Thanks Airdale. I remember studying peak phosphorus 20 years ago when I was doing my biology degree. The problem is that phosphorus is the only main element necessary for life that has no atmospheric component to its nutrient cycle. The cycle therefore unfolds over geologic time. We have mined the best phosphate-bearing rocks already - the rocks that would have gradually provided for soil fertility over millions of years.
Phosphorus is being plastered all over fields and washed away in the runoff. From there it causes eutrophication of watercourses, contributing to algal blooms, and ends up spread over the sea floor at concentrations far too low to retrieve. Natural systems hang on to phosphorus very tightly, recycling it and losing very little, so that the rate of loss is balanced by the slow rate of replenishment form the undelying rocks. We interfere with this cycle at our peril, as phosphorus is an absolute requirement for life.
Yes, I agree on our ignorant usage of soil nutrients. However it is the wise farmer who shepherds his soils fertility and nutrients. Otherwise he pays with his pocketbook.
Perhaps it is rather late in time for us to now start analyzing what has been performed wrong and what right.
In my state we analyze carefully the requirements and attempt to only spread what is actually needed. VRT=variable rate technology.....However..........
This is the problem IMO. All crops have want is referred to as a 'uptake' of nutrients. Tables exist for various crops as to what that uptake is in terms of N,P,K....and in fact when I looked at them last I found that HAY was a huge loss of the three prime chemicals/nutrients.
As you grow the crop and then harvest it..ALL of the uptake is then removed from the farm IF you sell the crop. Not only does the buyer get the roughage,dry matter and the rest but he also gets your N,P,K and his fed out animals then deposit it on HIS land.
With corn, milo, beans and wheat we have flails on the rear of the discharge chute of the combine and so the residue is redeposited back on the field. Of course the seeds,kernels and heads of the crop are shelled/winnowed out in the combines rotor and seperators ,,etc.....and hauled off but a major portion remains.
Another note: I was speaking to a farm chem sales owner who I know very well(slighty kin to) about P and K. I believe he told me that when P is applied it does not migrate in the soil such as nitrogen does. That where you put it is where it will stay....now not to say it doesn't erode off for I am sure it does. but I think he meant that its location in the soil does not move of itself.
Also speaking to ag profs in the land grant colleges they will sometimes admit very openly that there is a huge amount they do not understand about the soil.
I showed them some samples and asked for comments and got a lot of ....big words and part BS ...but when pressed they admitted to not being sure why sometimes soils act as they do.
I would have liked to have continued my soil sampling but the costs were prohibitive for the farmer I tested on. He is quite able to understand the quality of the soil even without testing...for I have worked with him many years and he always does as well as the others who go the high tech route.
Some farmers are very astute, some shouldn't be farming and after a while they usually are not.
But IMO as long as they can make a profit,and they must, they will do what it takes. Buy,sell,use and whatever.
Are we losing topsoil? Are we losing nutrients/chemicals? Is the soil getting worse or better? On my farm better. On some others worse. Its all a matter of 'practices'. Govenment wants to be the ones in control but they understand very very little about the practices.
If we only grew foodstuffs for our own domestic use then much of our soil could be used differently. The government and economists have caused more than anything the results of degradation of our soil and land. They are poor stewards.
The 'farm bills' are how they achieve the control and most farmers despise it, or so they say.
I can only make this observation. My grandfatgher raises 14 children on a 100 acre farm that he sharecropped(didn't own).
Its interesting that my good friend farmer with only one son to raise and can hardly do it farming 3,000 acres. Only 200 are his BTW, as with many farmers,the rest he 'operates'. Yet the economics are there. 14 vs 1.
