Compost vs residue

Wilson, Dale (WILSONDO@phibred.com)
Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:11:15 -0500

I was reading Alfred and Kathyrn's exchange about the history of compost,
and it occurred to me that the issue of in-situ decomposition versus
composting, really hinges on the purpose of the organic matter addition. If
one is using exogenous organic matter as the main source of plant nutrients,
then you almost have to use compost, because of the lower carbon:nitrogen
ratio. Even if raw residue CONTAINS enough nitrogen, it won't be available
in time (except maybe from a bunch of rich alfalfa crowns).

If other, more available sources of nitrogen (and to some extent other
nutrients) are used, then the value of organic matter (from a fertility
perspective) lies in its use as a nutrient BUFFER. Raw residue snaps up
excess nutrients and releases them later. All the attendent microbial
activity, and physical bulk of raw residue aids in the physical management
of soil. This, in a nutshell, is why conventional, fertilizer-intensive
agriculture values addition of raw residue more than compost.

Dale

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".