• 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.