PDA

View Full Version : 'N' Evaporation And Leaching


Smallaxe
01-22-2011, 04:39 PM
One thing I always like to have is, the documentation on, the 'loss of N' in synthetic granular or spray form, from the time it is applied, to the next time it is applied. [How much actually is lost, during that period.]

A nice bit of research, that is, "Easy to Read', on the subject would be Great...

Has anyone come across any articles, with sensible information, that could easily be relayed to a client?

dKoester
01-22-2011, 05:21 PM
http://www.humates.com/pdf/nvsc.pdf This basically states that humus anchors nitrogen in the soil and without it you can loose alot of N per year.

Smallaxe
01-22-2011, 06:02 PM
An excellent article, defining the natural processes of decaying OM into humates. It addresses the additional problem of 'too much' N which causes the loss of carbon available to the plant.
This is the common denominator in the synthetic vs. natural recycling of nutrient discussion. A little technical...

However, the recycling of carbon and nutrients by natural processes alone, do not accomplish the yeild or color of the grasses that people have come to expect.
For that reason, additional N is required. Conventional wisdom to the client, with no technical understanding whatsoever...

I believe that the additional N needn't be as excessive as it is to accomplish these ends, but I also have read that much of this unnecessary N is lost to the air and the water movement as well. Again technical, but simply described, if documented.

My focus here is to determine the amount of N lost, AND the form in which it is lost, to decide just how much N could safely be added to the turf, as a 'Supplement' to what the microbes are already doing. This would give the client the idea of looking at NPK apps as a 'supplement' to what is already, a fertile soil...

If I had something that demonstrated the loss of N, it would be simple enough to convince the client that a reduced amount of N, in the right form, would be desirable. This is the first step I am looking at to satisfy the concerns of myself and those I hope to work for... :)

fl-landscapes
01-22-2011, 06:50 PM
there would be a lot of factors involved so I dont think you will find a definitive answer.

Fast release verses slow release
what type of slow release
temperature
moisture
liquid or granular
soil type
shade or sun
just to name a few. Maybe someone else has a study sheet they can share I just think the volitization and leaching rates will have a wide range depending on the situation

Smallaxe
01-22-2011, 07:21 PM
there would be a lot of factors involved so I dont think you will find a definitive answer.

Fast release verses slow release
what type of slow release
temperature
moisture
liquid or granular
soil type
shade or sun
just to name a few. Maybe someone else has a study sheet they can share I just think the volitization and leaching rates will have a wide range depending on the situation

Agreed, there are a number of factors I'm sure... But if I dump a bag of Scott's on 5000 sq ft., how much N could I lose on sandy soil with no rain... It's not being used by the plant, so does it stay there or does it volitize to some degree? How about clay with lot's of water? There are a number of different scenarios, but certainly not beyond the general comprehension of certain criteria...

I have seen various 'baselines' in the past , so I was hoping that this type of research has been refined and simplified.... :)

fl-landscapes
01-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Agreed, there are a number of factors I'm sure... But if I dump a bag of Scott's on 5000 sq ft., how much N could I lose on sandy soil with no rain... It's not being used by the plant, so does it stay there or does it volitize to some degree? How about clay with lot's of water? There are a number of different scenarios, but certainly not beyond the general comprehension of certain criteria...

I have seen various 'baselines' in the past , so I was hoping that this type of research has been refined and simplified.... :)

Im not trying to be a pain in the azz, but even this will vary depending on what type of slow release N you have. Some are released from moisture activation and some by microbial activity. I think the key is to use a high percentage of slow release fert and only apply the amount that the turf will use at any given time, so timing is key. Light spoon feeding frequently would be ideal but just not practical. The one app "spread it and forget it" has a season long slow release mode of action. I think all applications will have some N volatilize but not necessarily leaching.

Kiril
01-23-2011, 08:11 AM
However, the recycling of carbon and nutrients by natural processes alone, do not accomplish the yeild or color of the grasses that people have come to expect.

For that reason, additional N is required. Conventional wisdom to the client, with no technical understanding whatsoever...

I don't agree. Nutrient requirements need to be assessed on a site by site basis, and it is possible to have a spectacular lawn with no "additional N".

My focus here is to determine the amount of N lost, AND the form in which it is lost,

This cannot be easily determined. Fertilize on observed need, not perceived need.

phasthound
01-23-2011, 08:34 AM
http://www.humates.com/pdf/nvsc.pdf This basically states that humus anchors nitrogen in the soil and without it you can loose alot of N per year.

