Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 04-06-2008, 08:07 PM posted to sci.bio.botany
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default why not one name for all-- stolon, rhizomes, runners; strawberries

So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and
strawberries call it runners.

Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes.

Now I plan to experiment on the strawberry rhizomes as to how to
maximize both fruit
and number of plants.

By the way, the best thing I ever did with my strawberries was put
them in huge pots
so that I can control them always. I also lined the ground with used-
sheet metal so
as to keep out the weeds between the pots. The leaves on my
strawberries are just
tremendous huge and deep green and each plant has handfulls of berries
coming.

Also I want to experiment on topsoils for these strawberries. I have
the notion that
the topsoil from wooded areas is the finest topsoil because of the
mycorrhiza (a good
spelling-be word). So that
is a interesting experiment to see if the woods topsoil is better than
the grassland
plains topsoil.

I am acting as a sort of strawberry selector, so that the plants that
deliver good fruit,
I reward them with getting more of that plant and providing with more
fertilizer.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #3   Report Post  
Old 05-06-2008, 07:11 AM posted to sci.bio.botany
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default special about animal intestine why not one name for all-- stolon,rhizomes, runners; strawberries


Sean Houtman wrote:
wrote in news:594139d9-3345-4ad2-85eb-
:


So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and
strawberries call it runners.

Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes.


A horizontal stem that is above ground is called a stolon, if it is below
ground, it is a rhizome. Strawberry runners are stolons. Iris rhizomes are
stolons too. Bermuda grass grows both.

Confused yet?



Naming is not actual science. But let me ask you a question of
science.

If I had a wagon load of grass clippings to spread on a lawn as
fertilizer and if instead
I fed the grass clippings to a horse so it goes through the intestine
of a horse and
then spread the horse manure.

Does the horse intestine add nitrogen to the manure? And is there more
nitrogen in
horse manure than in grass clippings that decompose?

I want to know the value of going through an animal intestine as
opposed to vegetation
that decomposes for fertilizer.

Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine
versus vegetation
decomposition.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #4   Report Post  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:20 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,sci.chem
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #1 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plantsand animals


Malcolm wrote:
(snipped)

Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine
versus vegetation
decomposition.

Grass cuttings contains up to twice as much nitrogen as horse manure,
2-4% compared to 1-2%. Some of the nitrogen in the vegetation eaten by a
horse is converted by its gut bacteria into protein.

--
Malcolm


I am not going to have time to expand this.

I wrote of this idea in the 1990s, the idea that there is
Complimentarity going on between
animals versus plants. Much like the Complimentarity that plants give
off oxygen and utilize
carbon dioxide whereas animals do the opposite. So there is a
Complimentarity going on here as
far as oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Now I reckoned in the 1990s that there is Complimentarity for plants
giving food to animals
but that animals do return the favor by giving food to plants in terms
of their waste and their
bodies in death.

The kind of answer I seek is not someone crudely estimating how much
nitrogen in a bale of
grass that decomposes versus the nitrogen of that bale of grass gone
through a horses
body. The kind of answer I really seek is to find out the actual
chemistry of where nitrogen
is formed on the bale of grass that decomposes versus the nitrogen on
the horse manure
of that bale of grass.

I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to
1-2%" Those numbers
suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the
prescence of animals. I have
mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and
vibrant as this year
after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years
horse droppings were from
the lush green grass.

Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other
nutrients as important as
nitrogen.

But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of
exactly where in an
animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse
manure.

I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants
and vice versa both
in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however
it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and
plants is a Complimentarity
relationship.

I should write a whole book on this when I return in August.

Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen

I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #5   Report Post  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:40 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,sci.chem
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #2 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plantsand animals



wrote:
Malcolm wrote:


(snipped)


I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to
1-2%" Those numbers
suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the
prescence of animals. I have
mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and
vibrant as this year
after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years
horse droppings were from
the lush green grass.

Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other
nutrients as important as
nitrogen.

But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of
exactly where in an
animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse
manure.

I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants
and vice versa both
in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however
it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and
plants is a Complimentarity
relationship.

I should write a whole book on this when I return in August.

Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen

I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture.


