Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
"Tim Miller" wrote in message newsan.2003.04.01.01.59.16.377742.2017@noamspay. indspringmay.com... On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:02:49 -0500, Gordon Couger wrote: Unless you are like me and grow corn as a hobby prices in the long run can't stay below the cost of production minus subsidies. I think you will agree that farmers have bills to pay. yet in agriculture the cost of production and the price have never had much to do with each other. That is one reason for subsidy -- - Jim Webster I believe that this thought has been enunciated before. A surly critic might even use the word "banality". |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
"Tim Miller" wrote in message newsan.2003.04.01.01.59.16.377742.2017@noamspay. indspringmay.com... On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:02:49 -0500, Gordon Couger wrote: "Tim Miller" wrote in message newsan.2003.03.31.03.56.31.255202.1615@noamspay. indspringmay.com... On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:41:37 -0500, Gordon Couger wrote: "Gilgamesh" wrote in message ... "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:27:57 GMT Charles wrote: http://plenty.150m.com/My_Links_Page..._manure01.html _ Thanks for the excellent site of comparison of rabbit manure to other manure. Rabbit manure is unusually high in nitrogen. Can someone tell me in chemistry if the animal body does something with nitrogen that the plant body cannot do to nitrogen? SNIP Yes. It degrades the protein, which contains nitrogen. The protein is originally created by plants. You have this entirely the wrong way round, I'm afraid. Bacteria do quite well at creating protien. I can feed a cow urea for a major part of her protien requirement and if there are enough carbohydrates available the bacteria in the rumen will convert it to protien the cow can use quite well. With corn so cheap it less expensive to burn it for heating to heat a house than anything but natural gas it makes good sense to winter cows on pasture on corn, urea, low grade hay instead of good hay and oil seed meal that is costs a small fortune. The cows do just as well. You have to make sure and have enough trough space that they all get to eat and you have to feed them every day or may have problems but after the bacteria get through with it the cow likes it fine. What with natural gas prices going up, corn will be more expensive to produce. This is especially true for crops that need anhydrous ammonia, since I suppose it's hard to import. Do you have in guesstimates on how much U.S. farmer's production costs will increase this year? It's not too hard to import I think it is 200 miles form one plant and 140 from another plant. You forget we sit on a rather large natural gas feild. By import I mean from foreign countries that still have low natural gas prices. Dry chemicals like urea are lot easier to ship. If I am buying corn I don't give a damn the price of NH3 only the price of corn counts. The price of NH3 matters to the guy that grew the corn but that is not today's problem. It will effect the price of Urea making it cost about 380 USD per short ton but for no more than cattle need it doesn't mater. You confuses the cost of production wiht the market value of the product. If I could be guaranteed getting back all the money it cost to rasie a crop I would be a rich man. I would never loose money and make some on good years. Unless you are like me and grow corn as a hobby prices in the long run can't stay below the cost of production minus subsidies. I think you will agree that farmers have bills to pay. You again show that you lack the basic underrating of farm economics. BTW, in another thread Uncle Al suggest that it might be better to burn the ammonia and sell the resulting nitric acid thant to use it to grow corn to burn in a stove. It was me that suggested burring the NH3. Themodynicly it is possible but the practical problems are probably insurmountable. Making an engineering that can withstand nitric acid as a exhaust product is probably not possible. If I grow corn I am concerned about the cost of production. If I buy corn I only care about the price. I may feel a little sorry for the guy loosing money at those prices but I am not going to pay him more than the going price for it. The same is true if I am growing it. If burning it saves me the equivalent of 40 or 50 cents a gallon over heating with propane instead of selling it burning it makes sense. Ag markets don't consider the cost of production that's the farmers problem. My wife and her siblings just spent a considerable amount of money putting in drip irrigation that will hopefully lower the cost of production for the farmer and increase the total income for them. I am considering doing something on a smaller scale in Oklahoma. Gordon |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger wrote: You confuses the cost of production wiht the market value of the product. Gordon, It's a small pleasure in the morning to run across somebody with an elementary understanding of economics. Are you in fact a farmer? I guess that'll do it to you... :-) I bought my first bunch of cattel in 1957 and started farming on my own in '68. My mother's family owns one of the oldest ranches that is still under single family control in the world. My grandfather changed his name from Cowger to Couger when he enlisted in the in the army for the Spanish American War. Cowger means keeper of cows. The family seemed to use Couger and Cowger rather interchangeably when they left the farm in Indiana. My wife owns the south headquarters of the XIT ranch that her grandfather bought as they sold off the last of it in the 40's. It's an irrigated cotton farm now. We both own land in Oklahoma as well. In 1980 point I was farming 1,500 acres and I had just doubled my size. Interest rates went to 21% that year and it didn't rain all summer and the crops the next year weren't very good either. And I had my first attack of multiple sclerosis the summer of 1981. Farming went down hill from there. Every one on either sided of my family has made their living from farming or cattle as far as I can trace them back. The same is true for my wife dad's family. Gordon Couger Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
From: "Jim Webster"
yet in agriculture the cost of production and the price have never had much to do with each other. That is one reason for subsidy Are you sure it isn't _because_ of subsidy? Sean -- Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins. Address mungled. To email, please spite my face. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Its good to see Mr. Obvious has returned.
