hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Lawn Fertilizers and Milorganite


At 07:17 AM 9/26/00 EDT, you wrote:
 >
>It was reported in our local paper, STAR Tribune on Minneapolis. They got
the 
>story off one of the wire services.
>
>The study involved a number of diffrent items involving farming.
>They looked at three diffrent types of farming:
>
>Organic- No man made chemicals
>Standard - Minimal use 
>Chemical intensive- Synthesized Fertilizers and pesticides
>
>The Organic and the standard farming practices produced the same amount of 
>green house gases across the production spectrum while the Chemical
intensive 
>farming produced the least amount of green house gases.
>
>Paul
 
Ahh. It sounds like the scientists were measuring soil CO2 efflux.  CO2 is
given off by soils as a result of (among other things) microbial growth and
root respiration. If intensive chemical fertilization suppresses microbial
activity in the soils (and it does), the result would be less CO2 released
to the atmosphere.  Organic fertilizers tend to increase microbial
activity, thereby increasing CO2 efflux.  

Concluding that organic additives are therefore "bad" for the environment
makes as little sense as the statement that was made years ago about trees
being the major "polluters" on the planet. 

Please don't take this as a personal attack, Paul.  As a scientist involved
in climate change research,  I just wanted to get more information..Were
there any names (the scientists) given in the Star article?

Gerry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index