Talk:Organic fertilizer

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mickinahan. Peer reviewers: Amt1997, ObliqueFault.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gac00013.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuhan19, Tiffanyyu10, Bessiewyl, Psvo277. Peer reviewers: Laschv.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Bias and Quality
I am not against an article with this title since the term is common is general use. But, it would be of more service as a introduction other articles and to the problems of feeding the people of the world by efficient and sustainable agriculture. I don't see a need for any POV here, the facts should be stated and referenced. Also, check out articles related to bio-energetics as they evolve. I agree with other comments. BW  Codwiki (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much information
"The decomposing crop residue from prior years is another source of fertility. Though not strictly considered "fertilizer", the distinction seems more a matter of words than reality. " is this really necessary, it seems like something that should be in the fertilizer article. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biomineral soil management
This entire section is unreferenced. It kind of looks like an ad for the Geomite company. please correct Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems of inorganic fertilizers need clarification
Section with bullets right under "Modern theories of organic agriculture admit the obvious success of Liebig's theory". Are these things organic fertilizer tries to achive. Are they things inorganic fertilizers do. This section is confused. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the term of compost and the one of bio-organic fertilizer
the later is based on the following

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+bio-organic+fertilizer&btnG=Search --124.78.211.215 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My gathered knowledge told me that the later one is manufactured using maggot and I could be wrong.--124.78.211.215 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In the following, the word of compost is used too. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7494803.html --124.78.211.215 (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the Swedish study
The Swedish study is comparing the effects of Biodynamic fertilizer to inorganic. There are 8 different fertilization schemes, only one of which is organic. While it is my understanding that Biodynamic qualifies as organic, organic doesn’t qualify as biodynamic. The organic one scheme performed worse than the inorganic for 3 out of 4 crops (clover/grass grew better when using organic).

The authors use the term organic and biodynamic interchangeably so which fertilization scheme they are referring to when they state organic soil was better in all measured areas can’t be determined. It’s this author’s(disagreeable) suggestion that since its from a biodynamic research group, they probably mean one of the biodynamic groups.

The study was done using small sample sizes, 36m² subplots. And some generally uncommon soil, snow covered for 4-6 months, silty loam with an intermediate humus content, 59° North. I don’t feel this is a particularly good study, but regardless of that it belongs with biodynamic farming not organic. --Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Suitable"
The article needs to define its topic more clearly in two ways: 1) what exactly is the definition? and 2) whose definition is it? "Organic fertilizers are naturally occurring fertilizers" is not consistent with the following two paragraphs, which divide organic fertilizer into "naturally occurring" and "processed". The paragraph "natural sourcing" talks about which fertilizers are "suitable"; what does "suitable" mean here? Is this a legal definition? (USDA?) Is this someone's opinion? (Whose?) --Macrakis (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Big edit, July 2014
The section on organic fertilizers was larger in fertilizer]] article than it was here, so I moved that content to here and plan to compress it at the fertilizer article. Organic fertilizers are a minor component of the area of fertilizers. I also relied heavily on classification scheme from the Ullmann's Encyclopedia. The facts are not completely agreement with one's everyday expectation of manure and compost. #1 is peat and #2 is wastes from animal parts. There was also a fair bit of discussion about farming techniques such as cover crops and such. A more formal discussion of sustainability would be welcome. If readers are worried about my big edit, say so and I will try to make amends.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a rewrite of some of your significant work on the Fertilizer article. Clearly before you took it on it needed help and the "bad article" comments seem to have pretty much ended following your work. However, it seems to be written from an industrial manufacturer's viewpoint and not a agriculturalist viewpoint. I posted a long comment in Talk:Fertilizer on suggested improvements (including to the section on calcium etc. which I'm also working on).  That I have since followed with a draft proposed rewrite on organic fertilizer that I'm NOT satisfied with (hence my posting it in Talk:Fertilizer), and freely admit that my proposal needs cutting and reworking -- and more feedback.


 * I also agree that the principal article on organic fertilizer needs to be in this organic fertilizer article. The challenge in both articles is how to clarify the difference between 1) organic residues -- raw and composted and described (erroneously i.m.h.o.) as fertilizers, 2) organic single-source products suitable for field application or product manufacture / blending, and finally 3) commercial products and product blends marketed as "organic fertilizers".  I disagree with classifying peat as the top organic fertilizer; since by definition it is has no nutrients it thus is a soil texturizer.  Furthermore by volume it could well be surpassed by other organics such as manure which is not mined but rather recycled and probably not tracked in the same way.


