YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[uglybunny]

Its both Inghams, they collaborated on the articles. Give me time to read the Zuberer articles, the name sounds familiar I may have if before somewhere. Perhaps a citation in one of the articles I've been reading.

The point is (IMO) that when ionic fertilizers are used, the microbial population changes (over time) from healthy and balanced to unhealthy and more pathogenic.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with this idea, clearly that is the case with synthetic only management strategies. The turfgrass article I posted even comments about how the synthetic plots received fewer benefits from leguminous N-fixing weeds that grew on them during the experiment. What I do disagree with is the idea that synthetics and "organics" are diametrically opposed and intractable.

I hesitate to bring political theory into this but, I think it may serve as an ok analogy for what I am trying to describe. A lot of people think that Capitalism and Socialism are intractably different philosophies. Each system has benefits and negatives that are intrinsic within them. However, modern societies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and Finland have found an integrated(with varying degrees of integration depending on the country) Socio-Capitalist approach. The result is economic stability and robust socials services that cost society relatively little to maintain.

Peace,

UB

 

[mad librettist]

Which is why I've said from the beginning we don't actually disagree on anything, it is just that you have been led to believe things that are not true -- namely that synthetics and "organics" are mutually exclusive growing paradigms.

those words never came out my mouth. I merely attempted shoot down some really bad assumptions and wildly unsupported and broad conclusions I read on this thread. The question is still open in my mind whether in theory or practice synthetic substances can safely be used without externalizing some hefty costs on the world at large, either through resource depletion or habitat (human and other) destruction.

It's the bad assumptions to reach sought after conclusions I object to.

 

[uglybunny]

Ok I've read your articles, and I find it kind of funny that you derided the study I posted partially because it was on turfgrass, yet your point heavily relies on an article which is about turfgrass management. Not only that, but the article pretty supports my point:

While it is true that fertilizers may inflict some harm on microbes directly exposed to granules or to anhydrous ammonia, the overall effect of fertilizer applications is to markedly increase microbial numbers and activity in soil through increased plant growth. We have known this for decades! As I mentioned earlier, the majority of soil microbes require organic carbon to grow and produce new cells. In grass systems, the
vast majority of organic matter is produced from decomposing roots and leaves. Fertilization increases the amount of organic substrates available to soil microbes by increasing its source, the grass plants themselves. Thus, rather than producing "dead soil", judicious use of fertilizers invigorates soil microbes by allowing plants to produce more resources for them! Remember though, all management inputs must be used
carefully and correctly.

That is exactly what I have been saying all along.

So, do you need to add "beneficial microbes" to the soil to make it function properly? That's highly unlikely! Many studies of turfgrasses, whether in sports fields, golf courses or home lawns, have shown that soil microbial populations are not compromised by normal management practices. The best thing that you can do to "manage" the soil microbes under your care is to grow a healthy stand of turf and pay close attention to the condition of the soil or root zone supporting it. Paying attention to the agronomics of grass culture, fertilization, aerification, drainage, etc., will insure that the microbial populations are not being adversely affected!

Sounds a lot like what me and p4p have been saying the whole time. Anyone gonna apologize to p4p for jumping on him and treating him like an idiot?

Peace,

UB

 

[mad librettist]

That is exactly what I have been saying all along.

so how do you determine judicious use of synthetics?

I employ the precautionary principle and have concluded I should not use them until they are better understood.

 

[uglybunny]

those words never came out my mouth. I merely attempted shoot down some really bad assumptions and wildly unsupported and broad conclusions I read on this thread. The question is still open in my mind whether in theory or practice synthetic substances can safely be used without externalizing some hefty costs on the world at large, either through resource depletion or habitat (human and other) destruction.

It's the bad assumptions to reach sought after conclusions I object to.

Not to be rude, but you haven't really added anything to the conversation so far. I've posted articles which clearly refute what you're saying, yet you either don't read them or don't understand them. If you still disagree, this is the part where you start posting scientific evidence to support your theories. If I am misrepresenting what you say, this is when you clearly articulate your point and correct the record. From what you've articulated in your last post, I don't see how we disagree in any way, other than the fact that I say judicious use of synthetics is not harmful to the ecosystem. Of course excessive amounts do harm, and yes most people use excessive amounts, and yes too much organic fertilizer is just as bad for the environment.

The broader question of whether or not use of synthetics is sustainable and/or ethical is an entirely different subject that I am not talking about.


