Forum für die kritische Würdigung
Forum for critical appreciation
Forum pour une appréciation critique
Foro de apreciación critíca
Aktuelle Zeit: Do 19. Jul 2018, 03:18

Alle Zeiten sind UTC + 1 Stunde




Ein neues Thema erstellen Auf das Thema antworten  [ 2 Beiträge ] 
Autor Nachricht
BeitragVerfasst: Sa 18. Nov 2017, 10:55 
Offline

Registriert: Sa 12. Dez 2009, 18:31
Beiträge: 1228
Picture 28 Nitrogen supply of a cultured soil by mineral fertilizer

Bild
large

The advantages of a biologization of chemical mineral fertilizers (semi-schematically illustrated)

Photo of the spread chemical NPK fertilizer with the white strokes on the plowed ground.

Bild
http://docplayer.org/docs-images/58/41408510/images/23-0.png

It is very revealing, in contrast to the natural course, to look at the process of artificial nitrogen fertilization and its possibilities.

Since it is here not a question of humus replacement, but a fertilization, it must be compared with other fertilizers, and it can not, in its current state of use, compare it with a full humus.
[A distiction has to be made: fertilizer = short term stimulation of plant - humus = long term storage/replacement of nutrients ]
One must first say that in the chemically raw state in which it is applied, it can have only a part of the effects, and only those which are produced by the purely chemical material can be achieved.
In order to do more, it would have to be improved according to the biological side.
This has never been attempted, but it would not have any particular difficulties.
One has never thought of it, chiefly because all the artifacts come from an epoch in which world, earth, and life were an exclusively chemical problem.
After all, today one knows by the young humus science already enough about the soil biology that it would be time to deal with this problem.

In the case of an intensive soil deterioration and a more or less complete plundering of the factors affecting the fertility, the mineral values(??)/advantages disappear, is self-evident.
To the extent that the earth is one-sidedly "mineralized", i.e. in which the organic substance is lost, the soil also impoverishes the indispensable nutritive salts.
They can not be retained by shipping and crystallization.
Since they are highly hygrophilic, they are washed away with the effluent from the precipitates, which can also no longer be stored.
The plant root contains almost nothing of it.
Unfortunately, the mineral fertilizers often remain on the surface of the field until they are blown or rinsed.
If the farmer plows them in, it silt (?) the top soil zone, glues it, and paralyze the capillary activity.
Without knowing how, the farmer then suddenly has in this top soil zone pH 9, sometimes even more.
This rapid alkalization, however, disappears after some time, but is not readily digestible to the cultivated plants.
For the sake of experience, they are also avoided - but without being aware of the internal contexts.

According to our experience of more than 100 years, the pros and cons of the mineral fertilizer, one can assume that there will be no surprises through it.
Its undeniable advantages consist in a better nutrition of the cultivated plants, in increased harvests, often also in rapid growth.
Its disadvantages are that it is very little lucrative in actual utilization, because too much is lost by wind and precipitation before the plant roots are of use.
This also has an unfavorable effect on soil structure, capillary activity, water-, ventilation- and nutrient gas economy.
Like any originated one-sided matter, it has a primarily one-sided effect.
A soil improvement by it does not take place, because it is primarily chemical, but not biologically developed, while the fertile earth is a biologically produced product of diverse processes, which man only imitate, but can not replace it with chemical agents.

As a result, the biological substitute is missing.
It is absent in all only (chemical) fertilized soils which are cultivated for a decade.
It has already been said elsewhere that the soil has no way of reproducing humus, because the organic substance can not be built up, even by fertilization with waste materials (which imposes a great labor on the soil, to which it is usually not capable of at all).
Humus loss is therefore not stopped by the mineral fertilizer.
For a time the plant is nourished better by nutrient salts than it could otherwise be.
The nutritive salts make them to a certain degree independent of the soil.
But then the disadvantages of this one-sidedness become obvious, and soil decay, which was not turned off, but was veiled only for a while, goes its way, which in such circumstances is a lawful one.

These facts now exclusively relate to the fact that the nutrient salts are given in the chemically crude state which has hitherto been customary and not biologically improved.
For the disadvantages are not caused by nitrogen, phosphorus compounds, and potash, but because are applied in an unbiological condition, which is the fault that they can not bring about a regeneration of humus.
This state must therefore be changed.
I have devoted myself to this problem for a few years, with laboratory and field tests, and I am convinced that it is sufficient to establish the harmony of the soil, the balance between the inorganic and the organic line.
A certain selection of naturally halophilous microbes, which are added to the mineral salts in a certain proportion and condition, create true miracles.

As can be seen in Table 28, this results in a microscopic "cover", which also has the advantage of colloidally bonding the spreaded artificial fertilizer, so that it can not be washed or blown away.
The improvement is a grant from such organisms, which protects the uppermost soil zone - which is always the most vulnerable - and regenerates its edaphic life.
The efficiency of the mineral fertilizer is thereby greatly increased without the disadvantages of salting, bonding, destruction of the soil structure and depletion of organic matter.
For if the salt crystals are not biologically bound, a high percentage is washed into the ground water, either in powder or in already liquid form.
Biologically, on the other hand, the artificial/mineral fertilizer prevents the emergence of deficient soils, for which it is at present responsible.

