4 P .80 .15 .30 .30 1.4 K .50 .25 .60 .40 .60 Manure Sheep Alfalfa Fish Emulsion N .70 3 5 P .30 1 1 K .90 2 1 You can gauge the quality of your soil by its earthworm population. If there aren't any, you need to improve the soil. Improve the soil, and the earthworms will come. Good luck, -- - 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-/ |
Miracle gro
On Jul 3, 3:11*am, chablonski CHABLONSKISPAM
wrote: Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, chablonski Yes, it is. Mineral nutrients used by plants are the same regardless of source. Might try controlled release formulates such as Osmacote if your garden schedule is limited, One application will usually last for 3-4 months... As to your soil or any future soil building.... rather than blindly following those who are well intended... but whose advice is on par with tits on a boar hog,... get a soil test to see what you actually need for your soil/crop. 15$ for a UMASS ( http://www.umass.edu/soiltest/) or similiar soil test detailing specifics for your intended needs is much better than the wasting of time, effort and expense of hauling and incorporating tons of unnecessary BS, compost or whatever. Get a good soil base and learn to fertilize your plants..properly. As for the Earthworm test? They may well be an excellent soil health indicator but according to billy mine should all be dead by now. I'm still awaiting their Rapture from using those evil chemferts (hissssss). Got so many worms in this clay it quite handily discredits any eco-fringy claims that "chemferts" kill them and the other SOM. Follow the test results recommendations. Most of the "claims" of the eco fringe are the of same category as the organic horse shit they attempt to sell. These folks do not know your soil... probably never seen or have worked anything outside of a 50 mile range of their little pea patch. Talk to your local Master Gardners or the County Extension Office/Agent,... they are in the book. Good luck in your garden endeavors. |
Miracle gro
In article ,
Rick wrote: On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 01:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Gunny wrote: On Jul 3, 3:11*am, chablonski CHABLONSKISPAM wrote: Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, chablonski Yes, it is. Mineral nutrients used by plants are the same regardless of source. Might try controlled release formulates such as Osmacote if your garden schedule is limited, One application will usually last for 3-4 months... As to your soil or any future soil building.... rather than blindly following those who are well intended... but whose advice is on par with tits on a boar hog,... get a soil test to see what you actually need for your soil/crop. 15$ for a UMASS ( http://www.umass.edu/soiltest/) or similiar soil test detailing specifics for your intended needs is much better than the wasting of time, effort and expense of hauling and incorporating tons of unnecessary BS, compost or whatever. Get a good soil base and learn to fertilize your plants..properly. As for the Earthworm test? They may well be an excellent soil health indicator but according to billy mine should all be dead by now. I'm still awaiting their Rapture from using those evil chemferts (hissssss). Got so many worms in this clay it quite handily discredits any eco-fringy claims that "chemferts" kill them and the other SOM. Follow the test results recommendations. Most of the "claims" of the eco fringe are the of same category as the organic horse shit they attempt to sell. These folks do not know your soil... probably never seen or have worked anything outside of a 50 mile range of their little pea patch. Talk to your local Master Gardners or the County Extension Office/Agent,... they are in the book. Good luck in your garden endeavors. Yeah, What he said. I use Miracle gro on my potted plants because it is hard to over fertilize with it. It is really more like a highly diluted hydroponic solution, so there is almost no change of burning etc. For my outdoor veggy garden it would be a bit pricey. Instead of responding to Gunny's disingenuous prevarications, or his chronic cranial-rectal inversion, let me simply quote the following, and feel free to google the authors to assess their qualifications to speak on gardening. 