There most likely is such a study. Why don't you go to the library and look for it? They neither love nor hate the plants. They only eat what tastes good to them. Don't you? Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ... I was wondering about rabbit manure. In some forests, other than insects and their bodies as fertilizer it seems as though rabbit manure is one of the most available. For we all know that in pristine forests, humans do not go in there with fertilizer and that natural fertilizer is what sustains untouched forests. I suppose birds contribute natural fertilizer but it seems as though insects are the biggest single contributor. Then there are rabbits. So I wonder if anyone has done analysis of rabbit pellets as a fertilizer? And can someone tell me why rabbits love elm and locust and cherry shoots and twigs but hate currant. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... I was wondering about rabbit manure. In some forests, other than insects and their bodies as fertilizer it seems as though rabbit manure is one of the most available. For we all know that in pristine forests, humans do not go in there with fertilizer and that natural fertilizer is what sustains untouched forests. I suppose birds contribute natural fertilizer but it seems as though insects are the biggest single contributor. Then there are rabbits. So I wonder if anyone has done analysis of rabbit pellets as a fertilizer? And can someone tell me why rabbits love elm and locust and cherry shoots and twigs but hate currant. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I met a man from New Jersey whose hobby was growing giant Halloween pumpkins, he said he grew the state's biggest one year. He said he would only use rabbit manure for fertility. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Forest isn't really the best environment for rabbits, which are grazers
rather than browsers - woodland edges and clear areas within the forest are better, so I'm not sure your original assumption is particularly valid. Rabbit manure is not wonderful fertilizer on its own - composted it's OK, high potash & phosphate, but raw it tends to burn the plants. -- May glorious Shamash make his face to shine upon you Gilgamesh of Uruk (Include Enkidu in the subject line to avoid the spam trap) "Richard McDermott" wrote in message ... "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... I was wondering about rabbit manure. In some forests, other than insects and their bodies as fertilizer it seems as though rabbit manure is one of the most available. For we all know that in pristine forests, humans do not go in there with fertilizer and that natural fertilizer is what sustains untouched forests. I suppose birds contribute natural fertilizer but it seems as though insects are the biggest single contributor. Then there are rabbits. So I wonder if anyone has done analysis of rabbit pellets as a fertilizer? And can someone tell me why rabbits love elm and locust and cherry shoots and twigs but hate currant. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I met a man from New Jersey whose hobby was growing giant Halloween pumpkins, he said he grew the state's biggest one year. He said he would only use rabbit manure for fertility. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3e744d56$1_1@newsfeed... "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Richard McDermott wrote: I met a man from New Jersey whose hobby was growing giant Halloween pumpkins, he said he grew the state's biggest one year. He said he would only use rabbit manure for fertility. I would like to know how much nitrogen rabbit manure contains. I suspect it is the best nitrogen source for grasslands other than that of buffalo manure. I suspect that every ecosystem becomes inhabitated by a sustaining commensalism between plants that give food to animals and those animals vice versa give fertilizer to those plants. The food pyramid of an ecological environment is one in which there is a mathematical relationship of the spreading of plant nutrients and what types of animals and the number of those animals for that environment. I suspect that a long time ago-- hundreds of millions of years ago, the grasslands arose and called for some smallish type animal that feeds on grasses and multiplies very rapidly and constantly eats and prunes the grasses and small trees and must scatter that nitrogen nutrient. Answer: rabbits. Can someone tell me if rabbit remains of feces and urine is any higher in nitrogen than is insect feces and body decay. The nutriant content of manure depeds most ly on how they are handled between the time the depart the animal and are taken up by the crop. Every day it lays in the open nitrogen is lost. The smell of manure is largly ammonia, If it gets wet and stands water bactera make methaned out of it. If it gets rained on and water doesn't stand on it the nirtogen compoundes are desloved and leacehed into the ground. If you are on sandy soil the nitrogen is quickly past the root zone if you are in clay the bacterai my turn it to methane. Even from the start most manures are hinger in phospahtes than than the crop neds when you supply all the crops nitroge needs with manure or composte. Composting looses nrogen to the air as well. At best you have a good source of unbalaced fertilzer at worst you have a poor source of very unbalece fetelizer. While manures add desirable elemtents to the soil that minearl fertilezers don't you will spend a very great deal of time tending rabbint and handeling rabbitt manure to furnish fertizar for 10 acres of crops. Unless you are growing, coco, murajana or opium popies you