Okay, I'll once again give (my) the lowdown on the meaning(less) of NPK ratings of organic materials. Briefly, sure there are organic materials which have a high N (etc) content but once properly composted or humified this is sequestered and is not measureable by standards used. That's why properly made compost will begin with a C:N ratio of 25:1 to 45:1 and finish at around 10:1 to 15:1.
The N which is tied in there may only register at 2% in the measurent scale but is actually much higher in the potential of N to be released through the microbial mineralization or nitrification process. I've posted an article here several times which explains this but it is available at; http://www.microbeorganics.com/#Organic_Growing_Microbial_Perspective
Here is a draft addendum to that article to explain what I mean by chemicals killing soil microbes;
________________________________________
"There are bacteria/archaea that will happily feed on chemical fertilizers. Indeed, there are bacteria that will 'feast' on diesel fuel. It is more likely that the use of these fertilizers negatively effect soil biota over a period of time. Chemical N (for example) is (to my knowledge) delivered to the roots of plants in ionic form, bypassing the whole microbial nutrient loop, which occurs through degraded organic matter being delivered in several processes; one major way being by bacterial/archaeal [sic] predation by protozoa (& bacterial feeding nematodes). It follows logically that if chemical fertilizers are used over an extended period (days? months? years?) that the microbial nutrient cycle will slow and/or cease.
The other side to this is that plants emit compounds from their roots which feed bacteria/archaea and fungi (of species conducive to their survival?) as an active participant in this microbial nutrient loop. Logically, if the plant is receiving direct feed ionic nutrients it is likely to slow and/or cease this process.
I compare this to a patient receiving interveinous feeding for a period of time and then needing to slowly adjust to real food again when the IV is discontinued.
The effects over a period of time (days? months? years?) will likely cause a die off of soil biota of a particular microbial consortia but may stimulate the growth of another microbial consortia (possibly/probably not as balanced and beneficial as the natural one), possibly causing disease.
I hypothesize another factor that may have effect is that when the plant is an active participant in the microbial nutrient cycle it 'decides' what nutrients it requires in time shifts unknown to us. If we are using chemical fertilizers quite likely much goes unused by the plant or is absorbed by the plant unnecessarily promoting disease. The unused chemicals pass into the groundwater and streams or into the atmosphere. We've all heard the detriments around that."
________________________________________
Because of this the NPK measurements, similar to pH measurements become meaningless in organics or natural growing.
Here is another repeat which may help and by all means research the citations;
__________________________________
I’ll try to write something up which illustrates the difference between nutrient processing and utilization from a chemical and natural (or organic) standpoint (for want of a better word). The following information and opinion is stated by me and is derived from the citations and links provided. I use the words apparently and appears because I believe knowledge and science is fluid. I also don’t pretend to understand everything perfectly and may need correcting. Just because we know the Earth is not flat does not mean we know everything about it.
To simplify things I’ll restrict the discussion to the plant’s use of nitrogen (N). The forms of N which plant roots are able to uptake are in ionic form or soluble. These soluble forms of N are ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-). Very simply stated these soluble forms of N are instantly available in chemical N and there is no need for any bacterial/archaeal (B/A) mineralization to make them available to the roots of plants. There is some indication that some soluble ammonium is utilized by B/A and mineralized into nitrates, however this appears (to me) somewhat an opportunistic occurrence (from the B/A perspective). So yes we can concur that B/A eats and thrives on some chemically provided ions (there is a very large but) but this action is not a necessary one for the plant to uptake exactly the same ions as are being consumed by the B/A. In certain circumstances the B/A will be in competition with the plant for these nutrients. So it appears that plants can grow in this fashion without interaction by mineralizing B/A. It appears that the chemically provided ions (soluble N) completely bypass the microbial nutrient cycle.
With natural or organic growing, N ( R-NH2 ) for the plant is contained (sequestered) in a non-soluble (non-ionic) form in organic matter (or in the case of the gardener; compost, soil foods). It is true that there are certain known bacteria (and now some archaea) which directly fix and supply ionic forms of N to the roots of plants and this is an area where we are still learning so all is not known by any stretch. However soil scientists have discovered and it is common knowledge (as knowledge goes) that the bulk of NH4+ and NO3- are delivered to the roots of plants by protozoa (flagellates, amoebae and ciliates). This occurs in a complex network ostensibly, controlled in large degree by the plant. The plant releases compounds from the roots which feed B/A, thereby increasing the B/A population. The B/A consumes/processes forms of R-NH2 or forms which are pre-degraded by fungi and or other B/A. The B/A further multiply with a good supply of food and their large population encourages the excysting (hatching from cysts) and dividing of protozoa. The protozoa prey upon the B/A and in an approximate 30 minute period complete the excretion of NH4+ and/or NO3- available to the roots of the plants. Apparently protozoa only utilize 30 to 40 percent of the nutrient consumed (60 to 70% available to plants) and many have a division cycle of 2 hours so the efficiency of this nutrient delivery system is considerable. Just as it began, the microbial N cycle can be rapidly shut down by molecular emissions from the plant. It is apparent that the nutrient needs of the plant can change within short periods (perhaps in hours). There is much yet unknown, however even disease control may be effected by a sudden reduction of N in the rhizoshere. This is certainly something which cannot be effectively manipulated by chemical N applications and the leaching of unused N is potentially exacerbated.