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? GIVEN ITS VITAL IMPORTANCE to our hobby, it is amazing that most of us don't venture beyond the understanding that good soil supports plant life, and poor soil doesn't. You've undoubtedly seen worms in good soil, and unless you habitually use pesticides, you should have come across other soil life: centipedes, springtails, ants, slugs, ladybird beetle larvae, and more. Most of this life is on the surface, in the first 4 inches (10 centimeters); some soil microbes have even been discovered living comfortably an incredible two miles beneath the surface. Good soil, however, is not just a few animals. Good soil is absolutely teeming with life, yet seldom does the realization that this is so engender a reaction of satisfaction. In addition to all the living organisms you can see in garden soils (for example, there are up to 50 earthworms in a square foot [0.09 square meters] of good soil), there is a whole world of soil organisms that you cannot see unless you use sophisticated and expensive optics. Only then do the tiny, microscopic organisms‹bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes‹appear, and in numbers that are nothing less than staggering. A mere teaspoon of good garden soil, as measured by microbial geneticists, contains a billion invisible bacteria, several yards of equally invisible fungal hyphae, several thousand protozoa, and a few dozen nematodes. The common denominator of all soil life is that every organism needs energy to survive. While a few bacteria, known as chemosynthesizers, derive energy from sulfur, nitrogen, or even iron compounds, the rest have to eat something containing carbon in order to get the energy they need to sustain life. Carbon may come from organic material supplied by plants, waste products produced by other organisms, or the bodies of other organisms. The first order of business of all soil life is obtaining carbon to fuel metabolism‹it is an eat-and-be-eaten world, in and on soil. Most organisms eat more than one kind of prey, so if you make a diagram of who eats whom in and on the soil, the straight-line food chain instead becomes a series of food chains linked and cross-linked to each other, creating a web of food chains, or a soil food web. Each soil environment has a different set of organisms and thus a different soil food web. This is the simple, graphical definition of a soil food web, though as you can imagine, this and other diagrams represent complex and highly organized sets of interactions, relationships, and chemical and physical processes. The story each tells, however, is a simple one and always starts with the plant. 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. . .. . . 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. . .. . . Ingham and some of her graduate students at OSU also noticed a correlation between plants and their preference for soils that were fungally dominated versus those that were bacterially dominated or neutral. Since the path from bacterial to fungal domination in soils follows the general course of plant succession, it became easy to predict what type of soil particular plants preferred by noting where they came from. In general, perennials, trees, and shrubs prefer fungally dominated soils, while annuals, grasses, and vegetables prefer soils dominated by bacteria. One implication of these findings, for the gardener, has to do with the nitrogen in bacteria and fungi. Remember, this is what the soil food web means to a plant: when these organisms are eaten, some of the nitrogen is retained by the eater, but much of it is released as waste in the form of plant-available ammonium (NH3). Depending on the soil environment, this can either remain as ammonium or be converted into nitrate (NO3,) by special bacteria. When does this conversion occur? When ammonium is released in soils that are dominated by bacteria. This is because such soils generally have an alkaline pH (thanks to bacterial bioslime), which encourages the nitrogen-fixing bacteria to thrive. The acids produced by fungi, as they begin to dominate, lower the pH and greatly reduce the amount of these bacteria. In fungally dominated soils, much of the nitrogen remains in ammonium form. Ah, here is the rub: chemical fertilizers provide plants with nitrogen, but most do so in the form of nitrates (NO3). An understanding of the soil food web makes it clear, however, that plants that prefer fungally dominated soils ultimately won't flourish on a diet of nitrates. Knowing this can make a great deal of difference in the way you manage your gardens and yard. If you can cause either fungi or bacteria to dominate, or provide an equal mix (and you can‹just how is explained in Part 2), then plants can get the kind of nitrogen they prefer, without chemicals, and thrive. 