Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Marijuana Growing > Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science > Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation

Thread Title Search
Thread Closed
Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-19-2018, 08:42 PM #3961
growingcrazy
Member

growingcrazy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigans sunset coast
Posts: 829
growingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of light
When I run into a question like this on the farm, I always try to think backwards. How would a farmer pre-testing get an estimate of TCEC on the farm?

Paradox, Can you give us the info as to why CEC is correctly stated on test results?
growingcrazy is offline


Old 02-20-2018, 12:57 AM #3962
led05
Member

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upstate - Northeast
Posts: 571
led05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by reppin2c View Post
Didn't we talk about peat having a crazy high CEC but the test wasn't showing it?
the test is flawed or limited, like all tests.... Even if a test were "perfect" the process or individuals administering it along the way aren't
__________________
Pleasure for One hour; a bottle of wine.
Pleasure for one year, a marriage; but pleasure for a lifetime, a Garden - Chinese Proverb
led05 is offline


Old 02-20-2018, 03:13 AM #3963
paradoxlost
Member

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 301
paradoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by jidoka View Post
So what am I missing? If 40% of your mix is organic material how can your cec for the total not be around 400 plus whatever other contribution?

This is something I have not understood since I started this.

Because I don't think anyone's mix is 40% organic matter. Most of the organic matter inputs are derived from a histosol, which is a soil that is defined as having over 12% organic matter. These soils have 100-200 meq CEC. So if your mix is 40% peat moss, that still has soil in it.

Also I think it also has to do with the fact that it has to do with the fact that soil particles just skew the CEC so much. Sand takes up relatively a large amount of space compared to clay and OM and has such a low relative CEC it skews the numbers.

1000 meq is also a high number in the range of CEC for OM. I'll give the range of 500 - 1000 meq CEC.
paradoxlost is online now


Old 02-20-2018, 03:26 AM #3964
paradoxlost
Member

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 301
paradoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by led05 View Post
the test is flawed or limited, like all tests.... Even if a test were "perfect" the process or individuals administering it along the way aren't

So the way the CEC test works is this:

You flood the CEC sites with NH4+. Than you take a solution with a known concentration of K+ with a volume greater than the volume of the soil porosity. Than you flood the soil with a solvent and measure the concentration of K+ that were held on cation exchange sites. This concentration will tell you the amount of cations held per unit volume of soil.

This is the basic jist of the ammonia CEC determination. Obviously there is a little more too it, it's been a while since I have done this technique.

The limitations of this are with alkaline soils and saline soils, as salts will start to form ionic bonds which have the same effect as CEC, but are technically not part of CEC. Maybe the spectroscopy technique might have an accuracy issue. If you're running Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy, versus something like an Induced Couple Plasma.

Idk what spectrum does btw as far as spectroscopy. But probably Atomic Adsorption. That is the most cost effective, and accurate enough for agriculture's purpose.
paradoxlost is online now


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-20-2018, 06:57 AM #3965
growingcrazy
Member

growingcrazy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigans sunset coast
Posts: 829
growingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of lightgrowingcrazy is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold. View Post
Guys,

Could you look at my reasoning here beneath?
My calculations says I need to use only this little gypsum to the potting soil. But Iím doubtful if I can trust them.

I tried to calculate how many gypsum (and TSP) I would need to add to my potting soil which I got tested. These calculations says to use about 17g of gypsum on 5 gallons of potting soil. This seems a lot less than I would have imagined after reading this thread
Iíve seen Slow mentioning 300g of gypsum for 7 gal. Or 1 cup for 5gal.

My reasoning (with fault??):
I want to add 1845ppm of Ca to this potting soil. With gypsum being 22% of Ca in weight I have to add 8380ppm of gypsum.
Since the K3 procedure measures ppm in weight. This means I have to add 0.008380g of gypsum for each g of dried and sieved soil (just like the sample I sent in).
Then I weighed a sample volume of soil, oven dried and sieved it before weighing again. This way I could calculate the conversion factor from the dry, sifted soil to the wetter soil straight out the bag.
5 gallons of soil would weigh 2kg, thus needing 16.7g of gypsum.

