• possibly a cat@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That’s a rather long video. Does he have something he says that specifically counters the risk of the observed severe potassium deficiencies regionally? I.e., do plants not experience harm when growing in what we classify as severely deficient soils?

    I think the six measures the researchers called for are all rather common-sense and the harms they identify legitimate, but I understand you to mean that globally there should not be a concern for the effects of potassium depletion which is a somewhat different matter in my mind. And I’m curious about it.

    • LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Dr. Khan’s talk (based on his research in the US and several other continents) centered on the idea that current common testing is measuring exchangeable K and not available K, and that the recommendations made by agronomic advisors and suppliers often do not take the full scope of chemical interactions between the recommended amendments into account. Overapplication of potassium can reduce nitrogen and calcium uptake in plants and reduce the availability of calcium for rhizobium and other soil microorganisms that increase the water and nutrient holding capacity of soils. Since potassium becomes more bioavailable in the presence of water, these practices can reduce the amount of it taken up by plants, which can then show deficiencies, which are then treated by further applications.

      In amending the soil to counter the chemical reactions, growers are also placing mechanical strains on the soil in the form of compaction and tillage. Not only do these have associated costs for the operation, they can add to the soil’s challenges retaining water and elements and the plant’s challenges accessing each.

      My take: I have concerns that some of the industry’s “best” tests produce results that don’t provide a complete enough picture to be actionable. I think that these incomplete representations of reality in the soil help to fuel the overapplication of fertilizers and fuel hours that cause additional harmful effects to the soil, the water, and the favorable climate in which agriculture developed. The approach advocated in the article seems to presuppose the need for further extractive operations, but I think that a wiser rate of application may reveal that we’re overproducing to our detriment.

      • maketotaldestr0i@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        you have to take into account the article is mostly about extremely deficient areas with insufficient application, not the industrial super powers like china and usa that can afford to dump for maximum economic yield.

        • LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I do, and read the source paper linked by another commenter as well. The paper itself refers to ‘plant available K’, which is exchangeable K. That’s the potassium dissolved in the water in the soil at the time of the sample being taken, and is not indicative of the total amount of potassium held in the soil. Chasing results from a bad test is a surefire way to get bad results, like starting life saving measures because someone only took a pulse for the split second in between someone’s heartbeats.

          • maketotaldestr0i@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The soils in the deficient regions are not just deficient in bioavailable but also in the forms that would need to be liberated for plant use throughout the growing season. just look at the chemistry of a Brazillian or sub-Saharan Oxisol.

            • LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Then the paper missed an opportunity to use better testing methodology and language.

              I’ll reword my take below: Countries which are not on these types of soils are overapplying potash to an economic detriment of billions, skewing the market for the amendment. This also means that countries with soils like these have reduced access to the amendment. If growers who have more potassium in their soils stopped wasting a resource they don’t need to apply, then other growers without requisite potassium in their soils could access said resource with lower costs and greater availability. With a less skewed market, it’s possible that we do not need further development of mining and extractive operations to avoid potassium shortages.