I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include
the fact that
the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the
digestive process of
bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen. So I suspect Malcolm is
overlooking the fact that
he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would
call the bacteria in
this case part of the Animal Kingdom.

So I want far more of answers than the superficial answers.

I want actual chemistry of a Nitrogen cycle, just as one can follow
the oxygen and
carbon dioxide complementarity in respiration, metabolism in plants
and animals. I want
the nitrogen to what?? complimentarity between plants and animals.

What is the compound that is compliment to nitrogen?

For respiration we have carbon dioxide compliment to oxygen.
So what is the nitrogen the compliment of?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


  #6   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 04:47 AM posted to sci.bio.botany
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 35
Default special about animal intestine why not one name for all-- stolon, rhizomes, runners; strawberries

wrote in
:


Sean Houtman wrote:
wrote in news:594139d9-3345-4ad2-85eb-
:


So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and
strawberries call it runners.

Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes.


A horizontal stem that is above ground is called a stolon, if it is
below ground, it is a rhizome. Strawberry runners are stolons. Iris
rhizomes are stolons too. Bermuda grass grows both.

Confused yet?



Naming is not actual science. But let me ask you a question of
science.



Naming is important to science, it helps things stay consistent. Science
likes names.



If I had a wagon load of grass clippings to spread on a lawn as
fertilizer and if instead
I fed the grass clippings to a horse so it goes through the intestine
of a horse and
then spread the horse manure.

Does the horse intestine add nitrogen to the manure? And is there more
nitrogen in
horse manure than in grass clippings that decompose?



The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of
proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that
protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be
returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat
easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in
bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end,
there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it
than before.


I want to know the value of going through an animal intestine as
opposed to vegetation
that decomposes for fertilizer.


Going through the animal intestine benefits the animal. Some animals
grind the plant parts up quite a bit, but horses aren't one of them.


Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine
versus vegetation
decomposition.


That has been done as well. Animals extract more nitrogen from the
plants that they eat than they leave behind, until they die that is.

Sean



** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
  #7   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 05:02 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,sci.chem
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 35
Default #2 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals

wrote in news:ddfe6177-75d8-4a6b-9783-
:

I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include
the fact that
the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the
digestive process of
bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen. So I suspect Malcolm is
overlooking the fact that
he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would
call the bacteria in
this case part of the Animal Kingdom.



Malcolm got his numbers from studies of the contstituents of grass and
animal manure. These studies use chemistry to extract the elements that are
contained in the substance studied. There are no bacteria involved in these
measurements, in fact, most of the nitrogen that is in the horse droppings
is contained within bacteria. These bacteria must die in order for plants
to be able to use the nitrogen they contain. That isn't a real problem
though, horse intestinal bacteria don't survive well in soil. Soil bacteria
will break down the grass clippings, using the nitrogen for their own
purposes, and then at some point, will die, and release their nitrogen to
the system that includes plants, to take it up and make protein out of.
Horses might eat the grass, but like most animals, they need protein, which
they extract from the grass in their intestines, which is why there is less
nitrogen in their droppings than in the food they eat.

Sean

** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
  #8   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 05:48 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,sci.chem
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #3 what is the complement of Nitrogen? new book: Chemistry:Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals

Malcolm wrote:
In article
,
writes


wrote:
Malcolm wrote:


(snipped)


I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to
1-2%" Those numbers
suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the
prescence of animals. I have
mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and
vibrant as this year
after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years
horse droppings were from
the lush green grass.

Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other
nutrients as important as
nitrogen.

But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of
exactly where in an
animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse
manure.


I am going to have to look up "my history" on this topic of the
Complimentarity
of plants to animals where I include bacteria as part of the animal
kingdom. I think
it was the late 1990s. I can remember making some assertion that
carbon was
complimentary to calcium since the function of a backbone in both
plants and
animals.

Actually, I am not sure that biologists include all bacteria as part
of the animal kingdom
so that is another item I have to look up.

This is all very important because what is happening here is that the
physics of Quantum
Mechanics is going to make some "order" in the classification of
plants to animals. Prior
to this application of Complimentarity, biologists had a "linear and 1
dimensional one way
view of biological processes between animals and plants".
Complimentarity implies that
the first creation of plants was contemporary with the creation of
animals. So that first life
on Earth was not a sole entity but a group of entities, where they
lived nearby one another
in order to live at all.

