Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Wouldnt it be better to err on the side of under-fertilizing?

ERR
0
Posted

Wouldnt it be better to err on the side of under-fertilizing?

0

Today, farmers are producing higher yields using less fertilizer. However, tests have shown that nearly half of North Americas most productive soils do not currently contain the nutrients necessary to keep pace with growing world demand for food. Farmers have been depleting reserves of soil nutrients rapidly in recent years. Last year farmers replaced only 75% of the phosphorus that their crops removed from the soil, and replenished just over 50% of the potassium. Without more of both nutrients, yields will decrease. But thats not the only problem. An insufficient supply of nutrients also saps plants ability to withstand harsh weather, disease, and other stresses. Nutrient-starved plants cannot maintain soil moisture, which leads to soil erosion from wind or water. While drought conditions were largely to blame for the “dust bowl” of the 1930s, insufficient levels of nutrients were at the root of the vicious cycle of problems that plagued Depression-era farmers.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.