Re: [bafuture] chemical vs. organic fertilizer
- Please distinguish synthetic fertilizer, from organic fertilizer, from
"chemical" Everything is atoms too. Tomatoes need atoms to make bigger
tomatoes, but we don't drop an atomic bomb on a tomato patch and say-
there you go - bunches of atoms- now grow you little suckers!
Even "ox dung" by itself is not a fertilizer. It has components in it
that when broken down appropriately will
fertilize plants - hence composting. Any gardener knows you cannot put
raw dung on a field of tender plants and
expect anything except disaster. You can sheet compost, side dress etc
etc. But all fertilization
depends on the interaction of the materials with air, earth, and water.
Chemical fertilizers on the other hand might be considered to be too
simplistic for sustainability. First of all, most are not really
a few CRUCIAL nutrients packaged as jet fuel for plants. many of the
synthetic "fertilizers" not synthetic " chemicals" contain acids
which negatively impact the soil bacteria which are crucial to sustain
Another strong point is that "fertilizer" contains a bunch of
micro-nutrients too. it is used as much to husband the soil as it is the
plant. The only thing about "artificial fertilizer" ( and that is their
term - it is not accurate) is that it misses the micro-nutrients
necessary to husband the soil bacteria. Hence composting as the viable
choice. It has been found that orange trees jet fueled with nitrogen
"fertilizers" produce smaller fruit with less vitamin C. They have
certainly been fed a bunch of chemicals but as with people and
medicine- just filling them up full of "pills" does not meet the needs
of a healthy body or plant.
If you look very carefully the chemical industry has done a great job
of erasing common distinctions between "vital nutrients", "trace
elements", soil health, etc by calling what they sell "fertilizer". It
simply ain't so. Ask any real plant specialist about the total
complexity needed for sustainable plant health.
On the other side, technology is an interesting toy we seem to have fun
with which occasionally makes a lot of smoke and noise, occasionally
does some amazing things, and sometimes gives us nightmares. It has gone
from being an "engineering" manifestation of scientific principles to a
race for VC funding - even if all you have is just a toy and does
nothing more than amuse ( ok i would put video games squarely in that
camp). Technology without a social need or context - as a tool for
aiding mankind, is about as effective as masturbating is for making
babies - amusing, sometimes exhilarating, but often leaving messes to
Yelling at technology as being the problem is like complaining about
gravity. Go ahead if it amuses you, but if you want to be effective you
might explore the people involved and not the things.
Paul King wrote:
> Future Salon
> > I have a bone to pick with an insane English teacher who thinks
> > that technology is dooming the planet and that we need to return to
> having oxen plow the
> > fields and stop using "Chemical" fertilizers (when I tried to
> explain to her that the "Ox Dung"
> > she so highly prized as a fertilizer was just a collection of
> chemicals in a matrix of digested
> > Ox food... She told me that I did not know what I was talking
> about.... Anyway, like I said -
> > insane English Teacher),
> While not taking a position on ox dung vs. chemical fertilizer, I
> would like to point out that there is a lot we don't know about how
> biologically generated organic material interfaces with the ecosystem.
> To say that ox dung is a collection of chemicals in a matrix of
> digested ox food is to draw an imaginary distinction between
> "chemicals" and "digested food". The reality is that ox dung is both.
> It is 100% digested food, and also 100% chemicals. Synthetic
> fertilizer contains a subset of those chemicals (or different
> chemicals even) in concentrated form. How synthetic fertilizer
> interacts with the ecosystem and whether that interaction is, on the
> whole, good or bad is still a matter of ongoing research and
> scientific debate. For example, the use of synthetic fertilizers is
> believed to cause secondary problems to the soil over long periods.
> This wikipedia article discusses problems associated with artificial
> fertilizer use:
> My main point is that concern about the effects of chemical fertilizer
> on the ecosystem is scientifically supported and is not insane. Ox
> dung is not the answer, since farm animals also place a heavy burden
> on the ecosystem. But we are justified in questioning current
> practices. Composting is emerging as a way of reducing waste and
> reducing soil composition imbalance at the same time.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Richard P. Karasik
408 472 2732
http://www.orthomolecularnutrition.com/retail/ ASCORSINE 9
www.nikkenhealth.biz Ciaga & Barley Enzymes