View Single Post
Old 01-17-2011, 08:58 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,365
Originally Posted by JDUtah View Post
For those that are listening without the history of me, Tim, and Kiril I am one of those guys that believes BOTH things can be good. Kiril and Tim are of the mindset that organics only are good and synthetics are bad.
Not true. I have stated on numerous occasions that I support bridge programs as a means to an end .... the end being complete (or at least nearly so) removal of synthetics from landscape maintenance programs. That said, while I don't have a problem with very light chemical use from time to time, I do NOT support permanent bridge programs (like yours) in a typical landscape.

Originally Posted by JDUtah View Post
The funny part is, with all of their professed knowledge they fail to admit that regardless of how it is produce (by man or microbe) plant nutrients are IONS that dissolve in water.
For the record, not all plant nutrients are salts (ex. carbon, oxygen), nor do all mineral nutrients necessarily come from the soil, even if that is the predominant reservoir..

Originally Posted by JDUtah View Post
The difference is, microbes can also produce and excrete enzymes that turn rock and carbon molecules into these ions. Plants can't.
Also not true, see biological weathering.

Originally Posted by JDUtah View Post
Kiril wants some academic documentation. Fine. I will quote from a plant physiology book that he has promoted several times on this forum. Plant Physiology Fourth Addition Tiaz & Zeiger starting on page 84.

It states...

Mineral nutrients are also called IONS. Which are also called salt based fertilizers. Whay the heck would a microbe compete FOR an ion if it doesn't want/need it?
What does any of this have to do with microbes producing ions or the impacts of synthetic fertilizers on soils and soil biological communities? Furthermore, your assumption that all microbes can/do consume mineral salts (regardless of the source) is ignorant at best.

What is your point in quoting these passages? Neither Tim nor I have stated anything that contradicts what you have quoted. If this is the biology lesson you indicated Tim and I needed, you fell way short.

The issue here (and has always been) is your ignorant stance that chemical fertilizers cannot cause damage to soils (all inclusive) .... and your grossly over simplified and incorrect statement that salts don't kill microbes (therefore chemical fertilizers do not) is merely a display of your ignorance. It is irrelevant if some microbes use the very same ions in their biological processes .... that was never an issue here ... well except that you are trying to make it one. The issue with respect to soils (in general) is with short circuiting biological processes that build soils, reducing biological community diversity, excessive salt accumulation, and soil acidification, etc.... All of these can have wide ranging negative impacts on soil fertility and biology and plant health/yield.

I have posted numerous journal publications that demonstrate chemical fertilizers and pesticides can in fact lead to a net negative impact on soil biology, biological communities, and soil fertility. Nothing you have presented here, or in any other thread, disproves these studies. You have erected a straw man here, and like all straw men, they have no life or substance.
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.04896 seconds with 8 queries