Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Is organic gardening viable?
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Taste, Is organic gardening viable? | Edible Gardening | |||
Is organic gardening viable? | Australia | |||
Is organic gardening viable? Taste | Edible Gardening | |||
Taste, Is organic gardening viable? | Australia | |||
Taste, Is organic gardening viable? | Australia |