Does Synthetic Fertilizer Kill Soil Microbes? The answer will surprise you. 

Fair comment mate, but it is time consuming & not always easy to build up a well structured soil for crops, gardens, tree planting, landscaping, etc, without using some form of fertilisers, organic or not to help supplement the effort while building that structure.

Thank you for saving me the time to explain this.

​@@cuznclive2236exactly 👍👌

​@@musictech85it messes with the rhizophagy cycle too.👌👍🙏

Plant are stronger healthier with organic material... less bugs less dieases . Agreed seen it myself. Will not use fake fertiizer

thank you.

Never said anything like that!

Recent scientific studies show that a combination of organic and synthetic soil is best.

@@davidspahr4020 the best compared to what? Look at studies from Dr. Jonson State University of California. 140% growth compare to traditional or traditional ecological.

Thank you. A lot of these comments had me thinking I had just watched some religious video. And, it is not.

While the claim may hold some validity in general contexts, it does not accurately apply to cannabis cultivation and its final product. Organic natural Soil-based farming methods yield a significantly smoother smoke compared to products derived from synthetic processes. The latter, often marketed as safe and effective, fail to match the quality of soil-grown cannabis. This discrepancy likely arises from a combination of factors, including inferior cultivation techniques and inadequate disposal methods for synthetic byproducts.

@@bobbybass3586 Lower water content and higher denser dry matter is most likely why. It isn't the actual fertilizer type that makes the difference it is how it is delivered to the plant that counts. Organic has to go through a process in the soil where the microbes convert the organic fertilizer into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrients. This results in slower growth and a harder plant as the plant doesn't receive nutrient in a surge as it might with soluble inorganic fertilizer. It is why fertilizing with inorganic fertilizer needs to be much more precise with measuring and scales, whereas organic fertilizers and manures can be used heavy handed and a large guesswork margin of error. The smoother smoke is most likely achieved from a denser molecular structure in the the leaf and a higher concentration of the cannabinoids which is the magic ingredient. Slower growth and higher dry matter result in better flavour in fruit and veg too. So it isn't the actual type of fertilizer that makes the difference but more the method and growth characteristics. I favour a thoughtful and knowledgeable mix of organic and inorganic for best results. While organic nitrogen isn't difficult to use with good results, adequate levels of potassium is damn near impossible to achieve organically. Personally I cant stand the smell of cannabis being smoked - lots of students live around me and smoke it in their gardens in the evening, it stinks to high heaven. I like good old cigarettes made with tobacco.

@@JJLom777 purveyors of pseudoscience, birds of a feather.

well then it shouldn’t be recommended for everyday people to grow synthetically if you really think about it. Precise measurements are needed for synthetic in order to not fuck up the plant for smoking. I highly doubt many know how much to add of what so all we will get flowing around is garbage weed. While in organic a lot less goes wrong and the quality is more consistent. You know what I mean? I just care about quality and I do not have faith in the average man to even tie their shoes right. That’s all I am saying heheh but thanks for the nice reply

I use organic to mean any organic fertilizer such as compost, manure, fish heads etc. It is not used in the chemical sense - ie containing carbon.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 But the study you cited does not.

Adding too much is a problem, from both synthetic and organic sources.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 So does organic and synthetic fertilizer have the same or different amounts of salt that can build up?

I tend to use a similar technique. But, that's not to say I've got everything dialed in just right, yet. Always learning.

@@JJLom777 Yeah,I always cut the recommended dosage by 1/3.

"dissolving soil carbon/ organic matter" - no such thing. Fertilizer can't dissolve organic matter. Fertilizer does feed microbes, which grow and become more active, which then in turn digest organic matter.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 which then in turn spirals into all your soil organic matter being dissolved and washed away-IE the Gmo corn fields with low soil organic matter from synthetic nitrogen applications.

