Make a bone grinder for the garden

[Obamot]

Nature must take the time it needs, it's not up to us to tell it to go "faster"

bone = calcium carbonate = limestone ??? no

the main bone material is calcium phosphate!

if we dissolve this calcium phosphate with an acid, only flexible oseine remains but we have dissolved the phosphorus in the acid [...] the less soluble phosphates are not completely insoluble: reduce them to powder the finest possible is a way to allow bacteria or fungus to enjoy it faster [...]

No, from tribasic calcium phosphate, I agree that it is there in greater quantity in the bones ~ 80% but there is approximately ~ 10% of calcium carbonate, but the crystaline structure follows the collagen fibers: calcium carbonates (etc. ). This is what I proposed to myself (hypothesis, I said "eventually") to attack with acetic acid (for example, but you have to see the dosage and the duration - what I want to attack is the carbonate to make it soft CaCO₃ not the Ca₃(PO₄)₂ - it is obvious that if you leave the bones too long, there will be the deleterious effect that you denounce. So it's a question of timing. This is why I said that it was necessary to freeze to stop the process. And thanks to your eagle eye, I would say that if the bone becomes brittle and crumbly, it should be crushed in winter and spread out on very cold days.

But hey, I'm only moderately satisfied with my miserable idea because the bones are not homogeneous, the hardest part is located at the joints. And basically, our chemist just told me that it was possible but that it had to be studied, on the other hand, we are both skeptical about the finality of all this, he believes that it would be better not to crush the bones, because we do not know the overall consequences on the soil, because here we are departing from the principle of the lazy gardener, we must let nature take its course ... Do not solicit it to the point of having to intervene ... This last point ties in with the word you just used: "enjoy»Is there really an interest in the physicochemical qualities of soils? => not sure. But nothing prevents to try in a corner ...

[chatelot16]

that it benefits faster is not in order to go always faster, but to be able to bring phosphorus when it is useful!

it is necessary to bring phosphorus when it is lacking ... what is the use of putting it in a too slow form which is useless when it is needed and which will be used later, maybe when it will no longer be needed ,

I just found a document on the PN ... natural phosphate ... which I find quite doubtful ... this natural phosphate is authorized in organic farming while it is much dirtier than chemical fertilizer http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5053f/y5 ... m#Contents

this rock phosphate is the product as it is dug in the mines with all its unwanted elements ... when we see the pigs that produce the fertilizer factories by separating what is unwanted in the phosphate mines it's scary: fluoridric acid, heavy metals, radioactive material!

to spread rock phosphate directly seems absurd to me

chemically treating to purify phosphorus may be a cost of energy and sulfuric acid, but makes a concentrated product efficient and economical to transport

the remark is visible in a chemistry book from 1920: the fertilizers richest in monocalcium phosphate are the most expensive per KG but the cheapest to use because more efficient ... the fertilizers having been treated with a quantity of insufficient acid are less expensive but contain too much insoluble tricalcium phosphate, are less effective and more expensive to use

finally it is debatable ... maybe what is less soluble is useless the first year but becomes useful the following years when the fungi have had time to take care of it

I do not assert anything I ask questions!

Another indication seen in the old books: the production of a wheat field seems proportional to the amount of phosphorus we put in it ... as if in 1920 we did not see the limit

well nothing to do with a chicken and a rabbit from time to time ... a few hammer blows and in the garden! it's better than in the trash

[izentrop]

For the distribution of nutrients from the corpse of an animal by mycorrhizal fungi, Hervé Coves speaks of 1000 m² covered in 10 days https://youtu.be/vxLM5XqC1mo?t=174

[Did67]

I looked for a scientific reference ("the results of a research whose protocol is explained to me - and which I understand") giving the extent of the filaments of the fungi with certainty. I have so far not found. I found some "estimates" or "we admit that ..."

Afterwards, many people "think", "speak", "estimate", "are convinced" ...

Me too !!!

I think that the extent of the mycorrhizal filaments is important and that circulations of substances (or water) over a few meters are quite possible. Are probable ... I am convinced of it. And acted accordingly.

But I "think so". And I am no one to be allowed to think so!

