Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Khan And Mulvaney Shake up NNTC
U of I researchers Saeed Khan, Richard Mulvaney, and Timothy Ellsworth are the authors of "The potassium paradox: Implications for soil fertility, crop production and human health," which was posted on October 10th by Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
A major finding came from a field study that involved four years of biweekly sampling for K testing with or without air-drying. Test values fluctuated drastically, did not differentiate soil K buildup from depletion, and increased even in the complete absence of K fertilization. Explaining this increase, Khan pointed out that for a 200-bushel corn crop, "about 46 pounds of potassium is removed in the grain, whereas the residues return 180 pounds of potassium to the soil—three times more than the next corn crop needs and all readily available."
Khan emphasized the overwhelming abundance of soil K, noting that soil test levels have increased over time where corn has been grown continuously since the Morrow Plots were established in 1876 at the University of Illinois. As he explained, "In 1955 the K test was 216 pounds per acre for the check plot where no potassium has ever been added. In 2005, it was 360." Mulvaney noted that a similar trend has been seen throughout the world in numerous studies with soils under grain production.
Recognizing the inherent K-supplying power of Corn Belt soils and the critical role of crop residues in recycling K, the researchers wondered why producers have been led to believe that intensive use of KCl is a prerequisite for maximizing grain yield and quality. To better understand the economic value of this fertilizer, they undertook an extensive survey of more than 2,100 yield response trials, 774 of which were under grain production in North America. The results confirmed their suspicions because KCl was 93 percent ineffective for increasing grain yield. Instead of yield gain, the researchers found more instances of significant yield reduction.
The irony, according to Mulvaney, is that before 1960 there was very little usage of KCl fertilizer. He explained, "A hundred years ago, U of I researcher Cyril Hopkins saw little need for Illinois farmers to fertilize their fields with potassium," Mulvaney said. "Hopkins promoted the Illinois System of Permanent Fertility, which relied on legume rotations, rock phosphate, and limestone. There was no potash in that system. He realized that Midwest soils are well supplied with K. And it's still true of the more productive soils around the globe. Potassium is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust and is more readily available than nitrogen, phosphorus, or sulfur. Farmers have been taught to think that fertilizers are the source of soil fertility—that the soil is basically an inert rooting medium that supports the plant."
I have to point out that my soil and tissue tests were low in many nutrients, including potassium and spreading these nutrients have increased our yield and profit.
I do know fellows who raise a good crop who have not spread potash for 10-20 years.
Who is correct?