Joint compound as fertilizer/conditioner

Any reason why joint compound can't be worked into the soil to add in nutrients, like calcium, or as a way to control the ph of the soil? I have about 3 lbs of the stuff from a previous drywall project and didn't want to toss it out, when I could toss it on the compost pile or toss it in the dirt to break down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Calcium is an element not a nutrient. Comosted wood and nurse logs add calcium, the element.
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:20:58 -0400, "symplastless"

Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, iron, copper, maganese are also elements and also nutrients when used by plants after breaking down into forms root hairs can uptake those nutrients.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No the are elements
Food is a substance that provides and energy source, mostly. Nutrient is a substance that provides an energy source, elements, and other substances essential for life, in types and amounts that can provide a healthy life. Fertilizer is a substance that provides elements, as salts mostly, or in bonded forms, that require microorganisms to alter to forms that can be absorbed by plants. I do not call elements - nutrients, however nutrients would contain elements. You can put a file in a folder but you can't put a folder in a file. A list of elements can be found here: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/tableofelements.gif&imgrefurl=http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/&h42&wV1&sz &hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=UTc7pOYXbhfhkM:&tbnh&tbnw3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperiodic%2Btable%2Bof%2Belements%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DMUS_enUS211US211%26sa%3DX
17 Elements For Life - Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Sulfur, Magnesium, Manganese, Iron, Copper, Boron, Molybdenum, Chlorine, Zinc, Nickel [Sodium, Cobalt, Selenium?]
14 essential elements are obtained by trees from the soil. I do not have a list of which ones they are.
Wood is the substrate of the base of the food web, the mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizae tend to be abundant in composted wood such as nurse logs. We had great success at tree biology workshops finding mycorrhizae during dryer times, in and about nurse logs. I believe, you don't have to agree with it, please, just think. I think that by applying mulch as I recommend under mulch here that you facilitate the mycorrhizae rather than just adding what I believe you mean as humus, over a lawn. Not that its bad in any way, adding humus i.e..
Mulching - http://home.ccil.org/~treeman/sub3.html and http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/M/ Look up "Mulch"
Did I say - Mycorrhizae are organs that facilitate the absorption of elements essential for healthy growth. Mycorrhizae resist the Demons Of D. Mycorrhizae facilitate the absorption of elements. Demons of D are those things that add up to the big D word DEATH. E.g., Depletion, disruption, and dysfunction. Elements can be depleted. Disruption, you get hit my a Mac truck. Dysfunction, some organ such as mycorrhizae may not function.
Major Elements C; H; N; O; P; K; S; Mg; Ni; Fe; Ca; Zn; Mo; Mn; B; Cl; Cu
There is the law of the minimum. It states the element that is deficient the most, would be the determining factor in the health of the tree.
I think research would be wise in the search for the optimum fertility level for trees.
I did some soil testing in the upper four inches of soil and from at and about nurse logs in old growth forest which contain hemlocks and white pines. And much more. Here is my average on my testing for the latter. These where five test. 3 test sites where in Allegheny National Forest(Hearts Content) Pennsylvania and two where in Allegheny National Forest(Tionesta Scenic area) Pennsylvania. Results are in Pounds Per Acre PPA. AVAILABLE ELEMENTS P 8.2 K 236 Mg 107 Ca 594 Al 220.6 Fe 110.8 Mn 118.6 Zn 11.96 NO3-N 28.8 Did not get B or CU. Organic matter was 29.32% Ex Acidity 81 ME/100G Salts mmho: 0.01 mmho/cm Moisture %3.97 Water Soluble mg/kg B 1.0738 ACID Soluble (mg/kg) Cd 0.976 Cu 6.768 Ni 5.71 (Penn State discovered the element Ni to be essential in small amounts) Mn 426.378 Co 3.084 Zn 46.818 Pb 101.792 Cr 5.078 P 726.226 The CARBON TO NITROGEN RATION was 27:1 pH 4.2 WOW
That would be a goal of mine if I was going to provide essential elements professionally. I did not see to many people in the old growth sections.
There was more calcium at a nurse logs in a separate test.
We don't feed trees, however, we can feed the soil with composted wood (chips and nurse logs) and leaves. We can feed the system.
I have some results for some sick hemlocks (elements in soil)
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Chem ferts (salts) can, and will, kill soil organisms, especially if the attitude of "if a little is good, then more must be better" is employed. ALL available information indicates that a large, diverse population of soil organisms is best for growing healthy produce, rich in phyto nutrients. Healthy soils are created with the incorporation of manure and organic material into the soil to support micro-organisms. --------------
"In addition to all the living organisms you can see in garden soils (for example, there are up to 50 earthworms in a square foot [0.09 square meters] of good soil), there is a whole world of soil organisms that you cannot see unless you use sophisticated and expensive optics. Only then do the tiny, microscopic organismsbacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodesappear, and in numbers that are nothing less than staggering. A mere teaspoon of good garden soil, as measured by microbial geneticists, contains a billion invisible bacteria, several yards of equally invisible fungal hyphae, several thousand protozoa, and a few dozen nematodes. The common denominator of all soil life is that every organism needs energy to survive. While a few bacteria, known as chemosynthesizers, derive energy from sulfur, nitrogen, or even iron compounds, the rest have to eat something containing carbon in order to get the energy they need to sustain life. Carbon may come from organic material supplied by plants, waste products produced by other organisms, or the bodies of other organisms. The first order of business of all soil life is obtaining carbon to fuel metabolism . . ". - Teaming w/Microbes, by Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis, p.19. ---------
"baby lettuce is one crop that may well be easier to grow organically than conventionally: Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen fertilizers render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the bugs are attracted to the' free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of the more rapid growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their leaves easier to pierce. "
Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, p.165 -----------
The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by University of California-Davis researchers published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols. Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has brought our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the macronutrients-protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered the major vitamins-a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food a soil and, perhaps, the links between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may him' at the nature of that link. Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more press from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.) A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport) may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and our bodies.
Reading the Davis study I couldn't help thinking about the early proponents of organic agriculture, people like Sir Albert Howard and J. I. Rodale, who would have been cheered, if unsurprised, by the findings. Both men were ridiculed for their unscientific conviction that a reductive approach to soil fertility-the NPK mentality-would diminish the nutritional quality of the food grown in it and, in turn, the health of the people who lived on that food. All carrots are not created equal, they believed; how we grow it, the soil we grow it in, what we feed that soil all contribute qualities to a carrot, qualities that may yet escape the explanatory net of our chemistry. Sooner or later the soil scientists and nutritionists will catch up to Sir Howard, heed his admonition that we begin treating the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal and man as one great subject."
Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, p.179

It appears that we need to reinvent the wheel because there are so many new posters in these groups.
Chem ferts kill the soil and leave you at the mercy of the petro-chemical companies to feed your plants.
Spraying malathion on food crops must be the singularly stupidest and worst idea I've heard this year, and there have been many contenders.
Joint compound would seem to be contra-indicated since it contains triazine, which is used both in insecticides and herbicides.
I recommend in the strongest manner the two books above for anyone who is thinking of growing food or who eats.
--
FB - FFF

Billy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I printed out this post and put it on my lawn. I can see the grass starting to turn green already
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Took me a second to get that. Then I was ROFL! ;-D
Thanks.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The key to youth is immaturity :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would say the key to youth is imagination ...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:46:29 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@sakajawa.org wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who are you? If you want a green lawn try applying magnesium. The center are every chlorophyll molecule is magnesium.
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:03:30 -0400, "symplastless"

Actually, mine is rather green just from water and mowing. We have a lot of minerals in the water, and presumably the soil as well.
Magnesium does work well on the roses, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Charles
Are you suggesting that roses are sensitive to magnesium?
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:49:15 -0400, "symplastless"

I am saying that when I occasionally put a magnesium sulfate solution on the soil near the base of the roses that I notice the leaf color appears to be a darker green and the bloom color is more intense. (well, on the yellow rose, anyway, I haven't tried it on the others.)
And I only do it once a year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles
Sorry. I am glad I asked. I misread your statement. Question: Is Epson Salts a good supply for magnesium? Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:07:40 -0400, "symplastless"

Yes. It also might be useful to break up a clay soil, but gypsum, calcium sulfate, is usually recommended. Too much magnesium can be bad, like too much of anything. I use a tablespoon in water, once a year, per rose bush.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

try trimming a bit when leaving short comments.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:58:39 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.com wrote:
(snip)

I should have, I thought about it, but couldn't decide where to snip, what to leave in, so I just reposted the whole thing.
I'll try to find some examples to follow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.