That's what they don't understand ​@@jacobrafaat1516

@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Ok, they don't dissolve Soil Carbon, it is consumed by the BACTERIA, and they need a carbon source, which is depleted if not replaced. This why the majority of Ag soils are fucked. Fertiliser doesn't feed the other microbes, such as, Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi. Understand the role of the 4 functional groups, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias

@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Yep, fertiliser doesn't disolve O.M/S.C. BACTERIA burn up/consume those to digest the fertilisers, and this is why Ag soils are fucked. Fertilisers do not feed Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi. Those OTHER microbes Learn soil function and the role of Soil Microbes, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias

Healthier than what? You gave one llant nothinf and anither mineral fertilizer… you proved nothing about synthetic fertilizers 😂 You have no argument to defend

"Since it is hard to control the true application rate of chemical fertilizers" - not true - farmers do this every day.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 Most farmers use precise equipment to apply fertilizers. Typical homeowner usually does not. Farmers also apply fertilizer to acres of land whereas typical homeowners have small plots or containers. I did say hard. I didn't say impossible lol If you buy a bag of granular fertilizer, it is not truly mixed homogenously. Even the factory cannot make it uniform, but close. I tried following precise directions on applying granular fertilizer to start a straw bale garden. Exactly as directed. After a few days I had a severe ammonia smell. Took weeks for it to air out. If I had used a liquid fertilizer, I probably would have had a more homogenous mix and better results. Much better control with liquid fertilizers.

Wrong - Ammonia is already a form of nitrogen - it is ammonical nitrogen. other types are nitrate, nitrite and ureic (urea) Nitrogen doesn't convert into ammonia, ammonia converts into nitrate, which is the form plants can take up. Ammonia first converts to nitrite and then to nitrate by the work of soil bacteria as does urea and in the case of organic nitrogen fertilizer there is an extra step and that is the conversion by soil bacterial into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrient. All solid fertilizers have to become soluble before they are of any use. Organic matter in the soil is ideal at around 8 to 10%. Too much makes soil sour. It isn't about whether organic is better than inorganic, it is about best practice where the combination of the two are correctly applied.

Yes and no. The problem exists whether it's a synthetic or organic fertilizer. Salts are misunderstood.

Salts and acids kill beneficial microbes (in particular myco fungi) and shut down plant natural symbiotic relationship with beneficial microbes. They also lower nutrient density, aroma and the overall fruit/veggies quality. And as you mentioned, big portion of synthetic fertilizer is not utilized by plants because of run off and immobilization. There is already enough of everything in soil, but not enough microbiology to make that plant available. The best thing for plants is correct compost with the right f:b ratio. Remember, plants don't need us, we need plants.

THANKS FOR THIS VIDEO

@@blagoeres Salts can be harmful but are not exclusive to synthetic fertilizers. What are you even talking about with acids? Lots of things can affect the pH of soil. No, there is not always enough of everything in the soil because it depends on location, what the location was used for and nitrogen because it is much more mobile. Just from a completely logical standpoint, if plants are using the nutrients in the soil to produce the harvest you then remove from the growing area, the nutrients available have been reduced. There's not a shortage of microbes. It's just not how it works. Immobilized how? Ahhh I see now. I was responding as I went. Once I got to the last part and saw the comment about the fungal bacterial ratio belief system it makes more sense.

⁠@@blagoerestf you going on about? Yeah, sure , I’ll believe a child VS adults with decades of experience

Ahh, your many years as a landscaper and home gardener… very trustworthy credentials there bud 😂 especially when you say chemical fertilizers… dude, with your background, yoo should know that pretty much everything we touch on this planet is a chemical of some sorr. Your point is moot ❤

@@mcgritty8842 A moot point is a fact that does not apply to the current situation. But how would you know, you are an AI bot.

@@ronfeggio lmfao you don’t even understand what a chemical is… so yeah, your point is moot. AI, nah homie, I’m real as fuck 🤣 Have a good life dude, you clearly need some support ❤️

@@mcgritty8842 Why do you go to such lengths to correct my words? Just substitute chemical with synthetic. Any average intellectual would have understood what I was saying. BTW: I grew up on a farm, worked for the Cornell Cooperative Extension and I've studied organic & inorganic chemistry. I'm sure you're well aware of the high amount of energy it takes to produce ammonia from nitrogen & hydrogen. That's called a chemical process. Get off your phone and get back to school before you end up on the street.

