ecmn | Pvafarm - 12/7/2025 21:00
Crop removes X so need to replace X. This is reality. The other things you see some post? Well I've pulled many soil samples over the past 40 years on 5 to 10,000 acres per year so I know BS when I see it. And thats not base saturation...
If removal is strictly linear. How do you explain soils that maintain their PK levels after many years without fertilizer? Are biological processes and mineralization not contributing?
Does your data separate out fields with high organic matter, manure history, cover crop from those without? Wouldn't them different scenarios cycle nutrients differently?
How do you account for the role of soil life, mineral reserves biological processes, weathering... making nutrients available. Aren't those part of reality as well?
If crop removal is the only reality, how do you justify applying nutrients when the cost per pound exceeds the crop’s return per bushel?
Shouldn’t the true reality be profit per acre, not pounds removed? If fertilizer doesn’t pay back, isn’t that just transferring money from farmer to retailer?
In your 40 years of sampling, how often did you calculate net return on fertilizer applied versus yield response? Isn’t that the real measure of reality?
Why is overspending or waisting money on fertilizer considered normal, but a true nutrient management plan is risky?
Edited by easymoney 12/9/2025 06:54
|
What did you guys do regarding fetilizer this fall ?
