The effects of nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizers on crop yields are well - researched, of course.
Not exact matches
Farmers are earning huge profits
on their wheat, soybeans, cotton and other
crops; strong demand for (and relatively tight supplies of) grain, oilseeds and other key food inputs encouraged them to use large volumes of
fertilizer (notably potash, phosphate and nitrogen) to boost their
crop yields.
Just a tad less
fertilizer on Midwestern farms could lead to big drops in nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi River without sacrificing
crop yields, a new study shows.
The rapidly accumulating evidence of soil depletion over wide agricultural areas, the reduction in
crop yields on improperly fertilized or unfertilized areas and
on others, the reduction of fertility levels to the point where
fertilizer applications represent the minimum subsistence diet, combined with an aroused public consciousness of the importance of soil fertility conservation and restoration, will inevitably lead to a demand that the chemical industry provide here the same high order of service which it offers elsewhere in meeting man's aspirations for more abundance and greater efficiency.
Most American's worked
on farms in 1900, there were no petrochemical based
fertilizers or pesticides, which only create mountains of soil run - off and mutated insects, to produce the same amount of
crop yield.
Depending
on nitrogen carryover from previous management, additional
fertilizer may be required beyond that provided through cover
crop mineralization to maximize corn
yield.
Most TreeHugger readers probably a good handle
on the concept that large monocropped fields have lesser biodiversity than more mixed cultivation, and that industrial agriculture uses excessive amounts of
fertilizer to push
crop yields to their maximum, even at the expense of decreasing soil fertility.