I believe it's the sodium cyanide and formaldehyde that are chelated making it stay in the plant,can you flush it out, don't know

That is an example of one fertilizer that can become toxic under specific conditions. There are other nitrogen fertilizers that can be used in high pH soils, though. You can also lower the pH of the soil (though that can be difficult depending on why the pH is high).

@@pendlera2959 yup you could do all that but 95 percent of people wouldn't even know that.

Our agronomist *recommends* ammonium sulfate for our high pH soils. The nitrifying bacteria in the soil consume the ammonia, converting it to nitrite and nitrate, and the sulfate combines with water to create sulfuric acid. Over long periods of time, I'll be able to modify my alkaline soil down to something more neutral.

"If for instance your soil has a high pH over 7 the ammonium sulfate in fertilizers will be converted into ammonia and yes that will kill your plants and bacteria." - the part about killing plants and bacteria is not true. Lots of farms, including my garden have a pH above 7, and they use urea, and they grow crops. In fact both bacteria and plants can use ammonium as a nitrogen source.

"That has a half life of perhaps 40 years" - more like 5 years, but a valid point.

​@@Gardenfundamentals1 I am describing soil organic matter not organic plant residue. If it were 5 years just think how fast a soil's organic matter would be depleted. The half life is very dependent on temperatures and tillage. Most OM has a carbon to nitrogen ratio of 10:1 Just think about one acre of soil 6" deep weighs 2 million lbs. 60% of OM is carbon. That results in 6,000 lbs of N in 5% OM. A 1000 square ft garden would be 1/40 of these values. Half of that is 3000 lbs in 5 years or about 600 lbs in the first year. Most Midwest soils producing 180 bu corn each year has about 80 lbs of N being Mineralized each year. Sorry I think that way...I got my degree in Soil science. I hope I have not left you!

?????

" anaerobic" conditions will eventually decompose organic matter, but the microbes that do the best job, are aerobic. They also smell a lot less.

IF you want that Black soil look you need worms. Just add them to fresh manure and wait.

I agree. The video has a specific purpose - it is not trying to say synthetic is better. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l5JwTkleeDE.html

When a farmer adds synthetic fertilizers he adds carbon in the crop roots and residue from the crop. If he grows a cover crop it is generally 60 to one C:N. He will need to add N to make 10:1 soil organic matter. Synthetic N then helps microbes grow. The carbon comes from the air as CO2.

That is correct but unfortunately the ratios are way off meaning there is way mor N being applied that carbon going in soil and therefore the soil will collapse. Cover crops can help in a big way. Hybrid GMO corn today will synthesize a lot of CO2 however very little goes for root exudates and most to above ground plant tissues which end up as surface residue which most will oxidize back to atmosphere.

He has a video on this subject, check it out.

I use a combo of organic soils and supplement them occasionally with synthetic fertilizers.

Ditto for me. I grew a cover crop of alfalfa in my raised beds and covered the beds with tarps to deprive the soil of light. The soil loves it. next year I put some vegetable scraps in there in addition. My dad used to do that.

This is very much an 'it's complicated' topic. Soil microbes are a really broad group that covers fungi, bacteria, and so on. Some form symbiotic relationships, e.g., rhizobia and legumes. The bacteria converts nitrogen from the air into ammonia for the plant to use. Mycorrhizae also form symbiotic relationships with plant roots. They can transport water and nutrients and do a bunch of other things. There's also all the bacteria that are involved in the nitrification process. As well as the ones involved in breaking down organic matter. What's my point? Well excess nitrogen can cause legumes to not form the relationship with bacteria since they have enough nitrogen in the soil. Similar situation with the mycorrhizal relationship but often when talking about phosphorus. If you're dumping a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil and no organic matter then the decomposer population quickly shrinks. Depending on the type of nitrogen you add, the bacteria responsible for converting it to different forms will multiply. So it is bad? Not necessarily. Bacteria multiply really really fast and will quickly repopulate an area when it's favorable. Also, since at the end of the day nutrients are nutrients you can overdo it with organic or synthetic. Even legumes in specific scenarios grown just for nitrogen and organic matter can lead to excess nitrogen leaching into the water table, waterways and so on.

