brateaver at aol.com wrote:
>> I don't see any need to see which way works best. We already know that.
>> We already can see in all countries where chemicals have intruded, that
> they cause nothing but destruction of the soil. No need to keep on showing
> that. Just dump the whole chemical picture and go back to doing it
> correctly. We already have too much erosion.
>> And I might add that Mr. Chapman left out organic matter, when he gives
> only 2 parameters.. That is the crux of all the soil happenings.There is
> no substitute for organic matter, under any circumstances
>> B. Rateaver
Yes, I didn't include the vitally important organic matter.
As a follow-up point to those who have asked if mycorrhizae won't
deplete the soil because of their superior ability to glean nutrients
for their host plants, I can only point at the wild plants with
mycorrhizae that receive only decomposed leaf litter and occasional bird
droppings for fertilizer, and don't exactly look starved.
The mycorrhizae will not deplete the soil, it will simply make highly
effective use of the nutrients in what we would regard as low-fertility
soil environments. Actually, the death and decomposition of both
bacteria and fungi constantly create plant food with their nutritious
If we can figure out how to make our food crops thrive on minimal-inputs
of fertilizer/organic matter, it will have some wonderful implications
for future generations of hungry humans.
I repeat, interesting stuff!
Bio/Organics Supply Center