I believe that you have to review your soil chemistry
concepts as you don't seem to have a clear cut picture
of what you talking about.
Number 1 - For your statement that :
" Gypsum is used to reduce sodium levels in soils
where excess sodium is present".
You are partially correct BUT the order of cations adsorption
to the clay is the following : H+, Na+, K+, Ca++, Mg++
That means that anion SO4-- from Gypsum will remove
preferably H+, then Na+, then K+ and so on.
Sulphate (SO4--) will remove basically every cations but
the order of preference will be the above.
It does not remove only Sodium (Na+) leaving everything else behind.
No !!! Everything will go out. This aspect is facilitated by the
flocculation
(Opening) capacity of the Calcium contained in the Gypsum.
As the soil opens by flocculation of the clay myceles everything having
a
positive charge will attach to sulphate and will leave the soil.
So what you just said is a half truth.
Number 2 - " germination of
weed seeds can greatly be reduced." ( by mulching )
You sound like you did not read entirely my previous message.
Steve Diver have said that applying CT to the weeds will make them
grow more exuberant which I do agree. But I have already said that
if they in fact grow more that would be a great chance to cut them and
make a nice mulching.
Number 3 -
" As far as the soil goes, if you add phosphorous and levels become
too high, you risk tying up other nutrients "
Did I ever suggested to add phosphorus so that the levels will became
TOO high ?
No, what I have just said is that ALL the samples have low phosphorus
AVAILABILITY so either you add P or you make it soluble working the soil
biology. Do you know any other way ? Please let me know because I don't.
Number 4 -
" If you add gypsum, you are adding more calcium and sulphur. Calcium
interferes with magnesium nutrtion."
Probably you are not aware of Dr Albrecht's concepts to soil chemistry.
If you were, you would know that there is only one instance that gypsum
is recommended and that is when you have around 60% of the base
saturation
filled with Calcium.
Do you know why ? Probably not.
That is because whenever you apply Gypsum, you paradoxically loose
calcium so that at the end you end up with less calcium than when you
started. Check that out.
You apply gypsum and the soils opens. Everything leaves ( not only
Sodium as you think) including calcium and the soils tights up again,
but if you have enough
calcium that retightening would happen that much.
All the 4 samples had calcium above 60% in the base saturation.
% of Base Saturation for Calcium
Ca 70.6 62.3 72.5
69.5
Do you see any sample bellow 60% in those figures ?
Some of them I dare to say have already TOO much calcium and that
already is interfering with Magnesium so taking out some calcium seems
like a good idea.
Number 5-
" Calcium is present in nearly all irrigation water".
We have two aspects here.
A- That is again a half truth presented to this road side weed problem.
It is true that irrigation water contains calcium BUT not in the
quantity
and in the form that soil needs it, otherwise we would not see a
generalized lack of calcium throughout the world ( USA included ).
I have seen soils in Texas that have so much calcium that you actually
see
little white stones and the irrigation water has so much calcium that
every irrigation drip leaves a white halo around the water bulb but yet
the plants suffers from calcium deficiency.
So that responds to you above remarks.
B - Are you suggesting irrigating the road side plots of all USA and
when
project lider is worried about the cost of soil analysis ?
If you ever get to be the Secretary of Agriculture of the USA
please let me know
in advance because then irrigation might become a very good
business.
Finally I did not quite understand what was your practical suggestions
to this
project. What should Merla do ? Leave as it is . Do nothing.
I said put P according to the need, put Gypsum ( also to the need )
and apply Compost Tea. Those were my suggestions and make mulching.
What do you suggest ?
To my understanding your remarks were not geared by good will and
the willing to help Merla but solely with the intention to antagonize
what I have
said about it.
Please review your soil chemistry concepts before engaging yourself in a
soil
chemistry contest.
Try again.
Jose
-----
Before you start changing the soil chemistry and start spraying CT,
remember that nearly all weed seed require light to germinate (two
notable exceptions are cocklebur and morning glory), therefore by
mulching the soil surface or heavily shading the soil surface with
non-competing vegetation such as strawberry clover, germination of
weed seeds can greatly be reduced.
As far as the soil goes, if you add phosphorous and levels become
too high, you risk tying up other nutrients while turning the area
into a low grade phosphate mine. There is no practical way of
removing phosphorous from the soil.
If you add gypsum, you are adding more calcium and sulphur. Calcium
interferes with magnesium nutrtion. Calcium is present in nearly all
irrigation water. Gypsum is used to reduce sodium levels in soils
where excess sodium is present.
