"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "P&J" contains these words:
[...]
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch

No. Unsightly

Why do you consider chippings or sawdust to be more unsightly than the
faeces of a horse?

You don't put unrotted horse-dung on your garden. And not many people
would put fresh sawdust on, either.

and will in time take nitrogen from the soil.

Which is eventually returned to the soil with some small interest.

I'm heading for out of my depth he but surely cellulose is a
polysaccharide? Where's the nitrogen in that? And I thought lignins
were derivatives of cellulose... Isn't that why we have to add
nitrogen to get it to rot down, and why wood products rob soils of
nitrogen?

You've got me worried now.

Mike.

In article , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay Easton wrote in message news:A8yxPROoQzU$EwWd@sc
arboro.demon.co.uk...

How does the spreading of chips from your own tree differ from a
similarly thick and extensive bark chip mulch? Or would you avoid that
too?

Bargepole, absolute bargepole! Friable stuff only as far as I'm
concerned. And I also mentioned the aesthetic aspect: at least the
semi-composted bark they flog looks nice if you like that kind of
thing (which I don't, really). Raw woodchips, like when the Council
have just done some trees beside the dual carriageway, look like raw
woodchips. And birds will probably scratch it onto the paths and the
lawn in search of the invertebrates sheltering in it.

Ah, right. Now I don't bother with bark mulch under plants, but I do use
it as paths in the 'woodland' area. So at least we're both consistent
;-)

You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

Well, we *were* making suggestions about somebody else's garden: he
asked us to. I was not only being careful, but saying why; and there's
been enough contrary opinion too. I don't mind suggesting, e.g.,
sowing Chinese cabbage seeds a month late, but it'd be very wrong if I
didn't point out that it might result in failure. People presumably
ask these questions because they don't know, and it isn't in their
books, or they just want to kick the ideas about a bit and see what
other gardeners reckon. If what I reckon agrees with the conventional
wisdom, surely you don't think that means I shouldn't bother saying
it? How do I know an enquirer *knows* the conventional wisdom?

No, absolutely. I was taking issue with the implication I picked up (it
may not be what you intended) that I *shouldn't* put forward my view
because it wasn't conventional wisdom.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "P&J" contains these words:
[...]
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch

No. Unsightly

Why do you consider chippings or sawdust to be more unsightly than the
faeces of a horse?

You don't put unrotted horse-dung on your garden. And not many people
would put fresh sawdust on, either.

and will in time take nitrogen from the soil.

Which is eventually returned to the soil with some small interest.

I'm heading for out of my depth he but surely cellulose is a
polysaccharide? Where's the nitrogen in that? And I thought lignins
were derivatives of cellulose... Isn't that why we have to add
nitrogen to get it to rot down, and why wood products rob soils of
nitrogen?

You've got me worried now.

All that sounds correct to my untutored ears. However, you left out the
ultimate stage: Ultimately the very last bacteria (??) to feed on what is
left extract the nitrogen which has been absorbed (from the nitrogen you put
in to aid the rotting process) by the fungi or whatever which did the
rotting and release it into the soil. Where else can it go to?

Franz

On 1 Sep 2003 12:53:26 -0700, Mike Lyle wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rusty Hinge" wrote:

and will in time take nitrogen from the soil.

Which is eventually returned to the soil with some small interest.

I'm heading for out of my depth he but surely cellulose is a
polysaccharide? Where's the nitrogen in that? And I thought lignins
were derivatives of cellulose... Isn't that why we have to add
nitrogen to get it to rot down, and why wood products rob soils of
nitrogen?

You've got me worried now.

Decomposition of organic wastes involves *bacteria* as well as
fungi, to say nothing of macroscopic critters. Don't get the idea
that it's all fungi and nothing else.

The bacteria take up nitrogen as they multiply, but when they die
-- as they eventually do -- their dear sweet little dead bodies
release that nitrogen back to the general environment.

Reminder: cells have lots of proteins in them, not just sugars!
Indeed, proteins are the fundamental structures of cells.
Remember that genes encode *protein* sequences.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Rodger Whitlock) wrote in message ...
On 1 Sep 2003 12:53:26 -0700, Mike Lyle wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rusty Hinge" wrote:

and will in time take nitrogen from the soil.

Which is eventually returned to the soil with some small interest.

I'm heading for out of my depth he but surely cellulose is a
polysaccharide? Where's the nitrogen in that? And I thought lignins
were derivatives of cellulose... Isn't that why we have to add
nitrogen to get it to rot down, and why wood products rob soils of
nitrogen?