There is one obvious Complement that everyone knows-- oxygen with
carbon dioxide in
respiration.

So, what is the complement of Nitrogen in plants? It is probably a
molecule. Nitrogen is
essential for ATP and for DNA. So probably the ATP or sugars is the
complement of
nitrogen.

Now calcium in plants is not the backbone, but carbon is the backbone
in plants. So what
in animals is the backbone? It is calcium. In plants, calcium serves
as a transport system,
but in animals, calcium function is the skeleton and backbone. So it
is likely that
calcium is the complement of carbon between animals and plants.

So perhaps in the above I have located three preliminary Complements
between plants and
animals.

In other words, if all the animals were dead tomorrow, it would be
impossible for life to
remain on Earth for all the plants would soon be dead shortly
thereafter, and vice versa.
This is because of Complementarity.



I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants
and vice versa both
in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however
it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and
plants is a Complimentarity
relationship.

I should write a whole book on this when I return in August.

Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen

I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture.


I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include
the fact that
the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the
digestive process of
bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen.


Go away and learn some chemistry.


Well you do not include the fact that bacteria are animals and that
the computation
of the grass clippings gone through the bacteria as well as the horse
manure gone
through the bacteria. The reason that a lawn given horse droppings
from a grazing horse
is far better than the same lawn given grass mowing, is because the
amount of nitrogen
fertilizer from horse exceeds the nitrogen fertilizer from mowing.




So I suspect Malcolm is
overlooking the fact that
he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would
call the bacteria in
this case part of the Animal Kingdom.

You really don't understand the digestive processes of horses, do you?


You do not understand the conversation and where it is going.

And your claim that it is a "fact" that what I said "replaces a horse
intestine with bacteria intestine" is just a completely meaningless,
indeed nonsense, statement.

If you doubt my figures, which are verifiable, then produce some of your
own.


Anyone can come to the sci newsgroups with their mind made up that
they
hate someone and then fish around for some angle which they think they
can upset or disprove their object of hate.

I do not need a Malcolm who counts how many nitrogen atoms are in a
blade of grass
compared to grass in a horse intestine. I need a chemist who knows the
metabolism of
plants that convert nitrogen to making of proteins and why that
nitrogen is essential, and
why nitrogen is not essential in making of proteins in animals. And
thus, what is the Complement
of nitrogen between animals to plants.


So I want far more of answers than the superficial answers.

Don't accuse me of being superficial, when you can't produce a single
figure yourself.


You are superficial when you cannot answer the flow of the
conversation
and you are proven superficial by your childish attitude now in
leaving
without ever learning anything.




I want actual chemistry of a Nitrogen cycle, just as one can follow
the oxygen and
carbon dioxide complementarity in respiration, metabolism in plants
and animals. I want
the nitrogen to what?? complimentarity between plants and animals.

Then go and find it. I've given you a factual answer and your
non-acceptance of it shows that I wasted my time trying to help you.


You counted how many nitrogen atoms in grass compared to grass in
horse
intestine. That was not my question. My question was why does a field
that
is pastured by horse so much better fertilized than if the field were
simply mowed?
Why does passing through the intestine of a horse a far better
fertilizer. You
countered that question by saying I was wrong. I was not wrong.

You do not want to answer questions, you only want to prove me wrong,
because
you are a hatemonger, not a scientist seeking answers.




What is the compound that is compliment to nitrogen?

I suppose you mean "complement".


For once you got onto the wavetrain of this conversation, but as
usual, you
dropp it as quickly as you enter it in a fleeting moment. Do you know
quantum
mechanics? Do you know the Complimentary Principle. Do you know that
carbon dioxide is the compliment of oxygen in respiration between
plants and animals?

Apparently you do not know any of this.



For respiration we have carbon dioxide compliment to oxygen.
So what is the nitrogen the compliment of?

See above.

Goodbye. I've wasted enough time on you.

--
Malcolm



Good riddance for your aim was never to do science but your sole aim
was to try to
hatemonger and rattle my conversation.