For those who have not read this link, it also states that synthetic N over time depletes soil organic carbon and soil N due to the increase of certain microbial activity that breaks down organic matter so fast it prevents humus from forming. These microbes also out compete N fixing bacteria in the soil.

This is a new perspective to me. Tim, Kiril do you have any info on this conclusion?

Smallaxe
01-23-2011, 10:41 AM
So I can say there is a 25% leaching of 'water souable N", in sandy soil with SOM < 4.25%, but only a 13% leaching on a heavy loam with SOM > than 3.5%...

Forget about volatization, because that occurs everytime the soil surface is dried for more than 5 hours. It's just like dumping it out on a sidewalk.

Since there is nothing written to prove that these figures are erroneous, I could use them because, my detractors would have to prove that these things do not occur, under the circumstances I have laid out...

That's OK... I can research it myself... :)

JDUtah
01-23-2011, 12:40 PM
Actually, a soils CEC is also a factor to consider while evaluating leach potential. Of course SOM affects this, but you must consider CEC, and amount of moisture, porosity of soil, etc before you can assume any % leach potential.

JDUtah
01-23-2011, 12:53 PM
Barry,
While there is more I would expand about on the article I will currently keep my thoughts to just two here.

1-Humus depletion, etc... The problem isn't necessarily that they break down the OM so fast it doesn't have time to turn into Humus, it is that there isn't a balanced carbon input anymore and, over time, the humus (which contains/stores carbon & is used as a food source) runs out. Think of it like this. Microbes are eating a meal. They like, actually they need, a balanced meal with meat, bread, and veggies. When you fertilize with synthetic ferts you provide the veggies, but not the bread. Thus, they eat the veggies, but to be balanced, they also eat whatever bread is already in the soil. Eventually, all that is left in the soil are the veggies, and not enough bread or meat. Because all you are adding are the veggies.

2-N-fixing bacteria... Why/how do the N-fixing bacteria get "out competed"? Hint: I don't believe that they do other than the fact they they too, can run out of "bread". Second hint: Why do they fix N in the first place?

I don't know why this is a new perspective for you. I have been stating this angle to the people of this forum since my salt fertilizer doesn't kill microbes (it's actually food) thread on 08-18-2008.

Tim Wilson
01-23-2011, 09:00 PM
For those who have not read this link, it also states that synthetic N over time depletes soil organic carbon and soil N due to the increase of certain microbial activity that breaks down organic matter so fast it prevents humus from forming. These microbes also out compete N fixing bacteria in the soil.

This is a new perspective to me. Tim, Kiril do you have any info on this conclusion?

Barry, I believe this is similar to what occurs when N is locked up when there is excessive carbon mixed into the soil (e.g woody bits) Their estimates of N from N fixers sounds high for turf (not a legume). I don't have a lot of time but I'll have a look later. It is though, yet another case for not using synthetics as they upset the natural balance.

Smallaxe
01-24-2011, 06:16 AM
Actually, a soils CEC is also a factor to consider while evaluating leach potential. Of course SOM affects this, but you must consider CEC, and amount of moisture, porosity of soil, etc before you can assume any % leach potential.

Number 2 agrees with you... :)
Number 4 is addressed in the article and quite an eyeopener for the too much irrigation and too much fertilizer crowd...
"In the first few months after
application the four most likely fates for the fertilizer are:
1. It may be taken up by the crop, as intended.
2. It may become incorporated in the soil’s organic matter, where it will remain
unless it is remobilized by the bacteria and other organisms in the soil.
3. It may be leached out of the soil.
4. It may be denitrified. This happens when microbes hungry for oxygen utilize..."

Kiril
01-24-2011, 08:19 AM
1-Humus depletion, etc... The problem isn't necessarily that they break down the OM so fast it doesn't have time to turn into Humus, it is that there isn't a balanced carbon input anymore and, over time, the humus (which contains/stores carbon & is used as a food source) runs out.

Wrong JD. Did you read the published study?

2-N-fixing bacteria... Why/how do the N-fixing bacteria get "out competed"? Hint: I don't believe that they do other than the fact they they too, can run out of "bread".

You don't believe Diazotrophs can be out competed by other microbes? Why not .... and references are required in your reply.

JDUtah
01-24-2011, 01:29 PM
and references are required in your reply.