You've got me worried now.

Decomposition of organic wastes involves *bacteria* as well as
fungi, to say nothing of macroscopic critters. Don't get the idea
that it's all fungi and nothing else.

The bacteria take up nitrogen as they multiply, but when they die
-- as they eventually do -- their dear sweet little dead bodies
release that nitrogen back to the general environment.

Reminder: cells have lots of proteins in them, not just sugars!
Indeed, proteins are the fundamental structures of cells.
Remember that genes encode *protein* sequences.

(Yes, I feel my feet on the bottom again!) Remember we're speculating
on the composting of *wood*, not the usual compost material. Not many
proteins until it's turned into bugs. And in the intensive garden
environment our nitrogen account is still in the red when we
accelerate the decomposition of woody material (as opposed to green
stuff) to fit into our time-scales. We have to pay for that
acceleration with money: worth it for some people, but not for others.

Franz asks where else but the soils can the last whack of nitrogen,
from the decomposition of the final relay of decomposers, go to? I'd
just emphasize that we've lost a lot to the environment along the way:
as far as my knowledge goes, much more than we return to the
flower-bed. So I'd say, to follow the interest metaphor, that we're in
"negative equity" or "overdraft".

In the wild the processes are much slower: who hasn't stepped on a
moss-covered log in the woods to have it entertainingly collapse
underfoot? That log may have been there for a human generation.

Just to be clear, I'll say it again: a garden isn't "natural", and we
have to pay for speed. For my part, I'd use the tree as fuel, not as a
mulch, whether composted or not. (I've got heaps of woody material in
corners of my place for wild-life; that's a different matter, and not
everybody has room for it.)

Mike.

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
[...]
No, absolutely. I was taking issue with the implication I picked up (it
may not be what you intended) that I *shouldn't* put forward my view
because it wasn't conventional wisdom.

Oh, sorry I gave that impresh: far from it! But, as you've noticed, I
may sometimes argue! (Especially when I should be doing something less
enjoyable, like painting the woodwork, which I shall now proceed to
do.)

Mike.

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
[...]
No, absolutely. I was taking issue with the implication I picked up (it
may not be what you intended) that I *shouldn't* put forward my view
because it wasn't conventional wisdom.

Oh, sorry I gave that impresh: far from it! But, as you've noticed, I
may sometimes argue! (Especially when I should be doing something less
enjoyable, like painting the woodwork, which I shall now proceed to
do.)

Mike.

In article , Mike Lyle
writes
Just to be clear, I'll say it again: a garden isn't "natural", and we
have to pay for speed. For my part, I'd use the tree as fuel, not as a
mulch, whether composted or not. (I've got heaps of woody material in
corners of my place for wild-life; that's a different matter, and not
everybody has room for it.)

So if you've already got heaps of woody material attracting fungi and
slugs and snails, why worry about mulch? ;-)

Remember snails will walk a heck of a way to find food, so even heapsin
out of the way corners are a potential problem.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

Speaking from deep ignorance:
I thought the nitrogen is usually applied as soluble nitrogen-containing
inorganic salts.
I thought the fungi which decompose the wood absorbed such nitrogen as they
need, leaving the rest to be washed into the soil. From there the existing
plants take what they need, and if any is left over (in which case you
applied too much) it washes out into the groundwater. In what form would it
go into the atmosphere? Which life form is going to convert chemically
bound nitrogen in solution into nitrogen in a gaseous form?

Some bacteria molish ammonia as a by-product of noshing.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

Speaking from deep ignorance:
I thought the nitrogen is usually applied as soluble nitrogen-containing
inorganic salts.
I thought the fungi which decompose the wood absorbed such nitrogen as
they
need, leaving the rest to be washed into the soil. From there the
existing
plants take what they need, and if any is left over (in which case you
applied too much) it washes out into the groundwater. In what form
would it
go into the atmosphere? Which life form is going to convert chemically
bound nitrogen in solution into nitrogen in a gaseous form?

Some bacteria molish ammonia as a by-product of noshing.

True, but ammonia is highly soluble in water.
I have never encountered a mulch which smelled of ammonia.

Franz

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

Some bacteria molish ammonia as a by-product of noshing.

True, but ammonia is highly soluble in water.
I have never encountered a mulch which smelled of ammonia.

Sneaks into Franz's garden and distributes a gallon of Scrubb's....

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.