Top 10 fertiliser myths

1. Is it true that phosphorous (P) from fertiliser, and especially from soluble fertilisers, gets locked up in the soil and is no longer available for plant growth? This is the biggest myth in soil science (see Fertiliser Review 1, 2, 3 and 10).
2. Chemical fertiliser, and especially superphosphate and urea, are acidic and destroy soils, killing earthworms and other soil life including bacteria and fungi, making the soil sterile? Is this true? Answer No (see Fertiliser Review 5, 6, 13, 14 and 20)
3. Are organic fertilisers better for the soils and the environment than conventional chemical fertilisers? The science says no (see Fertiliser Review No 4, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19).
4. Is it true that conventional practices, including the use of chemical fertiliser, are decreasing soil, water and food quality? Once again the science does not support this idea (Visit "Environmental Issues' at this site and see Fertiliser Review 4, 13, 14, 18, 20)
5. To save our soils and water from degradation and improve food quality we should adopt organic practices? If only it were so easy! (Visit "Environmental Issues' at this site and see Fertiliser Review 4, 9,10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20).
6. Calcium (Ca) is a vital nutrient and our New Zealand soils are deficient in Ca? Not so (see Fertiliser Review 2, 7, 11, 15 and Fertiliser Review Special Edition: Lime and Soil Acidity)
7. Liquid fertilisers are more efficient and less harmful to the environment than solid fertilisers? Is this the case? No (see Fertiliser Review No 3, 4, 9, 19)
8. Soil scientists are only interested in NPK? Plants need 16 nutrient to grow and in addition 2 other trace elements are often added to fertilisers for animal health purposes (see The Fertiliser Review 7, 16)
9. Soil scientists are only interested in the chemical quality of soil (i.e soil nutrients) What about soil biology and soil physical quality? (see Fertiliser Review No 7, 13,14)
10. Soil testing based on Base Saturation Ratios is better than the conventional soil tests? No so (see Fertiliser Review 4, 11, 17)