[paradoxlost]

Originally Posted by EasyGoing

I tend to stick with what SlowN says, until absolute proof. However I am very systematic as well. Lost on this one.

Anybody know how long S take to cycle?

I think with everything, but particularly with S, it all depends on the microbial activity. Sulfer effects ammonification and mineralisation rates in the nitrogen cycle, probably indicating the nitrogen, specifically nitrates, effect it as well.

Let chatliers principle is real useful in at least seeing what direction and potential magnitudes equilibrium will shift to upon additions.

[EasyGoing]

Originally Posted by paradoxlost

I think with everything, but particularly with S, it all depends on the microbial activity. Sulfer effects ammonification and mineralisation rates in the nitrogen cycle, probably indicating the nitrogen, specifically nitrates, effect it as well.

Let chatliers principle is real useful in at least seeing what direction and potential magnitudes equilibrium will shift to upon additions.

Great points.

[orechron]

Originally Posted by paradoxlost

I think with everything, but particularly with S, it all depends on the microbial activity. Sulfer effects ammonification and mineralisation rates in the nitrogen cycle, probably indicating the nitrogen, specifically nitrates, effect it as well.

Let chatliers principle is real useful in at least seeing what direction and potential magnitudes equilibrium will shift to upon additions.

You're suggesting that microbes are shifting equilibrium in the soil system? How? Do you think they have the ability to uptake more S in a soil heavily treated with gypsum?

[led05]

Originally Posted by orechron

You're suggesting that microbes are shifting equilibrium in the soil system? How? Do you think they have the ability to uptake more S in a soil heavily treated with gypsum?

IME, Sulfur lowers PH and reduces microbes, Gypsum is mainly Sulfur & Calcium, so clearly the more Gypsum the more S - curious what Paradox has to say, especially considering I basically said the same thing he did a few posts before his...

Why is Gypsum so great, balance - S acidic, Ca Basic - S reduces Microbes, Ca drives them...... It still can leave behind too much S, IMHO - it's a tool, a very good and cheap one

[orechron]

It's just not clear how Le Chateliers's principal is applicable to what we're talking about. Only if microbes are removing a greater amount of S than N for his example. I think what he's suggesting is that once the sulfate is inside the bacterial cells, it's removed from the system and theoretically there's less antagonism for nitrate. Are they "consciously" doing that for the plants? I don't know but microbiology is capable of doing some crazy shit.

[led05]

Originally Posted by orechron

It's just not clear how Le Chateliers's principal is applicable to what we're talking about. Only if microbes are removing a greater amount of S than N for his example. I think what he's suggesting is that once the sulfate is inside the bacterial cells, it's removed from the system and theoretically there's less antagonism for nitrate. Are they "consciously" doing that for the plants? I don't know but microbiology is capable of doing some crazy shit.

Not sure on Chatelier's - that's the only bit that wasn't basically parroted from my post....

Microbiology will do and seek out what it wants, to the extent we assist this; we will benefit.

Consciously - oh man that would be deep, much more likely it's just a derivative benefit we get from fostering a good overall environment

[paradoxlost]

Originally Posted by led05

IME, Sulfur lowers PH and reduces microbes, Gypsum is mainly Sulfur & Calcium, so clearly the more Gypsum the more S - curious what Paradox has to say, especially considering I basically said the same thing he did a few posts before his...

Why is Gypsum so great, balance - S acidic, Ca Basic - S reduces Microbes, Ca drives them...... It still can leave behind too much S, IMHO - it's a tool, a very good and cheap one

I guess what I was trying to extrapolate on was that sulfur will push N towards NH4+, while the microbes will push N towards nitrates. Sulfur, at least from my understanding, promotes bacterial activity, and has no effect on soil pH, due to sulfuric acid being a strong acid, and there for not reacting with H+.


Elemental sulfur will decrease soil pH by increasing sulfuric acid formation through bacterial oxidation. Gypsum only adds the sulfate, which as as result of sulfuric acid being a strong acid, is not in a state of equilibrium with sulfuric acid, meaning that it does not interact with hydrogen ions, leaving pH untouched.

https://vric.ucdavis.edu/pdf/Soil/ChangingpHinSoil.pdf

Here is a guide on changing pH from U.C. Davis. Notice it's mention of gypsum not changing soil pH. And considering calcium's flocculation properties, maybe its not the sulfate increasing bacterial activity, but better aeration, but from my understanding sulfates increase the sulfur associated bacterial communities, which is more diversity, which at least I equate to good. I'm sure there are other things involved.

Originally Posted by orechron

It's just not clear how Le Chateliers's principal is applicable to what we're talking about. Only if microbes are removing a greater amount of S than N for his example. I think what he's suggesting is that once the sulfate is inside the bacterial cells, it's removed from the system and theoretically there's less antagonism for nitrate. Are they "consciously" doing that for the plants? I don't know but microbiology is capable of doing some crazy shit.

This is what I was indicating, and that bacterial rates release enzymes that will speed things up immensely, and depending on the community, if it favors nitrogen, phosphorus, etc it will limit certain ecological functions, and I look at something like the nitrogen/sulfur/carbon/phosphorus cycles as things that can be ROUGHLY understood through Le Chatlier's principle.

