16 Jun Mythbusting: challenging persistent myths in agriculture
Challenging the way farmers go about running their farming enterprises can be like putting your head on the chopping block. However, some stories, I call them agricultural myths, need to be challenged when new evidence comes to light.
Some of these myths persist, despite clear evidence that they’re hindering sustainability and profitability for farmers. And for what it’s worth, here are my two cents worth on why Australian farmers should consider a rethink.
Three popular myths in agriculture are:
- Liquid fertiliser is the same as solid fertiliser
- Conventional fertiliser inputs are BAD – Organic inputs are GOOD
- Biologicals can’t be used together with other sprays and chemical inputs
Liquid fertiliser is the same as solid fertiliser
While granular solid fertiliser continues to be widely used in many agricultural applications, more liquid fertilisers are being sold. These are often touted as a better alternative to solid fertiliser. The benefits of liquid fertilisers are said to include:
- Improved absorption – Nutrients tend to be more evenly distributed, allowing them to be more readily absorbed by plants.
- Better consistency in coverage and nutrient distribution – There’s reduced leaching away of nutrients with liquid fertiliser. It’s less likely to blow away in the wind, be washed away in a downpour, or be displaced by livestock. This means less wastage of fertiliser, which has cost and environmental benefits.
- Biologically better – they tend to be marketed as softer on the environment, including biologicals or biological sources as a “sweetener”
We compared a liquid worm fertiliser program against a conventional fertiliser application (potassium phosphate/potassium sulphate/microbial inoculant) on a cropping farm.
The results were surprising.
When a comprehensive nutrient program analysis was completed, the solid, biological-enhanced program replaced the minerals lost or used and maintained soil productivity.
By comparison, the alternative liquid program didn’t deliver the nutrient replacement or maintain mineral integrity. If there were enough soil minerals, it could have yielded reasonably well, but as a long-term alternative, this isn’t sustainable, and eventually, yields and soil conditions would break down.
Does this mean you should stop using solid fertiliser?
I believe there is a happy medium between using solid and liquid fertiliser applications in combination.
A good example of this would be a program with a solid application as a starter fertiliser. This could be either conventional or organic-based. It would have a high nutrient content to help boost good crop yields and maintain a positive mineral status of the soil. To optimise growth, you’d then apply a liquid foliar as a top-up and stimulant in the growing stages.
For example, topping up nitrogen-based applications with biologicals blended at the 4 ½ and 8 ½ week stages of maize production significantly enhances complete nutrient profiles. It also enables the crop to achieve optimal yields when soil moisture is adequate.
Conventional fertiliser vs Organic fertiliser: the pros and cons
In some quarters, the conventional ‘bad’ versus organic ‘good’ continues. But as with most arguments, there are two sides to this story.
Over the last century, farmers have used conventional fertiliser programs to increase agricultural yields worldwide, with remarkable results.
Conventional fertilisers are based on a combination of chemicals and nutrients. Generally, synthetic fertilisers work quickly to release nutrients into the soil and are taken up by plants to promote growth.
Organic fertilisers are sourced from ‘natural’ sources such as manure and composted materials. Depending on their composition, the process of nutrient uptake by plants may take longer as the nutrients need to be broken down. Unless you have an organic-only farm, appropriately using any type of fertiliser is the right approach.
The key is matching the nutrient demand of the crop volume you’re aiming for with the nutrients you’re applying to the paddock. Even if you do this, whether it is under- or over-applying, there will always be a financial cost due to poor yields or wasted dollars through the loss of nutrients.
Which leads me onto the next myth…
Biologicals can’t be used with other sprays and chemical inputs
Let’s face it. To maintain the high yields needed to feed the world, farmers still need to rely on chemical inputs. These include pesticides, herbicides and conventional chemical fertilisers.
But through our research, we’re seeing that biologicals can boost the efficacy of all nutrient inputs, including conventional fertilisers. Our first year of independently monitored trial work, commissioned in WA, shows these improvements. And it makes economic sense, as it means farmers are maximising the use of each input. It also makes sense from an environmental perspective.
Nurturing the soil with biological fertilisers, soil stimulants, and animal probiotics boosts nutrient uptake. It also helps increase yields and enhance the long-term viability of the soil. They contain live microorganisms, primarily bacteria and fungi, to promote sustainable growth.
Using both conventional and biological inputs means you’re taking a whole-system approach to improving soil and plant growth. And in my experience, that’s what works best.
To make the most of your farming enterprise, it’s worth reviewing some of the persistent myths in agriculture.
What are your thoughts? Get in touch to discuss any of these issues.