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. If the salt-based chemical fertilizers don't kill portions of the soil food web, rototilling will. ----- 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, until they close.) The Soil's Mineral Wealth Having covered humus, let's look at the parts of our leaf that meet a mineral fate. Like most living things, leaves are made primarily of carbon-containing compounds: sugars, proteins, starches, and many other organic molecules. When soil creatures eat these compounds, some of the carbon becomes part of the consumer, as cell membrane, wing case, eyeball, or the like. And some of the carbon is released as a gas: carbon dioxide, or CO, (our breath contains carbon dioxide for the same reason). Soil organisms consume the other elements that make up the leaf, too, such as nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and all the rest, but most of those are reincorporated into solid matter‹organism or bug manure‹and remain earthbound. A substantial portion of the carbon, however, puffs into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This means that, in decomposing matter, the ratio of carbon to the other elements is decreasing; carbon drifts into the air, but most nitrogen, for example, stays behind. The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio decreases. (Compost enthusiasts will recognize this C:N ratio as a critical element of a good compost pile.) In decomposition, carbon levels drop quickly, while the amounts of the other elements in our decomposing leaf stay roughly the same. By the time the final rank of soil organisms, the microbes, is finished swarming over the leaf and digesting it, most of the consumable carbon‹that which is not tied up as humus‹is gone. Little remains but inorganic (non-carbon-containing) compounds, such as phosphate, nitrate, sulfate, and other chemicals that most gardeners will recognize from the printing on bags of fertilizer. That's right: Microbes make plant fertilizer right in the soil. This process of stripping the inorganic plant food from organic, carbon-containing compounds and returning it to the soil is called mineralization. Minerals‹the nitrates and phosphates and others‹are tiny, usually highly mobile molecules p.79 that dissolve easily in water. This means that, once the minerals in organic debris are released or fertilizer is poured onto the soil, these mineral nutrients don't hang around long but are easily leached out of soil by rain. 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. A Question of Balance Sometimes gardening books single out soil organisms as bad guys‹they supposedly "lock up" nutrients, making them unavailable for plants. In an imbalanced soil, this is true. Soil life is much more mobile than plants and has a speedier metabolism. When hungry, microbes can grab nutrients faster than roots. As William Albrecht says, "Microbes dine at the first table." If the soil life is starved by poor soil, microbes certainly won't pass on any food to plants. For example, a common soil problem is too little nitrogen. Nitrogen is used in proteins and cell membranes, and plants lacking this nutrient are pale and anemic. Gardeners are often admonished not to use wood shavings or straw as a soil amendment because they lead to nitrogen deficiency. This is because shavings and straw, though good sources of carbon, are very low in nitrogen (see Table 4-1). These nitrogen-poor amendments are fine for use as mulch, on top of the soil, but when they are mixed into the soil with a spade or tiller, decomposer organisms, which need a balanced diet p.80 of about twenty to thirty parts carbon for each part nitrogen, go on a carbon-fueled rampage. It's analogous to the whopping metabolic rush that a big dose of sugar can give you: a great short-term blast, but one that depletes other nutrients and leaves you drained. To balance this straw-powered carbon feast, soil life grabs every bit of available nitrogen, eating, breeding, and growing as fast as the low levels of this nutrient will allow. The ample but imbalanced food triggers a population explosion among the microbes. Soon the secondary and tertiary decomposers (beetles, spiders, ants), spurred by a surge in their prey, are also breeding like fury. Whenever any valuable nitrogen is released in the form of dead bodies or waste, some tiny, hungry critter instantly consumes it before plants can. The plant roots lose out because the microbes dine at the first table. This madly racing but lopsided feeding frenzy won't diminish until the overabundant carbon is either consumed or balanced by imports of nitrogen‹from the air via bacteria that pull nitrogen from the air, from animal manure, or from an observant gardener with a bag of blood meal. The same lockups occur when other nutrients are lacking in the soil. Until the soil life is properly fed, the plants can't eat. Conventional farming gets around this problem by flooding- the soil with inorganic fertilizer, ten times what the plants can consume. But this, the engineer's approach rather than the biologist's, creates water pollution and problem-prone plants. The soil life, and the soil itself, suffers from the imbalance. Here's what happens to soil life after overzealous application of chemical fertilizer. Mixing inorganic fertilizer with soil creates a surplus of mineral nutrients (an excess is always needed, since so much washes away). Now the food in short supply is carbon. Once again, the soil life roars into a feeding frenzy, spurred by the more-than-ample nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in typical p.81 NPK fertilizers. Since organisms