My goal in writing this was to illustrate the stark differences between the use by a plant of chemically provided ions and those derived through the microbial nutrient cycle. I believe I have succeeded. There are other ways which plants obtain N, such as through fungal interactions but that is nature; always have a back up.
I did fail to find information detailing the effects of chemical soluble N on protozoa populations. Although we humans have great confidence in our ability to mimic natural molecules sometimes we discover it is the subtle variances going unnoticed which end up having the greatest effects.
Following are some sources of information and research papers. I noticed that some of these are still for sale so I hesitate to post them (I can’t remember where I got some) but if you dig you may find them freely posted. (Try ‘New Phytology’).
Protozoa and plant growth:
the microbial loop in soil revisited
Michael Bonkowski
Rhizosphere Ecology Group, Institut für Zoologie, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Schnittspahnstr. 3, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany
From the book; Modern Soil Microbiology
Chapter 6; Protozoa and Other
Protista in Soil
Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski,
and Bryan Griffiths
Soil protozoa: an under-researched microbial group gaining momentum
Marianne Clarholm
Department of Forest Mycology and Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7026, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37 (2005) 811–817
Soil microbial loop and nutrient uptake by plants: a test
using a coupled C:N model of plant–microbial interactions
Xavier Raynaud Jean-Christophe Lata
Paul W. Leadley
Plant Soil
DOI 10.1007/s11104-006-9003-9
SOIL BIOTA, SOIL SYSTEMS, AND PROCESSES
David C. Coleman
University of Georgia
http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eco/biogeo/biogeochemical.html
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1722/eb1722.html
_____________________________________
Here is another link which may be helpful
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1997/6-23-1997/nitfert.html
______________________________
I'm not saying that NPK do not exist but the (standard) measurements of them do not test for the sequestered amounts. If you wish to test to see if your plant is getting nutrients, test the leaf tissue. I discovered through experience that the whole N shifting to P thing for veg to flower is unecessary and possibly counterproductive in natural growing. I got just as good production using only vermicompost, fish hydrolysate and compost tea as I did sweating out the whole N & P veg/flower thing.
The N which is tied in there may only register at 2% in the measurent scale but is actually much higher in the potential of N to be released through the microbial mineralization or nitrification process. I've posted an article here several times which explains this but it is available at; http://www.microbeorganics.com/#Organic_Growing_Microbial_Perspective
Here is a draft addendum to that article to explain what I mean by chemicals killing soil microbes;
________________________________________
"There are bacteria/archaea that will happily feed on chemical fertilizers. Indeed, there are bacteria that will 'feast' on diesel fuel. It is more likely that the use of these fertilizers negatively effect soil biota over a period of time. Chemical N (for example) is (to my knowledge) delivered to the roots of plants in ionic form, bypassing the whole microbial nutrient loop, which occurs through degraded organic matter being delivered in several processes; one major way being by bacterial/archaeal [sic] predation by protozoa (& bacterial feeding nematodes). It follows logically that if chemical fertilizers are used over an extended period (days? months? years?) that the microbial nutrient cycle will slow and/or cease.
The other side to this is that plants emit compounds from their roots which feed bacteria/archaea and fungi (of species conducive to their survival?) as an active participant in this microbial nutrient loop. Logically, if the plant is receiving direct feed ionic nutrients it is likely to slow and/or cease this process.
I compare this to a patient receiving interveinous feeding for a period of time and then needing to slowly adjust to real food again when the IV is discontinued.
The effects over a period of time (days? months? years?) will likely cause a die off of soil biota of a particular microbial consortia but may stimulate the growth of another microbial consortia (possibly/probably not as balanced and beneficial as the natural one), possibly causing disease.
I hypothesize another factor that may have effect is that when the plant is an active participant in the microbial nutrient cycle it 'decides' what nutrients it requires in time shifts unknown to us. If we are using chemical fertilizers quite likely much goes unused by the plant or is absorbed by the plant unnecessarily promoting disease. The unused chemicals pass into the groundwater and streams or into the atmosphere. We've all heard the detriments around that."
________________________________________
Because of this the NPK measurements, similar to pH measurements become meaningless in organics or natural growing.
