A majority of phosphorous from RU is broken down into AMPA, then to formylphosphonate, then to phosphate (the natural state of phosphorus we mine/use) as it continues to break down. For most soils you're looking at 40-60 days for breakdown into it's final substances and the time it takes for those substances to be fully utilized by microbes depend on a few things. Applications less than 90-120 days apart, cold soil/air temperature, high water tables (breakdown is considerably slower by 2-4x in water saturated soil), and a few other things can make the breakdown phosphorus last even longer. RU loves to hang around the soil and doesn't tend to leach too much. It heavily relies on microbes to break down everything direct surface exposure doesn't break down. Over time RU can create increased concentrations of phosphorus (for instance) in localized zones if plants/microbes aren't using it and other phosphorus inputs aren't managed. While RU adds phosphate to soils, it's impact can be managed as part of a fertilizing regimen and many farmers do pay attention to it (well, most large commercial ones) if they're using a lot of it continuously. There's a lot of "phosphate salt" fertilizers/herbicides/etc out there and if you're dumping a lot of it on your land at some point you gotta pay attention. Soil microbes tend to ebb/flow depending on what's going on in the soil. For the most part you see a bit of give/take fighting for resources on the microbe population end rather than a back/forth of extremes lasting a long period of time. This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Jul 4, 14 at 0:11

Some one asked why normal people (without whupping out their documents); B) Don't remember the terms of their insurance policies, My first homeowner's policy, I read cover to cover. There were several instances where the language was so muddy that I couldn't understand it at all. (And I've edited securities law treatises, so I'm used to muddy language). So I took it to the insurance agent. When I pointed out how it didn't make sense, he agreed it didn't. But he couldn't explain it to me either. C) Don't know the instruments invested in their 401(k)s, I've tried and tried to find out what was in some of the funds in my 401k (the 'life cycle funds'). Even when I thought I'd gotten it (the 401k representative visited the office and gave me some ticker symbols to use on Yahoo Finance) it turned out I was given the wrong info. Plus, I once called trying to find out what the fees are. They said 'there are no fees.' Bull. Of course there are fees. There are always bloody fees. They're just so thoroughly hidden that you'll never, ever find them in any document. At least in that 401k plan. D) Don't know their own marginal tax brackets, Given that this isn't on one's pay stub, and given that when you file your taxes, there are so many things to add and subtract, I'd be surprised to learn that anyone knows their tax bracket. The tax code is so complicated that no one understands it, not even the IRS. F) Don't know whether their employee-benefit life insurance is cash value or term, Again, if I ever got any documents on this, I'd pass out in a dead faint. H) Don't know the costs of insurance subtracted (openly or opaquely) from their paycheck, Due to the recent sale of my company, our paychecks have been royally screwed up for the last month. I actually had to create a spreadsheet to figure out how they'd messed up. Again, since there's no disclosure of what percentage each item is, and they routinely combine things like medicare and SS, and--just for fun--they disclose insurance costs on a monthly basis, but pay biweekly, it's really, really difficult to determine what's correct. As far as 'everyone should always know what they're signing,' I've been to 2 doctors' offices now where there's a electronic signature pad (like the ones at the checkout counter at the grocery) and they tell you to sign it. "This is for the HIPAA disclosure,' and 'this is for the insurance.' You have absolutely no way of knowing if you're signing what they say you're signing, or if there's anything 'unusual' in there. I have no idea how this is legal, but there it is. There;s no use saying 'see another doctor' because there's only so many that the insurance will allow you to see (and I won't even get into figuring out health insurance rules). Bottom line: things are routinely hidden from people--consumers--to prevent them knowing exactly how they're spending their money or what they're signing their names to. They're hidden by using tiny text, complicated language, abstruse math, impenetrable phone trees, and rules that can be changed on a whim (but only by the business). Most business dealings people engage in nowadays are skating on the edge of adhesion contracts. The laws that exist for disclosure are routinely sidestepped thru the use of the aforementioned tactics. What good is disclosure if the part about the fees you'll have to pay are hidden in a footnote on page 57 in 6-pt type? And don't talk about 'competition.' What help is that when all the companies in an industry do things the same way? (Anyone sign up for cell phone service without an early termination penalty--even if their service stinks? Didn't think so.) I hope some day Americans learn to push back and demand that the businesses they deal with actually serve them, fairly, disclosing all terms and conditions upfront and in simple language.

I did read the article. As you noted, the $250,000 wasn't just for home maintenance. It also included a scholarship fund for the three children. If you estimate $15,000 per year(which is a bit over the 2006 average in-state tuition + fees + room + board) and assume 4 years of college per child, that comes to $180,000 for all three children. That leaves $70,000 for home maintenance. Admittedly, $70,000 is still quite a bit of money and this is based on guessed numbers... but still. My point is just that the gift of an "extreme" house can open the door to comfort, but it can also open the door to risky decisions that might not have otherwise been options. That's why I can feel sorry for them. I would feel horrible in their shoes. How awful to feel like you had everything set, to think you were being smart and starting a business, and then to have everything come publicly crashing down around you. It would have been kinder to give them a smaller house or better financial training than, "seek your own advisor."

Actually, I don't think Greenspan is the villain in this. I repeat - the Fed has very little control over the securitization of bundled mortgage loans. They are repackaged into equity deals and are collateralized by the RE. Yes, in some areas of the US that RE has fallen in value. But in most areas of the US it has not dropped drastically, and even a 25% decline eventually works itself out through the system. The US simply has too large and global an economy for it to be more than a big burp in the overall history. I do fault Greenspan for keeping rates low too long, but hindsight is always so much better than foresight. Why should he be any different than us folks at the forum - where are all those posters here who declared one could never lose money in RE? And the hysteria over banks is amusing. There is NO CASH CRUNCH. Banks are flush with money, as are most companies. There is a liquidity crunch, which is a thing entirely different. Wells Fargo had very little exposure to subprime loans; they securitize and sell most of their loans to other servicers. WaMu recently added to their loan loss reserve but their core business, checking and savings, is booming like gangbusters and they will have no trouble opening all the new branches they plan to start in 2007-2008. Actually, if I were investing in individual stocks, which I don't, I'd buy Goldman Sachs in a heartbeat. The liquidity messiness has really depressed its stock price and they are the premier deal-broker in the world. Now, when they start jumping out of their windows, then I'll worry! As for RE agents fleeing the field, most of those were part-time and newcomers anyway. It's always been a boom-and-bust business, and probably always will be. We saw the same thing happen in the 1990's. People have such short memories! The vast majority of Americans have pretty much the same amount in their checking and savings accounts as they had two months ago. The vast majority of American, Asian and European corporations can say the same. The only thing changed are people's perceptions, as fed by the media.