On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:26:43 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

My brother in law, some 20 years ago, on his farm SW of sydney:

"Our soils have almost no phosphorus, so we just apply superphosphate".

Sounds pretty typical to me.

My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that. We couldn't get a economic response from potasium in most
cases. Intensely irrigated Bermuda grass would show a response. But sandy
soils just becomes a hydroponic media for Bermuda grass if you push it hard
enough.

DAP would not be acceptable to an organic farmer but rock phosphate is.

Even though it is next to useless as it is glacially slow to dissolve.

And
AFIK there is no rule against trace elements if they can use copper in their
fungicide they should be able to use it in their fertilizer or put on a
heavy treatment of fungicide. It doesn't take much copper.

Yep, there's always a convenient rationalisation