Letters to the Editor
This letter is associated with the following article:
-
Are Times reporters literally stupid or just biased?
But elsewhere, the reporters note that one pound of chemical fertilizer contains more of the major nutrients -- nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium -- than 100 pounds of manure. The conclusion is obvious: "organic" fertilizer cannot replace the synthetic fertilizer necessary to feed the current planetary population of 6.5 billion, much less the 9 billion expected by mid-century.
Why does hog manure weigh 100 pounds? Because it's full of water, fat and organic material along with the actual nutrient molecules.
But that helps you spread it on the ground and keeps it from being blown away by wind.
If you apply one pound of chemical fertilizer, you're going to end up using at least 100 pounds of water and mulch when you're finished spreading it.
With hog manure, the water and the mulch come along with the nutrient molecules.
Are Times reporters unable to think clearly, or just unwilling to make the effort?