Return to the Vegetable Gardening Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
Posted by elisa_Z5 none (My Page) on Fri, Feb 3, 12 at 22:11
| No, I'm not bringing the peeing in the garden discussion over to this forum :)
I had always thought that the nitrogen in snow, rain, and thunderstorms was a good thing. But I've been doing some reading about how there is more nitrogen in places with more pollution and combustion, and how it's increasing at a pretty fast rate. I can't really understand if it's purely a good thing, or if it is something that we don't want more of. (not that we can do anything about it, other than move our gardens to Samoa.)
Can anyone explain this simply to me? Thanks! |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| The difference between air and soil nitrogen (and the types available) are at play. In the air, excess N "evaporated" from ground sources in the form of nitrous acid can bind to pollutants in the air bringing it all back down to the ground. In polluted areas this also brings metals and generally a lot of sulfur with it, too. Good for the air, but not so great for the soil because the pollutants brought down generally have a greater impact than the returned N. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| I read that through the 50', 60's and 70's many regions of north america needed no S inputs to soils for crop production a while now they do. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| Yeah, we started cleaning up our air in the early 1970s. The way some people talk about it you'd think it was a 200 year old experiment in failure. Take a look at the Los Angeles skyline in early/mid 1980s movies. That's scarey air. For anyone that's been in LA in the past many years and can still see how polluted it is, it's scary it used to be worse 25 years ago. Here in NC there's little S addition to soils because of the amount of rainfall we get bringing atmospheric S that's supplied by the sheer amount of chicken growing operations in the state. Our air quality, even in the bigger cities, is mostly good except on high ozone days, though. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| The problem exists, and is worsening, in China and India, and in some other developing countries where economic growth has far outpaced air-quality regulations, just as happened here in the 50's and 60's. It's a shame they haven't learned from our mistakes, and surely some of that pollution will find it's way, if only minutely, into our environment. A quick Google of China air quality will convince you not to visit Beijing, where air particulates are 4 times what they are in L.A. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| That there is N in snow is an old wives tale, if in doubt, go get some and have a lab analyze it, bet they won't find squat. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
They did. According to the National Atmospheric Deposition Program: "Atmospheric nitrogen compounds cycle to the land and water through atmospheric deposition. Wet deposition, predominantly rain and snow, carries nitrate and ammonium." |
Here is a link that might be useful: s'no joke
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| There seems to be no question that rain, snow, and electrical storms deposit N into the soil (some estimates I found: snowstorm 2 - 12 lbs per acre, a 24 hour drizzel, 4 lbs/acre. Then there is research that tells it in kilograms per hectare . . .) My specific question at this point is this: they're calling it "inorganic Nitrogen" and it has increased because of man made combustion. I had always heard that the reason that chemical fertilizer kills the microorganisms in the soil is not because of the type of P or K in the fertilizer, but the type of N in chemical fertilizer, which acts like a salt and kills the little critters the way a salt shaker kills slugs. So, we organic gardeners use what we think of as "organic" N, in blood meal, manure, etc. Does "inorganic N" coming from the sky mean it is NON organic, as in it's the same N as in Chemical fertilizers? Or does the designation "inorganic" mean something else? Or am I just bored because it feels like spring but I can't plant yet??? :) |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| I believe it's the salt "index", typically much higher for N ferts than for P and K, apparently. I am not a chemist so I don't know why that is. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| elisa, I guess you'll have to resort to peeing after all. ;) |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| bi11me: thanks for the link. I stand corrected. What I meant to say in the previous post was significant amounts, that is obviously incorrect. Learned something new today! |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| The link doesn't adequately address what is at issue here, which is the availability of that nitrogen to crops. Nor does it go into the bigger concern about what else is precipitating with it - we've addressed some air quality issues with legislation, but still have a long way to go. Bringing in some ties with other threads, there's also the question of soil type, and whether leaching, or the activity of soil-related cations, has any effect on the retention of that N. Plenty to discuss, but until some of the resident soil scientists and chemists show up, we're mostly slaves to Google. I think I'll pour another glass of red while we're waiting... |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| "Salt" and "organic" are two terms often misunderstood in these forums because they have two meanings, one in gardening or culinary usage and the other in chemistry. In cooking, salt (aka table salt) is sodium chloride. In chemistry, salts are compounds which result from the reaction of an acid and a base. Sodium chloride is just one such compound. Potassium nitrate is an example of "a salt", while sodium chloride is "salt". In horticulture, organic refers to plants raised according to certain agreed upon practices. In chemistry, an organic compound is one whose molecular structure is based on certain arrangements of carbon atoms. Some inorganic compounds (e.g. calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide) contain carbon but all organic compounds have carbon atoms. Jim |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| Gargwarb is one resident scientist. |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
| The plant available flavors of nitrogen that come from precipitation are nitrate and nitrogen. I don't have any numbers off the top of my head so I clicked on bi1 1me's link and the 1.2 mg/l of nitrate in the Eastern U.S. looks like a good number to use, since that's the highest of the group offered for nitrate. To convert mg/l to a percent by weight, just divide by 10000. (0.00012% nitrate by weight) Then I looked up average precipitation in New York and it's in the neighborhood of 50 inches a year. 50 inches of water stacked up over 1 square foot would weight 260.42 lbs. That means you would be getting about .00031 lbs. of nitrogen per sq. ft. over the coarse of an entire year. To put it into more common terms, about 0.31 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft., or 13.5 lbs per acre. Everything being middle of the road, that's probably about a tenth or so of the annual nitrogen requirement. But remember, that's at the high end of the nitrate in rain graph. I didn't look up anything for ammonium but my guess is that it's probably not a whole heck of a lot. In regards to environmental and human health concerns, I'm not your guy. Maybe Toxcrusader can chime in there. |
Bah
| | |
| Dang it, "The plant available flavors of nitrogen that come from precipitation are nitrate and ammonium." (grumble grumble proofread grumble....) |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
- Posted by glib 5.5 (My Page) on
Mon, Feb 6, 12 at 11:19
| I also got confused by the milligram per liter conversion. Should it not be one millionth? (0.000001) |
RE: Poor man's nitrogen -- good or bad?
| | |
Saying 1.2 mg/l (mg/l being the same unit as ppm) is the same as saying 1.2 parts out of 1,000,000 parts Another way to say it is the fraction: 1.2 / 1,000,000 Or another way to express the fraction is to say 1.2 divided by 1,000,000 That equals 0.0000012 Then multiply the decimal by 100 to convert to a percent which equals 0.00012% You can avoid all the decimal shuffling by going straight to ppm/10,000. It's just a conversion factor that allows you to skip a few steps, which makes it one of those handy numbers to keep in your "tool box". |
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Vegetable Gardening Forum
|
|
|