Actually Kiril, I live in America, you know, the land of free speech, which means nothing is required in my reply. :laugh:

In all reality though, let's stop having "peers" think for us and do some thinking on our own.

Why do Diazotrophs fix N?

Oh, but before that, if you actually read what I said, you would realize I never said that they couldn't be out competed. :dizzy:

JDUtah
01-24-2011, 01:34 PM
Wrong JD. Did you read the published study?

Actually Kiril, it wasn't a published study. It was an article written referencing a few published studies. Some of the information was from the studies and some was from the authors un-investigated opinion. Again, let's work on our reading comprehension shall we? :drinkup:

But I shall respond with a question. Tell me Kiril, how exactly is time a factor in the "depletion" of humus as this "article" suggests? What natural and biological processes occur to cause this gap? Isn't that part of what Barry was asking anyhow? Why argue with me when you can hold a civilized conversation with him? I'm not that fun am I? :laugh:

fl-landscapes
01-24-2011, 03:54 PM
hey ax here is wikepedias document on the Nitrogen cycle, I dont know if it is what you are looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle

Kiril
01-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Actually Kiril, it wasn't a published study. It was an article written referencing a few published studies

Exactly! Read the referenced studies before you start commenting on papers that discuss them. :rolleyes:

But I shall respond with a question. Tell me Kiril, how exactly is time a factor in the "depletion" of humus as this "article" suggests? What natural and biological processes occur to cause this gap? Isn't that part of what Barry was asking anyhow? Why argue with me when you can hold a civilized conversation with him? I'm not that fun am I? :laugh:

See above reply, both of you.

phasthound
01-24-2011, 07:35 PM
Exactly! Read the referenced studies before you start commenting on papers that discuss them. :rolleyes:



See above reply, both of you.

How does one access them without having to pay for them? And how does a lay person make sense of scientific jargon?
I can do without your rolling of the eyes.

ICT Bill
01-24-2011, 09:46 PM
How does one access them without having to pay for them? And how does a lay person make sense of scientific jargon?
I can do without your rolling of the eyes.

EXACTLY
as a lay person, compared to the folks that wrote those papers in their extremely narrow perspective of exactly what they needed to regurgitate in order to meet their goals for a grant, how do you understand the narrow perspective and grow it into a positive for your business to grow customers and stay profitable?

to constantly say "read the papers" is ludicrous, not only do they not have the background to understand the science but they typically do not have the time as they are raising families and working to pay bills

The better tract is to helpfully explain

apologies if I spoke down to anyone, it is just something I have been wanting to say for a while

Kiril
01-25-2011, 08:47 AM
EXACTLY
as a lay person, compared to the folks that wrote those papers in their extremely narrow perspective of exactly what they needed to regurgitate in order to meet their goals for a grant, how do you understand the narrow perspective and grow it into a positive for your business to grow customers and stay profitable?

to constantly say "read the papers" is ludicrous, not only do they not have the background to understand the science but they typically do not have the time as they are raising families and working to pay bills

The better tract is to helpfully explain

apologies if I spoke down to anyone, it is just something I have been wanting to say for a while

If you can't understand what is being discussed in the papers, then ask questions after reading the paper instead of asking people to spoon feed you. In the same vein of thought as yours, it is ludicrous to expect people who have spent many years educating themselves in these fields to spend the time to "spell it out" to people who won't take at least some initiative to learn on their own.

How does one access them without having to pay for them?

You want to learn, then either find the paper where you can access it for free, go to your local public library and see if they carry the journal, or buy it.

Second .... how about you actually search for the papers instead of expecting me or Tim to do it for you?

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/pdfs/36/6/1821

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/pdfs/38/6/2295

Why do you expect people to do your leg work and/or pay for these articles for you? I don't mind helping people out from time to time, but I gotta draw the line somewhere, especially when it comes to distributors who are looking for a new sales pitch and expect others to do their homework for them.

And how does a lay person make sense of scientific jargon?

Look it up or ask someone who does know. This is what education is all about. Even with my broad education in these fields of study I sometimes have a hard time following the papers. That said, I don't expect people to spoon feed me and I either look up what I don't understand or ask intelligent and specific questions about what I don't understand after I have exhausted all other avenues.

I can do without your rolling of the eyes.

Those were initially for JD, but given the above .......

NattyLawn
01-25-2011, 08:55 AM
How does one access them without having to pay for them? And how does a lay person make sense of scientific jargon?
I can do without your rolling of the eyes.