Here is another repeat which may help and by all means research the citations;
__________________________________
I’ll try to write something up which illustrates the difference between nutrient processing and utilization from a chemical and natural (or organic) standpoint (for want of a better word). The following information and opinion is stated by me and is derived from the citations and links provided. I use the words apparently and appears because I believe knowledge and science is fluid. I also don’t pretend to understand everything perfectly and may need correcting. Just because we know the Earth is not flat does not mean we know everything about it.
To simplify things I’ll restrict the discussion to the plant’s use of nitrogen (N). The forms of N which plant roots are able to uptake are in ionic form or soluble. These soluble forms of N are ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-). Very simply stated these soluble forms of N are instantly available in chemical N and there is no need for any bacterial/archaeal (B/A) mineralization to make them available to the roots of plants. There is some indication that some soluble ammonium is utilized by B/A and mineralized into nitrates, however this appears (to me) somewhat an opportunistic occurrence (from the B/A perspective). So yes we can concur that B/A eats and thrives on some chemically provided ions (there is a very large but) but this action is not a necessary one for the plant to uptake exactly the same ions as are being consumed by the B/A. In certain circumstances the B/A will be in competition with the plant for these nutrients. So it appears that plants can grow in this fashion without interaction by mineralizing B/A. It appears that the chemically provided ions (soluble N) completely bypass the microbial nutrient cycle.
With natural or organic growing, N ( R-NH2 ) for the plant is contained (sequestered) in a non-soluble (non-ionic) form in organic matter (or in the case of the gardener; compost, soil foods). It is true that there are certain known bacteria (and now some archaea) which directly fix and supply ionic forms of N to the roots of plants and this is an area where we are still learning so all is not known by any stretch. However soil scientists have discovered and it is common knowledge (as knowledge goes) that the bulk of NH4+ and NO3- are delivered to the roots of plants by protozoa (flagellates, amoebae and ciliates). This occurs in a complex network ostensibly, controlled in large degree by the plant. The plant releases compounds from the roots which feed B/A, thereby increasing the B/A population. The B/A consumes/processes forms of R-NH2 or forms which are pre-degraded by fungi and or other B/A. The B/A further multiply with a good supply of food and their large population encourages the excysting (hatching from cysts) and dividing of protozoa. The protozoa prey upon the B/A and in an approximate 30 minute period complete the excretion of NH4+ and/or NO3- available to the roots of the plants. Apparently protozoa only utilize 30 to 40 percent of the nutrient consumed (60 to 70% available to plants) and many have a division cycle of 2 hours so the efficiency of this nutrient delivery system is considerable. Just as it began, the microbial N cycle can be rapidly shut down by molecular emissions from the plant. It is apparent that the nutrient needs of the plant can change within short periods (perhaps in hours). There is much yet unknown, however even disease control may be effected by a sudden reduction of N in the rhizoshere. This is certainly something which cannot be effectively manipulated by chemical N applications and the leaching of unused N is potentially exacerbated.
My goal in writing this was to illustrate the stark differences between the use by a plant of chemically provided ions and those derived through the microbial nutrient cycle. I believe I have succeeded. There are other ways which plants obtain N, such as through fungal interactions but that is nature; always have a back up.
I did fail to find information detailing the effects of chemical soluble N on protozoa populations. Although we humans have great confidence in our ability to mimic natural molecules sometimes we discover it is the subtle variances going unnoticed which end up having the greatest effects.
Following are some sources of information and research papers. I noticed that some of these are still for sale so I hesitate to post them (I can’t remember where I got some) but if you dig you may find them freely posted. (Try ‘New Phytology’).
Protozoa and plant growth:
the microbial loop in soil revisited
Michael Bonkowski
Rhizosphere Ecology Group, Institut für Zoologie, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Schnittspahnstr. 3, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany
From the book; Modern Soil Microbiology
Chapter 6; Protozoa and Other
Protista in Soil
Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski,
and Bryan Griffiths
Soil protozoa: an under-researched microbial group gaining momentum
Marianne Clarholm
Department of Forest Mycology and Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7026, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37 (2005) 811–817
Soil microbial loop and nutrient uptake by plants: a test
using a coupled C:N model of plant–microbial interactions
Xavier Raynaud Jean-Christophe Lata
Paul W. Leadley
Plant Soil
DOI 10.1007/s11104-006-9003-9
SOIL BIOTA, SOIL SYSTEMS, AND PROCESSES
David C. Coleman
University of Georgia
http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eco/biogeo/biogeochemical.html
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1722/eb1722.html
_____________________________________
Here is another link which may be helpful
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1997/6-23-1997/nitfert.html
______________________________
I'm not saying that NPK do not exist but the (standard) measurements of them do not test for the sequestered amounts. If you wish to test to see if your plant is getting nutrients, test the leaf tissue. I discovered through experience that the whole N shifting to P thing for veg to flower is unecessary and possibly counterproductive in natural growing. I got just as good production using only vermicompost, fish hydrolysate and compost tea as I did sweating out the whole N & P veg/flower thing.
