does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in cow manure?
--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in cow
manure?

Sorry, I don't eat cown manure so have never been interested in it's protein
level. I've only ever been interested in the NPK.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in
cow manure?

If the cow is healthy not much protein at all. There are some nitrogen
compounds though that are useful as plant nutrients. If you particularly
want to increase the nitrogen content of your soil bird manure (chicken,
turkey, pigeon, etc) has much more N compounds than cow but be careful as it
will burn your plants when fresh or if applied too heavily, whereas cow is
not likely to.

http://www.primalseeds.org/npk.htm

David

On May 3, 7:28 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in cow manure?


Andy comments
If you're using it as fertilizer for your garden, be aware that
unless it is
really composted well, the hundreds of undigested seeds in it will
keep you busy weeding for years. I have mixed feeling about cow
poop,
and might suggest using bird poop, if you have access to it,
instead....

Andy in Eureka, Texas

On May 3, 7:28 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.




Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (45BC) ?????

Andy in Eureka, Texas

In article
AndyS writes:
On May 3, 7:28 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (45BC) ?????

A garbeled version thereof used as demo text by printers.
It is generally giberish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum

--
Drew Lawson For it's not the fall, but landing,
That will alter your social standing

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in cow
manure?

Sorry, I don't eat cown manure so have never been interested in it's protein
level. I've only ever been interested in the NPK.

heck I don't eat plenty of things, but occasionally I'm curious about other
aspects of food other than it's taste

but thanks anyway

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in
message ...
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in
cow manure?

Sorry, I don't eat cown manure so have never been interested in it's
protein level. I've only ever been interested in the NPK.

heck I don't eat plenty of things, but occasionally I'm curious about
other aspects of food other than it's taste

but thanks anyway

I think Fran's point (she may correct me) is that as a gardener one is not
interested in foodstuffs or their components, like protein, as inputs as one
might in the cases of say stockfeed or your own diet.

finds nearest soapbox
Plants are autotrophs, that is they don't eat, they take in fairly
substances (air, water, minerals etc) and photosynthesise more complex
substances using sunlight energy. Those complex substances may be food for
organisms that do eat (heterotrophs) like cows and us. The inputs we are
interested in, NPK and other elements, are often loosely called "plant food"
which can be confusing in comparison with animal nutrients such as protein,
carbohydrates etc as the two are not similar classes of substances nor do
they have the same role in metabolism. Gardening terminology is also loose
in talking about inputs as elements when to a chemist none of them are
present in the form of elements but as compounds and molecules.

This leads us to the case of N (nitrogen) as a plant input which is what I
think you were asking about. Although it is four fifths of air plants
cannot absorb N directly as nitrogen gas is a molecule of two atoms (N2) and
that molecule is extremely stable and chemically inaccessible to the plant.
So plants need some help to absorb N. This can be from microbes that fix
nitrogen, such microbes can take in N2 from the air and produce useable N
compounds. Often such are symbiotic with plants as in legumes. Plants can
also get N as compounds as part of synthetic fertilisers, manures and
composts, and from rain during electrical storms. This is why the N
component of manures in its NPK value is of interest not the protein
content.
descends soapbox

If this was not the point of your question ask and I will try again.

David

Thank you very much Duncan

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in
message

does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in
cow manure?

Sorry, I don't eat cown manure so have never been interested in it's
protein level. I've only ever been interested in the NPK.

heck I don't eat plenty of things, but occasionally I'm curious about
other aspects of food other than it's taste

but thanks anyway

I think Fran's point (she may correct me) is that as a gardener one is not
interested in foodstuffs or their components, like protein, as inputs as
one might in the cases of say stockfeed or your own diet.

finds nearest soapbox
Plants are autotrophs, that is they don't eat, they take in fairly
substances (air, water, minerals etc) and photosynthesise more complex
substances using sunlight energy. Those complex substances may be food
for organisms that do eat (heterotrophs) like cows and us. The inputs we
are interested in, NPK and other elements, are often loosely called "plant
food" which can be confusing in comparison with animal nutrients such as
protein, carbohydrates etc as the two are not similar classes of
substances nor do they have the same role in metabolism. Gardening
terminology is also loose in talking about inputs as elements when to a
chemist none of them are present in the form of elements but as compounds
and molecules.

This leads us to the case of N (nitrogen) as a plant input which is what I
think you were asking about. Although it is four fifths of air plants
cannot absorb N directly as nitrogen gas is a molecule of two atoms (N2)
and that molecule is extremely stable and chemically inaccessible to the
plant. So plants need some help to absorb N. This can be from microbes
that fix nitrogen, such microbes can take in N2 from the air and produce
useable N compounds. Often such are symbiotic with plants as in legumes.
Plants can also get N as compounds as part of synthetic fertilisers,
manures and composts, and from rain during electrical storms. This is why
the N component of manures in its NPK value is of interest not the protein
content.
descends soapbox

If this was not the point of your question ask and I will try again.