@@shawnsg so this is the main reason why you'd better not fertilize until you'll get a soil test done

@@Carlo_B This channel has a video about why soil tests aren't that useful for most gardeners.

Even if it does starve the microbes that doesn't mean it's toxic to the microbes.

@@pendlera2959 I know the reason why. Soil testing it's useful for industrial farming only.

You got it.

They grow in my lawn in Texas

Presumably, the fields that are fertilized are trying to avoid growing mushrooms, so there are probably other factors at play.

I bet you are wrong. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungi - consider them flowers. The fungi actually lives underground and is impossible to see with your eye, unless lots of them clump together. So you can't look at soil and say they are not there. www.gardenmyths.com/microbe-science-for-gardeners/

Yes and if they are retained in organic matter and in the food web they will be there next year and thereafter if replenished. Contrast this to the chemical fertilizers that will have leached away so that you have to completely start over with a full dose of inorganic salts again most of which are leached away before being useful. That’s how the dead zones have been formed in the river deltas and many of our deep groundwater supplies are now becoming toxic. With inorganic salts it’s pour on more on moron.

1) Soil rarely needs the micronutrients. 2) Higher NPK values just means you have to add less weight of material to apply the same amount of fertilizer. "i figure increasing the strength decreases the weight and it means i can spread much wider, and not carry heavy bags of 3:3:3 say" - that is correct. However it is also easier to over fertilize.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 thank you kindly. yes, i thought too, easy to over do it. but certainly it's easier to distribute. i can do an acre in with 2 or 3 kg. I will watch for burns. as for micronutrients, ok. thx. i am using land thats been farmed for rice for years. sandy little clay. i worry everything gets washed down when it rains. .

" it is the act of stimulating plants with chemicals that makes them vulnerable to pests and diseases" - but that is not true. Consider this - those same chemicals can be applied using fish emulsion, or sea weed - They both have the same effect because both sources produce the same ions.

they don;t produce the ions at the same rate, and they surely modify the soil biome... and I suspect this biome modification is tied to certain pest problems..... I feel like I am arguing with a guy who doesn't understand how gm crops influence the gut biome, and how the gut biome influences hormones and neurotransmitters (thus human development and disease resistance), yet fights and fights that they are safe.@@Gardenfundamentals1

@@Gardenfundamentals1 it is true, becasue the "shift" in population in the microbes REMOVES symbiotic microorganisms. The plants become more often sick. But it is a very complex topic. Just digging the soil around makes your plants more vulnerable as you destroy the fungal community. BTW the shift in PH is NOT becasue you are adding chemicals. The biology moves the ph as some species die out and become replaced by others as you kill them by telling your plants they don't need to feed the microbes with sugars. If you have missing some important kinds of microbes, you also loose the predators of them. These predators are often a part of the immune system of the plant. An example for these relations if the honey fungus desease in wine. If your plants don't have a symbiotic relationship with trichoderma, they are very vulnerable. Trichoderma eats the honey fungus (and a LOT of other deseases). Trichoderma comes with compost .... not with this synthetic crap.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 plants fertilized with high doses of nitrogen are known to be more susceptible to aphid predation.

Yes. A salt is just an ionic compound made up of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions. Adding plant nutrients to any substrate will increase the salt content. That's because all plants roots can only absorb ions. Where you talking about chlorine salts? In that case, no, not unless the fertilizer contains a chloride.

Yes - but not in the way you are thinking about salt. Salt is a chemical term for any ionic compound, which includes all synthetic fertilizer except urea, and all the nutrients released by organic materials. www.gardenmyths.com/what-is-salt/

For what it's worth, microbes don't shut down in the winter, they mostly just slow down. Nitrate and urea based fertilizers should be avoided during the winter though. That said, the fertilizer just sits there, hopefully, until the spring.