Am I overthinking this and does this soil indeed only needs a dust of gypsum?

View Image

If nobody else responds to your questions, I will do so tomorrow when I have some free time.
growingcrazy is offline


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-20-2018, 10:59 AM #3966
Arnold.
Member

Arnold.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: 52N
Posts: 77
Arnold. will become famous soon enough
That would be greatly appreciated growingcrazy.
I've been pondering this question a few days now.
I would think that I misinterpret the ppm values of the lab. But then, how can you misinterpret parts per million? It is just 1/1.000.000...

I also thought about multiplying with the molecular weight of the element. But that would make for pretty large numbers.

So I'm clueless
Arnold. is online now


Old 02-20-2018, 12:08 PM #3967
h.h.
Senior Member

h.h.'s Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: desert
Posts: 1,981
h.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really niceh.h. is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold. View Post
Guys,

Could you look at my reasoning here beneath?
My calculations says I need to use only this little gypsum to the potting soil. But Iím doubtful if I can trust them.

View Image

I tried to calculate how many gypsum (and TSP) I would need to add to my potting soil which I got tested. These calculations says to use about 17g of gypsum on 5 gallons of potting soil. This seems a lot less than I would have imagined after reading this thread
Iíve seen Slow mentioning 300g of gypsum for 7 gal. Or 1 cup for 5gal.

My reasoning (with fault??):
I want to add 1845ppm of Ca to this potting soil. With gypsum being 22% of Ca in weight I have to add 8380ppm of gypsum.
Since the K3 procedure measures ppm in weight. This means I have to add 0.008380g of gypsum for each g of dried and sieved soil (just like the sample I sent in).
Then I weighed a sample volume of soil, oven dried and sieved it before weighing again. This way I could calculate the conversion factor from the dry, sifted soil to the wetter soil straight out the bag.
5 gallons of soil would weigh 2kg, thus needing 16.7g of gypsum.

Am I overthinking this and does this soil indeed only needs a dust of gypsum?

View Image

Follow the recommendations that come with your test. Don't get confused by this thread.
__________________
Quote:
itís mighty sad when average health has declined to the point that people become fatally ill from exposure to a little animal shit.
Solomon, Steve; Reinheimer, Erica (2012-12-04). The Intelligent Gardener: Growing Nutrient Dense Food (p. 271). New Society Publishers. Kindle Edition.
h.h. is offline


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-20-2018, 03:54 PM #3968
led05
Member

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upstate - Northeast
Posts: 571
led05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the roughled05 is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxlost View Post
So the way the CEC test works is this:

You flood the CEC sites with NH4+. Than you take a solution with a known concentration of K+ with a volume greater than the volume of the soil porosity. Than you flood the soil with a solvent and measure the concentration of K+ that were held on cation exchange sites. This concentration will tell you the amount of cations held per unit volume of soil.

This is the basic jist of the ammonia CEC determination. Obviously there is a little more too it, it's been a while since I have done this technique.

The limitations of this are with alkaline soils and saline soils, as salts will start to form ionic bonds which have the same effect as CEC, but are technically not part of CEC. Maybe the spectroscopy technique might have an accuracy issue. If you're running Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy, versus something like an Induced Couple Plasma.

Idk what spectrum does btw as far as spectroscopy. But probably Atomic Adsorption. That is the most cost effective, and accurate enough for agriculture's purpose.
Thanks for reply, I do understand how the test works. My point was more about the quality of the people & processes along the way. How you take that soil sample, where, how many spots, how it's sifted, mixed and so on. The person in the lab, how detailed are they, how detailed is the labs process, how much pride do the people take in their jobs doing that work etc etc etc... Samples are also taken at a point in time - I was more trying to say it's has endless limitations but also offers invaluable detail.

