Hillside Growin
Member
He took 2 wks for mine in April but I figured there was a spring time rush. I added his recommendations and the garden looks great.
Balancing Soil Minerals
- Thread starter m_astera
- Start date
- Status
There are several ways to balance an equation. One is as good as the other. The perfect soil varies from phenotype to phenotype. What is for sale here is only one tip of the iceberg. Only a clue, with no answers, for there are many correct answers to be had for free. The American way. Bottle it up and put a pretty wrapper on it. We accept check or cash. Frankly, I prefer cash. No small bills.
Balancing equations?
Balancing equations?
Albrecht, Tiedjens and Reams as well as many others realized that the "balancing equations" exist and I believe are still far from perfected. Each crop in each soil requires the correct proportions of elements to come closer to reaching its' genetic potential.
Within these distinguished group the general conversation was between what proportion of calcium to that of potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and hydrogen (H). Those that reached the highest levels of calcium in proportion to the other bases in the base distribution, were Tiedjens and Reams, both aimed at 85% Ca. Interestingly enough, Albrecht late in his career acknowledged that his was indeed where Ca needed to be brought to reach maximum yields.
While these US authors took years to figure this out, you could have asked nearly any Italian or French grape grower to answer that question and they would have said that the only way to get to quality, is having more than 90% Ca. Some of the best grapes in the world come from 93-95% Ca soils.
Another clear example is the Iron/Manganese relationship. Most investigative work demonstrated that when this relationship is less than one (more Manganese that Iron in the soil) that yields often double or even triple, which is the case for pineapple being grown in Hawaii versus Central America or Mexico. Rice is another example as well. Loves more Manganese than Iron in the soil.
Many crops, blueberries being another, are manganese accumulators and have levels of Manganese upwards of 5 times that of Iron, and have amazing quality fruit and yields.
Yes, there exist balancing equations, but the dynamics of water and soil types and soil formations along with crop specific requirements makes for a lot of room for error. Thus the importance of testing in house.
Balancing equations?
Albrecht, Tiedjens and Reams as well as many others realized that the "balancing equations" exist and I believe are still far from perfected. Each crop in each soil requires the correct proportions of elements to come closer to reaching its' genetic potential.
Within these distinguished group the general conversation was between what proportion of calcium to that of potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and hydrogen (H). Those that reached the highest levels of calcium in proportion to the other bases in the base distribution, were Tiedjens and Reams, both aimed at 85% Ca. Interestingly enough, Albrecht late in his career acknowledged that his was indeed where Ca needed to be brought to reach maximum yields.
While these US authors took years to figure this out, you could have asked nearly any Italian or French grape grower to answer that question and they would have said that the only way to get to quality, is having more than 90% Ca. Some of the best grapes in the world come from 93-95% Ca soils.
Another clear example is the Iron/Manganese relationship. Most investigative work demonstrated that when this relationship is less than one (more Manganese that Iron in the soil) that yields often double or even triple, which is the case for pineapple being grown in Hawaii versus Central America or Mexico. Rice is another example as well. Loves more Manganese than Iron in the soil.
Many crops, blueberries being another, are manganese accumulators and have levels of Manganese upwards of 5 times that of Iron, and have amazing quality fruit and yields.
Yes, there exist balancing equations, but the dynamics of water and soil types and soil formations along with crop specific requirements makes for a lot of room for error. Thus the importance of testing in house.
Can you cite sources please? Particularly for the productive grape soil being so high in Calcium, that one boggles my mind.
Articles
Articles
The page won't let me post a bunch of files due to their size. If you PM me I can send you them in private.
The Italian article you will have to run the CEC distributions. If you can't run them let me know. The distributions were 84 to 92% calcium, I stand corrected. The comments that I made previously were quotes from a famous Italian consultant that I have had the privilege to work with. The article was one that I found on the net. Decent article.
I have a several blueberry articles as well that show how the blueberry is a Mn accumulator in soils that have a 1:1 Fe/Mn ratio.. Articles on rice and pineapple as well showing superior yields by far with inverted Fe/Mn relationship articles, too big to send.
I did add another great article where you can look at the high P and high Ca soils and then look at the THC levels that were achieved. It is important to run the base distributions to see the real story....
