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.

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.

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


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.


Oh, would that were true! The reality is that many of the bagged (dry
granular) fertilizers are industrial by-products from smelting metals.

I did a lot of research into this matter last summer. What I read was
enough to convince me. I no longer have the links so you'll have to Google
for them yourself. The basic idea is that, when the products left the
foundry, they were labeled as 'industrial waste', and EPA regs controlled
their disposal and followed the trucks around, leaving a paper trail. Once
they were put in 40# bags they were no longer a regulated waste but had
become an agricultural product. As a regulated waste they fell under a
fairly stern set of laws. As an agricultural product, they fell under laws
which basically said that the label on the side had to be truthful, but
not necessarily complete. That ended the paper trail and any hope of
linking the foundry chemicals with later health effects. Along with the
NPK, you can assume you are pouring generous amounts of aluminum and
nickle (just two of a long list) onto your soil.

Read a bag of lawn / garden fertilizer sometime. Try to determine the
origin of the chemicals inside or even just a full chemical assay. The bag
claims an NPK ratio and shows the balance as filler. If ALL the bag
contained were the specific chemicals mentioned on the label I would not
be nearly so concerned about using it in my garden. However, the list of
chemicals in that bag only begins with the NPK assay and continues with
another long and unspecified (and thus beyond the reach of informed
consent) list.

It's that second list ... the one that isn't printed on the side of the
bag that concerns me. Because of it, if I were to use commercial
fertilizers, I would not know what witches brew of concentrated chemicals
I might be applying to the roots of the food I intended to eat through the
winter. While I also do not know the full assay of the compost I make, I
have study after study to show me that, so far as any single chemical
except carbon and water is concerned, it is a pretty weak mixture. It's
strength is in its breadth and the fact that, having come from living
things, its chemical composition is primarily the chemicals and ratios of
those chemicals that living things have already found useful. They were
mixed by The Master Chemist.

I garden organically. I use outside inputs in the form of tree leaves
(gathered in the fall from urban curb sides in one busy afternoon,
sometimes two), small quantities of greensand and precious little else. I
do not add N, P, or K directly to the soil but let the compost heap sort
things out. This leads to a nicely buffered soil that has not required any
lime in years. Basically, having begun with layers of clay and sand (SE
Michigan was anciently lake bottom), I now have what appears to be some
really nice potting soil throughout my garden to a depth of over 2 feet (I
haven't dug any deeper than that since I started my beds but there was 2
ft. worth of straw and tree leaves in a trench under that 2 ft of soil).
The only pesticide I apply is a well-timed shot or two of BT for cabbage
loopers and some raw coffee grounds for slugs*. I don't have weak plants
so I don't endure much damage. I interplant and just never seem to have
large populations of any particular pest.

Organic methods do not forbid the addition of rock powders nor do they
forbid the use of outside inputs, such as the tree leaves and grass
clippings of neighbors. If in doubt about what chemicals might have been
applied to the grass clippings, simply allow the finished compost to
season for a year or more. There, problem solved. In an organic soil,
nutrients are released at a pretty even pace over the season, so less
nutrients are required since less of them go to waste. This is why the
initial application of fertilizers to healthy ground results in bumper
crops ... they are held in the root zone by the humic compounds until the
roots can absorb them. However, failure to maintain the humus levels
results in soil that can't hold the nutrients in solution for the plants
to take up. That means that increased application levels are needed to
maintain acceptable levels of availability ... and farmers are crying the
blues over this one as fertilizer expenses go through the roof while
yields hold steady or dwindle.

That's how I see the organic / inorganic debate.

Chugga

*I've had the debate over the coffee grounds already. I'm not interested
in any level of theoretical argument about why they couldn't possibly
work. I know from direct experience that they DO work.

--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
16:48:00 up 50 days, 17:30, 8 users, load average: 0.62, 0.28, 0.21
21:58:52 up 34 days, 2:11, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00

Anonymous wrote in
newsan.2004.02.25.23.24.02.154671@notarealserver .com:

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


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.


Oh, would that were true! The reality is that many of the bagged (dry
granular) fertilizers are industrial by-products from smelting metals.

I did a lot of research into this matter last summer. What I read was
enough to convince me. I no longer have the links so you'll have to
Google for them yourself.

