|
South Central MN | Read the article and all other posts up to the time I posted this, have seen a video of this sort of test being done.
Sort of brings up more questions than answers, or should say gets the gears turning a bit...
The way I read it, could be wrong, but to me sounds as though a broadcast surface app of fertilizer would be more prone to getting carried down these channels than one banded 2-6" deep? What about the more concentrated amounts of fertilizer in these bands, could some get "flushed" too or if the soil was moist enough to dissolve it would it already be bound to the soil? I imagine N fertilizers would do the same thing, maybe K and S as well to some extent. Water infiltration is nice, but don't like the idea of losing fertilizer out the tile, money down the drain so to speak. Would think the act of banding the fertilizer in the soil would disrupt most of the macro pores for a short while, maybe long enough to prevent excessive loss if a big rain happens 1-5 days after application, even if done by single disk opener or coulter.
I have tile in fields here, pretty much a necessity most years, some spots need more, and as of yet don't have any thing other than an intake as a direct link to a tile... (Also most of ours are deeper, 6 ft. probably...) I have seen huge cracks in our ground when it gets dry, big enough to lose a tool in but after one good rain they vanish. Wonder how prone a clay loam is to developing these macro pores? Usually a couple feet of black dirt (give or take) then yellow or grayish colored clay, don't seem to run out of water even when dry in the summer so holds a bunch. | |
|
Is water quality a trade-off for the benefits of no-till? (MSU article)