In my own experiments in rice hulls, applying micros at 1:3 Fe/Mn, blueberry (real blueberry) plants had flower and fruit long before the rest in all 5 varieties tested.
Articles
The page won't let me post a bunch of files due to their size. If you PM me I can send you them in private.
The Italian article you will have to run the CEC distributions. If you can't run them let me know. The distributions were 84 to 92% calcium, I stand corrected. The comments that I made previously were quotes from a famous Italian consultant that I have had the privilege to work with. The article was one that I found on the net. Decent article.
I have a several blueberry articles as well that show how the blueberry is a Mn accumulator in soils that have a 1:1 Fe/Mn ratio.. Articles on rice and pineapple as well showing superior yields by far with inverted Fe/Mn relationship articles, too big to send.
I did add another great article where you can look at the high P and high Ca soils and then look at the THC levels that were achieved. It is important to run the base distributions to see the real story....
In my own experiments in rice hulls, applying micros at 1:3 Fe/Mn, blueberry (real blueberry) plants had flower and fruit long before the rest in all 5 varieties tested.
Did you apply manganese to your grow? With those iron levels, the response would be barbaric.
So far I haven't been able to apply amounts of Mn that would raise soil ppm by 5 without causing leaf damage. It's been a slow process and it seems to be an easily leached element when sulfate is present and not being converted and stored as amino in the soil or elsewhere in the organic matter.
Are you talking about the analyses in my album? Barbaric as in good? I'm liking how my indoor soil is producing so far, it just needs more K.
Mn
Mn
Yeah, just realized that I had to get to 50 posts before I can PM anyone. Interesting rules.
Mn at the lab that I use in Ohio is indexed as is copper. These indexed numbers are dramatically lower than the real Mn and Cu numbers for two reasons. Ph and organic material.
So if you are in one of those mixes that is pure organic material, Mn availability will be a problem. You are probably better off purchasing an Albion or Baicor amino acid chelate and use it instead of a sulfated form of Mn.
I tried to reply to a post where someone showed their soil analysis and the number were insanely swayed towards iron. Unfortunately the comments go to the end. Not sure whose analysis it was. I will look to see yours if I can find it.
Mn
Yeah, just realized that I had to get to 50 posts before I can PM anyone. Interesting rules.
Mn at the lab that I use in Ohio is indexed as is copper. These indexed numbers are dramatically lower than the real Mn and Cu numbers for two reasons. Ph and organic material.
So if you are in one of those mixes that is pure organic material, Mn availability will be a problem. You are probably better off purchasing an Albion or Baicor amino acid chelate and use it instead of a sulfated form of Mn.
I tried to reply to a post where someone showed their soil analysis and the number were insanely swayed towards iron. Unfortunately the comments go to the end. Not sure whose analysis it was. I will look to see yours if I can find it.
Soil analysis
Soil analysis
Those reports all seem to be from Logan labs. I have no personal experience with them, but a lot of friends of mine do. Their numbers are all over the place. Firstly, there is a huge human error digitizing the data constantly apparently.
Secondly, their P numbers always seem to be off dramatically.
Steve Solomon recently visited them on his recent visit back to the US and his comments were not too kind.
Most of us use Spectrum in Ohio. Super professional and they run the analysis that you request and in the manner that you want it done.
Using a good lab is critical. I know Astera insists on this lab and I see he is all over this site.
Another good friend that works at the Univ of Kentucky in their agronomic section also has not been very kind regarding this lab either.
With that said, your (iron+aluminum/manganese) ratio is barbaric.
Most folks don't worry about aluminum in neutral pH's. However, based of 30 years of soil and leaf analysis results, that is not a safe bet. In fact, aluminum toxicity in alkaline soils due to the influence of bicarbonates is more toxic that the forms of aluminum at acid pH.
Soil analysis
Those reports all seem to be from Logan labs. I have no personal experience with them, but a lot of friends of mine do. Their numbers are all over the place. Firstly, there is a huge human error digitizing the data constantly apparently.
Secondly, their P numbers always seem to be off dramatically.
Steve Solomon recently visited them on his recent visit back to the US and his comments were not too kind.
Most of us use Spectrum in Ohio. Super professional and they run the analysis that you request and in the manner that you want it done.
Using a good lab is critical. I know Astera insists on this lab and I see he is all over this site.
Another good friend that works at the Univ of Kentucky in their agronomic section also has not been very kind regarding this lab either.
With that said, your (iron+aluminum/manganese) ratio is barbaric.
Most folks don't worry about aluminum in neutral pH's. However, based of 30 years of soil and leaf analysis results, that is not a safe bet. In fact, aluminum toxicity in alkaline soils due to the influence of bicarbonates is more toxic that the forms of aluminum at acid pH.
Lightweight
Member
Hey slownickel, I'm just wondering what your real beef is with Astera? You've criticized him and his recommendations in several posts and left at least three one star reviews on Amazon under two different accounts and it actually looks like you left 4 one star reviews under three different accounts and yet, all the other reviews on Amazon rave about his book and on this forum I have not seen one person who has had anything bad to say that has used his recommendations and amazingly I haven't seen anybody's plants die of boron toxicity like you predicted would most likely happen.
Basically you're saying Astera sucks and Logan Labs sucks and on this very site there are quite a few growers using Logan Labs and Astera's recommendations (or close to) pulling down 10+lb plants with little to no bug or fungus pressure. How many more lbs. has to be on a perennial plant before you'd say it's healthy? I've read through a lot of the threads on this site with big plant growers and I don't see your criticisms justified, so that makes me wonder what your real beef with him is because it's not his work or Logan Labs in reality.
Here is the link comparing Mehlich 3 to Ammonium Acetate:
http://aes.missouri.edu/pfcs/research/prop304a.pdf
Astera
Astera
Yep, your observations are correct.
I have his books, I am in the first one. A lot of what is in his books is not his, the guessing is.
Astera on one hand talks raves about Reams, yet in private will tell you something else.
I hope Astera works out for you.
Astera
Yep, your observations are correct.
I have his books, I am in the first one. A lot of what is in his books is not his, the guessing is.
Astera on one hand talks raves about Reams, yet in private will tell you something else.
I hope Astera works out for you.
Labs and such
Labs and such
If one believes that this is all about electrical charges, then one would like to know the full quantity of those present from each element. Spectrum gives me two numbers for copper and manganese. One is indexed, one is not. With that said, their indexes, when put into ratios, almost always shows me why the Mn or Cu uptake is not showing up in the foliar analysis. For me, the index is priceless and is based on years of research by Ohio State. It works here in Peru, Brasil, Mexico, India, Australia, Guatemala and Honduras very well currently.... and explains a lot of problems that without which, were unexplainable.
Manganese is indexed heavily when there is a lot of organic material. Might be better spiked in with some clay with that Mn so as to make a feeding station that is not subject to so much organic material.
I run AA@8.2 in most of my samples where I am suspect of carbonate or bicarbonates. They only number that come back grossly different is calcium. We only test the bases with that process.
In fact, I always ask Spectrum to shake my samples more time that usual as I really want to know how much Al and Fe are really there. Going from 5 minute shake times to 30 minutes tends to really show one how much Fe and Al are really present.
Saving your best question for last. Took me years to understand, as "science" that I knew and that we all learn, couldn't explain it, yet I always had foliar analysis with toxic levels of aluminum and I wasn't spraying Aliette or some other Al fungicide.
As for Manganese sulfate, I am applying weekly applications in big bags of medium in Oregon at the dosis of 4 grams per plant along with copper, zinc and boron. No problems. How much did you apply that caused damage?
The other issue you should give some thought to is compatibility. If you are mixing a bunch of this woojoo juice with Mn you might be causing some serious chemical reactions and major fall out of your mix. I always separate my days of P, from my days of NK, from my days of calcium.
There was a professor at the Univ of Arizona, Breazall I believe back in 1929, I have his articles somewhere. What he discovered is this.
Bicarbonates are not stable. They want to make carbonates, almost always grabbing free calcium from the soil solution and then forming calcium carbonate. What is left over is an OH or hydroxide molecule.
When any acid influence is added to the soil or medium, a slight amount of aluminum is liberated and grabbed by that hydroxide to form aluminum hydroxide. It is a gel like substance, you can take a sand that is heavily affected and it will form just like clay in your hand. The sand in the middle of a dry desert will have algae growing on top of the soil under the dripper because of this gel!
