On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
It's your own fault. You introduced the transportation issue. :-)
You're advising the previous poster to spend a couple of days a week
chasing around to restaurants and race tracks to find and transport
large-volume materials to replace a couple of bags of the chemical
nutrients plants require?

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

The previous poster is looking at real-life issues, and doubtless
already uses all the 'organic' processes he can manage. *His*
cost/benefit analysis appears to have come down on the side of
manufactured fertilizer. Makes sense to me. He's not talking about
wholesale DDT spraying, or lowering the water table to keep his
golfcourse green.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

Relying only on chemical amendments and chemical vitamins might be ok,
but there may be some essential trace minerals that we do not know
about yet, so it's still a good idea even if you use chemical
fertilizers and vitamins to "feed" your land and yourself with a wide
variety of nutritional sources.

There are people who say chemical fertilizers are the devil incarnate,
and would not use them no matter what, and others who aren't that hard
line. I figure that if you are trying to get a compost to heat and
you don't happen to have or don't want to use blood meal, some
chemical nitrogen won't end the world as we know it if you toss a
handful in now and then. But, I wouldn't run out and buy some today,
but I'd probably use it up if I already had some.

If my garden is deficient of boron.. I think it was epsom salts you
can spray on it .. those crystals you can soak your sore tired feet
in, or take as a laxative. They're boxed or bagged up, but they've
been around forever. Chemical or organic? Or they mined crystals, or
artificially "induced" to crystal? Does the ground care?

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Janice

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
It's your own fault. You introduced the transportation issue. :-)
You're advising the previous poster to spend a couple of days a week
chasing around to restaurants and race tracks to find and transport
large-volume materials to replace a couple of bags of the chemical
nutrients plants require?

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

The previous poster is looking at real-life issues, and doubtless
already uses all the 'organic' processes he can manage. *His*
cost/benefit analysis appears to have come down on the side of
manufactured fertilizer. Makes sense to me. He's not talking about
wholesale DDT spraying, or lowering the water table to keep his
golfcourse green.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

Relying only on chemical amendments and chemical vitamins might be ok,
but there may be some essential trace minerals that we do not know
about yet, so it's still a good idea even if you use chemical
fertilizers and vitamins to "feed" your land and yourself with a wide
variety of nutritional sources.

There are people who say chemical fertilizers are the devil incarnate,
and would not use them no matter what, and others who aren't that hard
line. I figure that if you are trying to get a compost to heat and
you don't happen to have or don't want to use blood meal, some
chemical nitrogen won't end the world as we know it if you toss a
handful in now and then. But, I wouldn't run out and buy some today,
but I'd probably use it up if I already had some.

If my garden is deficient of boron.. I think it was epsom salts you
can spray on it .. those crystals you can soak your sore tired feet
in, or take as a laxative. They're boxed or bagged up, but they've
been around forever. Chemical or organic? Or they mined crystals, or
artificially "induced" to crystal? Does the ground care?

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Janice

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
It's your own fault. You introduced the transportation issue. :-)
You're advising the previous poster to spend a couple of days a week
chasing around to restaurants and race tracks to find and transport
large-volume materials to replace a couple of bags of the chemical
nutrients plants require?

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

The previous poster is looking at real-life issues, and doubtless
already uses all the 'organic' processes he can manage. *His*
cost/benefit analysis appears to have come down on the side of
manufactured fertilizer. Makes sense to me. He's not talking about
wholesale DDT spraying, or lowering the water table to keep his
golfcourse green.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

Relying only on chemical amendments and chemical vitamins might be ok,
but there may be some essential trace minerals that we do not know
about yet, so it's still a good idea even if you use chemical
fertilizers and vitamins to "feed" your land and yourself with a wide
variety of nutritional sources.

There are people who say chemical fertilizers are the devil incarnate,
and would not use them no matter what, and others who aren't that hard
line. I figure that if you are trying to get a compost to heat and
you don't happen to have or don't want to use blood meal, some
chemical nitrogen won't end the world as we know it if you toss a
handful in now and then. But, I wouldn't run out and buy some today,
but I'd probably use it up if I already had some.

If my garden is deficient of boron.. I think it was epsom salts you
can spray on it .. those crystals you can soak your sore tired feet
in, or take as a laxative. They're boxed or bagged up, but they've
been around forever. Chemical or organic? Or they mined crystals, or
artificially "induced" to crystal? Does the ground care?

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Janice

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

I'm a skeptic. As to people not absorbing vitamins in pills, I am
*extremely* dubious that the entire world medical community has been
hoodwinked for a century. Similarly *I've seen organic
advocates...claim" butters no parsnips for me.