need about twenty parts carbon for every one of nitrogen, it isn't long before any available carbon is pulled from the soil's organic matter to match all that nitrogen and tied up in living bodies. These organisms exhale carbon dioxide, so a proportion of carbon is lost with each generation. First the easily digestible organic matter is eaten, then, more slowly, the humus. Eventually nearly all the soil's carbon is gone (chemically fed soils are notoriously poor in organic matter), and the soil life, starved of this essential food, begins to die. Species of soil organisms that can't survive the shortages go extinct locally. Some of these creatures may play critical roles, perhaps secreting antibiotics to protect plants, or transferring an essential nutrient, or breaking down an otherwise inedible compound. With important links missing, the soil life falls far out of balance. Natural predators begin to die off, so some of their prey organisms, no longer kept in check in this torn food web, surge in numbers and become pests. Sadly, many of the creatures that remain after this mineral overdose are those that have learned to survive on the one remaining source of carbon: your plants. Burning carbon out of the soil with chemical fertilizers can actually select for disease organisms. All manner of chomping, sucking, mildewing, blackening, spotting horrors descend on the vegetation. With the natural controls gone and disease ravishing every green thing, humans must step in with sprays. But the now-destructive organisms have what they need to thrive‹the food and shelter of garden plants‹and they will breed whenever the now-essential human intervention diminishes. The gardener is locked on a chemical treadmill. It's a losing battle, reflected in the fact that we use twenty times the pesticides we di d fifty years ago, yet crop losses to insects and disease have doubled, according to USDA statistics. The other harm done by injudicious use of chemical fertilizers is to the soil itself. As organic matter is burned up by wildly feeding soil life, the soil loses its ability to hold water and air. Its tilth is destroyed. The desperate soil life feeds on the humus itself, the food of last resort. With humus and all other organic matter gone, the soil loses its fluffy, friable structure and collapses. Clayey soil compacts to concrete; silty soil desiccates to dust and blows away. In contrast, ample soil life boosts both the soil structure and the health of your plants. When the soil food web is chock-full of diversity, diseases are held in check. If a bacterial blight begins to bloom, a balanced supply of predators grazes this food surplus back into line. When a fungal disease threatens, microbial and insect denizens are there to capitalize on this new supply of their favorite food. Living soil is the foundation of a healthy garden. -- - 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-/ |
Miracle gro
"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. |
Miracle gro
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-/ |
Miracle gro
"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) |
Miracle gro
chablonski wrote:
Hi, is this ok to use on vegetable plants, sorry to be thick but Im learning! Yes it's fine as long as you don't overdo it. But diluted **** works just as well and it's cheaper. -Bob |
Miracle gro
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-/ |
Miracle gro
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 |
Miracle gro
"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). |
Miracle gro
"Derald" wrote in message
m... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? You have not left anything from any previous post to indicates what just what you think has been superbly done. Do you expect us to all just sit here at our computers and play guessing games about what you are thinking? |
Miracle gro
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-/ |
Miracle gro
FarmI wrote:
"Derald" wrote in message m... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. they need to get a room. has anyone grown cloves? songbird |
Miracle gro
In article ,
songbird wrote: FarmI wrote: "Derald" wrote in message m... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. they need to get a room. I give references to support my point of view, whereas Gunny and Dim seem to think that we should just support thier unsubstantiated statements. Putting 2 autocrats in the same room probably isn't a good idea. They need to be in separate wards. has anyone grown cloves? songbird -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug |
Miracle gro
In article ,
songbird wrote: FarmI wrote: "Derald" wrote in message m... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. they need to get a room. has anyone grown cloves? songbird You have a climate similar to Indonesia? -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug |
Miracle gro