OK.

Search term "slag gardening" turned up 3,250 links including this one:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY-VH019 in which the University of Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
actually suggest "basic slag" as a source of micro-nutrients for organic
gardeners.

Search term "furnace slag chemical composition" turned this up:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/13/12842/bfs1.htm which indicates that more than
90% of slag produced "has been used as an aggregate in Portland cement
concrete, asphalt concrete, concrete, asphalt and road bases."

And I also found http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/ssa1.htm which
says much the same thing. The tables in these last two showing the
composition of slag makes quite interesting reading.

A search for "smelting waste gardening" and "smelting waste garden" turned
up nothing particularly relevent to this discussion. I did note that just
about all the sites referred to smelting waste as being a hazardous
material. I find it unlikely that environmental protection agencies would
allow hazardous waste to just be "lost" and subsequently turn up in
agricultural products.

SNIP

This is
why the initial application of fertilizers to healthy ground results
in bumper crops ... they are held in the root zone by the humic
compounds until the roots can absorb them.

Ummmm ... further reading that I have done indicates that the reason for
the bumper crops is because fertiliser speeds up the transition of organic
material into humus. Humus contains large amounts of water soluble
nutrients whilst organic material (even after composting) does not hold so
much.

However, failure to
maintain the humus levels results in soil that can't hold the
nutrients in solution for the plants to take up. That means that
increased application levels are needed to maintain acceptable levels
of availability ... and farmers are crying the blues over this one as
fertilizer expenses go through the roof while yields hold steady or
dwindle.

Absolutely! And that brings me back to the point that made me ask the
question regarding factory fertilisers. The emphasis was actually on the
need to maintain good levels of organic matter in the soil whilst the point
was that factory fertilisers increase yield.


That's how I see the organic / inorganic debate.

Chugga


Ivan.

$3.00/pound ? whatever happened to kilograms that replaced the 'pound'
(weight) in circa 1970 ?
Has Brutus Costello or Honest Johnny been tampering with the systems again ?

cheers, helene

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ray Drouillard" wrote:

I wonder who did the study. I wonder what veggies were used. Radishes
and lettuce might be difficult, but I have yet to see a store-boughten
peach that comes even close to one that was picked ripe from the tree
(as opposed to being picked green and ripened after being severed from
its source of sugar). The same sort of goes for tomatoes. It isn't as
much an issue of vine-ripening, but there is a taste that comes with
home grown tomatoes that is missing in the store-boughten fare. Perhaps
buying some of the $3.00/pound premium tomatoes would fix that, but I
wouldn't bet on it.

I wuldn't either -- I've paid the premium for truss tomatoes and, while
they
taste better than the cheap ones, they have nothing on home-grown for
flavour.
OTOH I can fully believe that a home-grown iceberg lettuce doesn't taste
much
better than a shop one. A home-grown cos lettuce outshines a shop one,
though
-- even when grown under far-from-ideal conditions, ie with me as
gardener!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the
astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider
one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:38:14 GMT, "helene" wrote:

$3.00/pound ? whatever happened to kilograms that replaced the 'pound'
(weight) in circa 1970 ?
Has Brutus Costello or Honest Johnny been tampering with the systems again ?

cheers, helene

USA is still on pound and ounces, inches feet yards, miles, acres;
ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons.


"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ray Drouillard" wrote:

I wonder who did the study. I wonder what veggies were used. Radishes
and lettuce might be difficult, but I have yet to see a store-boughten
peach that comes even close to one that was picked ripe from the tree
(as opposed to being picked green and ripened after being severed from
its source of sugar). The same sort of goes for tomatoes. It isn't as
much an issue of vine-ripening, but there is a taste that comes with
home grown tomatoes that is missing in the store-boughten fare. Perhaps
buying some of the $3.00/pound premium tomatoes would fix that, but I
wouldn't bet on it.

I wuldn't either -- I've paid the premium for truss tomatoes and, while
they
taste better than the cheap ones, they have nothing on home-grown for
flavour.
OTOH I can fully believe that a home-grown iceberg lettuce doesn't taste
much
better than a shop one. A home-grown cos lettuce outshines a shop one,
though
-- even when grown under far-from-ideal conditions, ie with me as
gardener!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the
astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider
one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc