How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Hey. As a home gardener, I'm interested in using the most effective and environmentally friendly fertilisers for my plants. Can you explain in detail how bio-fertilizers differ from chemical fertilisers, both in terms of their composition and how they work in the soil? What are the main benefits of using biofertilizers over chemical fertilisers, and are there any drawbacks or limitations I should be aware of? Finally, do you have any recommendations for specific types of bio-fertilizers that would work well for a variety of plants and soil types?
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Are you asking about wild systems, food systems or synthetic processing? Wild systems are easily damaged by the application of fertilizers of any description and depending on where you live it may be illegal.
In commercial growth processors, bio-fertilizers differ from chemical fertilizers in that bio-fertilizers invariably contain DNA, while chemical fertilizers don't.
The presence of DNA in growth medium, other than that in the intended crop itself, endangers the health and development of the intended product. The foreign DNA may, for example, still be part of a biologically active cell complex, in which case it may begin to consume the growth medium in competition with the intended crop. Or depending on the crop it may represent a parasitic species. At the most basic level the DNA may engage in gene exchange, at which point the growth vat could endanger the integrity of the entire production system.
It is recognized that the growth medium may need modification during the production cycle but where possible this should be avoided. It happened in earlier batch cycle production, but modern continuous production methods have preset gradients for growth medium content. The only DNA in the system should be that of the crop and any authorized symbiote.
There are still hobbyist gardens where private growers continue to practice pre-industrial cultivation. You would need to find a specialist publication for advice in that area, or maybe you could find a local collective which has not yet phased out their land allotment system.
In commercial growth processors, bio-fertilizers differ from chemical fertilizers in that bio-fertilizers invariably contain DNA, while chemical fertilizers don't.
The presence of DNA in growth medium, other than that in the intended crop itself, endangers the health and development of the intended product. The foreign DNA may, for example, still be part of a biologically active cell complex, in which case it may begin to consume the growth medium in competition with the intended crop. Or depending on the crop it may represent a parasitic species. At the most basic level the DNA may engage in gene exchange, at which point the growth vat could endanger the integrity of the entire production system.
It is recognized that the growth medium may need modification during the production cycle but where possible this should be avoided. It happened in earlier batch cycle production, but modern continuous production methods have preset gradients for growth medium content. The only DNA in the system should be that of the crop and any authorized symbiote.
There are still hobbyist gardens where private growers continue to practice pre-industrial cultivation. You would need to find a specialist publication for advice in that area, or maybe you could find a local collective which has not yet phased out their land allotment system.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Organic fertilizers are fertilizers containing plant nutrition elements mainly in the form of organic compounds. These include manure, compost, peat, straw, green fertilizer, silt (sapropel), complex organic fertilizers, natural zeolites.
Mineral (chemical) fertilizers are inorganic compounds containing nutrients necessary for plants in the form of various mineral salts. using them, the plant itself synthesizes the compounds it needs.
In the wild, there is a normal circulation of minerals and microelements, since everything that has grown is eaten by animals and eventually remains in the same place and is consumed again by plants.
Problems arise when the crop is grown in one place and consumed in another - the soil begins to deplete. Organic fertilizers are more expensive and more difficult to produce, plus, for a large harvest, plants require some elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) in large quantities. Therfore the use of mineral fertilizers is one of the main methods of intensive farming.
So if you are not a fan of organic products, use both types of fertilizers in the garden - compost and basic mineral fertilizers (phosphoric, nitrogen, potassium and micronutrients - superphosphate, ammonium nitrate, еtс). This will allow you to get a bigger harvest at a lower cost.
Mineral (chemical) fertilizers are inorganic compounds containing nutrients necessary for plants in the form of various mineral salts. using them, the plant itself synthesizes the compounds it needs.
In the wild, there is a normal circulation of minerals and microelements, since everything that has grown is eaten by animals and eventually remains in the same place and is consumed again by plants.
Problems arise when the crop is grown in one place and consumed in another - the soil begins to deplete. Organic fertilizers are more expensive and more difficult to produce, plus, for a large harvest, plants require some elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) in large quantities. Therfore the use of mineral fertilizers is one of the main methods of intensive farming.
So if you are not a fan of organic products, use both types of fertilizers in the garden - compost and basic mineral fertilizers (phosphoric, nitrogen, potassium and micronutrients - superphosphate, ammonium nitrate, еtс). This will allow you to get a bigger harvest at a lower cost.
-
sproutfigcherry
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:52 pm
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Bio-fertilizers are made from organic matter, promoting soil fertility and aiding nutrient absorption for plants, while chemical fertilizers deliver specific nutrients quickly but might not be as eco-friendly.
