article from U of Wisconsin. Natural vs commercial

[seedcorn]

http://www.cals.wisc.edu/ars/spooner/factsheets/fertilizers.pdf

Would love thoughts. Some things in the article surprised me-almost hard to believe.

 

[so lucky]

What surprised you, seedcorn? I guess I'm too dense to see anything surprising in it.
Interesting, though. I like how they separated into natural organic, manufactured organic and manufactured inorganic categories.
And I am happy to see that chicken manure is a pretty balanced fertilizer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, what surprised you in that? I like that it is short and sweet, straight to the point, and no real bias one way or the other, not like a lot of my posts. It has some good information in it.

 

[digitS']

I would probably benefit more from reading what others say than pretending to know great truths about plant nutrients ... but I'll just start off.

That short article is well written for the most part and there is a lot of information there in two pages. I wonder, however, if it doesn't encourage just a little too simple a comparison between natural and otherwise fertilizers.

First off, if we buy products - it's a commercial transaction. Even bagged cow poop has someone's financial interests tied up with the bag. It's gonna be promoted both honestly and dishonestly. Also, as with dang near everything -- there are True Believers.

I like complexity. Sure, the world would be simpler if it was simpler ... We'd also lose out on a lot of the joy of discovery. Heck with simplicity!

I like a varied diet. I want to be a part of the complexity of life on this planet -- as long as it isn't trying to kill me or rob me of my own requirements.

Steve

 

[seedcorn]

What surprised me was I was of belief that manure products were more available in nutrients than commercial. Still like manure over commercial but that is because of other nutrients besides N, P, K.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I'd read that the reason "compost" is slow release is that it has to further break down before the nutrients are in a form that the plants can actually use. With your extensive knowledge I'm surprised you didn't know that. You're usually really up on that type of detail, certainly more than me.

 

[catjac1975]

It will not open for me.

 

[seedcorn]

I'd read that the reason "compost" is slow release is that it has to further break down before the nutrients are in a form that the plants can actually use. With your extensive knowledge I'm surprised you didn't know that. You're usually really up on that type of detail, certainly more than me.

I will surprise you with the things I don't know.

Understood nutrients had to be converted to a usable form, just thought P, K were more available than rocks.....knew N was tied up.

 

[seedcorn]

It will not open for me.

Do Google using manufactured vs natural fertilizer. University of Wisconsin. Should come up.

 

[Jared77]

I'm with Ridgerunner on this. I think the author was looking at availability of nutrients over time. So the longer the breakdown the longer the nutrients are made available. Vs say Scott's fertilizer where you get the instant greening but your using multiple applications.

Plus plants can only take up so many nutrients. Temperature, amount of daylight, water, etc become limiting factors when excessive nutrients are available. If the plant can only take up so many nutrients, doesn't matter how much more you heap on the plant can't use them.

He just didn't word it that clearly.