Organics, All or Nothing?

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by ICT Bill

Its hard to be specific with such a complicated subject, there are WAY too many variables, we can generalize and kind of get close

Yes you can generalize, and given our infantile understanding of these systems, what choice do we have? You can also over generalize which serves no purpose other than to marginalize important variables that need to be considered, or over generalize to the point of just being plain wrong.

[phasthound]

Originally Posted by Kiril

What is this ..... biology 101?

Decompose = break down into constituent parts.

Hey, you're the one who asked the question.
Tell me JD, what happens when organic matter is decomposed?

Just trying to have a conversation here, not ruffling your feathers.

[Tim Wilson]

Originally Posted by ICT Bill

what is interesting about this debate every time it comes up is that no one seems to listen

almost (maybe everything) everything that hits the soil is food for something, be it fertilizer, dead mouse or an old shoe. The microbial populations will increase to the point of how they can exist with the food available, case in point is the oil spill spring 2010 in the gulf, the microbe population that likes to eat oil exploded and consumed a majority of the oil that was spilled after the food was consumed there is typically a huge die off and those dead microbes are consumed by something else

If you are applying fertilizers you are selecting for the microbes that like to eat fertilizer, if you are applying a diverse food like compost or a ferment of many inputs, kelp, fish, sugars, carbohydrates, amino acids you are selecting for a much wider variety of microorganisms and the higher predators that consume them and the ones that consume them and the ones that consumes them

It is about the type of food that you are applying to get the best result, one thing that is often forgotten is that the plants themselves are also feeding the microbes in the soil through exudates and in turn making nutrients plant available in the soil to the plant, these symbiotic relationships in the soil, when nurtured, can be a powerful way to reduce inputs

That's right Bill and in the Gulf and other places where 'life' gets out of balance, it takes time for things to cycle back to normal.

Have you ever read any of the diary entries of the European explorers astounded at the tremendous growth of grasses encountered on the plains (and thousands of bison) the like of which they had never seen?

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by phasthound

Hey, you're the one who asked the question.
Tell me JD, what happens when organic matter is decomposed?

Just trying to have a conversation here, not ruffling your feathers.

Must be another one of those situations where you expect me to answer my own questions, questions that are meant to help people do their own research.

[JDUtah]

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.

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.

Plant use these ions to build molecules to build cells.

Microbes use these ions to build molecules to build cells.

The difference is, microbes can also produce and excrete enzymes that turn rock and carbon molecules into these ions. Plants can't.

This is why plants sometimes excrete carbohydrates (sugar) for the microbes. The extra energy allows microbes to populate and excrete enzymes and thus produce MORE ions... and thus both plant and microbe benefit because more "cell building blocks" becoming available. For both plant AND microbe!

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...

From a biological perspective, soil constitutes a diverse ecosystem in which plant roots and microorganisms compete strongly for mineral nutrients

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?



More...

Despite this competition, roots and microorganisms can form alliances for their mutual benefit...

This is the association that Tim is so fascinated with. In simple terms, plats produce sugar (chemical energy) in their leaves, and microbes produce ions (cell building blocks) in the soil. Both of which are needed for the manufacture of new cells in both plants and microbes. In the soil where plant roots and microbes meet, a fascinating thing happens where each uses the product manufactured by the other in a mutually beneficial way.

More...

Plants are autotrophioc organisms capable of using sunlight to synthesize all therr components from carbon dioxide, water, and mineral elements. ...[mineral elements] have key roles within plants... To prevent the development of deficiencies, nutrients can be added back to the soil in the forms of fertilizers. Fertilizers that provide nutrients in inorganic forms are called chemical fertilizers: those that derive from plant or animal residues are considered organic fertilizers. In both cases, plants absorb the nutrients primarily as inorganic ions.

Back on the issue. People out there believe BOTH can be good. Others out there believe only one can be good. Most of the time the people who believe only one can be good freak out at the very idea that BOTH can be good.

Gotta go. BBL

[Smallaxe]

I don't know that anyone was talking about the NPK elements of synthetic fert being good or bad. At least originally, salt was the problem..

I am curious about the salt coming from from the synthetics. Kiril had some nice photos of the excessive salt areas, but what about lesser amounts brought in with the ferts?

[Smallaxe]

Originally Posted by JDUtah

... Fertilizers that provide nutrients in inorganic forms are called chemical fertilizers: those that derive from plant or animal residues are considered organic fertilizers. In both cases, plants absorb the nutrients primarily as inorganic ions...

This was a question that had come up in the past. Is an ion, an ion, is an ion? Is there such a thing as an 'organic ion' that is different from an 'inorganic ion?

[Tim Wilson]

Actually there is some capability of root systems to excrete enzymes which ionize (dissolve) nutrients. This is mostly concerned with nitrogen (dissolved organic nitrogen) or DON as it is refered to. You may find info by googling.

The bulk of organic N is delivered to plants, not by some synthesis or processing of rocks, etc. by bacteria but rather by flagellates, naked amoebae, nematodes (and to a minimal extent rotifers) eating bacteria and archaea and releasing up to 70% of the nutrient as ionic form nutrients, directly available to roots. Of course JD is correct that much of this energy originates with rock, etc. and organic matter which is degraded/processed by a myriad of organisms including fungi.

There is not some big deal that certain bacteria consume the same nutrient forms as plants. Plants use this to their advantage to grow their herd of bacteria to attract the bacterial feeders or starve them out when it is time for a different nutrient. All I'm saying is that when one uses ionic form synthetic fertilizers, they are putting this cycle at an imbalance.

[NattyLawn]

Originally Posted by Tim Wilson

There is not some big deal that certain bacteria consume the same nutrient forms as plants. Plants use this to their advantage to grow their herd of bacteria to attract the bacterial feeders or starve them out when it is time for a different nutrient. All I'm saying is that when one uses ionic form synthetic fertilizers, they are putting this cycle at an imbalance.

Tim, the above paragraph is the gist of the argument, IMO. Either JD can't grasp it, or chooses to ignore it.

[jalderfer63]

I have been using a bridge product on my lawn 15 years.My lawn has been the best lawn on my street.It has always been thick and green using a bridge product.I had a Beagle that went out on this lawn for over 16 years.The beagle did pass in 2010.I just think that a bridge product is the way to go.