We talk about plant "food" needs by talking about the elements like npk. They aren't delivered in pure elemental form. Plants take up ammonium or nitrates for their N needs. In this case ammonia which is nitrogen and hydrogens picks up another hydrogen in the soil which makes ammonium. It's the same end product regardless of how it got there.

Well it couldn't be great for earthworms and the like, it's Alkaline and cold.

@@shawnsg it must be frustrating for you or maybe you're much more patient than me. Without basic chemistry knowledge I don't see how the general pop would ever understand something like soil sci. They are so easily swayed by misinformation w/o having this basic knowledge. Channels like this are helpful in a small way of course

@@user-zn6oo4on4k Ammonia generally makes soils more acidic, not alkaline. And what do you mean by it's cold?

No. It is actually a food source for them.

"Do you think synthetic fertiliser fields and gardens become depend on repeated applications" Yes, of course. When we harvest crops, we're removing nutrients from that location and transporting them elsewhere. In nature, plants are surrounded by decaying things, including other dead plants, and they get their nutrients from that process. Under cultivation, we generally remove most of those sources and thus have to continually replace them with some kind of additional nutrients, whether synthetic or organic. Even in nature, if things didn't die or poop, plants would starve. "whereas natural soil systems create biochemical pathways to naturally liberate mineral elements from rocks and sand?" There are 2 kinds of nutrients that plants need: micronutrients and macronutrients. Macronutrients are needed in large quantities and get used up quickly. Micronutrients are needed in small quantities and take a long time to get used up. Most minerals in rocks and sand are micronutrients and aren't going to be affected by the application of synthetic macronutrients. "analogous to antibiotics versus natural immunity" I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Antibiotics are chemicals that kill or hinder the growth of bacteria. Some are naturally occuring, such as penicillin. They don't affect your natural immunity because your body still has to fight off an infection even if you take antibiotics. Your body will still be able to recognize and fight off bacteria in the future even if it had help from antibiotics during the first infection. Antibiotics can cause a problem when they wipe out beneficial bacteria, but that's not how fertilizers work in a garden.

@@pendlera2959 Thank you for the detailed reply. Interesting points. What I am asking though is are organic soil ecosystems self sustaining - can they liberate minerals (including macro NPK) fast enough for plants? They certainly do natural ecosystems but also could do so for agriculture. NPK comes from rocks too and organic material. The antibiotic questions was a comparison, of interest the immune system has much less work to do if antibiotics are started early. [it is known that strep throats and tonsillitis recur more frequently if antibiotics are started in the first 2 days, delayed antibiotics exposes it to the immune system which then creates memory B cells] So in summary I am asking if synthetic fertilisers damage the natural mineral liberation abilities of the soil ecosystem? That is suggested by soil scientists such as Elaine Ingham and Christine Jones.

Continual use of synthetic does change the microbe population in a field. We really know very little about these populations. We have only identified 20% of the species in soil. If a field is left fallow, with no more fertilizer added, it does return to its former self in a few years.

I have been indoctrinated into the organic gardening culture and have spent countless hrs amending my soil. It works great most of the time , but certain things don't always thrive as expected. Would be nice to give them some quick love with synthetic.

​@@bobwilliams4528I think maybe there's just some misunderstanding of words here. Salts is just a chemistry term. It's not inherently bad or good. Synthetic has a negative connotation that doesn't reflect its actual meaning. Heavy metals are in lots of things including organic and synthetic fertilizers. Byproducts is just another loaded term.

of course there are, when you do not fertilize properly. Many farmers still believe that the more you fertilize, the more you will harvest. Heavy metals and other dangerous products can be left even with an incorrect organic fertilization. Plants are not animals, they eat and live in a complete different way. When you spread a fertilizer you are not feeding the plant, you are feeding the soil. Once the fertilizer is converted by microbes and other micro organisms into a form that the plant can absorb, it will be absorbed, but only in the right amount the plant needs. An example: if a tree needs 1 kg of potassium, and you spread in the soil 3 kg of potassium, the pland will absorb only 1 kg. The other 2 kg will remain in the top layer of the soil for many years. if the 1kg of potassium needed was already present, the whole 3 kg will remain in the soil. If you don't know what and how much minerals in the soil are missing, how can you know how much and what type of fertilizer you need? Do not fertilize until you'll get a soil test done.