won't make a living. -- Gordon Gordon Couger Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger The majority of the fauna in any terrestrial ecosystem consists of invertebrates. In any established ecosystem, where no food is being exported, the nitrogen input must equal the nitrogen output unless the system is changing.. The balance is affected by nitrifying and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (principally nitrosomonas, nitrobacter and azotobacter types) which fix atmospheric N and thus increase the available nitrogen, and denitrifying bacteria which release gaseous N from compounds of nitrogen. The presence or absence of lagomorphs will have at most trivial effects on these processes (unless they graze leguminous plants preferentially, when they will tend to depress the amount of available nitrogen compounds in the soil.) -- May glorious Shamash make his face to shine upon you Gilgamesh of Uruk (Include Enkidu in the subject line to avoid the spam trap) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:25:58 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Richard McDermott wrote: I met a man from New Jersey whose hobby was growing giant Halloween pumpkins, he said he grew the state's biggest one year. He said he would only use rabbit manure for fertility. I would like to know how much nitrogen rabbit manure contains. I suspect it is the best nitrogen source for grasslands other than that of buffalo manure. I suspect that every ecosystem becomes inhabitated by a sustaining commensalism between plants that give food to animals and those animals vice versa give fertilizer to those plants. The food pyramid of an ecological environment is one in which there is a mathematical relationship of the spreading of plant nutrients and what types of animals and the number of those animals for that environment. I suspect that a long time ago-- hundreds of millions of years ago, the grasslands arose and called for some smallish type animal that feeds on grasses and multiplies very rapidly and constantly eats and prunes the grasses and small trees and must scatter that nitrogen nutrient. Answer: rabbits. Can someone tell me if rabbit remains of feces and urine is any higher in nitrogen than is insect feces and body decay. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies http://plenty.150m.com/My_Links_Page..._manure01.html _ - Charles - -does not play well with others |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Rabbits are grazers, its a simple fact. They will feast on fresh roots
and shoots at the first chance they will get. Thats why they tend to chew grass to the ground then eat new shoots rather than older ones. A possible reason for only eating selected plants may be due to the hardness of the root. Rabbit fertilizer may be good for the soil but if you think about it there are lots of types of manure good for the ground. The rabbits are most likly to have a negative impact by disturbing the soil, generating weed growth and causing structual loss to the soil. Tim Uni Student -------------------------- http://www.angelfire.com/dc/stormeagle |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
I was wondering about rabbit manure. In some forests, other than insects and their bodies as fertilizer it seems as though rabbit manure is one of the most available. For we all know that in pristine forests, humans do not go in there with fertilizer and that natural fertilizer is what sustains untouched forests. I suppose birds contribute natural fertilizer but it seems as though insects are the biggest single contributor. Then there are rabbits. So I wonder if anyone has done analysis of rabbit pellets as a fertilizer? And can someone tell me why rabbits love elm and locust and cherry shoots and twigs but hate currant. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Archimedes, I got this from the internet. Fertilizer (NPK) values for rabbit manu Nitrogen 2.4% Phosphorus 1.4% Potassium 0.6-0.8% Rabbit manure is an excellent plant fertilizer due to its composition and concentration of NPK. It produces fast and abundant plant growth. Rabbit manure should be composted for about three weeks, which lessens the chance of harmful pathogens and breaks down the manure, which makes it more useable to the plant and reduces the smell. Fresh rabbit manure is high in acid content from the urine and should not be used. However, when the manure has been aged and air-dried, rabbit manure will not "burn" the plants when applied directly to the plants. Best Regards, -Kevin |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why plants need animals to reform nitrogen. Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic (mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a relatively minor source of nitrogen. I believe there exists some inverse or reverse relationship between plants and animals so that both can live on Earth and without the other, both would quickly die. There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the opposite. Steve Turner Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Yes, thanks Kevin, Charles in a different post with a reference showed a 2.4% nitrogen for rabbits which is one of the highest concentrations of nitrogen. What I really want to know is why the animal body is constructed in the way it is such that when nitrogen passes through the animal body that it is a fertilizer for plants. What does the animal body do to nitrogen that plants find it impossible or extremely difficult to also do to nitrogen. That is the question I really want to know the answer. For throughout the entire existence of the plant kingdom on