My grandfather never owed more than a few dollars. My friend owes somewhere over a million. My friend leads a frenzied life with his equipment, hired hands and fields. My grandfather usually never walked fast and never sweated anything. He had plenty of leisure time. My friend has none.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks Airdale. I remember studying peak phosphorus 20 years ago when I was doing my biology degree. The problem is that phosphorus is the only main element necessary for life that has no atmospheric component to its nutrient cycle. The cycle therefore unfolds over geologic time. We have mined the best phosphate-bearing rocks already - the rocks that would have gradually provided for soil fertility over millions of years.
Phosphorus is being plastered all over fields and washed away in the runoff. From there it causes eutrophication of watercourses, contributing to algal blooms, and ends up spread over the sea floor at concentrations far too low to retrieve. Natural systems hang on to phosphorus very tightly, recycling it and losing very little, so that the rate of loss is balanced by the slow rate of replenishment form the undelying rocks. We interfere with this cycle at our peril, as phosphorus is an absolute requirement for life.
Stoneleigh,
Yes, I agree on our ignorant usage of soil nutrients. However it is the wise farmer who shepherds his soils fertility and nutrients. Otherwise he pays with his pocketbook.
Perhaps it is rather late in time for us to now start analyzing what has been performed wrong and what right.
In my state we analyze carefully the requirements and attempt to only spread what is actually needed. VRT=variable rate technology.....However..........
This is the problem IMO. All crops have want is referred to as a 'uptake' of nutrients. Tables exist for various crops as to what that uptake is in terms of N,P,K....and in fact when I looked at them last I found that HAY was a huge loss of the three prime chemicals/nutrients.
As you grow the crop and then harvest it..ALL of the uptake is then removed from the farm IF you sell the crop. Not only does the buyer get the roughage,dry matter and the rest but he also gets your N,P,K and his fed out animals then deposit it on HIS land.
With corn, milo, beans and wheat we have flails on the rear of the discharge chute of the combine and so the residue is redeposited back on the field. Of course the seeds,kernels and heads of the crop are shelled/winnowed out in the combines rotor and seperators ,,etc.....and hauled off but a major portion remains.
Another note: I was speaking to a farm chem sales owner who I know very well(slighty kin to) about P and K. I believe he told me that when P is applied it does not migrate in the soil such as nitrogen does. That where you put it is where it will stay....now not to say it doesn't erode off for I am sure it does. but I think he meant that its location in the soil does not move of itself.
Also speaking to ag profs in the land grant colleges they will sometimes admit very openly that there is a huge amount they do not understand about the soil.
I showed them some samples and asked for comments and got a lot of ....big words and part BS ...but when pressed they admitted to not being sure why sometimes soils act as they do.
I would have liked to have continued my soil sampling but the costs were prohibitive for the farmer I tested on. He is quite able to understand the quality of the soil even without testing...for I have worked with him many years and he always does as well as the others who go the high tech route.
Some farmers are very astute, some shouldn't be farming and after a while they usually are not.
But IMO as long as they can make a profit,and they must, they will do what it takes. Buy,sell,use and whatever.
Are we losing topsoil? Are we losing nutrients/chemicals? Is the soil getting worse or better? On my farm better. On some others worse. Its all a matter of 'practices'. Govenment wants to be the ones in control but they understand very very little about the practices.
If we only grew foodstuffs for our own domestic use then much of our soil could be used differently. The government and economists have caused more than anything the results of degradation of our soil and land. They are poor stewards.
The 'farm bills' are how they achieve the control and most farmers despise it, or so they say.
I can only make this observation. My grandfatgher raises 14 children on a 100 acre farm that he sharecropped(didn't own).
Its interesting that my good friend farmer with only one son to raise and can hardly do it farming 3,000 acres. Only 200 are his BTW, as with many farmers,the rest he 'operates'. Yet the economics are there. 14 vs 1.
My grandfather never owed more than a few dollars. My friend owes somewhere over a million. My friend leads a frenzied life with his equipment, hired hands and fields. My grandfather usually never walked fast and never sweated anything. He had plenty of leisure time. My friend has none.
airdale
Editted a few typos..