[chatelot16]

the distance of transport by the mushroom does not seem to me to be the important question: the question is rather the quantity transported

the question I ask myself is rather the influence of the chemical form of phosphate on the speed at which it is used

following the books some say that tricalcium phosphate is insoluble therefore unused, that only the more soluble form are useful ... and others say that it is only a matter of time, that everything ends up being usable

the difference may be in the type of crop ... in the first case modern crop with nothing living in the soil: so where there is only modern fertilizer that counts ... and in the second case living soil with fungus bacteria and earthworms

[phil53]

Do cuttlefish bones contain the elements you're looking for?
Because it is easy to crush and there are quite a few on the beaches!

[Did67]

Bad pickaxe: cuttlefish bone is not a real bone. It's like all seafood shells, calcium carbonate, crystallized in a special form. So, basically, "limestone beast"!

This can be useful for correcting the pH where the soils are very acidic (on old crystalline bases such as granites or schists ...).

[Did67]

the distance of transport by the mushroom does not seem to me to be the important question: the question is rather the quantity transported

the question I ask myself is rather the influence of the chemical form of phosphate on the speed at which it is used

following the books some say that tricalcium phosphate is insoluble therefore unused, that only the more soluble form are useful ... and others say that it is only a matter of time, that everything ends up being usable

the difference may be in the type of crop ... in the first case modern crop with nothing living in the soil: so where there is only modern fertilizer that counts ... and in the second case living soil with fungus bacteria and earthworms

As always, when things are complex (and the behavior of the P in soil is complex), you can say just about anything just by looking at a small portion of the processes.

- natural tricalcium phosphate is very insoluble (but even for n insoluble product, such or such rock, degradation occurs in the long term)

- the fertilizer industry, and the majority of "classic" agronomists therefore repeat generalities which are the first to be found: these phosphates must be treated with acids to dissolve them; the "holy grail" being to put the plants under perf via the soil solutions; they don't even know that mycorrhizae exist, and if they know it, they won't say it to continue their business ... You can call it a single thought, or a dominant speech; much of the literature takes that up ...

- in fact, plants, through the secretions of their roots, manage to "attack" insoluble substances; the shot of the cultivated plant on a marble slab, which was then washed to see the traces of the roots dates from the 19th century, if not the 18th!

- and more recently, we know that fungi create an acidic atmosphere (in particular to annoy their competitors, bacteria); suddenly, they also manage to attack phosphates deemed insoluble

- finally and above all, there are "hiding places" in the ground, in particular inside the clay sheets, where the filaments of the fungi manage to "extract" this "too retained" phosphate.

We must therefore imagine a whole "mess", with stocks deemed insoluble but dissolving slowly, phosphates deemed not assimilable but soluble (this is the phosphate ion), stashed and there are phosphate ions in the solution of the ground ... AND between these "compartments", ceaseless exchanges.

The pH will play a big role: too much calcium or conversely, too much acidity, will tend to precipitate soluble forms, and to shift the equilibria towards the first compartment, the insoluble P. Possibly, by taking it like a handle (which is what the majority do), we can bring tons of soluble P, which will then "downgrade"!

Conversely, intense activity, with organic acid emissions, will push in the other direction. And the mushrooms will get what you need in the niches! But that is to be accused of being green. It doesn't make the business run! Crap of ecologists!

Of course, I don't have the truth. But very, very large or large vegetables without ever having used any fertilizer. Without even so far, having recycled my bones! Hay is very poor in P! So ???

So I think my mushrooms are working and "extract", "mobilize" !!!

[chatelot16]

if you are sure that the soil with its mushrooms will benefit from insoluble phosphate, then powdering bones is a good thing

I even see an advantage with insoluble phosphate: the fungus only takes care of it if there is a need ... when there is too much it leaves it and it is not washed away by the rain

the effect of lime also explains why whole ash is not a good way to provide phosphorus: in ash the phosphorus is in tricalcium form therefore insoluble and the ash is rich in lime, unfavorable to the fungus that can solubilize the phosphorus

to put the posphorus of the ash back into the circuit, a chemical treatment would therefore be needed to separate phosphorus and lime

the chemical separation of phosphorus from ash has a 2nd advantage: it separates the useful element from toxic impurities which could accumulate with the number of cycles

[Christophe]

Design of an industrial shredder that seems quite "efficient" ... if that can give any ideas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4gurWyzrck