"songbird" wrote in message
FarmI wrote: "Derald" wrote in message m... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. they need to get a room. How do you know? Derald leaves nothing in from previous posts so may as well be talking to him/herself in a sound proofed room. has anyone grown cloves? The spice? Sorry, I don't live in a tropical area. |
Miracle gro
FarmI wrote:
songbird wrote: FarmI wrote: Derald wrote: Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. they need to get a room. How do you know? when they use each other's names in flinging abuse back and forth that kinda gives it away. but, anyways, it's not important overall, just a comment on local color so to speak. Derald leaves nothing in from previous posts so may as well be talking to him/herself in a sound proofed room. at times, other times not. has anyone grown cloves? The spice? Sorry, I don't live in a tropical area. ok, thanks. songbird |
Miracle gro
On Jul 7, 7:00*pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given trying to get her
shit together wrote: "songbird" wrote in message FarmI wrote: "Derald" wrote in message news:KpmdnXAoLuitcInTnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@earthlink. com... Superbly done, Sir or Madame, if one may call you that. Derald, just WHAT are you on about? *Derald, Gunnar and Billy are on about each other. *they need to get a room. How do you know? *Derald leaves nothing in from previous posts so may as well be talking to him/herself in a sound proofed room. *has anyone grown cloves? The spice? *Sorry, I don't live in a tropical area. Catch up Farmnal, YOU are now mixing your posts! |
Miracle gro
On Jul 7, 12:42*pm, Billy nostalgic about his
fifth grade crossing guard good citizen oath wrote:. I give references to support my point of view, whereas ....wha, wha, wha. Teacher... their being mean to me again! The answer is Still YES it is OK!!!!!!!! (Pure 60s communist propaganda BS snipped) |
Miracle gro
On Jul 6, 10:19*pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
*Do you expect us to all just sit here at our computers and play guessing games about what you are thinking? and yet....... ( wait for it)........ you doooooooo! |
Miracle gro
On Jul 6, 10:14*pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
hoping to help "Billy" wrote in message Lame, really lame |
Miracle gro
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!! |
Miracle gro
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 |
Miracle gro
FarmI wrote:
"songbird" wrote: has anyone grown cloves? The spice? Sorry, I don't live in a tropical area. When I lived in Los Angeles metro I saw a peppercorn bush at a farmers market. Even there it was for indoors. You'd need a hot house to grow a clove plant almost anywhere in the temperate zones. |
Miracle gro
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-/ |
Miracle gro
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 |
Miracle gro
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 |
Miracle gro
In article ,
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? Score one for the Shamanista songbird. State of the World 2011: Innovations That Nourish the Planet: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (Paperback - Jan 2011) http://www.amazon.com/State-World-20...able/dp/184971 3529/ref=sr_1_33?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310168545&sr=1-33 (At a library near you, until they close) p 8 If seeds represent the short-term payoff option, the truly long-term investment with big returns is investing in the soil and water that nourish crops. In Mali and other parts of the African Sahel, soils are severely damaged from overgrazing and drought, but the use of green manure and cover crops can dramatically improve soil fertility without the use of expensive fertilizers. . . . [Roland] Bunch notes that subsidizing chemical fertilizers, which some African nations are doing heavily (by up to 75 percent in Malawi, for example), has generally not been a good long-term strategy and actu- ally reduces farmers' incentive to invest in more agroecological approaches to nourishing soils. When the fertilizer subsidies end, pro- ductivity will drop to virtually nothing. Instead, Bunch maintains that green manure/cover crops are the only sustainable solution to Africa's soil fertility crisis.12 -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug |
Miracle gro
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
... FarmI wrote: "songbird" wrote: has anyone grown cloves? The spice? Sorry, I don't live in a tropical area. When I lived in Los Angeles metro I saw a peppercorn bush at a farmers market. Even there it was for indoors. You'd need a hot house to grow a clove plant almost anywhere in the temperate zones. Huh? Since when was a peppercorn a clove? |
Miracle gro
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 |
Miracle gro
Kumbaya, my friend, kumbaya......Grow the **** up!
You sound like ole Preacher Jones," according to Luke, chapter 2, verse.....If you don't believe the true word as I have truly spoken from the very mouth of God , the world as we know it will end. I am here to show you the TRUE light as only revealed to me by the man himself....... Ignore that man behind the curtain" Does that pretty much sum it up? The rest seems to be so much BS rhetoric. Since you ELFies hijacked the Conservation Agenda to breed with your commune "we are the world" BS view, you have pretty muched ****ed up the English speaking world's understanding of science. But your "Expert" writers can always cherry pick enough crap to trow around and get something to stick The answer is still YES Miracle Gro is ok to use |
Miracle gro
On Jul 9, 1:29*am, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote: songbird wrote: And still the answer is YES |
Miracle gro
FarmI wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote: When I lived in Los Angeles metro I saw a peppercorn bush at a farmers market. Even there it was for indoors. You'd need a hot house to grow a clove plant almost anywhere in the temperate zones. Huh? Since when was a peppercorn a clove? Both well know tropicals. If you have the facilities to grow one you should be able to grow the other. In LA metro even the peppercorn plant needed to be kept in a hothouse. No way anyone in ConUS is going to be able to grow a clove plant anywhere but a hothouse. Possibly in Hawaii but definitely not in any of the continental states. |
Miracle gro
wow, your deep!
gotta say it still amazes me that you can tell all that for a internet reading. Psychic card reading and all that that black magic is amazing. Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science. http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...biochar-again/ |
biochar
Gunner wrote:
.... Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science. http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...biochar-again/ reads like a lightweight blog post but it fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere. frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should always educate themself. songbird |
biochar
In article ,
songbird wrote: Gunner wrote: ... Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science. "Ad hominem" is Gunny's middle name. Is English your second language? YOU'RE not very good at it. What is this pseudo science of which you speak, or do you even know? Your fascination with "escape from nature" hydroponics seems to have blinded you to the eco-system in which your organism lives, just as surely as your lack of attention must be responsible for your not recognizing that songbird is of the feminine persuasion. http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...on-biochar-aga in/ reads like a lightweight blog post but it fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere. You are far too generous, songbird, to refer to this blog as lightweight. Obviously Gunny isn't literate, or he would have noticed that the article claims bio-char is good. The only real question posed in it is how good. Then the article wanders-off looking for a straw man to bash, and comes up with the red herring of the "emission-free" biomass stove, which should appeal to Gunny, because it is a no-brainer. What isn't addressed is the fact that whatever emissions a biomass stove makes is small in comparison to the amount of carbon sequestered in the char. That the char from a millennia ago can still be found in the Amazon region (where decomposition rates for organic materials is very high) seems to have completely escaped Gunny's fallible powers of observation in his egregiously weak, partisan attack on "organic" farming/gardening (which is the motivating force behind most of his posts). Lastly, the article that Gunny presents rails against the exploitation of "cap and trade" in carbon credits. Beyond this exploitation is the question of why these CO2 pollution credits are given freely, instead of being sold, to polluters. That money could be used for off-sets, instead of just lining polluters pockets. frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should always educate themself. Hopefully, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by Elizabeth Warren will help (until corporations co-opt it), but the first line of defense always needs to be self-defense. Caveat emptor. songbird -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
biochar
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote: Gunner wrote: ... Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science. "Ad hominem" is Gunny's middle name. Is English your second language? YOU'RE not very good at it. What is this pseudo science of which you speak, or do you even know? Your fascination with "escape from nature" hydroponics seems to have blinded you to the eco-system in which your organism lives, just as surely as your lack of attention must be responsible for your not recognizing that songbird is of the feminine persuasion. while i am in tune with my self and have no specific concerns about which gender i appear to be on-line i do find it amusing how people pigeon hole me based upon a name. remember your biological facts and you won't be wrong in guessing. http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...on-biochar-aga in/ reads like