:-)) Now that is a far more technical explanation than I'd have given.

But I agree with your summation. IF I ate any of the cow poop I put on my
plants or considered the poop to be human 'food', I might want to know it's
protein content. Or if one or more of our cattle were ill, I may be
interested in protein passed in the animal's faeces. When it comes to cow
poop I use on my plants, however, I am only interested in the NPK of the
poop.

(And I too wondered if the OP really might have meant to ask about the N
content of cow poop. But that was not the question asked even though asking
that question of other gardeners would make sense whereas asking about
protein didn't. Given how many trolls we've had here in the past who knows
what prompted the OP to ask such a question.......)

David Hare-Scott wrote:
....
finds nearest soapbox
Plants are autotrophs, that is they don't eat, they take in fairly
substances (air, water, minerals etc) and photosynthesise more complex
substances using sunlight energy. Those complex substances may be food for
organisms that do eat (heterotrophs) like cows and us. The inputs we are
interested in, NPK and other elements, are often loosely called "plant food"
which can be confusing in comparison with animal nutrients such as protein,
carbohydrates etc as the two are not similar classes of substances nor do
they have the same role in metabolism. Gardening terminology is also loose
in talking about inputs as elements when to a chemist none of them are
present in the form of elements but as compounds and molecules.

This leads us to the case of N (nitrogen) as a plant input which is what I
think you were asking about. Although it is four fifths of air plants
cannot absorb N directly as nitrogen gas is a molecule of two atoms (N2) and
that molecule is extremely stable and chemically inaccessible to the plant.
So plants need some help to absorb N. This can be from microbes that fix
nitrogen, such microbes can take in N2 from the air and produce useable N
compounds. Often such are symbiotic with plants as in legumes. Plants can
also get N as compounds as part of synthetic fertilisers, manures and
composts, and from rain during electrical storms. This is why the N
component of manures in its NPK value is of interest not the protein
content.
descends soapbox

If this was not the point of your question ask and I will try again.

i would be interested in a good list of studies
done on actual nitrogen uptake from soil using
tagged sources (radio isotopes?).

so far in my readings i have come across one
study mentioned (which i didn't follow up on)
that said very little of applied nitrogen from
chemical fertilizers actually is taken up by
plants, but that it must act somehow by freeing
other nitrogen in the soil/organisms that plants
can take up. this was consistent for both
the first and second year after application...

so i'm curious if anyone else has gotten into
this topic beyond the surface?


songbird

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
....
i would be interested in a good list of studies
done on actual nitrogen uptake from soil using
tagged sources (radio isotopes?).

so far in my readings i have come across one
study mentioned (which i didn't follow up on)
that said very little of applied nitrogen from
chemical fertilizers actually is taken up by
plants, but that it must act somehow by freeing
other nitrogen in the soil/organisms that plants
can take up. this was consistent for both
the first and second year after application...

so i'm curious if anyone else has gotten into
this topic beyond the surface?

Didn't like my thumb-nail on organic gardening?

considering that is what i've been doing the past
few years why would i not like it?

however, i was off on a tangent asking if anyone
knew of any actual studies using nitrogen isotopes,
as i did not track down the one i ran across in my
winter readings... i meant to write down the author,
title, etc. and then had to take the book back to
the library. silly me.


The ecology of the soil
encapsulating the life and death cycles in the microorganisms, as well
as their symbiotic relationships with the garden plants is what nurtures
plants naturally (think slow release). One of the problems with chemical
fertilizers (chemferts) is that they are water soluble. Clay in the soil
will mitigate this to some extent by ionic bonding, but, by and large,
the the chemferts get washed away to become someone's else's problem
(blue babies, ocean dead-zones).

what is annoying about much of the extra nitrogen
problem is that it is largely preventable.


songbird

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in
message ...
does anyone have an idea of how much protein is typically found in
cow manure?

Sorry, I don't eat cown manure so have never been interested in
it's protein level. I've only ever been interested in the NPK.

heck I don't eat plenty of things, but occasionally I'm curious
about other aspects of food other than it's taste

but thanks anyway

I think Fran's point (she may correct me) is that as a gardener one
is not interested in foodstuffs or their components, like protein,
as inputs as one might in the cases of say stockfeed or your own
diet.

finds nearest soapbox
Plants are autotrophs, that is they don't eat, they take in fairly
substances (air, water, minerals etc) and photosynthesise more
complex substances using sunlight energy. Those complex substances
may be food for organisms that do eat (heterotrophs) like cows and
us. The inputs we are interested in, NPK and other elements, are
often loosely called "plant food" which can be confusing in
comparison with animal nutrients such as protein, carbohydrates etc
as the two are not similar classes of substances nor do they have
the same role in metabolism. Gardening terminology is also loose in
talking about inputs as elements when to a chemist none of them are
present in the form of elements but as compounds and molecules.

