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.