a lightweight blog post but it fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere. You are far too generous, songbird, to refer to this blog as lightweight. Obviously Gunny isn't literate, or he would have noticed that the article claims bio-char is good. The only real question posed in it is how good. i wasn't going to critique... not enough time or energy at the moment. Then the article wanders-off looking for a straw man to bash, and comes up with the red herring of the "emission-free" biomass stove, which should appeal to Gunny, because it is a no-brainer. What isn't addressed is the fact that whatever emissions a biomass stove makes is small in comparison to the amount of carbon sequestered in the char. That the char from a millennia ago can still be found in the Amazon region (where decomposition rates for organic materials is very high) seems to have completely escaped Gunny's fallible powers of observation in his egregiously weak, partisan attack on "organic" farming/gardening (which is the motivating force behind most of his posts). i have no idea what a biomass stove is... i haven't looked it up. as for sequestering carbon, at this stage i'm glad for any help in getting it done easily at low cost and with as few emissions as possible. Lastly, the article that Gunny presents rails against the exploitation of "cap and trade" in carbon credits. Beyond this exploitation is the question of why these CO2 pollution credits are given freely, instead of being sold, to polluters. That money could be used for off-sets, instead of just lining polluters pockets. you'd hear "the end of the earth is coming!" rhetoric if the USoA ever actually had a carbon cap and trade system. the USoA has made a lot of progress even without it in the past 20 years. i hope that progress continues. frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should always educate themself. Hopefully, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by Elizabeth Warren will help (until corporations co-opt it), but the first line of defense always needs to be self-defense. Caveat emptor. we shall see. i suspect it will be quickly defanged (if it has any teeth to begin with). songbird |
biochar
"songbird" wrote in message ... Billy wrote: songbird wrote: Gunner wrote: ... Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo science. "Ad hominem" is Gunny's middle name. Is English your second language? YOU'RE not very good at it. What is this pseudo science of which you speak, or do you even know? Your fascination with "escape from nature" hydroponics seems to have blinded you to the eco-system in which your organism lives, just as surely as your lack of attention must be responsible for your not recognizing that songbird is of the feminine persuasion. while i am in tune with my self and have no specific concerns about which gender i appear to be on-line i do find it amusing how people pigeon hole me based upon a name. remember your biological facts and you won't be wrong in guessing. http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...on-biochar-aga in/ reads like a lightweight blog post but it fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere. You are far too generous, songbird, to refer to this blog as lightweight. Obviously Gunny isn't literate, or he would have noticed that the article claims bio-char is good. The only real question posed in it is how good. i wasn't going to critique... not enough time or energy at the moment. Then the article wanders-off looking for a straw man to bash, and comes up with the red herring of the "emission-free" biomass stove, which should appeal to Gunny, because it is a no-brainer. What isn't addressed is the fact that whatever emissions a biomass stove makes is small in comparison to the amount of carbon sequestered in the char. That the char from a millennia ago can still be found in the Amazon region (where decomposition rates for organic materials is very high) seems to have completely escaped Gunny's fallible powers of observation in his egregiously weak, partisan attack on "organic" farming/gardening (which is the motivating force behind most of his posts). i have no idea what a biomass stove is... i haven't looked it up. as for sequestering carbon, at this stage i'm glad for any help in getting it done easily at low cost and with as few emissions as possible. Lastly, the article that Gunny presents rails against the exploitation of "cap and trade" in carbon credits. Beyond this exploitation is the question of why these CO2 pollution credits are given freely, instead of being sold, to polluters. That money could be used for off-sets, instead of just lining polluters pockets. you'd hear "the end of the earth is coming!" rhetoric if the USoA ever actually had a carbon cap and trade system. the USoA has made a lot of progress even without it in the past 20 years. i hope that progress continues. frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should always educate themself. Hopefully, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by Elizabeth Warren will help (until corporations co-opt it), but the first line of defense always needs to be self-defense. Caveat emptor. we shall see. i suspect it will be quickly defanged (if it has any teeth to begin with). songbird As in, only the males birds sing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter