someone wrote:
(snipped

large enough forest that the animals
never leave it, they are not a source of fertilizers at all. Not even
slightly. This is because they don't "make" fertilizer nutrients; they simply
recycle them and move them around. For rabbit manure to have N, P, K, or other

I would argue with that notion. Because, the bacteria to breakdown decay of
wood etc requires nitrogen.

Argue in saying that plant food when it passes through the body of an insect
or animal that it is somehow transformed into a fertilizer. Even the body of the
animal itself when decaying releases fertilizer.

So, somehow it is the "passing through the animal body" that transforms the
chemistry of the organic material.

Perhaps I should include bacteria into this picture.

Granted that the atoms of a environment remain the same in that they are
only moved around and transformed. And granted that plants need animals
for the transportation system.

But it appears to me that what passes through animals and insects of their
plant food is somehow altered chemically, for which plants alone cannot
make that alteration, and only animals efficient in this conversion of plant
food back to plant fertilizer.

Somehow, in passing through the bodies of animals and insects, these N, P, K
etc atoms are transformed in a vital way.

You see, I refuse to think that animals are _merely a transportation_ mechanism
for plant kingdom. I believe that in the process of passing through the bodies
of animals and insects that plant food becomes transformed into plant
fertilizer.

I believe animals came in existence not just as a tranportation and scattering
mechanism but for chemical transformation of plant food into plant
fertilizer.


elements in it, the rabbit had to eat a plant that contained those elements.
The plant extracted the elements from the soil. So at best, the rabbit manure
puts the nutrient back onto the soil. Agricultural use of manure works since
it is applied to land where the animal's feed source did NOT grow, so in a
sense, you are importing nutrients from somebody else's field. Nitrogen-fixing
bacteria can be important, especially those associated with legumes, bayberry,
and other plants.

Perhaps the legumes are the plants that are the most self reliant of all plants in
that they harness bacteria to make their own fertilizer. But I suspect that even
these legumes would quickly die if no animals or insects existed.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
snip


Somehow, in passing through the bodies of animals and insects, these N, P, K
etc atoms are transformed in a vital way.

You see, I refuse to think that animals are _merely a transportation_ mechanism
for plant kingdom. I believe that in the process of passing through the bodies
of animals and insects that plant food becomes transformed into plant
fertilizer.

I believe animals came in existence not just as a tranportation and scattering
mechanism but for chemical transformation of plant food into plant
fertilizer.


It could be the benifit of animal manure is that it's more concentrated (and both
mechanicaly and chemicaly broken down to some extent) than the original plant 'meal'.
It will be mostly bacterial and fungal action that will make the carbon, nitrogen etc.
accesible to the plant regardless of the source (plant, animal manure or animal
bodies).



elements in it, the rabbit had to eat a plant that contained those elements.
The plant extracted the elements from the soil. So at best, the rabbit manure
puts the nutrient back onto the soil. Agricultural use of manure works since
it is applied to land where the animal's feed source did NOT grow, so in a
sense, you are importing nutrients from somebody else's field. Nitrogen-fixing
bacteria can be important, especially those associated with legumes, bayberry,
and other plants.

Perhaps the legumes are the plants that are the most self reliant of all plants in
that they harness bacteria to make their own fertilizer. But I suspect that even
these legumes would quickly die if no animals or insects existed.

Plants can be happily grown on non-animal food sources - sugar, salts (potassium
phosphate, magnesium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and a few others depending on plant)
and abit of iron.
Most animals provide no benifit to plants, they just want to eat them. There are
however many examples where the plant has managed to take advantage of this fact, and
may now be dependent on it. Without animals some species would suffer (those which
require insect-mediated pollination for example) but i doubt the plant kingdom would.

Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:05:52 +0000 "Manning, CB" wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
snip


Somehow, in passing through the bodies of animals and insects, these N, P, K
etc atoms are transformed in a vital way.

You see, I refuse to think that animals are _merely a transportation_ mechanism
for plant kingdom. I believe that in the process of passing through the bodies
of animals and insects that plant food becomes transformed into plant
fertilizer.

I believe animals came in existence not just as a tranportation and scattering
mechanism but for chemical transformation of plant food into plant
fertilizer.


It could be the benifit of animal manure is that it's more concentrated (and both
mechanicaly and chemicaly broken down to some extent) than the original plant 'meal'.
It will be mostly bacterial and fungal action that will make the carbon, nitrogen etc.
accesible to the plant regardless of the source (plant, animal manure or animal
bodies).

Perhaps all plant fertilizer has to be processed by bacteria and microorganisms.
But what I am really trying to peer into is something on the lines of the
mechanisms of photosynthesis. There are probably only a few scientists on
Earth who are experts in photosynthesis. Experts who know the molecule by
molecule details of the process.

In the same vain, I am trying to peer into a relationship of animals to plants with
regard to nitrogen. An inverse or reverse Commensalism relationship that is as
abstract and profound as the process of Photosynthesis.

If humans never existed on Earth, the forests and grasses and all plants would
be fertilized by animals and microorganisms. I contend that this plant would
become barren of life if not for animals and microorganisms. That the plant
kingdom cannot transform and transport nitrogen and other fertilizers without
animals.

So, the question I really have is what does the animal body do to nitrogen that
plant bodies find it impossible or extremely difficult to do to nitrogen? Do animals
transform it from gaseous nitrogen to that of solid nitrogen or chemically bind the
nitrogen into solid form?




elements in it, the rabbit had to eat a plant that contained those elements.
The plant extracted the elements from the soil. So at best, the rabbit manure
puts the nutrient back onto the soil. Agricultural use of manure works since
it is applied to land where the animal's feed source did NOT grow, so in a
sense, you are importing nutrients from somebody else's field. Nitrogen-fixing
bacteria can be important, especially those associated with legumes, bayberry,
and other plants.

Perhaps the legumes are the plants that are the most self reliant of all plants in
that they harness bacteria to make their own fertilizer. But I suspect that even
these legumes would quickly die if no animals or insects existed.

Plants can be happily grown on non-animal food sources - sugar, salts (potassium
phosphate, magnesium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and a few others depending on plant)
and abit of iron.

I disagree and you are being contradictory to your above. I suspect these
plants strip the remaining nitrogen and then all die.


Most animals provide no benifit to plants, they just want to eat them. There are

I disagree. If plants could speak I bet they would say "please come here rabbit
and eat my shoots and please drop some pellets". I bet that fruit of most plants
is considered by plants as what exrement is considered by animals.


however many examples where the plant has managed to take advantage of this fact, and
may now be dependent on it. Without animals some species would suffer (those which
require insect-mediated pollination for example) but i doubt the plant kingdom would.

It is obvious that Earth had natural fertilization long before any humans ever existed
and that the animals were this natural fertilization network. Your above
statements are lacking in commonsense in the commonsense that every animal
excrement and body when dead is a fertilizer for plants. Your above dismisses
that obvious reality.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In article ,
Archimedes Plutonium NOdtgEMAIL wrote:

Perhaps all plant fertilizer has to be processed by bacteria and microorganisms.
But what I am really trying to peer into is something on the lines of the
mechanisms of photosynthesis. There are probably only a few scientists on
Earth who are experts in photosynthesis. Experts who know the molecule by
molecule details of the process.

On the contrary, most people who can read a college-level plant physiology
textbook can learn the molecule by molecule details of the process. Try
it some time.

In the same vain, I am trying to peer into a relationship of animals to plants with
regard to nitrogen. An inverse or reverse Commensalism relationship that is as
abstract and profound as the process of Photosynthesis.

People keep telling you that plants and microbes do a fine job of producing
CO2 without the help of animals, but you keep ignoring it.

If humans never existed on Earth, the forests and grasses and all plants would
be fertilized by animals and microorganisms. I contend that this plant would
become barren of life if not for animals and microorganisms. That the plant
kingdom cannot transform and transport nitrogen and other fertilizers without
animals.

The animals aren't necessary. The microbes are.

So, the question I really have is what does the animal body do to nitrogen that
plant bodies find it impossible or extremely difficult to do to nitrogen? Do animals
transform it from gaseous nitrogen to that of solid nitrogen or chemically bind the
nitrogen into solid form?

Nope, you've got it backwards (no surprise). Some plants provide specialized
environments inside their tissues for microorganisms that fix gaseous nitrogen
into nitrogenous compounds. There's also abiogenic nitrate produced by
lightning. Many plants would do just fine without the animal kingdom at all.
Minerals are released from soil particles and made available to plants by
chemical weathering and the actions of microbes which break down organic
matter, e.g. producing humic acid which can solubilize some minerals.

Animals can only use nitrogen acquired as complex molecules in food. Nitrates
are toxic, and ammonia is a waste product of catabolism.

Plants can only take up nitrogen in a few forms, e.g. nitrates and ammonium.
Manure and carrion has to rot down to this level (mineralization) before
plants can benefit from the nitrogen in them.

You can get all this from an introductory biology text, or even a good book
about gardening or agriculture.

I disagree. If plants could speak I bet they would say "please come here rabbit
and eat my shoots and please drop some pellets". I bet that fruit of most plants
is considered by plants as what exrement is considered by animals.

It would be a net loss for the plant, since the rabbit consumes the
carbohydrates the plant made by laborious photosynthesis, the proteins it
consumed more energy to generate, and the minerals it acquired, often at
the expense of energy (active transport), and returns only part of the
nitrogen and minerals, using the rest to hop around and build more rabbit(s).

The fruits of a plant are the 'purpose' of the whole game - reproduction.
Perhaps you can't distinguish between offspring and excrement, but most
people can.

If you read a few intro biology books, you'd make less of a fool of yourself
in these groups with your silly speculations. There are a lot of things in
biology that can be speculated about using our known but incomplete current
understanding, but your refusal to acknowledge that any knowledge already
exists will prevent you from learning enough to participate in such discussion.

It is obvious that Earth had natural fertilization long before any humans ever existed
and that the animals were this natural fertilization network. Your above
statements are lacking in commonsense in the commonsense that every animal
excrement and body when dead is a fertilizer for plants. Your above dismisses
that obvious reality.

Nope. The microbes that break down organic matter, mainly of plant origin,
are what makes nutrients available to plants in a natural ecosystem. Just
because manure is a fertilizer doesn't mean it's the only fertilizer, or
only source of plant nutrients. See the abiogenic nitrogen, above, and the
minerals released from soil particles, ditto.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Just common sense, no doubt.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
snip


Somehow, in passing through the bodies of animals and insects, these N, P, K
etc atoms are transformed in a vital way.

You see, I refuse to think that animals are _merely a transportation_ mechanism
for plant kingdom. I believe that in the process of passing through the bodies
of animals and insects that plant food becomes transformed into plant
fertilizer.

I believe animals came in existence not just as a tranportation and scattering
mechanism but for chemical transformation of plant food into plant
fertilizer.


It could be the benifit of animal manure is that it's more concentrated (and both
mechanicaly and chemicaly broken down to some extent) than the original plant 'meal'.
It will be mostly bacterial and fungal action that will make the carbon, nitrogen etc.
accesible to the plant regardless of the source (plant, animal manure or animal
bodies).



elements in it, the rabbit had to eat a plant that contained those elements.
The plant extracted the elements from the soil. So at best, the rabbit manure
puts the nutrient back onto the soil. Agricultural use of manure works since
it is applied to land where the animal's feed source did NOT grow, so in a
sense, you are importing nutrients from somebody else's field. Nitrogen-fixing
bacteria can be important, especially those associated with legumes, bayberry,
and other plants.

Perhaps the legumes are the plants that are the most self reliant of all plants in
that they harness bacteria to make their own fertilizer. But I suspect that even
these legumes would quickly die if no animals or insects existed.