Earth, has required the simultaneous existence of the animal kingdom. And I believe it all comes down to some key elements such as nitrogen. That the plant kingdom cannot exist without the animal kingdom because plants cannot transform and move the nitrogen that animals can do. So, Kevin, what happens to nitrogen when it goes through a rabbit body for which that same nitrogen when it goes through a plant body such as a grass is unable to transform or change? snips The principle is that only 2/3 of the nitrogen in plants can exist in animals. This is known as the 2/3 Nitrogen Barrier Principle. This is because only 2/3 of the volume of a sphere can fit in a cube of the same size. Therefore an animal can metabolize only some of the nitrogen if eats and the nitrogen it excretes in all forms can be no more than 2/3 of the nitrogen it consumes. Actually the mathematical form of the NBP is similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where delta x * delta p = Planck constant In the Nitrogen Barrier Principle we have a delta x term and it is metabolism of the rabbit. And we have a delta p term which is the variable of breakeven nitrogen. In HUP, there is simultaneity involved in that you cannot simultaneously make 100% precise measurement of both position and momentum. In NBP, there is simultaneity involved in that you cannot simultaneously make 100% precise measurement of both Nitrogen and metabolism. NBP becomes the HUP of energy accounting when trying to turn Nitrogen energy into metabolism. It is impossible for any future metabolism machine to supply humanity with Nitrogen that gives more in output than input. In short, NBP says that the highest form of Metabolism in the Universe is Nitrogen and Nitrogen metabolism to produce biology. Once humanity burns out all of the Nitrogen in the Solar System, then humanity has exhausted this Solar System and is looking for the end of its existence. The end of humanity. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers, Tony |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Tony writes
The principle is that only 2/3 of the nitrogen in plants can exist in animals. This is known as the 2/3 Nitrogen Barrier Principle. This is because only 2/3 of the volume of a sphere can fit in a cube of the same size. Therefore an animal can metabolize only some of the nitrogen if eats and the nitrogen it excretes in all forms can be no more than 2/3 of the nitrogen it consumes. Absolutely. Well known principle. Actually the mathematical form of the NBP is similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where delta x * delta p = Planck constant Everyone knows that. In the Nitrogen Barrier Principle we have a delta x term and it is metabolism of the rabbit. And we have a delta p term which is the variable of breakeven nitrogen. In HUP, there is simultaneity involved in that you cannot simultaneously make 100% precise measurement of both position and momentum. In NBP, there is simultaneity involved in that you cannot simultaneously make 100% precise measurement of both Nitrogen and metabolism. Tell us something new. NBP becomes the HUP of energy accounting when trying to turn Nitrogen energy into metabolism. It is impossible for any future metabolism machine to supply humanity with Nitrogen that gives more in output than input. Stating the obvious. In short, NBP says that the highest form of Metabolism in the Universe is Nitrogen and Nitrogen metabolism to produce biology. Once humanity burns out all of the Nitrogen in the Solar System, then humanity has exhausted this Solar System and is looking for the end of its existence. The end of humanity. Last prediction I heard was about 2B yrs, assuming no population growth of humans. I hope this clarifies things. Pretty obvious stuff. I'm sure archie has heard it all before. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
rabbit manure; how good is it
Steve Turner wrote in message . ..
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why plants need animals to reform nitrogen. Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic (mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a relatively minor source of nitrogen. True enough. There are some plants that eat meat (like Venus Flytrap) but they are generally located in nitrogen depleted areas. There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the opposite. Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy. Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both. Some symbiosis not because of the nitrogen or carbon cycles but for breeding purposes. Some higher plants have learned to use animals to pollinate them and spread their seeds. Wind pollination is inefficient and random. Animal pollination is efficient relative to wind pollination. Animals carrying seeds away from the mother plant helps spread them in different directions instead of just downwind. In return, animals get valuable nutrition. Most lower plants don't take advantage of this situation as they developed before animals were important to the ecosystem. In conclusion, the hypothesis that the nitrogen cycle must include a direct animal to plant transfer does not seem to have any proof and the symbiosis exists for other reasons, in indirect transfer (animal to ground to plant) and in other cycles. Todd O. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Better Rabbit trap for those with rabbit problems | Plant Science | |||
symbiosis is QM duality? rabbit manure | Plant Science | |||
biology with a QM foundation rabbit manure | Plant Science | |||
rabbit manure; how good is it Enkidu | Plant Science | |||
rabbit manure; how good is it | sci.agriculture |