Anyone that replies to a post of Archimedes Plutonium should ask
themselves a question
before they hit the "send key". They should ask themselves, am I
replying because I love
science and love to know some truth, or are they replying because they
said to themselves
"I hate this guy, and aha, I think I have an angle which will disprove
or rattle his conversation".
The majority of replies to Archimedes Plutonium are from hatemongers
who never should have
been in science in the first place.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #9   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 06:07 PM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #4 exactly where is Nitrogen essential for plants; new book:


Sean Houtman wrote:
(snip)

Malcolm got his numbers from studies of the contstituents of grass and
animal manure. These studies use chemistry to extract the elements that are
contained in the substance studied. There are no bacteria involved in these
measurements, in fact, most of the nitrogen that is in the horse droppings
is contained within bacteria. These bacteria must die in order for plants
to be able to use the nitrogen they contain. That isn't a real problem
though, horse intestinal bacteria don't survive well in soil. Soil bacteria
will break down the grass clippings, using the nitrogen for their own
purposes, and then at some point, will die, and release their nitrogen to
the system that includes plants, to take it up and make protein out of.
Horses might eat the grass, but like most animals, they need protein, which
they extract from the grass in their intestines, which is why there is less
nitrogen in their droppings than in the food they eat.

Sean

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


Sean, I said as much in one sentence as what you are saying in a
paragraph.

I said that Malcolm was not including the bacteria that digest the
grass clippings and
that bacteria are part of the animal kingdom.

The problem here is not the science pursuit but the understanding of
my questions.

So let me ask you for a website that discusses the Nitrogen in plants
that makes proteins
in plants. Why is nitrogen essential in the making of proteins in
plants? And why is nitrogen
not essential in the making of proteins in animals.

I suppose that would have been the more clear question. So do you know
of a website,
Sean that begins to pinpoint where the Nitrogen is this essential
plant requirement whereas
this same nitrogen is not essential for the animal to perform that
function.

The Complimentarity of oxygen to carbon dioxide in respiration between
plants and animals
is readily seen and understood.

What is not readily seen and understood are the other Complements
between plants and
animals such as this Nitrogen to what? Is it sugars? Is it ATP?

The trouble I am having here, is that most biologists would never
dream or try to understand that
plants to animals is a Complimentary relationship, and that biologists
are very much naive
on this idea. That they see things only in a one way 1 dimensional
view.

So, Sean, can you point to a website that tells me where exactly is it
in plants that Nitrogen
is this essential ingrediant for which that same function in animals,
the nitrogen is not essential?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #10   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 06:28 PM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #4 Complementary relationship of nitrogen in plants to what in


Sean Houtman wrote:



The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of
proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that
protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be
returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat
easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in
bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end,
there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it
than before.


I am not chasing after the numbers of nitrogen atoms. I am chasing
after
the concept of "essential". So the question I am after is where in
plants
is this nitrogen "essential" whereas in animals, nitrogen was never
"essential" for that function. The function, I am guessing is, protein
synthesis.

So, I suppose that in protein synthesis in animals, nitrogen is
irrelevant. But
in plants, in order to do protein synthesis the nitrogen is essential.

So, Sean, can you point to a website that pinpoints this
essentialness.

What I hope to find is what molecules are the complimentary
counterpart
in animals.






I want to know the value of going through an animal intestine as
opposed to vegetation
that decomposes for fertilizer.


Going through the animal intestine benefits the animal. Some animals
grind the plant parts up quite a bit, but horses aren't one of them.


Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine
versus vegetation
decomposition.


That has been done as well. Animals extract more nitrogen from the
plants that they eat than they leave behind, until they die that is.

Sean


I do not expect biologists to readily accept or even understand
Complementarity
in biology. In fact, I expect this sort of meshing of minds, where
every word of a
sentence has a derailing potential.

The easiest way is to say " look at respiration in that plants need
carbon dioxide and
emit oxygen and animals need oxygen and emit carbon dioxide" Look at
that and
realize it is a complimentary relationship. Now, look at nitrogen in
plants as essential
so, where is the other half of the complimentary relationship?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


  #11   Report Post  
Old 09-06-2008, 06:52 PM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #6 is carbon to calcium a Complimentary relationship in animals to

I seem to have mixed up the numbers in the posts. This is #6 and the
previous one was #5.