Plants can be happily grown on non-animal food sources - sugar, salts (potassium
phosphate, magnesium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and a few others depending on plant)
and abit of iron.
Most animals provide no benifit to plants, they just want to eat them. There are
however many examples where the plant has managed to take advantage of this fact, and
may now be dependent on it. Without animals some species would suffer (those which
require insect-mediated pollination for example) but i doubt the plant kingdom would.

In article ,
Archimedes Plutonium NOdtgEMAIL wrote:

Perhaps all plant fertilizer has to be processed by bacteria and microorganisms.
But what I am really trying to peer into is something on the lines of the
mechanisms of photosynthesis. There are probably only a few scientists on
Earth who are experts in photosynthesis. Experts who know the molecule by
molecule details of the process.

On the contrary, most people who can read a college-level plant physiology
textbook can learn the molecule by molecule details of the process. Try
it some time.

In the same vain, I am trying to peer into a relationship of animals to plants with
regard to nitrogen. An inverse or reverse Commensalism relationship that is as
abstract and profound as the process of Photosynthesis.

People keep telling you that plants and microbes do a fine job of producing
CO2 without the help of animals, but you keep ignoring it.

If humans never existed on Earth, the forests and grasses and all plants would
be fertilized by animals and microorganisms. I contend that this plant would
become barren of life if not for animals and microorganisms. That the plant
kingdom cannot transform and transport nitrogen and other fertilizers without
animals.

The animals aren't necessary. The microbes are.

So, the question I really have is what does the animal body do to nitrogen that
plant bodies find it impossible or extremely difficult to do to nitrogen? Do animals
transform it from gaseous nitrogen to that of solid nitrogen or chemically bind the
nitrogen into solid form?

Nope, you've got it backwards (no surprise). Some plants provide specialized
environments inside their tissues for microorganisms that fix gaseous nitrogen
into nitrogenous compounds. There's also abiogenic nitrate produced by
lightning. Many plants would do just fine without the animal kingdom at all.
Minerals are released from soil particles and made available to plants by
chemical weathering and the actions of microbes which break down organic
matter, e.g. producing humic acid which can solubilize some minerals.

Animals can only use nitrogen acquired as complex molecules in food. Nitrates
are toxic, and ammonia is a waste product of catabolism.

Plants can only take up nitrogen in a few forms, e.g. nitrates and ammonium.
Manure and carrion has to rot down to this level (mineralization) before
plants can benefit from the nitrogen in them.

You can get all this from an introductory biology text, or even a good book
about gardening or agriculture.

I disagree. If plants could speak I bet they would say "please come here rabbit
and eat my shoots and please drop some pellets". I bet that fruit of most plants
is considered by plants as what exrement is considered by animals.

It would be a net loss for the plant, since the rabbit consumes the
carbohydrates the plant made by laborious photosynthesis, the proteins it
consumed more energy to generate, and the minerals it acquired, often at
the expense of energy (active transport), and returns only part of the
nitrogen and minerals, using the rest to hop around and build more rabbit(s).

The fruits of a plant are the 'purpose' of the whole game - reproduction.
Perhaps you can't distinguish between offspring and excrement, but most
people can.

If you read a few intro biology books, you'd make less of a fool of yourself
in these groups with your silly speculations. There are a lot of things in
biology that can be speculated about using our known but incomplete current
understanding, but your refusal to acknowledge that any knowledge already
exists will prevent you from learning enough to participate in such discussion.

It is obvious that Earth had natural fertilization long before any humans ever existed
and that the animals were this natural fertilization network. Your above
statements are lacking in commonsense in the commonsense that every animal
excrement and body when dead is a fertilizer for plants. Your above dismisses
that obvious reality.

Nope. The microbes that break down organic matter, mainly of plant origin,
are what makes nutrients available to plants in a natural ecosystem. Just
because manure is a fertilizer doesn't mean it's the only fertilizer, or
only source of plant nutrients. See the abiogenic nitrogen, above, and the
minerals released from soil particles, ditto.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Just common sense, no doubt.