I would be very interested in a *respectable* -- i.e., non advocacy --
reference to the chemical composition/nutrients in an average load of
cow manure. Yes, manure is good. But is it guaranteed to be the ideal,
totally balanced fertilizer? In fact, since someone was unwise enough
to mention selenium as an essential mineral, I scurried around and
found that it's exclusively drawn from the soil, and if there's a
selenium deficiency in dirt (and fodder), animals don't manufacture
it.

As for science not having discovered all the vitamins and minerals
essential to life, this is possible. However, I'm pretty happy with
the ones they *have* discovered and analyzed, as well as having
recognized the diseases/conditions caused by well-known deficiencies.
"Science" discovered the connection between iodine and various thyroid
conditions. You can use as much cow poo as you choose to nourish veg,
but if you and your cows live in an iodine-deficient area, it's not
going to help that goiter, which used to be quite common before
"science" added iodine to salt.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
It's your own fault. You introduced the transportation issue. :-)
You're advising the previous poster to spend a couple of days a week
chasing around to restaurants and race tracks to find and transport
large-volume materials to replace a couple of bags of the chemical
nutrients plants require?

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

The previous poster is looking at real-life issues, and doubtless
already uses all the 'organic' processes he can manage. *His*
cost/benefit analysis appears to have come down on the side of
manufactured fertilizer. Makes sense to me. He's not talking about
wholesale DDT spraying, or lowering the water table to keep his
golfcourse green.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

Relying only on chemical amendments and chemical vitamins might be ok,
but there may be some essential trace minerals that we do not know
about yet, so it's still a good idea even if you use chemical
fertilizers and vitamins to "feed" your land and yourself with a wide
variety of nutritional sources.

There are people who say chemical fertilizers are the devil incarnate,
and would not use them no matter what, and others who aren't that hard
line. I figure that if you are trying to get a compost to heat and
you don't happen to have or don't want to use blood meal, some
chemical nitrogen won't end the world as we know it if you toss a
handful in now and then. But, I wouldn't run out and buy some today,
but I'd probably use it up if I already had some.

If my garden is deficient of boron.. I think it was epsom salts you
can spray on it .. those crystals you can soak your sore tired feet
in, or take as a laxative. They're boxed or bagged up, but they've
been around forever. Chemical or organic? Or they mined crystals, or
artificially "induced" to crystal? Does the ground care?

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Janice

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

I'm a skeptic. As to people not absorbing vitamins in pills, I am
*extremely* dubious that the entire world medical community has been
hoodwinked for a century. Similarly *I've seen organic
advocates...claim" butters no parsnips for me.

I would be very interested in a *respectable* -- i.e., non advocacy --
reference to the chemical composition/nutrients in an average load of
cow manure. Yes, manure is good. But is it guaranteed to be the ideal,
totally balanced fertilizer? In fact, since someone was unwise enough
to mention selenium as an essential mineral, I scurried around and
found that it's exclusively drawn from the soil, and if there's a
selenium deficiency in dirt (and fodder), animals don't manufacture
it.

As for science not having discovered all the vitamins and minerals
essential to life, this is possible. However, I'm pretty happy with
the ones they *have* discovered and analyzed, as well as having
recognized the diseases/conditions caused by well-known deficiencies.
"Science" discovered the connection between iodine and various thyroid
conditions. You can use as much cow poo as you choose to nourish veg,
but if you and your cows live in an iodine-deficient area, it's not
going to help that goiter, which used to be quite common before
"science" added iodine to salt.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:23:01 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food. I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

Another thing about chemical fertilizers is they only provide what is
put in the bag, what "science" has decided what plants need. Just like
when we buy vitamins, there are only certain vitamins and minerals
added, only those that "science" has decided we need.

I'm a skeptic. As to people not absorbing vitamins in pills, I am
*extremely* dubious that the entire world medical community has been
hoodwinked for a century. Similarly *I've seen organic
advocates...claim" butters no parsnips for me.

I would be very interested in a *respectable* -- i.e., non advocacy --
reference to the chemical composition/nutrients in an average load of
cow manure. Yes, manure is good. But is it guaranteed to be the ideal,
totally balanced fertilizer? In fact, since someone was unwise enough
to mention selenium as an essential mineral, I scurried around and
found that it's exclusively drawn from the soil, and if there's a
selenium deficiency in dirt (and fodder), animals don't manufacture
it.

As for science not having discovered all the vitamins and minerals
essential to life, this is possible. However, I'm pretty happy with
the ones they *have* discovered and analyzed, as well as having
recognized the diseases/conditions caused by well-known deficiencies.
"Science" discovered the connection between iodine and various thyroid
conditions. You can use as much cow poo as you choose to nourish veg,
but if you and your cows live in an iodine-deficient area, it's not
going to help that goiter, which used to be quite common before
"science" added iodine to salt.

The Watcher wrote:

....snip.....

Look at race tracks, they are generally quite happy for people to take
the manure away.