Peace,

UB

 

[mad librettist]

I'm not conversing for your benefit...

but your taunting and objections are noted.

 

[uglybunny]

No you're just trolling because you've been proven wrong. Begone!

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Not to be rude, but you haven't really added anything to the conversation so far

F!cking classic!

 

[mad librettist]

No, I shall remain, and contribute what I do, which is valuable to many, because I am good at tying things together for some people. one more poster trying to convince me synthetics are safe is not going to send me off.

I recommend the ignore feature for those who need blinders to maintain composure.

 

[uglybunny]

Cool, I guess we can all use a good laugh now and then.

 

[mrwags]

I had a friend once who used to attend the First Baptist Church. One day his mom got into with the preachers wife and they moved across the street to the First Baptist Evangelical Pentecostal Brotherhood Garden Crop Inc.

One day at this new church my friend couldn't take it anymore and stands up during service and ask "I used to go to the First Baptist Church across the street and now my mom makes me go here,you all use the same book talk about the same person so what's the difference?" The Reverend steps up to the mic and says "Over there at the First Baptist Church they say Baby Moses was found in the bull rush we here say that's just what they say!"

Bottom Line here is you all are forgetting the IMPORTANT question,

Does it help them with their pain and or does it get you high?

Organic or Non Organic the above question doesn't really matter does it.


Keep It Civil Please
Mr.Wags

 

[Microbeman]

UB: I took some time, just for you and rooted around my database for some papers of interest for you. Of particular note regarding our discussion is the study by Forge.

More to come

 

[Microbeman]

More as promised;

 

[Microbeman]

Ok I've read your articles, and I find it kind of funny that you derided the study I posted partially because it was on turfgrass, yet your point heavily relies on an article which is about turfgrass management. Not only that, but the article pretty supports my point:



That is exactly what I have been saying all along.


Sounds a lot like what me and p4p have been saying the whole time. Anyone gonna apologize to p4p for jumping on him and treating him like an idiot?

Peace,

UB

Perhaps you are unable to read. I posted these articles AS SUPPORTING YOUR POINTS.

 

[uglybunny]

so how do you determine judicious use of synthetics?

I employ the precautionary principle and have concluded I should not use them until they are better understood.

The article I posted in the link on this post shows an experimental model than can be used to determine the exact ratio of C:N that is the upper limit. It also gives general estimations for different soil types, to give you somewhere to start from.

Peace,

UB

 

[uglybunny]

Perhaps you are unable to read. I posted these articles AS SUPPORTING YOUR POINTS.

Ah, my mistake then, you've been telling me I'm wrong the entire time I thought you were merely continuing in that vein. Let me look at the articles you've posted, since you posted them just for me

 

[Microbeman]

Ah, my mistake then, you've been telling me I'm wrong the entire time I thought you were merely continuing in that vein. Let me look at the articles you've posted, since you posted them just for me

Please take your time. It is a lot to read and I'm likely done here. In your rush try not to miss the subtlety of my point but the potential large consequences, more akin to taking antibiotics or intraveinous feeding than combining socialism and capitalism which do mix great.

 

[xmobotx]

hmmm, i knew UB's posting style was familiar

lol - well, anyway

yes, synthetics introduced to an organic grow "work" i used to start seedlings w/ 1/4 strength peters then trans into organic mix w/ no problems

but, "organics" as a method to me impinges upon sustainability. If something has to be manufactured in a factory in addition to shipping it around and packaging it - we have a sustainability issue

technically, of course, you can be considered organic if you rely on shipped/packaged products but not if you rely on advanced chemistry

i prefer not to rely on shipping and packaging either but that's just me

anyway, it's clear that adding ionic salts to an organic grow disrupts the biology -maybe only a small amount but, if a lot of people are doing it that small amount is exaggerated

why support the monsantos and other evil corps when organic can be free?

 

[uglybunny]

In your rush try not to miss the subtlety of my point but the potential large consequences, more akin to taking antibiotics or intraveinous feeding than combining socialism and capitalism which do mix great.

Except longitudinal studies disprove your point, which was the purpose of me posting in the first place.

Peace,

UB

 

[mad librettist]

3rdtry? nah. I give up. who is uglybunny?

let's put this into perspective. the root of this question philosophy in general, a branch of which is modern science.

For anyone not familiar with the precautionary principle,

if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.

Does everyone agree?