Superphosphate, ammonia, lime nitrogen fertilizer and all mixtures tried in the meantime behave similarly.
Also the combinations with trace elements, which have already been praised for some time.
There is scarcely any kind of waste which is derived from organic or inorganic processes, which has not at least been experimentally combined with mineral salts.
Unfortunately this was very often done by such personalities, who are completely ignorant of the laws of humus science.
Since I have examined and tried many such "special fertilizers", I am able to remember to deal with infernally stinking ammonia mixtures, phosphorous preparations, which really consist only of coke ash, finely ground gypsum crystals, combinations of iron chloride, potash and deficient lime.
In the United States, after antibiotics had been introduced into medicine, "antibiotic fertilizers" were repeatedly thrown into the market with great propaganda.
"Hormone fertilizers", whose chemical formula was that they contained mineral salts, lime, finely charred sawdust, and all the hormones present, had a disproportionate price and were to produce tree-like giant forms from all potted plants.
I believe there is nothing that would not have been praised as a "miracle fertilizer" without even making a fraction of what was promised.
Chemical fertilizers are "nomansland", where everyone believes they can be poaching, and therefore it is also because they do not consider any other knowledge as the most superficial.
And this whole complex of the replacement of nutrient salts is far too important for one not to think of feeding it into the soil in the form of a biologically active agent.

Picture 28 Biologization of mineral fertilizers is possible and advantageous

Extensive tests have shown that any type of mineral fertilizer can be improved by adding the corresponding lithobiontic biocenoses. The table shows that the spreaded chemical fertilizer is neither blown away nor washed away. Through the biological improvement, it forms a colloidal cover, which is retained on the ground surface because the organisms lastly migrate into the soil surface and bind the crystals of the artificial fertilizer. Through this vitalized transition, the nutrients of the commercial fertilizer are far better utilized.

Due to the optimal numerical distribution with the admixture of Petrofil
the following main groups of organisms are added:

Autochthone Microflora in all its forms; in individual symbioses occur:

Lithobionts:
Chroococcum humicolum
Palmella miniata
Gloeocystis Schroeterii
Cloeococcus mucosus
Protococcus sp.
Nostoc sp. in free solitary cells
Nostoc Linckia
Gloeocapsa muralis
Stigeoclonium flabelliferum
Kirchnerialla lunaris
Chroococcus sp.
Dasychococcus sp.
Stichococcus sp.
Schizoclamys gelatinosa
Oscillatoria in its lithobiontic forms
Diatoms in different forms: Navicula sp., Nitzschia sp. and frequently Surirella sp.
Local Cysts and Spores

Very soon increasingly soil bacteria and soil fungi intermingle.

[For the detailed verification and revision of the above mentioned microorganisms and their name, picture etc. see:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=224&p=1078&sid=e29c473478ead7180858977546cff95e#p2345]

The vitalized cover of mineral fertilizer has pH 7,
while the underlying, heavily used soil often has only pH 5.

-

"Petrofil" = Lithobiont inoculum, developed by Annie Francé-Harra; see this forum.

-

Ask yourself: Can the "soil food web" with the missing algae contribute to this biological process?

Discover and depict the various forms of algae in the above picture!

Trust the EDAPHON and Sanctify the Algae !

-

See detailed discussion of the listed microorganisms
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=224&sid=f530e314eabbb82867e7d60ec198ea5a#p2345


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
BeitragVerfasst: Do 4. Jan 2018, 14:35 
Offline

Registriert: Sa 12. Dez 2009, 18:31
Beiträge: 1228
Why It’s Time to Stop Punishing Our Soils with Fertilizers

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals

YES, - but it was suggested already 100 years ago.

The suggested solutions are ok but where practiced since the beginning of conventional agriculture by intelligent people as an alternative to it.

BUT - the general statement of the title is misleading.

There is a tendency that Scientists always believe they are the first and only one who have discovered a new truth and journalists try to sell it as a savior or as a doomsday scenario.

This report is an example of a half-digested understanding of the humus-cycle and the role of the microorganisms in the soil as the true originators and movers of the humus-cycle.

With the Francé one can learn how to classify single facts into the various functions of an overall system.

Mineral fertilizers - enjoyed in moderation and mediated by Lithobionts - can provide missing nutrients in the short term - but not produce humus.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:  Sortiere nach  
Ein neues Thema erstellen Auf das Thema antworten  [ 2 Beiträge ] 

Alle Zeiten sind UTC + 1 Stunde


Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 1 Gast


Du darfst keine neuen Themen in diesem Forum erstellen.
Du darfst keine Antworten zu Themen in diesem Forum erstellen.
Du darfst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht ändern.
Du darfst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.

Suche nach:
Gehe zu:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Deutsche Übersetzung durch phpBB.de