EXACTLY
as a lay person, compared to the folks that wrote those papers in their extremely narrow perspective of exactly what they needed to regurgitate in order to meet their goals for a grant, how do you understand the narrow perspective and grow it into a positive for your business to grow customers and stay profitable?

to constantly say "read the papers" is ludicrous, not only do they not have the background to understand the science but they typically do not have the time as they are raising families and working to pay bills

The better tract is to helpfully explain

apologies if I spoke down to anyone, it is just something I have been wanting to say for a while

Now, isn't it your job as sales people to sift through that material and then figure out a way to tell your customers or potential customers? Why give someone the answer when you can point them towards the answer and let them figure things out on their own? I like the fact that Kiril points out misinformation that seems to permeate this board. I love the threads where people that haven't used products or have no clue what they're talking about give "opinions" as fact.

Smallaxe
01-25-2011, 11:26 AM
... Why give someone the answer when you can point them towards the answer and let them figure things out on their own? ...

That is when a forum is actually a forum, when you can give an answer, idea or concept, instead of a reading list. I can find my own reading lists, but it is good when people are there to help, 'talk it through' with you. Help the relevant information sink in to your thought processes...

NattyLawn
01-25-2011, 11:55 AM
That is when a forum is actually a forum, when you can give an answer, idea or concept, instead of a reading list. I can find my own reading lists, but it is good when people are there to help, 'talk it through' with you. Help the relevant information sink in to your thought processes...

OK, I get it. That's why this country is the way it is.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 11:55 AM
That is when a forum is actually a forum, when you can give an answer, idea or concept, instead of a reading list. I can find my own reading lists, but it is good when people are there to help, 'talk it through' with you. Help the relevant information sink in to your thought processes...

There is a difference between helping people through a thought process and spoon feeding them information so they can regurgitate it without really understanding what they are regurgitating. If you want to take the initiative to learn, and show that you have, then I have no problem with "talking it through" when I have the time, and have done so in the past with many people on this site. That said, when people make blanket requests for information and have shown little or no effort on their own part to learn or find the information on their own, then I am not inclined to help. Then you have those people who like to talk out of their ass which IMO destroy the entire learning process on any forum. Also, no offense intended Axe, but one of the reasons I can supply relevant and credible "reading lists" is because I know what to search for. It is difficult to find material if you don't know what to search for or where to search for it.

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 12:14 PM
It's ok guys, while you may have a hard time following academic talk, Kiril didn't even know what 21-0-0 was. :rolleyes:

And yet he speaks of his comprehensive "field experience"? :dizzy:

:wall:wall:wall

Let the people who want to buy into his political BS answers buy into them.

One thing good about Kiril is his ego. If you question it just enough, you can leverage him to do just about anything. It's like free labor! payup

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
Also, no offense intended Axe, but one of the reasons I can supply relevant and credible "reading lists" is because I know what to search for. It is difficult to find material if you don't know what to search for or where to search for it.

So, how do we search for this information? Where do we search for this information? How do we find it on our own? What tricks do you use to find these things Kiril?

Kiril
01-25-2011, 12:26 PM
It's ok guys, while you may have a hard time following academic talk, Kiril didn't even know what 21-0-0 was. :rolleyes:

And you do? Tell me JD .... what type of N is in 21-0-0?

Let the people who want to buy into his political BS answers buy into them.

I have no politics. In fact I despise everything political, but don't let that stop you from talking shiit.

One thing good about Kiril is his ego. If you question it just enough, you can leverage him to do just about anything. It's like free labor! payup

One good thing about JD .................................................................................... ah hell, can't come up with anything.


So, how do we search for this information? Where do we search for this information? How do we find it on our own? What tricks do you use to find these things Kiril?

Get an education.

Smallaxe
01-25-2011, 01:56 PM
OK, I get it. That's why this country is the way it is.

Unclear as to what that response was about? :)

Smallaxe
01-25-2011, 02:13 PM
There is a difference between helping people through a thought process and spoon feeding them information so they can regurgitate it without really understanding what they are regurgitating. If you want to take the initiative to learn, and show that you have, then I have no problem with "talking it through" when I have the time, and have done so in the past with many people on this site. That said, when people make blanket requests for information and have shown little or no effort on their own part to learn or find the information on their own, then I am not inclined to help. Then you have those people who like to talk out of their ass which IMO destroy the entire learning process on any forum. Also, no offense intended Axe, but one of the reasons I can supply relevant and credible "reading lists" is because I know what to search for. It is difficult to find material if you don't know what to search for or where to search for it.

