Subject: BD Now! Mark Schonbeck on Albrecht cation ratios, Gregg Young's book on Albrecht

From: Steve Diver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:47:06 -0500

Mark Schonbeck published a few leaflets on the Albrecht
soil testing and amendment method as a result of his research
and education funded by SARE and OFRF.

VABF hosts these leaflets:

Soil Cation Nutrient Balancing
http://www.vabf.org/soilre1.php

Does my Soil Need Cation Nutrient Balancing?
http://www.vabf.org/soilre2.php

How to Use a Soil Test
http://www.vabf.org/soilre3.php

Soil Nutrient Balancing: Project Summary
http://www.vabf.org/soilresum.php

Fyi, I have a collection of the original Schonbeck leaftlets that contain
illustrations not reproduced in these web-based leaflets, and also the
most comprehensive literature review ever compiled on Albrecht, generated
by Schonbeck. I was among the researchers that Schonbeck tapped
into for some of the key literature as background to the research project.

Margaret Merrill and I talked to Schonbeck after he conducted
most of his research and suggested he attend one of Kinsey's
soil seminars. I don't know what became of this or how it may
have impacted his views.

Anyway, Schonbeck's findings were enough to settle once and for all to
a room full of southern farmers that the ideal Albrecht cation ratios
is not as important or relevant as it made up to be, for all soils.

Soil scientist friends of mine involved in organics say that
the Midwestern labs that emphasize Albrecht are accustomed to
montmorillinite clay soils, and thus the reason it works so well under
these conditions.  Neil Kinsey, on the other hand, says that it works
everywhere.

Gregg Young's book is one of the best sources on this topic that
I've found as far as a practical manual of how to understand the
soil test and how to calculate fertilizer requirements and so forth.

I highly recommend Gregg Young's book if the Albrecht method
is an approach you are investigating.   It is based on 25 years of
consulting work in California, and the result of his Masters
thesis on soils, originally titled "A Training Manual for Soil
Analysis Interpretation in Northern California," published in 1999.

Quality First in Vineyard & Orchard Production, about $25
By Gregg Young
PO Box 246, Talmage, CA, 95481 

Look how practical it can get:

Basic Principles of Soil Balancing & Optimum Fertilization

1. Balance soil exchangeable cations: 65-70% Ca; 10-15% Mg; 2-5% K; 5% Na

2. Maintain P, K, S and micronutrients at generous levels

3. Build and maintain organic matter through cover cropping, compost, & 
microbial
inoculants to promote a healthy biologically active soil

4. Supply N in adequate amounts, apply in split applications, or use 
compost to
activate N cycle and rely on slow release N

5. Use foliar feeding at critical times

Source:  Gregg Young, California

Contact me off list if you want the resource packet from ATTRA
on Albrecht, which contains items that I've mentioned as well
as additional materials I've compiled.

Steve Diver

Allan Balliett wrote:

> Schonbeck did some work a while back that seems to 'disprove' 
> Albrecht, at least its effectiveness on SE Soils.  Have you paid 
> attention to that? I could never find out which lab he used. Of 
> course, if he didn't use the best of labs, his findings are worthless. 
> It was sad, though, that he gave his source for biologiical testing 
> (SFW) but didnt give his Albrecht test lab in any materials I saw. I 
> saw an old report, from an on-going project. Do you know how this 
> turned out?
>
> Yes, you are right, I misused the words 'living mulch' in that 
> context. Still, the gist of the Baki (or whomever) method is the stem 
> crimp that keeps the rye/vetch down but keeps it living, as well. 
> Norma "Tomato Gal" are had a grant from Baki to study this method for 
> tomateos and, man, could she grow tomatoes!!
> _______________________________________________
> BDNow mailing list
> [email-masked]
> You can unsubscribe or change your options at:
> http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow
>
>

_______________________________________________
BDNow mailing list
[email-masked]
You can unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow

---

From: Steve Diver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:09:41 -0500

Allan -

I thought that you know Mark Schonbeck as he is with VABF
where we recently attended.

He was at New Alchemy Institute for some years before migrating
to commune living and farming in Virginia. He has has conducted
extensive trials on cover crops and soil management systems.  

As I suggested, you suggested, and Bob suggested, it would be have
been so much more interesting and useful if Schonbeck had worked
more closely with Neil Kinsey in the SARE/OFRF funded field trials.