At least as a starting point. Obviously outflows are outflows and are not in an equilibrium but they pull from sources that are in equilibrium.

[led05]

Originally Posted by paradoxlost

I guess what I was trying to extrapolate on was that sulfur will push N towards NH4+, while the microbes will push N towards nitrates. Sulfur, at least from my understanding, promotes bacterial activity, and has no effect on soil pH, due to sulfuric acid being a strong acid, and there for not reacting with H+.


Elemental sulfur will decrease soil pH by increasing sulfuric acid formation through bacterial oxidation. Gypsum only adds the sulfate, which as as result of sulfuric acid being a strong acid, is not in a state of equilibrium with sulfuric acid, meaning that it does not interact with hydrogen ions, leaving pH untouched.

https://vric.ucdavis.edu/pdf/Soil/ChangingpHinSoil.pdf

Here is a guide on changing pH from U.C. Davis. Notice it's mention of gypsum not changing soil pH. And considering calcium's flocculation properties, maybe its not the sulfate increasing bacterial activity, but better aeration, but from my understanding sulfates increase the sulfur associated bacterial communities, which is more diversity, which at least I equate to good. I'm sure there are other things involved.





This is what I was indicating, and that bacterial rates release enzymes that will speed things up immensely, and depending on the community, if it favors nitrogen, phosphorus, etc it will limit certain ecological functions, and I look at something like the nitrogen/sulfur/carbon/phosphorus cycles as things that can be ROUGHLY understood through Le Chatlier's principle.

At least as a starting point. Obviously outflows are outflows and are not in an equilibrium but they pull from sources that are in equilibrium.

whoever said Gypsum would change PH? It's very well understood in here it doesn't, kind of part of the point of Gypsum. If S promotes Bacteria it's only because it kills Fungi, overall it reduces micro life, read up - Of course the Calcium in Gypsum helps Micro-Life via aeration, where have you been... ?

I was just pointing out that you essentially said exactly what I did only a few posts earlier. I even mentioned NH4, NO3, P etc, how S effects N cycling, Microbes and so on.... I just did it in a manner to get GC to think about his situation, he knows at least as much as I do overall and exponentially more about his deal than I - I was simply throwing out ideas for him to ponder, explore...

It seems you like to simply take what others are saying and try and "smarten" it up a bit by making it more "scholarly", if you will, but effectively are saying the exact same thing... There's inevitable repetition in this thread but spaced out a bit is nice and just citing your recent textbooks forays without much hands on practical experience or thought is limiting, especially when it's just fancying up exactly what someone just posted a couple before you.

MHO

[paradoxlost]

Originally Posted by led05

whoever said Gypsum would change PH? It's very well understood in here it doesn't, kind of part of the point of Gypsum. If S promotes Bacteria it's only because it kills Fungi, overall it reduces micro life, read up - Of course the Calcium in Gypsum helps Micro-Life via aeration, where have you been... ?

I was just pointing out that you essentially said exactly what I did only a few posts earlier. I even mentioned NH4, NO3, P etc, how S effects N cycling, Microbes and so on.... I just did it in a manner to get GC to think about his situation, he knows at least as much as I do overall and exponentially more about his deal than I - I was simply throwing out ideas for him to ponder, explore...

It seems you like to simply take what others are saying and try and "smarten" it up a bit by making it more "scholarly", if you will, but effectively are saying the exact same thing... There's inevitable repetition in this thread but spaced out a bit is nice and just citing your recent textbooks forays without much hands on practical experience or thought is limiting, especially when it's just fancying up exactly what someone just posted a couple before you.

MHO

In the above posts we were talking about sulfur inputs from sulfate, which is how sulfur is when its in gypsum. You were indicating how the sulfur would make it more acidic and calcium would benefit from calcium. From that I assumed you were talking about gypsum, I guess not.

Also easy quite literally asked how long it would take. i was answering with his question, by agreeing with your comment, as well as furthering it along by saying how le chatliers principle could also be applied to systems in equilibrium.

Not sure how this is smartening things up, but if you feel like I plagerized your post, I assure you, that when I wrote it I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have cited you.

[led05]

Originally Posted by paradoxlost

In the above posts we were talking about sulfur inputs from sulfate, which is how sulfur is when its in gypsum. You were indicating how the sulfur would make it more acidic and calcium would benefit from calcium. From that I assumed you were talking about gypsum, I guess not.

Also easy quite literally asked how long it would take. i was answering with his question, by agreeing with your comment, as well as furthering it along by saying how le chatliers principle could also be applied to systems in equilibrium.

Not sure how this is smartening things up, but if you feel like I plagerized your post, I assure you, that when I wrote it I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have cited you.

all good friend, I just think the points were missed. I like when you add to convo btw, my educational background is not in AG so it's lacking in that regard.

remember, how an input goes in is just that, how it goes in....

Perhaps I'm a bit ornery, the inlaws are over and I got feet of snow on top a bunch of shit I need uncover and it just finally stopped snowing after days !