 * For me, fertilizer implies a reasonably finished product rather than a raw source. That would include composts and manures, but exclude unprocessed materials such as hides and hoofs, etc.  For the sake of continuity it would exclude commercial blends mostly marketed to urban / suburban gardeners as "organic fertilizers".  This being said, while these blends are a minor product in agriculture, these same packaged products represent a larger and larger share of the packaged fertilizers market, and in some place in both this article, and in the Fertilizer article, packaged blends (all labels) need to be discussed.


 * GeeBee60 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I will try to monitor but am a little busy.  The main thing is not to turn the article into "hippie science", by which I mean advocating for the way one (at least me) might wish the world was or implying that mom-and-pop methods are particularly impactful.  I run into this kind of writing all the time in Wikipedia, as if Whole Earth Catalogue were a template for reality vs aspirational.  The foundations of these articles are big technical reviews and books that cite data.  Well, that's are my advice, good luck on your project. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Organic fertilizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504000436/http://www.calorganicfarms.com/news/full.php?id=22 to http://www.calorganicfarms.com/news/full.php?id=22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504000436/http://www.calorganicfarms.com/news/full.php?id=22 to http://www.calorganicfarms.com/news/full.php?id=22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Organic fertilizer vs organic agriculture
This topic title gives me considerable grief. While I well understand the intent, the term organic fertilizer is on the brink of being archaic, rather like feeling merry and gay. The intent of Wikipedia is to inform and as titled this article instead misleads. At the very least there needs to be a disclaimer that anyone intending to follow the practice of organic agriculture needs to look elsewhere. In attempting this clarification I am frustrated by my own lack of insiration, which in part comes from not making the proper investigation.

While Wikipedia does not arbitrate and resolve academic disputes, neither can it turn a blind eye and pretend there is no problem. Organic has become a loaded term and I would be startled (and disappointed) if there are no articles published in any reputable journals that attempt to sort this dispute out. I don't want to fall into some "hippy science" debate. But ask a hundred people to define organic fertilizer, and the definition we use here will be hopelessly outflanked by those who define it as a product acceptable to practices of organic agriculture.

Marketing is always making inroads on language, often silly and forgotten with the next fad. The trick is distinguishing fad from substance. The lexicographer shrugs, smirks or laments, and moves on. We need to also.

GeeBee60 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well all you can do is find some good sources and try to improve incrementally. Sources are difficult for this area.  The main challenge that I encountered with the article is what one might call "hippie" or "mom-and-pop" advocacy, seeming to encourage practices (night soil use, urine as a source of urea, ..) that are poorly documented.  Many Wiki articles started as a sort of undisciplined essays on lifestyle.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I chug through this -- exasperated, enthused, discouraged, inspired, (repeat) -- I am more and more concluding that this actual topic (though god forbid not the title) is "Hygienic and economical diversion of organic industrial waste". I would not even be surprised if someone else already has titled some research text thus (though I haven't looked). My point is that the more I write the more I see that either the title of this content or the content of this title must be replaced, that organic fertilizer as written here is a misnomer that needs to go away.
 * In a few days I'll post my draft, but my references have not yet caught up with my writing. GeeBee60 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is good to ponder these weighty themes - is the topic even correctly titled. One reason that many or most articles should be heavily supported by a tertiary or secondary source that uses the article title. I often rely on Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, which has a volume on Types of Fertilizers, and a section of that volume is here:
 * 2.6 "Organic Fertilizers (Secondary Raw Material Fertilizers). . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
 * 2.6.1. Fertilizers Based on Peat or Materials of Similar Stability . . . . . . . . . 234
 * 2.6.2. Fertilizers Based on Waste Materials of Animal Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
 * 2.6.3. Fertilizers Based on Wastes of Plant Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
 * 2.6.4. Fertilizers Based on Municipal Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237"


 * I think that the organic fertilizers in the real world are not the small scale composting that support our farmers markets, etc. My main thing is great sourcing, the font of great articles. IMHO. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Hope it's o.k. that I mucked around with your message formatting, adding some :: and **.
 * Anyway ... gotta weigh sources etc -- how much land -- how much money -- how much science / literature -- how many opinions. Gonna be a few days weeks. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that this should only survive simply as a a foil to Inorganic fertilzer, but as that article does not exist, I would strongly support adding relevant content from here to Compost, Biosolids, and Fertilizer and then deleting and salting this article.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess the material added in 2019 at User:Yuhan19/sandbox, incorporate what is useful into the live article, blank the user page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Agriculture
Fertilizer - a chemical substance used in farms to make plants and crops grow faster and pretty. 96.43.175.48 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)