Agreed, and basically the 'spoon fed' info. is not what is needed. Understanding the question is usu. the biggest hurdle. Attempting a discussion, about the actual question, would normally be the second hurdle, unless of course, there are too many factors to even attempt at understanding the processes at hand...

I did find some of what I was looking for, though not specific in certain applications, it did illuminate what we might expect under various conditions and times of the year... I talk to myself about the relevancy and application to lawn and garden care. Or I could talk to others that share the common interest... if not so what?

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 02:28 PM
Here is my translation of the first article Kiril linked for you guys. Reading just the translations may help some folks understand it easier.

This perception is at odds with a century of soil
organic C data reported herein for the Morrow Plots, the world’s
oldest experimental site under continuous corn (Zea mays L.).
After 40 to 50 yr of synthetic fertilization that exceeded grain N
removal by 60 to 190%, a net decline occurred in soil C despite
increasingly massive residue C incorporation, the decline being
more extensive for a corn–soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) or
corn–oats (Avena sativa L.)–hay rotation than for continuous
corn and of greater intensity for the profile (0–46 cm) than the
surface soil.

Traditionally people believed that if you add excessive N fertilizers, the plant would grow more, adding more soil organic matter to the soil. However, on a test site that has had half to almost 4 times more N atoms applied (as fertilizer) than removed (as crops) for 40 years we find that instead of increasing SOM, it has declined. Specifically the SOM found up to 18 inches down in the soil.

These findings implicate fertilizer N in promoting the decomposition of crop residues and soil organic matter and are consistent with data from numerous cropping experiments involving synthetic N fertilization in the USA Corn Belt and elsewhere, although not with the interpretation usually provided.

Thus it appears that synthetic N promotes the decomposition of organic matter more than the buildup of it. The evidence for this is everywhere, including several "peer reviewed articles" even though in the past, no one has focused on this specific subject, or has "spoon fed" the information to the world.

There are important implications for soil C sequestration
because the yield-based input of fertilizer N has commonly
exceeded grain N removal for corn production on fertile soils
since the 1960s.

This is important to know/study because across the nation, especially with corn, we have been fertilizing in a way that reduces SOM for the last 50 years.

To mitigate the ongoing consequences of soil deterioration, atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and NO3– pollution of ground and surface waters, N fertilization should be managed by site-specific assessment of soil N availability.

To stop the problem, we should be fertilizing our corn fields based on how much N they need on a site to site basis. This will help reduce Nitrogen pollution, keep soil more fertile, and keep as much carbon sequestered in the soil as possible.

Current fertilizer N management practices, if combined with corn
stover removal for bioenergy production, exacerbate soil C loss.

Growing corn like we have, and now removing even more of the plant (the leaves and stock) for bio-fuel production, will increase the rate at which we lower our SOM levels.

With the introduction of chemical-based N management, a new
strategy became available for increasing not only grain yield, but
also the input of crop residues, which was assumed to be of value for
maintaining soil organic matter (SOM) (Lyon et al., 1952; Melsted,
1954; Tisdale and Nelson, 1956). Ample fertilizer N was believed to
promote humus formation by narrowing the C/N ratio of carbonaceous
residues and by providing a major elemental constituent (Lee
and Bray, 1949; Millar and Turk, 1951; Melsted, 1954).

50 years ago we thought we could increase both grain yields and soil quality by fertilizing synthetically and adding crop residue back into the ground. We thought the synthetic N would help humus develop because it would balance the C:N ratio (with the crop residue) and also provide N, which is part of many humic compounds.

(Then a bunch of lingo describing the history of the testing plots, how they calculated how much Carbon was returned to the soil each year as crop residue, how they measured the current levels of SOM, etc. Basically information for the person who wants to make sure their calculations are credible.)

If the input of C and N promotes accumulation of SOM,
then treatment effects should be apparent within the Morrow
Plots, which vary in the amount and frequency of these inputs
but not in soil type, climatic conditions, or tillage. These effects
should be reflected by Table 1, which compares SOC concentrations
for surface (0–15 cm) and subsurface (15–30 and 30–46
cm) samples collected before and after five decades of continuous
cropping with or without repeated NPK fertilization.

If we were right 50 years ago, we should be able to easily tell it based on these test plots because the only things that were different between them were the fertilizer, amendment, and C inputs.

