In Australia, commercial asparagus farms cut back vegetative growth and mulch it into the soil at the end of the growing season in order to return the nutrients in these plant parts to the soil. My question is whether this is better or more metabolically efficient for the crop than allowing natural translocation of nutrients to occur. Essentially the question might be: is uptake of nutrients from the roots more metabolically cost-effective than translocation from vegetative parts?
My current thoughts on this:
Hello,
to cut back vegetative growth and mulch it into the soil at the end of the growing season in order to return the nutrients in these plant parts to the soil
is in my experience
quick decaying is protecting from diseases
releases the nutrients best for the next vegetation
performing growth.
I fully agree also: it is the effective way in view of nutrients conservation and toward protection again diseases
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Soil Science
- Soil