There are heavy metals and other contaminants in organic fertilizers, too. Especially anything fish-based.

Well actually they are

Organic nutrition is ionic nutrition. Even the rhizophagy bacteria produce nitrates, or ammonium - same ions as from fertilizer.

possibly, and a poor soil biome assures crop disease and pest issues, I can tell you this for sure...... just like the human gut biome

"Metallic salts from syn fertilizer tend to build up over time" - they can, but so can the same metallic salts from an organic source.

@@Gardenfundamentals1 in my experience, quick growth tends to be sappy which in turn attracts more pests and diseases... good healthy soil will buffer out imbalances in PH and nutrient absorption as well as holding more water than Salt wicks.

Tôi từng hỏi nhiều người luôn miệng khoe khoang họ làm “nông nghiệp không hoá chất” rằng “H2O có phải hoá chất không”, họ trả lời là “H2O không phải hoá chất”, tôi hỏi tiếp nếu bạn nói làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất, vậy nước mà các bạn đang sử dụng rõ ràng không phải H2O, vậy thứ nước đó có cấu tạo và tính chất thế nào. Họ im bặt, và một vài ngày sau tôi lại thấy họ khoe khoang ở một nơi khác rằng họ “làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất” 😂. Rõ ràng họ không thể biết một thứ có là hoá chất hay không, thì dù họ có làm ra nông sản chất lượng tuyệt vời đi nữa, họ cũng chỉ là đang lừa dối người tiêu dùng và chính họ mà thôi. Tôi có thể thông cảm với những người này vì họ sợ những nông sản bị lạm dụng quá nhiều phân bón tổng hợp, thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, nhưng một điều đáng trách ở những người này đó là họ thêu dệt nhiều thứ phản khoa học và tuyên truyền khắp nơi. Phân bón tổng hợp-một thứ vô tri vô giác, có lẽ là một nạn nhân của những người có tri giác đó 😊.

@@alattapnhamky3774?

"if you fertilize a fruit tree with a synthetic fertilizer, you will eat that fertilizer when you will eat the fruit" - that statement is true. We do eat the chemicals in that fertilizer. The point people do not understand is that the "chemicals" in that fertilizer are essential food for us. Without them we die!

@@Gardenfundamentals1 of course you will eat the chemicals, and not the fertilizer. However, people believe that chemicals = deadly poison

Setting aside that the bulk of research doesn't support the overall conclusion you or these people are making, there is just a completely fundamental aspect I can't ever get around when hearing this stuff. If these practices worked so well, they would be taken up naturally by everyone since they would increase profit. Lower pest pressure would mean fewer pesticides and less labor which means lower cost. Increased yields would increase revenue. Yet no one but the people in these belief systems noticed this? That John person sounds like one of many 'eco' grifters. They misconstrue actual scientific research to convince people of things the data doesn't actually say. Without looking I'm willing to bet he's selling books, classes, coaching or something.

@@shawnsg You're actually incorrect about this. There are many farmers switching over to these practices because of higher yields and lower costs. You can easily find more information on this if you like.

Synthetic fertilizers stimulate plant growth and microbes in the soil, if used in modesty.

@@mikebendzela608 That is exactly what he was, a scientist employed by the British government

Johnson-su takes time, effort, and investment... something many big farmers are reluctant to engage with when they can buy a load of fertilizer and assure some level of profit...ok... btw, fertilizer use is associated with increased pest pressure and use of protecting chemicals.... you know that, right?..... this is a risk big guys take trying to strike a balance between effective levels and overuse, but they have a strategy for that too they get a little aggressive feeding, at a price. @@shawnsg