|
Post by paquebot on Jun 18, 2015 3:12:27 GMT
There is no real wrong way to use fresh grass clippings but 3 right ways. The easiest is to use them as mulch as they surpass anything else that one would normally use. Believe it or not, some soil nitrogen is robbed in the decomposition process but only very temporary. Second is to till them into the soil while still fresh. There are bacteria and fungi in the soils which need what the grass can supply in order to make a healthier soil. Third is combined with dry carbon material in a compost system where one recovers much of the nitrogen through absorption. If grass is left to dry on the ground or in a thin layer, much of the nitrogen is returned to the atmosphere as it dries. What's left is fairly inert since there is so little carbon in immature grass. Dry rye straw, for example, has zero nitrogen but we all should know that green rye grass is one of the best to be tilled in green.
(23 days away from having composted in the same area for 52 years!)
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 13:43:29 GMT
I think the Carbon/Nitrogen balance takes care of itself eventually in the soil. I wouldn't go out of my way to find new compost sources while I've got more than I can shovel already. Use what you got, plant legumes now and then, and let nature balance it out. You only need the perfect nitrogen/carbon balance if you need your compost to be sterilized and also not smell... If nature takes care of itself, why do we have what is called worn out soil?
Because some people add nothing back... They put in heavy feeding crops year after year and put nothing but a bit of chemical fertilizer back. You can't keep generating organic matter and removing it without rejuvenation. Eventually you deplete the carbon and easily absorbed minerals in the soil. Nitrogen gets supplied by chemical fertilizers, you can add calcium and traces as well, but carbon has to come from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jun 18, 2015 14:39:25 GMT
If nature takes care of itself, why do we have what is called worn out soil?
Because some people add nothing back... They put in heavy feeding crops year after year and put nothing but a bit of chemical fertilizer back. You can't keep generating organic matter and removing it without rejuvenation. Eventually you deplete the carbon and easily absorbed minerals in the soil. Nitrogen gets supplied by chemical fertilizers, you can add calcium and traces as well, but carbon has to come from somewhere. Swap phosphorus and potassium for carbon and you're right on. Carbon is not something highly required of plants but is beneficial in changing the soil structure. Once carbon is broken down to humus, it may last a thousand years in the soil. Plants need only the 3 basic nutrients to survive; nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. In Nature, with few exceptions, nitrogen is only available from the sky. The other two can only be replenished by floods, glaciers, etc. which would physically move them from one location to another. Neither will ever increase on their own but everything using it relies upon constant recycling. Think of plants merely borrowing the phosphorus and potassium from the soil. If the plants are continually not allowed to return those back to the soil, the amount available for following generations become less and less until there is no more left. Then it must be replaced by borrowing it from some other part of the planet since the supply is finite. Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 14:19:43 GMT
Because some people add nothing back... They put in heavy feeding crops year after year and put nothing but a bit of chemical fertilizer back. You can't keep generating organic matter and removing it without rejuvenation. Eventually you deplete the carbon and easily absorbed minerals in the soil. Nitrogen gets supplied by chemical fertilizers, you can add calcium and traces as well, but carbon has to come from somewhere. Swap phosphorus and potassium for carbon and you're right on. Carbon is not something highly required of plants but is beneficial in changing the soil structure. Once carbon is broken down to humus, it may last a thousand years in the soil. Plants need only the 3 basic nutrients to survive; nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. In Nature, with few exceptions, nitrogen is only available from the sky. The other two can only be replenished by floods, glaciers, etc. which would physically move them from one location to another. Neither will ever increase on their own but everything using it relies upon constant recycling. Think of plants merely borrowing the phosphorus and potassium from the soil. If the plants are continually not allowed to return those back to the soil, the amount available for following generations become less and less until there is no more left. Then it must be replaced by borrowing it from some other part of the planet since the supply is finite. Martin Then one only needs to replace those elements which can be done with chemicals. If that were true, why does soil wear out as its said? There has to be much more to the picture.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jun 29, 2015 15:01:31 GMT
[/quote]Then one only needs to replace those elements which can be done with chemicals. If that were true, why does soil wear out as its said? There has to be much more to the picture. [/quote]
Think hydroponics, growing in water. The NPK needs are supplied by adding it to the water. If the plants remove all of it, there remains only water and there will be no more until replenished. Same thing with soil. If the plants remove all of the nutrients, nothing will replace them in a lifetime no matter how long one sits and waits. If the NPK is 0-0-0 this year, it will still be 0-0-0 next year. Eventually there is no plant growth to keep it in place. Not only is it worn out, it's easily blown or washed away.
Martin
|
|