One problem with racetracks and other sources of manure is that they sometimes
spray their manure with pesticides to keep the flies away.

Also, it comes loaded with worming gunk, so you have to let it stand for
a while to break it down, unless you want to kill your worms (soil ones
that is). {:-).

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
It's your own fault. You introduced the transportation issue. :-)
You're advising the previous poster to spend a couple of days a week
chasing around to restaurants and race tracks to find and transport
large-volume materials to replace a couple of bags of the chemical
nutrients plants require?

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

That's still being investigated. It's been claimed that our bodies
don't absorb
nutrients from pills the same way they absorb nutrients from food.
I've seen
many organic advocates make the same claim about plants.

There is also the issue of trace chemicals in the commercial fertilizers
that build up over time and harm the plants. I understand that a whole
lot of formerly very fertile land is now barely usable.

Of course, there is no doubt that the bulk organic matter of soil needs
to be maintained. If the soil sees only chemical fertilizers, but no
horse pucky or grass clippings or whatever, it's going to lose go
downhill.


Ray

(The Watcher) wrote in
:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)
The previous poster is looking at real-life issues, and doubtless
already uses all the 'organic' processes he can manage. *His*
cost/benefit analysis appears to have come down on the side of
manufactured fertilizer. Makes sense to me. He's not talking about
wholesale DDT spraying, or lowering the water table to keep his
golfcourse green.

One factor rarely included in the cost/benefits analysis is the
problem of possibly running out of fossil fuels(which is where many of
the chemicals come from). It's kind of hard to establish a value for
that, but it might be important somewhere down the road.



Well, yes, the problem of *where* the factory gets the supplies from
which the fertiliser is made will certainly be important at some stage.
I have no idea of the quantities of fossil fuel actually used to derive
the fertiliser but I would expect that the amount of fuel used to
provide power to the factories is quite considerable.

The other issue with factory fertiliser is that quite extensive amounts
of mining are undertaken to obtain some chemicals - this also is of
concern and these points, obviously, could be addressed if only 100%
"organic" farming is practised.

I expect that if I, at home, develop my land to a maximum state of
fertility (which I am attempting to do by importing chook poo, grass
clippings, straw etc) and recycle everything - including composting me
when the time comes - then there will be no further degradation. Of
course, this also requires that I export nothing at all (including what
I shall tactfully call "personal waste"). Of course, all this means that
the productivity of land can not possibly *increase* - the best I can
hope for is that it will stay the same. If we factor in losses to the
air through respiration and losses to the water table through leaching
it seems that even using the most radical of recycling isn't going to be
enough to even maintain the fertility that I have created.

Since, at this stage, that isn't practical it seems there are only two
solutions available:

1. Import ever-increasing amounts of organic matter from elsewhere. This
seems like a good idea until the realisation hits that *this* organic
matter has to be grown/harvested/whatever by someone who is facing the
problem that I am avoiding.

2. Use factory fertilisers and accept the environmental damage.

I don't like either option but since it seems inevitable that option 1
leads to option 2 *for somebody* I think it would be far more
responsible of me to just accept the need for option 2 and behave in as
environmentally friendly manner as I can whilst doing this.

Now, despite my arguments above, I can see that it is easily possible
for me to continue importing organic matter since this is material that
will otherwise be sent to the local tip. I can also buy whatever
additional organic fertilisers are required. This seems to be more
expensive (time and currency) than using factory fertilisers and the
only reason I would do this, as I tried to say in the original post, is
if there are definite (i.e. proven) health and/or taste reasons. By
converting just about all of my grass+weed area to vegetable and grain
production I think I'm doing more than my fair share of alleviating the
landfill waste and I will continue to import and compost what my time and
budget allows.

The taste argument has been concluded to my satisfaction (i.e. taste is
more a matter of perception and variety than factory fertiliser) but
there have been few comments on health. I'm quietly confident that not
too many health problems exist directly affecting me or the soil but I
am still curious as to whether or not plants fed factory fertiliser have
a changed amount of bio-available nutrients.

Regards,

Ivan.

Janice wrote in
:

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

As I understand it, and I'm willing to be corrected on this, factory
fertilisers cause faster degradation of humus by allowing a greater
quantity of plants to grow. More plants, of course, leads directly to
greater consumption of humus. The other factor, which is present regardless
of preferred fertiliser regime, is that of oxygenation. When we till the
soil we are introducing vastly increased amounts of oxygen and all the
little bugs 'n' stuff just go consumption crazy.

Regarding buildup of salts I understand this to be correct which is why
responsible use of fertilisers includes using lime. I'm not sure that humus
does act as a buffer since it is pH neutral. It may allow a greater
distribution of the salts so that the effect isn't as immediately noticable
but an acid build up is unavoidable no matter what fertiliser is used.