As opposed to the usual assumption, fertilization was of
little, if any, benefit for soil C sequestration (Table 1). Rather,
the only significant SOC changes detected were net losses,
and these tended to be more extensive for the subsurface than
the surface soil and more serious for the HNPK subplots
than for the others studied. Both findings are consistent with
evidence that the addition of N or P is more effective for
stimulating mineralization of SOC in subsurface horizons,
as compared with surface soil layers (e.g., Rovira and Vallejo,
1997; Soon and Arshad, 2002; Fierer et al., 2003; Mack et al.,
2004).

It turns out we were wrong. Adding crop residue and fertilizer actually decreased the amount of organic C in the soil. Especially for the soil 6 to 18 inches down.

(Then some more jargon how people usually didn't test the soil at those depths so they had to calculate and estimate how much SOM was in the soil at those depths.)

The results, summarized by Table 2 for the plow layer (0–15 cm)
and profile (0–46 cm), provide no convincing evidence of soil C
sequestration in fertilized subplots despite the fact that C inputs
have benefited from a considerable increase in corn populations
since 1955 (from 20,000 or 30,000 to 69,000 plants ha−1). On
the contrary, a decline usually occurred that was more intensive
for the profile as a whole than for the plow layer.

Based on our data and calculations, there was no substantial increase in SOM over 50 years. This data is even more telling when we consider that because of the fertilizer, the plants have grown more, and thus we have added more crop residue back into the soil. But still, no increase in SOM. In fact a decrease was usually found.

Th e negative profile C balance observed in Table 2 for
chemical-based N management is most reasonably interpreted
as a net loss of the residue C returned within the past 51
growing seasons accompanied by a substantial decline in the
native SOC with atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Th is fi nding
is of particular interest for continuous corn and the corn–soybean
rotation and is consistent with data reported in Table
4 of Odell et al. (1982, 1984), although not with continued
acceptance of the authors’ interpretations.

Add every pound of Carbon we put into the ground to how much Carbon was in the ground before the experiments, and we find that we have lost a significant amount of Carbon. This agrees with some published studies back in 1982 and 1984. But people didn't believe those studies.

Th e first decade of commercial
fertilization brought a minor increase in soil C for previously
unamended subplots, but this was followed by a decline despite
dramatic escalation in the return of above- and belowground
residues as corn populations were increased progressively to
69,000 plants ha−1 by 2003.

For the first ten years SOM increased on some specific plots. But even as we grew more corn in the same place, and thus added more plant residue to the soil, SOM levels declined after the first decade.

The loss of SOC was more serious with the HNPK than the
NPK treatment despite a similar residue C input as estimated in
Table 2.

Plots that had high amounts of fertilizer lost more SOM than plots that had regular amounts of fertilizer. Even though the Carbon input between the plots was the same.

Among the three HNPK subplots, the decline in SOC was
much more extensive for the two rotations than for continuous
corn, despite a lower frequency of N fertilization. Th is fi nding
demonstrates the value of a greater input of highly carbonaceous
corn residue for reducing microbial use of SOC and emphasizes
the importance of fertilizer N management if corn stover is to be
harvested for bioenergy production. Special attention is also warranted
for the corn–soybean rotation that now dominates the USA
Corn Belt, in that C accumulation from manuring before introduction
of the HNPK treatment had disappeared within the plow
layer by 2005 (Fig. 2), with substantially greater profile C depletion
than for the NPK subplot in this rotation (Table 2). Th is finding
is consistent with previous reports of SOC decline when soils are
managed for corn and soybean production (Varvel, 1994, 2006;
Peters et al., 1997; Pikul et al., 2001; Olson et al., 2005).

In plots that had extra fertilizer, SOM decline was even more apparent when crop rotation with another crop took place. This is important because most farmers currently rotate their crops. This practice may be depleting their SOM even faster. After some time, even adding Manure between the rotations doesn't help build SOM. These findings agree with publications made int 1994, 2006, 1197, 2001, and 2005.

The foregoing observations fully support the value of N
fertilization at either rate studied for increasing biomass production
but not for sequestering SOC. This disparity would be
expected if fertilizer N enhances the activities of heterotrophic
soil microorganisms in using C derived from crop residues or
SOM. Such an effect was recognized long before the modern
era of synthetic N fertilizers (e.g., Starkey, 1924; White, 1927;
Waksman and Tenney, 1928) and has been verified more recently
in several laboratory and fi eld investigations (Gusser,
1970; Tóth, 1977; Reinertsen et al., 1984; Janzen and Kucey,
1988; Green et al., 1995; Vigil and Sparks, 1995; Soon and
Arshad, 2002; Fierer et al., 2003; Conde et al., 2005).