My native around here in spots is > 12% OM, 40% is certainly a lot for OM but not unheard of.

reading this thread it just feels at times that some think their going to become a great farmer if only they get that perfect soil test result - I can't stress how wrong this is and IMO, leads many down the wrong rabbit hole...

Understanding is King, test results are simply one piece to that puzzle
__________________
Pleasure for One hour; a bottle of wine.
Pleasure for one year, a marriage; but pleasure for a lifetime, a Garden - Chinese Proverb
led05 is offline


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-20-2018, 07:12 PM #3969
paradoxlost
Member

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 301
paradoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura aboutparadoxlost has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by led05 View Post
Thanks for reply, I do understand how the test works. My point was more about the quality of the people & processes along the way. How you take that soil sample, where, how many spots, how it's sifted, mixed and so on. The person in the lab, how detailed are they, how detailed is the labs process, how much pride do the people take in their jobs doing that work etc etc etc... Samples are also taken at a point in time - I was more trying to say it's has endless limitations but also offers invaluable detail.

My native around here in spots is > 12% OM, 40% is certainly a lot for OM but not unheard of.

reading this thread it just feels at times that some think their going to become a great farmer if only they get that perfect soil test result - I can't stress how wrong this is and IMO, leads many down the wrong rabbit hole...

Understanding is King, test results are simply one piece to that puzzle
Having a thick O horizon doesn't count towards the consideration of total OM for a soil. Obviously this is a point of contention with some taxonimists, but the general idea is pedogenesis is not occuring, simply decomposition. A soil pedon is to bedrock, and I can assure you those 40% soils you're testing is probably only accurate to the Ap horizon than in the B (or E, if your soil is leeched) it drops down below 1%. The C horizon most assuredly does not have above 12% OM, unless you are in a bog or swamp.

To determine if it's a histosol (or mollisol) you gotta take samples from each horizon than average it. That's how that works for taxonomy. Trust me you're not getting native soil 40% OM unless you're in an alpine situation or a peat bog.

But yeah you gotta clean the instruments before use. But normally soils people are weirdly obsessed with soil.
paradoxlost is online now


Old 02-20-2018, 08:02 PM #3970
jidoka
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,354
jidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of lightjidoka is a glorious beacon of light
Here is an example. I checked Nectar for the Gods #4 soil with a Logan test. The ingredients are Sphagnum peat moss, perlite, coir fiber, pumice, mycorrhizal fungi, yucca meal, kelp meal, bone meal, diatomaceous earth, clay, basalt, oyster shell (for pH adjustment), humus and lime (for pH adjustment).

In a video I watched they claimed 2 lbs of bone meal in a 1.5 cubic ft bag or the equivalent of 36 lbs per yard (if you recall that Tom Hill mix he used 33)

tcec 15.49
media weight 27.48 (% of a 2,000,000 lb per acre field soil)
pH 6.8
organic material 28,47
sulfur 14 ppm
m3 P2O5 466 ppm
Ca 2480 ppm or 80.06%
Mg 133 or 7.16%
K 175 or 2.9%
Na 81 or 3%
and a lot of Fe but pretty much no other micros

And the truth is you are gonna have to feed this probably before veg ends for an outdoor grow. And you can bet your ass you need gypsum in this even though it is at 80%

With field soil weight if you hit 250 lbs on Mg and K my experience is you don't have to feed either one of those to get biggish plants

It just does not all add up (at least in my brain) with these low weight, high organic soils

My thinking is this...you would need 4 acres of this stuff to get 133 lbs of Mg (weight is basically 1/4 field soil). Then basically double that to get to 250 lbs needed to grow the crop

in other words I would need 8 yds of this vs 1 yard of heavy soil to grow the same weight of crop. Or I would need to feed a fuckton of nutes to the light soil

And then you could start factoring in oxygen in the root zone...big advantage to light mix. So maybe not 8.

Whole lot more to it than the numbers.

You can see how Slow's plan works though. Especially if you maintain proper ratios in your feed, including micros
__________________
The salt shaker
jidoka is online now


8 members found this post helpful.

Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:39 AM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.