If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Yes, that is what my personal thoughts are and also the recommendation of
the book that started this whole thing.


Janice



Thanks,

Ivan.

On 25 Feb 2004 14:56:03 +1100, Ivan McDonagh
wrote:

Janice wrote in
:

The main thing wrong with using chemical fertilizers other than their
limiting factors, is they seemingly burn the organic matter from the
soil! Or maybe it's just that it doesn't add any, and it builds up
salts in the soil, which will soon ruin your soil. If there is lots
organic matter used, it buffers those salts, water etc.

As I understand it, and I'm willing to be corrected on this, factory
fertilisers cause faster degradation of humus by allowing a greater
quantity of plants to grow. More plants, of course, leads directly to
greater consumption of humus. The other factor, which is present regardless
of preferred fertiliser regime, is that of oxygenation. When we till the
soil we are introducing vastly increased amounts of oxygen and all the
little bugs 'n' stuff just go consumption crazy.

Regarding buildup of salts I understand this to be correct which is why
responsible use of fertilisers includes using lime.

Lime was always mentioned in the garden books.. which is totally
inappropriate for my part of the world, as the soils are already
alkaline. So, I figure each person should be aware of their soil PH
and treat it accordingly. Like I read somewhere that one should not
put Oak leaves in the compost bin, because they make it too acidic.
That made Me think I should actively seek out oak leaves as my soil is
alkaline, and in some areas, like where I'm trying to grow blueberries
in areas where all the soil was dug out and a sandy mix of soil and
peat moss was mixed and put back into the trenches. I could use some
compost that leans to the acidic for that area. It's all relative ;-)

Janice

I'm not sure that humus
does act as a buffer since it is pH neutral. It may allow a greater
distribution of the salts so that the effect isn't as immediately noticable
but an acid build up is unavoidable no matter what fertiliser is used.


If you need to use the chemical fertilizers, use LOTS of organic
matter too.

Yes, that is what my personal thoughts are and also the recommendation of
the book that started this whole thing.


Janice



Thanks,

Ivan.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:43:14 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

There is also the issue of trace chemicals in the commercial fertilizers
that build up over time and harm the plants. I understand that a whole
lot of formerly very fertile land is now barely usable.

But this is not specific to commercial fertilizers. It is recommeded
for farming operations that both soil AND MANURE be regularly
monitored to balance nutrients.

Of course, there is no doubt that the bulk organic matter of soil needs
to be maintained. If the soil sees only chemical fertilizers, but no
horse pucky or grass clippings or whatever, it's going to lose go
downhill.

You're combining two features here. Chemical fertilizer provides
nutrients with little or no organic matter. Composted materials
provide organic matter with, usually, not a great deal of nutrition.
Animal poo provides nutrients and some organic matter. You have a
happier tomato plant with both a soil rich in organic matter AND
nutrients, wherever they come from. If all it took was manure, hog
waste ponds would fields of corn. Unwise application of chemical
fertilizers can 'burn' plants; so can unwise application of chicken
manure.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:43:14 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:50:20 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

(snip)

I don't understand why 'artificial' fertilizers have such vociferous
opponents. AFAIK, plants don't care whether their nitrogen and
phosphorous comes from cowpats or granules.

There is also the issue of trace chemicals in the commercial fertilizers
that build up over time and harm the plants. I understand that a whole
lot of formerly very fertile land is now barely usable.

But this is not specific to commercial fertilizers. It is recommeded
for farming operations that both soil AND MANURE be regularly
monitored to balance nutrients.

Of course, there is no doubt that the bulk organic matter of soil needs
to be maintained. If the soil sees only chemical fertilizers, but no
horse pucky or grass clippings or whatever, it's going to lose go
downhill.

You're combining two features here. Chemical fertilizer provides
nutrients with little or no organic matter. Composted materials
provide organic matter with, usually, not a great deal of nutrition.
Animal poo provides nutrients and some organic matter. You have a
happier tomato plant with both a soil rich in organic matter AND
nutrients, wherever they come from. If all it took was manure, hog
waste ponds would fields of corn. Unwise application of chemical
fertilizers can 'burn' plants; so can unwise application of chicken
manure.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:25:58 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

One factor rarely included in the cost/benefits analysis is the problem of
possibly running out of fossil fuels(which is where many of the chemicals come
from). It's kind of hard to establish a value for that, but it might be
important somewhere down the road.

Now I'm going to have to look up how much petroleum it takes to make a
packet of MiracleGro. :-) Probably less than transporting a couple
of truckloads of manure 20 miles. Encouraging dependence on
'artificial' fertilizer (and petroleum is really 'organic'
ultra-compost) is unwise where it's expensive and organic substitutes
are readily available. When we run out of oil, it's *not* going to be
because we've been using too much commercial fertilizer.