The evidence demonstrates that adding N to the soil increases the amount of microbes in the soil, but doesn't add to soil carbon sequestering. The difference between these two numbers demonstrates that N fertilizer enhances soil microbe activity. Especially in their ability to break down crop residue and soil organic matter. This has been understood clear back in the mid 1920's. And more recently in 1970, 1977, 1984, 1988, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2005)

In other words, if you add N the microbes get happy and reproduce. They break down both plant residue and soil organic matter even faster now.

(This is at the core of the salt debate)

If N fertilization can have a negative effect on soil C sequestration,
the same trend observed for the Morrow Plots should be
readily evident from data collected in field studies elsewhere. Such
evidence is common in the scientific literature but has seldom been
acknowledged, perhaps because N fertilizer practices have been
predicated largely on short-term economic gain rather than longterm
sustainability.

These findings are not popular because they are often interpreted to mean that farmers will make less money right now if they consider the information.

(I would also say it isn't popular information amongst the organic crowd, at least in this forum, because it means that Synthetic N is good for microbes. At least short term. The sad part is, organic fertility is centered on SOM, and this should be at the core of investigation/discussion.)

A half century of synthetic N fertilization has played a crucial
role in expanding worldwide grain production, but there has
been a hidden cost to the soil resource: a net loss of native SOC
and the residue C inputs. This cost has been exacerbated by the
widespread use of yield-based systems for fertilizer N management,
which are advocated for the sake of short-term economic
gain rather than long-term sustainability. Fertilization beyond
crop N requirements could be reduced substantially by a shift
from yield- to soil-based N management, ideally implemented on
a site-specifi c basis.

The quick dollar has promoted the 'grow for quantity' idea to expand rapidly worldwide. This idea calculates fertilization needs based on plant requirements. Basing fertilizing needs on soil requirements can help alleviate this problem without adversely affecting production numbers.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Once again we find JD not getting it and putting words in peoples mouths. Damn son, have you no respect?

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 02:51 PM
Once again we find JD not getting it and putting words in peoples mouths. Damn son, have you no respect?

That's all you got? Kiril, you are a piece of.. art...

All references, no personal logic or conclusions. Hence no chance for personal scrutiny. How do you like hiding behind that wall? Sounds rather political to me. :rolleyes:

fl-landscapes
01-25-2011, 02:51 PM
Once again we find JD not getting it and putting words in peoples mouths. Damn son, have you no respect?

How dare he not respect the all mighty Kiril????????? JD should be caned twenty times for this severe offense.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 03:05 PM
That's all you got? Kiril, you are a piece of.. art...

What do you expect JD when you ONCE AGAIN inaccurately reproduce what you have read and put words in other peoples mouths?


For instance .... SOM and SOC are not the same thing. That alone invalidates just about every comment you have made. If the authors intended to discuss SOM, then they would have called it SOM, not SOC.

@fl-landscapes

Ahhh .... the child returns. :clapping:

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 03:22 PM
What is the difference Lord Kiril?

(Readers notice. He loves criticizing others, but refuses to draw conclusions of his own because these may be criticized)

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 03:28 PM
And you do? Tell me JD .... what type of N is in 21-0-0?

Nice diversion tactic. While I know what form the N is in 21-0-0 that wasn't the point. The point was you didn't know what that was in the first place! Almost anyone with real world experience would know what 21-0-0 is. :rolleyes:

I have no politics. In fact I despise everything political, but don't let that stop you from talking shiit.

BS. And any half intelligent reader can see it.

One good thing about JD .................................................................................... ah hell, can't come up with anything.

Yet another example that Kiril doesn't know how to think on his own. :laugh:

Get an education.

Actually Kiril, I can find studies for myself just fine. I simply asked those questions to demonstrate that instead of wanting to truly help people on this forum fend for themselves, you like them to rely on you. If you really don't like spoon feeding, or doing the searches, etc. You would teach them to fish for themselves rather than just give them fish. Thanks for taking the bait and proving my point. :rolleyes:

Kiril
01-25-2011, 03:35 PM
What is the difference Lord Kiril?

(Readers notice. He loves criticizing others, but refuses to draw conclusions of his own because these may be criticized)

You tell me JD, since you are the one who felt it appropriate to equate the two.