This leads us to the case of N (nitrogen) as a plant input which is
what I think you were asking about. Although it is four fifths of
air plants cannot absorb N directly as nitrogen gas is a molecule of
two atoms (N2) and that molecule is extremely stable and chemically
inaccessible to the plant. So plants need some help to absorb N.
This can be from microbes that fix nitrogen, such microbes can take
in N2 from the air and produce useable N compounds. Often such are
symbiotic with plants as in legumes. Plants can also get N as
compounds as part of synthetic fertilisers, manures and composts,
and from rain during electrical storms. This is why the N component
of manures in its NPK value is of interest not the protein content.
descends soapbox

If this was not the point of your question ask and I will try again.

David

ascends soapbox
Uh, you forgot the amino acids that come from micro-organisms, which
is what organic gardening is all about, i.e. the feeding of micro
flora and fauna.
descends soapbox

That's true but the context was inputs not stocks. Once present the
microflora act as a storage and exchange medium but the OP cannot feasibly
add microflora to his soil as a source of N for the whole community.

D

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
...
i would be interested in a good list of studies
done on actual nitrogen uptake from soil using
tagged sources (radio isotopes?).

so far in my readings i have come across one
study mentioned (which i didn't follow up on)
that said very little of applied nitrogen from
chemical fertilizers actually is taken up by
plants, but that it must act somehow by freeing
other nitrogen in the soil/organisms that plants
can take up. this was consistent for both
the first and second year after application...

so i'm curious if anyone else has gotten into
this topic beyond the surface?

Didn't like my thumb-nail on organic gardening?

considering that is what i've been doing the past
few years why would i not like it?

however, i was off on a tangent asking if anyone
knew of any actual studies using nitrogen isotopes,
as i did not track down the one i ran across in my
winter readings... i meant to write down the author,
title, etc. and then had to take the book back to
the library. silly me.


What are you on about? Are you looking for the fate of the applied NO3-,
or what?

nitrogen isotopes used in studies of actual
nitrogen uptake by plants.

yes, the fate of applied nitrogen compounds,
but actual studies of tagged compounds using
nitrogen isotopes.

i've come across only one reference so far in
my readings and was wondering if anyone else here
had come across any other studies of this type.


Ammonium ions are positively charged and therefore stick (are sorbed) to
negatively charged clay particles and soil organic matter. The positive
charge prevents ammonium nitrogen from being washed out of the soil (or
leached) by rainfall. In contrast, the negatively charged nitrate ion is
not held by soil particles and so can be washed down the soil profile,
leading to decreased soil fertility and nitrate enrichment of downstream
surface and groundwaters.

yes, but this is different than what i am asking
about.


The ecology of the soil
encapsulating the life and death cycles in the microorganisms, as well
as their symbiotic relationships with the garden plants is what nurtures
plants naturally (think slow release). One of the problems with chemical
fertilizers (chemferts) is that they are water soluble. Clay in the soil
will mitigate this to some extent by ionic bonding, but, by and large,
the the chemferts get washed away to become someone's else's problem
(blue babies, ocean dead-zones).

what is annoying about much of the extra nitrogen
problem is that it is largely preventable.

Especially with the implementation of organic farming methods.
....


songbird

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
....
What are you on about? Are you looking for the fate of the applied NO3-,
or what?

nitrogen isotopes used in studies of actual
nitrogen uptake by plants.

yes, the fate of applied nitrogen compounds,
but actual studies of tagged compounds using
nitrogen isotopes.

I've heard that people use isotopes for these kinds of experiments.


Hmm. Bit tricky that. Natural Nitrogen (N) consists of two stable
isotopes, nitrogen-14, which makes up the vast majority of naturally
occurring nitrogen, and nitrogen-15.
Stable huh? Well they're out.

ah, but that is ok, just that if most natural nitrogen
is N14 then you use a high portion of N15 and then track
how much of that gets adsorbed. this must be what the
experiment i saw in passing did because they didn't say
anything about it being difficult or very short term.

or they were using other atom isotopes for tracking...
can't say for sure.


Fourteen radioactive isotopes (radioisotopes)
[radioactive! That's more like it]
have also been found so far, with atomic masses ranging from 10 to 25,
and one nuclear isomer, 11mN. All of these radioisotopes are
short-lived, with the longest-lived one being nitrogen-13 with a
half-life of 9.965 minutes.
Nine minutes? You'll have to be quick about your experiment ;O))

All of the others have half-lives below 7.15 seconds, with most of these
being below five-eighths of a second.
Oh, how the time flies!

heh, good to know.


songbird