The second year it looks like a green river. Now to be fair, these same folks are dumping on huge quantities of Mg sulfate which also makes their percolation worse, meaning more superficial water and more time for the algae to grow. (Mg in water magnifies its size several times and plugs up a soil)
Newer soils (little rain) like Arizona and the coast of Peru, etc have big time problems with this issue, here in Peru it is a monster problem and folks don't know it. Just got back from Guatemala in the Zacapa valley where I worked for many years, and after my experiences here in Peru I realized that this was a problem there too. Once you realize the issue, it is a lot easier to deal with. And the solution is not to acidify like most folks will tell you. The answer is to saturate those bicarbonates with calcium, as the first requirement for calcium will not be for your plants, it will be to stabilize the soil. So you need to add the calcium requirement for the bicarbonates in your water and or soil and the plant, if not the bicarbonates will rob calcium from the plant. This is a very big problem in many places not in the soil but in the water.
With all that said, I will add one last point. It is most definitely possible to add too much calcium. However, what that really means is that you are going to identify your missing elements a lot faster.
In Honduras, on a very large sugar cane farm, soil samples were taken and the sample were not really representative of the area, a clay sample was taken from the edges of the field and the major part of the area was in reality very sandy. When the correctives of calcium and micros were applied, yields on this lot fell, versus all the others which went up dramatically. But upon examination, what really happened? The little bit of manganese in that soil was all precipitated by the calcium, making the Fe/Mn ration soar, making intoxification by Fe and Al worse. Adding those missing elements which meant more Mn, Zn and Cu, and the field quickly responded and yields soared.
Experiment. No one is the owner of the truth. Experiment and learn. It is so much easier to learn from good research and good science. Many times, we learn more from failure than from success. Having farmed most of my life in large scale, trust me, I have made lots and lots of mistakes.
Took me 20+ years to learn NOT to apply Mg Sulfate to the soil.
Read Reams book and he explained it in 1 paragraph! Should have bought that book 30 years ago!
Labs and such
If one believes that this is all about electrical charges, then one would like to know the full quantity of those present from each element. Spectrum gives me two numbers for copper and manganese. One is indexed, one is not. With that said, their indexes, when put into ratios, almost always shows me why the Mn or Cu uptake is not showing up in the foliar analysis. For me, the index is priceless and is based on years of research by Ohio State. It works here in Peru, Brasil, Mexico, India, Australia, Guatemala and Honduras very well currently.... and explains a lot of problems that without which, were unexplainable.
Manganese is indexed heavily when there is a lot of organic material. Might be better spiked in with some clay with that Mn so as to make a feeding station that is not subject to so much organic material.
I run AA@8.2 in most of my samples where I am suspect of carbonate or bicarbonates. They only number that come back grossly different is calcium. We only test the bases with that process.
In fact, I always ask Spectrum to shake my samples more time that usual as I really want to know how much Al and Fe are really there. Going from 5 minute shake times to 30 minutes tends to really show one how much Fe and Al are really present.
Saving your best question for last. Took me years to understand, as "science" that I knew and that we all learn, couldn't explain it, yet I always had foliar analysis with toxic levels of aluminum and I wasn't spraying Aliette or some other Al fungicide.
As for Manganese sulfate, I am applying weekly applications in big bags of medium in Oregon at the dosis of 4 grams per plant along with copper, zinc and boron. No problems. How much did you apply that caused damage?
The other issue you should give some thought to is compatibility. If you are mixing a bunch of this woojoo juice with Mn you might be causing some serious chemical reactions and major fall out of your mix. I always separate my days of P, from my days of NK, from my days of calcium.
There was a professor at the Univ of Arizona, Breazall I believe back in 1929, I have his articles somewhere. What he discovered is this.
Bicarbonates are not stable. They want to make carbonates, almost always grabbing free calcium from the soil solution and then forming calcium carbonate. What is left over is an OH or hydroxide molecule.
When any acid influence is added to the soil or medium, a slight amount of aluminum is liberated and grabbed by that hydroxide to form aluminum hydroxide. It is a gel like substance, you can take a sand that is heavily affected and it will form just like clay in your hand. The sand in the middle of a dry desert will have algae growing on top of the soil under the dripper because of this gel!
The second year it looks like a green river. Now to be fair, these same folks are dumping on huge quantities of Mg sulfate which also makes their percolation worse, meaning more superficial water and more time for the algae to grow. (Mg in water magnifies its size several times and plugs up a soil)
Newer soils (little rain) like Arizona and the coast of Peru, etc have big time problems with this issue, here in Peru it is a monster problem and folks don't know it. Just got back from Guatemala in the Zacapa valley where I worked for many years, and after my experiences here in Peru I realized that this was a problem there too. Once you realize the issue, it is a lot easier to deal with. And the solution is not to acidify like most folks will tell you. The answer is to saturate those bicarbonates with calcium, as the first requirement for calcium will not be for your plants, it will be to stabilize the soil. So you need to add the calcium requirement for the bicarbonates in your water and or soil and the plant, if not the bicarbonates will rob calcium from the plant. This is a very big problem in many places not in the soil but in the water.
With all that said, I will add one last point. It is most definitely possible to add too much calcium. However, what that really means is that you are going to identify your missing elements a lot faster.
In Honduras, on a very large sugar cane farm, soil samples were taken and the sample were not really representative of the area, a clay sample was taken from the edges of the field and the major part of the area was in reality very sandy. When the correctives of calcium and micros were applied, yields on this lot fell, versus all the others which went up dramatically. But upon examination, what really happened? The little bit of manganese in that soil was all precipitated by the calcium, making the Fe/Mn ration soar, making intoxification by Fe and Al worse. Adding those missing elements which meant more Mn, Zn and Cu, and the field quickly responded and yields soared.
Experiment. No one is the owner of the truth. Experiment and learn. It is so much easier to learn from good research and good science. Many times, we learn more from failure than from success. Having farmed most of my life in large scale, trust me, I have made lots and lots of mistakes.
Took me 20+ years to learn NOT to apply Mg Sulfate to the soil.
Read Reams book and he explained it in 1 paragraph! Should have bought that book 30 years ago!
What does Spectrum charge for a comprehensive test that includes indexed micros? Logan charges me around $70/sample for the base test: Ca, Mg, K, P205, O-matter, SO4-, Na, B, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al plus C:N, NO3-, NH3+, Co, Mo, Se, Si
I'd like to try Spectrum. Do they charge extra for the 30 min shake?
I'd like to try Spectrum. Do they charge extra for the 30 min shake?
I suggest getting M3, Al, Na as well as the AA@8.2 test and ask for 30 minute shake times. Tell them you are working with Michael Kraidy. They will email me and confirm what you need.
Not sure what we pay, but it is fairly cheap. Call them and speak to Bill.
If you are going to do soil analysis I would take samples from your best vs worst areas so that you can learn what is happening.
I would skip the first 12 inches or so and aim for 12 to 24 inches. You may want to adjust the depth depending upon where you see the bulk of your roots. If you don't mind spending the cash, run 0-12, and 12 to 24. If you are in soil, you may want to even run a 24-36 so you can what your soil is really made of.
Not sure what we pay, but it is fairly cheap. Call them and speak to Bill.
If you are going to do soil analysis I would take samples from your best vs worst areas so that you can learn what is happening.
I would skip the first 12 inches or so and aim for 12 to 24 inches. You may want to adjust the depth depending upon where you see the bulk of your roots. If you don't mind spending the cash, run 0-12, and 12 to 24. If you are in soil, you may want to even run a 24-36 so you can what your soil is really made of.
The Se, Co, Si aren't part of their process and most likely will be greatly more expensive. Not sure but highly doubtful that those numbers/results will generate meaningful and useful information. They can run the full nitrogens, which separates nitrates from ammonia.
Lightweight
Member
Bump on the thread here.
For getting plants started indoors do any of the soil nerds here have recommendations for a soil mix that is pretty close to being mineral balanced consistently with products that are commonly available? One of the downsides to living out in the middle of the Pacific (besides everything costing at least 50% more) is that access to certain things are pretty limited, non-existent or outrageously priced because there are no bulk options, e.g., good compost, rice hulls, biochar, etc.
Thanks for any help.
For getting plants started indoors do any of the soil nerds here have recommendations for a soil mix that is pretty close to being mineral balanced consistently with products that are commonly available? One of the downsides to living out in the middle of the Pacific (besides everything costing at least 50% more) is that access to certain things are pretty limited, non-existent or outrageously priced because there are no bulk options, e.g., good compost, rice hulls, biochar, etc.
Thanks for any help.
- Status