If you are implying or misreading that Schonbeck was an "extension
agent" out to misapply biological farming, it is incorrect and impolite.   

We should also not assume that something he published a few years
ago is still what he understands or emphasizes about Albrecht.  

Regardless, the gist of your message is understood.  Thank goodness
for Acres USA, EcoFarming, NOFA, MOSES, ATTRA,
Carolina Farm Stewardship, VABF, and related organizations
for offering a platform for experienced farmers and specialists
to share knowledge of biological farming.... instead of relying
on scientific journal articles based on improper understanding
and skewed research protocals.  For that matter, biological
farming has advanced through practitioner literature and
field days and conferences "in spite" of Extension and Research
literature.   On the other hand, to the credit of sustainable
agriculture organizations and university programs, the platform for
farmers to share their biological farming experience and knowledge
is now widely available through these programs.  

Steve Diver

Allan Balliett wrote:

>> Yet, as Allan and Bob have pointed out, many of the land-grant
>> researchers stride out into the field on their own, without
>> the guidance or lab support from the ecofarming labs with
>> 20-30 years of proven experience, who were also direct
>> students of Albrecht, worked for Brookside Labs, etc.   I think
>> that is a misssing link, not the "bias" of these qualified and holistic
>> minded soil scientists.
>
>
> The point from my side, Steve, is "If they aren't going it right, they 
> aren't doing it at all."
>
> I take it at this point that Schonbeck (an extension agent, right?) 
> had the state lab do his work, or something. If that's so, he can make 
> comments on how the state lab works but not on how well Albrecht 
> works. This is just a fact. One we've known for a long time and one 
> that skeptical me does NOT consider to be promoted for mercantile 
> reasons.
>
> Bottom line: it is unscientific to say that Schonbeck has demonstrated 
> Albrecht to be useless in the SE. All we can say is this: if you want 
> to implement the Albrecht method in the SE, don't, whatever you do, 
> take counsel from Schonbeck.
>
> Your explanation of land grant failures touches on part of the 
> problem. Another part of the problem is that those boys can dream up a 
> study and then get paid to do it, regardless of the outcome. Talk 
> about getting focused on process!!
>
> The second problem, and it's a big one: the land grant boys do NOT 
> have an internized world-view that incorporates holism in any 
> effective manor.  As a result, they often concoct tests of processes 
> out of context and then have the gall to denounce whole alternative 
> approaches.
>
> FOR GODS SAKE MAN, THE FRUIT RESEARCH STATION IN KEARNESYVILLE IS 
> STUDYING COMPOST TEA ON APPLE DISEASES. THEY NEVER TEST THEIR COMPOST 
> NOR THEIR TEA, THEY NEVER FEED IT WHEN THEY BREW IT, AND YET, THEY 
> FEEL QUALIFIED TO DENOUNCE COMPOST TEA AS A PREVENTATI VE OF FOLIAR 
> DISEASE IN APPLES!!
>
> This is the sort of disjointed science that the American farmer is 
> paying for and getting back informain that is LESS than nothing: 
> studies by people who absolutely have no idea of what they are 
> studying but are all too happy to suck up tax dollars to do so. 
> Undoubtedly, there is a new generation coming along that actually 
> understands who things are interconnected. Lets hope we start seeing 
> some studies that tell us SOMETHING!
>
> I hope I made this clear: it is very seldom that I read a negative 
> result stud of biological farming principles  that doesn't have 
> obvious flaws in its premise or execution.
>
> On the other hand, by drawing pre-mature judgements by not really 
> understanding the number of variables in vegetable production, the 
> jackalopes have the gall to recommend umpteem colors of plastic mulch 
> for umpteen special applications - none of which seem to pan out in 
> the field, or, in my recollection, in the tests of other scientists.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I think that things s.b. proved.
>
> I also think it is important that we stay conscious while evaluating 
> the results from university-derived tests.
>
> -Allan
>

---

From: Steve Diver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:32:05 -0500

Do you have contact information for the compost teas researchers at
the Kearneysville fruit station?  

Fyi, the "green revolution" that took place in the United States was
the ecologically-minded baby boomers who flooded the agriculture
departments in the 1970s and 80s.  Those people are now
working in sustainable agriculture and universities all over the
country.    

Steve Diver