The main benefit of bio-fertilizers is their eco-friendly nature, keeping your garden green and happy, but they may take longer to show results compared to chemicals.
Look for bio-fertilizers with a good mix of beneficial bacteria and fungi for different plants and soil types. Happy gardening!
The main benefit of bio-fertilizers is their eco-friendly nature, keeping your garden green and happy, but they may take longer to show results compared to chemicals.
Look for bio-fertilizers with a good mix of beneficial bacteria and fungi for different plants and soil types. Happy gardening!
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Biofertilizers are natural solutions that make it possible to obtain a better balance in the soil (by optimizing and regulating its functioning), with the aim of improving crops sustainably. However, they do not have the capacity to completely replace the use of fertilizers derived from mineral chemistry.
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
I'll be interested to hear why you use the word "natural" in this post. What's unnatural about minerals? And biofertilizers "obtain a better balance in the soil" compared to what?Astride96 wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:51 pm Biofertilizers are natural solutions that make it possible to obtain a better balance in the soil (by optimizing and regulating its functioning), with the aim of improving crops sustainably. However, they do not have the capacity to completely replace the use of fertilizers derived from mineral chemistry.
What do you think qualifies as a biofertilizer, and what do you think doesn't? Can you offer a definition of the term?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
Bio-fertilizers are made from living organisms like bacteria which enhance soil fertility by fixing nitrogen, decomposing organic matter, and promoting root growth. Chemical fertilizers are synthetic and provide nutrients directly to plants but can harm soil health and the environment over time.Tanviseo wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:21 am Hey. As a home gardener, I'm interested in using the most effective and environmentally friendly fertilisers for my plants. Can you explain in detail how bio-fertilizers differ from chemical fertilisers, both in terms of their composition and how they work in the soil? What are the main benefits of using biofertilizers over chemical fertilisers, and are there any drawbacks or limitations I should be aware of? Finally, do you have any recommendations for specific types of bio-fertilizers that would work well for a variety of plants and soil types?
Re: How does bio-fertilizer differ from chemical fertilisers?
I would note another difference, having listened to this morning's news on Radio 4.
If people think back to Beirut four years ago:
The Maltese-registered vessel set off from the northern Russian port of Kandalaksha in July bound for the Canary Islands, which broke down off the Thames Estuary and is now at the dockside in Great Yarmouth. 'The vessel's management company Serenity Ship Management said the load posed "no risk to the surrounding area in its present state"'. I shall wait a moment while the congregation comes to terms with the weasel word "present".
I have no idea who in government gave authority for this docking to be allowed but it is an insane choice. With the best will in the world there is no guarantee there will be no deliberate attack on the ship, and the idea Great Yarmouth is hostage to the goodwill and competence of "Serenity Ship Management" is scandalous. The cargo is seven times the mass of the Beirut explosion and Great Yarmouth's dockside is exactly where it shouldn't be parked up for weeks on end, much less transferred to a replacement ship there.
If people think back to Beirut four years ago:
On 4 August 2020, a large amount of ammonium nitrate stored at the Port of Beirut in the capital city of Lebanon exploded, causing at least 218 deaths, 7,000 injuries, and US$15 billion in property damage, as well as leaving an estimated 300,000 people homeless. A cargo of 2,750 tonnes of the substance (equivalent to around 1.1 kilotons of TNT) had been stored in a warehouse without proper safety measures for the previous six years after having been confiscated by Lebanese authorities from the abandoned ship MV Rhosus. A fire in the same warehouse preceded the explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion
and we now have:
A damaged cargo ship carrying potentially explosive fertiliser has docked at a UK port. The MV Ruby's cargo of 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate will be moved to another vessel at Great Yarmouth in Norfolk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxw8r97jgzo
The Maltese-registered vessel set off from the northern Russian port of Kandalaksha in July bound for the Canary Islands, which broke down off the Thames Estuary and is now at the dockside in Great Yarmouth. 'The vessel's management company Serenity Ship Management said the load posed "no risk to the surrounding area in its present state"'. I shall wait a moment while the congregation comes to terms with the weasel word "present".
I have no idea who in government gave authority for this docking to be allowed but it is an insane choice. With the best will in the world there is no guarantee there will be no deliberate attack on the ship, and the idea Great Yarmouth is hostage to the goodwill and competence of "Serenity Ship Management" is scandalous. The cargo is seven times the mass of the Beirut explosion and Great Yarmouth's dockside is exactly where it shouldn't be parked up for weeks on end, much less transferred to a replacement ship there.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.