>1) It seems to me conceivable that when you get down to subtle differences
>that there might be a difference between synthetic N and natural N that
>plants can distinguish; I say this even though I don't know a lepton from a
>leprechaun, sub-atomic particle-wise, although I hear there are quarks
>classifiable as 'strange/charmed'...:-) This means to me that it could be
>good for some people to be pure as the driven snow in the choice of their
>N-sources, just in case....I say this even knowing that Ehrenfried Pfieffer
>himself once wrote that nitrogen is nitrogen in the same way that four is
>four...he may never have had New Math...:-) IOW, it may be that nitrogen is
>nitrogen synthetic or natural, or it may be that the natural stuff knows the
>secret organic handshake...<wink> The current dogma is what Pfeiffer says,
>and many hold to it with religious fervor...
>
I agree with Ehrenfried, N is N at the molecular level. What matters is
*how* you get it, what are the effects on the soil and the rest of the
environment, not to mention how much it costs (real costs) and who ends up
benefiting and who pays the costs. The molecular level is a bit
abstract--we live and work on the level of practice, economy and ecology
and on those levels there is a *big* difference between synthetic and
natural nitrogen--it's not a matter of dogma.
Regards,
Ronald Nigh
Dana, A.C.
Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF)
529-678-72-15 (Chiapas)
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".