Furthermore, I don't need to rewrite what has already been written, nor do I have anything to prove. The paper speaks for itself and doesn't require my "conclusions" ..... and it damn sure doesn't need your inaccurate rewording or your wild "conclusions" that are not even supported in the very paper you have attempted to summarize. I honestly don't know why you feel the need to appear an authority on this subject JD when you clearly are not. What exactly did you hope to accomplish with this exercise? If it was intended as a demonstration of your understanding of this subject, you failed miserably.

dKoester
01-25-2011, 03:39 PM
This is like having a neighbor that grows a garden different from you and says his way is better than yours even though you pull more vegetables from the garden than he does.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 03:40 PM
Nice diversion tactic. While I know what form the N is in 21-0-0 that wasn't the point. The point was you didn't know what that was in the first place! Almost anyone with real world experience would know what 21-0-0 is. :rolleyes:

So you don't know the type of N? I didn't think so. BTW .... why exactly do you think I don't know what 21-0-0 is?

BS. And any half intelligent reader can see it.

Amusing .... you appear to know me better than I know myself. :rolleyes:

Actually Kiril, I can find studies for myself just fine. I simply asked those questions to demonstrate that instead of wanting to truly help people on this forum fend for themselves, you like them to rely on you. If you really don't like spoon feeding, or doing the searches, etc. You would teach them to fish for themselves rather than just give them fish. Thanks for taking the bait and proving my point. :rolleyes:

ROFL .... OK JD .... whatever you say. You are a real piece of work. :waving:

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Are the vegetables comparable to "publications" or "green grass"? We don't want to miss the mark do we? :)

dKoester
01-25-2011, 03:41 PM
I'd like to see you'll grow a garden to see who is better at it in their own kind of soil.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 03:42 PM
This is like having a neighbor that grows a garden different from you and says his way is better than yours even though you pull more vegetables from the garden than he does.

Sorry .... I have a problem with people who talk out of their ass .... and JD is a world class ass talker ..... and saying so is not an attack JD .... simply the sad truth.

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 03:42 PM
I'd like to see you'll grow a garden to see who is better at it in their own kind of soil.

Who are you talking to?

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 03:54 PM
Sorry .... I have a problem with people who talk out of their ass .... and JD is a world class ass talker ..... and saying so is not an attack JD .... simply the sad truth.

Wow guys I was wrong! Kiril IS able to come to his own conclusions! Forgive me! :o

Yard Boy 07
01-25-2011, 04:32 PM
I am new here but it doesn't take long to realize which Know it all, to ignore. I can only guess Mother needed to pay more attention to her little guy. Now it is too late.

dKoester
01-25-2011, 05:19 PM
Who are you talking to?

You and Kiril.

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 05:21 PM
You and Kiril.

I have my pictures ready. Just waiting on Kiril. Or I could pm them to you. lol

phasthound
01-25-2011, 08:02 PM
I'm going to be ill.......................

JDUtah
01-25-2011, 09:25 PM
I'm going to be ill.......................

Sorry Barry,

I put him on ignore again. So now I don't have to listen to his crap anymore. If he wants to call me an atalker when the data is right there in front of him he can. I wont see it anymore.

Kiril
01-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Sorry Barry,

I put him on ignore again. So now I don't have to listen to his crap anymore. If he wants to call me an atalker when the data is right there in front of him he can. I wont see it anymore.

Good for you JD. Anyone who reads can see right through your bullshiit, and with me on ignore we all can be spared some of your childish games.

Only downside is you didn't answer the question I asked, even after your childish attempt to spread lies about me. FYI JD .... a fertilizer with an analysis starting with 21-0 is not necessarily ammonium sulfate, nor are all fertilizers the same with regard to potentially damaging salts, even if the fertilizer is "ammonium sulfate". I suppose you weren't aware of that before you starting talking shiit, were you? Bye Bye. :waving:

dKoester
01-25-2011, 10:35 PM
I have my pictures ready. Just waiting on Kiril. Or I could pm them to you. lol

I want to see them. Thanks

ecoguy
01-25-2011, 10:42 PM
It's January. That's why.

dKoester
01-25-2011, 10:48 PM
I Grow all year with hoophouses.Their easy to make. Its what makes winter fun. And again send the pics, please. Thanks.

dKoester
01-25-2011, 10:48 PM
It's January. That's why.

100% Correct!!!!!!!

Kiril
01-25-2011, 11:10 PM
I want to see them. Thanks

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=316954