You can tell I love science for even on vacation, it is as intense as
ever.

One of my last books will be a book of Happiness. What is "happy" and
what is
happiness defined by science. It is the desire of "order". And the
desire to know the
truth is a form of order. So to do science is to want order and to
want order is to
be happy.

So my vacation itself is a wanting of order because it is a wanting of
happiness.
But I stray.

This Complementarity in biology is another chapter of the disproving
of Darwin Evolution
theory, because Darwin Evolution does not allow for complementarity.
Complementarity
does not evolve. Complementarity is physics. So the first life on
Earth could not have
been solely plant kingdom awaiting millions and billions of years
before animals were
created and evolved. Complementary in biology means that the first
life on Earth had
to be a group of living particles, some plants and some animals
(bacteria in the animal
kingdom).

Now I have touched on the basic Complimentarity of plants to animals:
(1) oxygen to carbon dioxide in respiration

but there are others and I suspect these:

(2) carbon to calcium in the function of body structure

(3) nitrogen to sugar in the function of energy gain


There are many others.

The point of Complimentarity is that it is the least energy
consumption to organize
life.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #12   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2008, 07:40 AM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #7 exactly where is Nitrogen essential for plants; new book:


Bob wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:07:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


Why is nitrogen essential in the making of proteins in
plants? And why is nitrogen
not essential in the making of proteins in animals.


The N is protein is the same regardless of organism. Thus the need for
N is the same in all organisms. (However, organisms vary in what form
of N they can handle. For example, you may know that about 10 of the
20 amino acids are essential in humans; we are unable to make them, so
must consume them, pre-formed, in our diet.)

bob


Thanks for the remarks. Looks like I need to expand the search from
proteins
to amino acids.

Can you elaborate where the N atom or atoms lie in a protein
molecule of a plant versus an animal. I need some picture of the N
atom in a plant
protein versus a animal protein. Is the N atom/s in plant protein any
different from the
N atom in animal proteins?

You say that about 10 of the 20 amino acids are essential in humans.
That is about
half. So is it somewhat true that the other 10 are essential in
plants, but not humans?
If the universe of amino acids is 20, then is there a even split of 10
essentials for plants
whereas the other 10 are essential to animals?

Are there any catalysts involved with the Nitrogen uptake in plants
and animals?
If so, are they different for plants versus animals?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #13   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2008, 08:11 AM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #8 perhaps it is horsemanure + horse urea that is greater supply of N


wrote:
Sean Houtman wrote:



The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of
proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that
protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be
returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat
easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in
bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end,
there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it
than before.



According to Malcolm's figures of 2-4% for grass clippings versus
1-2% nitrogen for horsemanure of whatever source for those figures,
can be
explained as not including the horse urea while pasturing. Perhaps the
urea
contains even more nitrogen fertilizer than the manure.

So that would explain why for 5 years of simply mowing was never as
good as
one year of a horse pasturing and the subsequent lush growth.

One of my apple trees where the horse spent a long time in emitting
waste (bathrooming
for the quesy reader) has now become the most outstanding growing
apple tree.

So what I am saying is that I have a experiment to base my opinion,
that having mowed
the field for 5 years with never explosive growth, yet with 1 year of
a horse pasturing that
the trees and bushes and grass are in explosive growth.

And the easy answer is that the nitrogen provided by Horsemanure +
Horse**** is
far more richer in nitrogen than the grass mowed clippings.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #14   Report Post  
Old 12-06-2008, 08:31 AM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #9 Complimentarity between plants and animals; new book: Chemistry:Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals


Bob wrote:




I need some picture of the N
atom in a plant
protein versus a animal protein. Is the N atom/s in plant protein any
different from the
N atom in animal proteins?


no, of course not.


I meant whether the N bonding in plants was surrounded by different
atoms than
that found in animals. For example, the N in plants maybe bonded to H
whereas
in animals to O. That is why a picture is helpful.



