Now on to nitrogen. What interests me in the foregoing discussion of
comparitive nitrogen losses under conventional vs. organic soils management
is the *language* used to describe the two systems. If I have captured the
sense correctly, the conventional agronomists feel that applications of
synthetic N are preferred because they are: controllable and controlled;
measureable; and of uniform formulation. If these were true, we could
suppose that careful applications of synthetic nitrogen (pre-sidedress N
testing; precise applications; slow (but predictable) release formulations)
would then never result in pollution, whereas the messiness of multiple
sources of organic N seem so chaotic (perhaps precisely the right word)
that they are *likely* to cause pollution. Now sometimes, this might be
true, particularly when poorly timed, raw manure applications are
concerned. When I hear this kind of language used, however, I usually guess
that the scientists involved do not have their lit review in front of them
(as did Laura - I don't know you - but thank you!), but instead are working
from general value systems that equate order, precision, control and
quantification with 'good' (e.g. non-polluting); and messy, chaotic,
systems that lend themselves poorly to quantification to 'bad' (e.g.
polluting). I suspect that we, as scientists and farmers looking at natural
systems, would see diversity-rich, chaotic, many-times-buffered systems
somewhat more positively, I think. Thanks, Nancy Grudens Schuck
***************************
Nancy Grudens Schuck
108 Kennedy Hall
Dept. Education
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
ng13@cornell.edu
(607) 255-4197
***************************