You say that about 10 of the 20 amino acids are essential in humans.
That is about
half. So is it somewhat true that the other 10 are essential in
plants, but not humans?
If the universe of amino acids is 20, then is there a even split of 10
essentials for plants
whereas the other 10 are essential to animals?


I didn�t say animals, I said humans.

Your point is not even logical.


All my points are highly logical, once you understand them.
I start with an irrefutable logic that plants use carbon dioxide and
emit
oxygen and vice versa for animals. This is Complimentarity in biology.
So, I want to see whether there are more Complimentarities.

Let's see, using our elementary understanding of plants, wouldn't we
expect that none of the amino acids are essential for them? I don't
know for sure; would be interesting to check that.


It is rare for biology to have any universals, so there probably are
alot of exceptions
to your above. One could say, and I have said it before on the
Internet that biology
is physics in motion and thus there are exceptions to every law of
biology.




Are there any catalysts involved with the Nitrogen uptake in plants
and animals?
If so, are they different for plants versus animals?



They vary all over. There are all sorts of uptake systems, and
obviously there is some correlation with diet. I hope you aren�t
hoping to find some "principle" here.

bob


Let me change that question. Can anyone think of a catalyst in animals
that is
complimentary to a catalyst in plants. Do plants have a catalyst that
animals use
and alter and for which plants later use. I kind of suspect
molybdenum. But then again
I just remembered that iron in the oceans is rare except in the bodies
of animals in the
ocean. So the plants in the ocean rely on animal blood for iron. But
whether iron is a
catalyst in plants is unknown and whether a catalyst in animals
unknown. This maybe
what is called a "cycle" and not a catalyst.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #15   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2008, 08:26 PM posted to sci.chem,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 104
Default #10 new and good progress on Complimentarity of Nitrogen between

Alright, I had a small diversion with looking at the nitrogen in the
"burn sensation of liquors".
A rather pleasant diversion to help me see what is so special about
Nitrogen for plants versus
animals.

Nitrogen is essential for both plants and animals, but especially for
plants. And why is it
so special? It is because nitrogen is the pivot between acid and
alkaline. And now that I
see that, I can make more progress in answering what is the Compliment
of nitrogen in
plants.

Going by the confirmed compliment in respiration plants take in carbon
dioxide, emit
oxygen and vice versa for animals.

So what is the compliment of nitrogen in plants? Well, since nitrogen
is this boundary-point
of alkaline chemistry versus acid chemistry, then animals are on the
other side of this
boundary dealing with "more acid than with alkalinity".

In the respiration Complimentarity, there is no pivot point or
boundary point for it is the
exchange of carbon-dioxide to oxygen. But with Nitrogen
Complimentarity, we have this
actual boundary point of nitrogen itself.

The nitrogen compounds animals produce is waste products, where the
animal chemical
transactions are acidic.

People in biology and chemistry are going to have a very difficult
time in understanding this
book because they are all oriented in a belief that Darwin Evolution
is true. It is not true, but
false, and biology is governed by Quantum Physics with
Complimentarity. Animals and Plants
came into existence not through evolution but came together at once
and were created by
high energy gamma rays or Cosmic Rays. The first life on Earth was two
things-- both plants
and animals at once. First life on earth was a colony of life of some
energetic gamma ray.

Virtually everyone who believes in Darwin Evolution is too dumb to
read or understand this
book. Life is Complimentarity of Quantum Mechanics, and that means it
is not evolution.
We can use Darwin Evolution to get a sense of the flow of changes in
life forms, but the
real science behind the changes in life is physics.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scientific Name Eschsclozia californica COMMON NAME CALIFORNIA POPPY Family Name Papavaraceae Paddy's Pig[_7_] Garden Photos 4 23-03-2011 07:44 PM
Scientific Name Salvia mellifera COMMON NAME BLACK SAGE Family Name Lamiaceae Paddy's Pig[_7_] Garden Photos 1 23-03-2011 09:22 AM
Few strawberries; many runners Polar Edible Gardening 8 29-05-2003 06:21 AM
Why are my strawberrys sending out runners this early??!!! dommy Edible Gardening 2 26-05-2003 04:56 PM
Java ferns -no rhizomes redled Freshwater Aquaria Plants 4 20-04-2003 07:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017