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Merla Barberie <herbnmerla_at_s...>
wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> Thanks for the help with this. You are able to do what I wish I
could
> do--know how to control weeds just by adding micronutrients and CT
in a
> spray to a weedy site--a road right-of-way or an agricultural
field or
> even a wild meadow.
>
> If I could figure out the simplest way of doing this on our 8-mile
road,
> it could be a model for the whole county to get off the herbicide
> treadmill. It would be a better use of the money and certainly
better
> for the environment and animals (including humans). The county
probably
> won't listen to me, but residents of our road will have the
satisfaction
> of not being sprayed for our efforts.
>
> I was surprised at how different the 4 analyses were from each
other in
> a 1-mile area. How different is the whole 8-mile road? The mile
I took
> was the farthest in, most untouched area. The parts closer in
have been
> sprayed with 2,4-D, have houses close to the road or are next to a
creek
> or next to a cow or an alpaca containment area or pasture. Soil
> analyses costs $25/each. I'm trying to create a method that the
county
> could use. After all, this is just a right-of-way, not an
agricultural
> site. Is there a way to find the common denominator of the
deficiencies
> of a road and just treat that? You emphasized the K-P
relationship as
> one of these. Are there others?
>
> I'm going to try to give all four analyses side by side on this
email.
> I fear it will be too garbled to read, but I'm still going to
try. I
> will be glad to send it as an attachment to anyone who wants it.
I see
> that Phosphorus is VH on two of them and all the Potassium base
> saturations are 5.4% or higher. I'm repeating the H,M,L,VH, LH for
> anyone reading this who is not familiar with soil analyses.
> H=high, M=medium, L=low, VH=very high, LH=very low.
>
> Bruce's distributor here had a chart that told him how to analyze
the
> Cation Exchange Capacity of the various elements. Can you tell me
if
> there is formula for that or would a chart be very idiosyncratic
to the
> particular soil scientist in a particular area? It's essential
for me
> to learn how to read these analyses, but I fear that the local
knowledge
> here--say from the weed supervisor or the extension agent--about
reading
> them is not based on Albrecht. I tried to read Albrecht, Vol. 1,
but he
> writes for other soil scientists. His many graphs were printed so
small
> and I don't have the background. I guess I should just try again
with a
> magnifying glass and take more time to reread it until I can
absorb it.
>
> There's one weed missing here. I need to have a soil test and a
> nutrient balance calculation done on the musk thistle site. I'll
have
> to make a case for this to the Weed Supervisor and he's not been as
> cooperative lately as he was at first because of political pressure
> that's being put on him to squelch me, I think. It's really hard
for a
> county employee to remain neutral when he starts getting into the
old
> boy network here. After all, I'm not a professor at the
University of
> Idaho which is mecca around here, and which is smack in the middle
of
> money from Monsanto, etc. I know I need to be a good little girl
and
> not rock the boat, but have this overweening desire to lessen our
> exposure to herbicides.
>
> RAPID LIGHTNING ROAD SOIL ANALYSES FOR FOUR SITES: SUMMER, 2002, BY
> MID-WEST LABS
>
> Hawkweed Com. Tansy Knapweed Bare
Soil
>
> Org
> Mat. 4.5 H 3.4 M 3.1
> M 1.4 VL
>
> P
> weak
> bray 5 VL 25 H 17
> M 3 VL
>
> P
> strong
> bray 59 VH 34 M 90 VH
> 49 H
>
> K 182ppm VH 237ppm VH 115ppm VH 102ppm VH
>
> Ca 1229ppm H 934ppm M 797ppm H 556ppm H
>
> Na 19ppm VL 11ppm VL 23ppm L 13ppm
VL
>
> pH
> soil 1:1 6.3 5.9
> 6.3 6.5
>
> buffer
> index 6.9 6.8
> 6.9 7.0
>
> CEC 8.7 7.5
> 5.5 4.0
>
> %
> Base
> Satrtn
>
> K 5.4 8.1
> 5.4 6.5
>
> Mg 12.8 11.8
> 9.2 14.0
>
> Ca 70.6 62.3
> 72.5 69.5
>
> H 10 17
> 11 8.6
>
> Na 0.9 0.6
> 1.8 1.4
>
> DIPA
> Extr.
>
> S 19 H 10 L 14
> M 20 H
>
> Zn 1.3 M 1.6 M 0.5
> VL 0.1 VL
>
> Mn 10 M 12 M 6
> L 3 VL
>
> Fe 39 VH 55 VH 31
> VH 24 H
>
> Cu 0.7 L 0.8 L 0.4
> L 0.2 VL
>
> B 0.5 L 0.3 VL 0.2
> VL 0.2 VL
>
> Excess
> Lime L L
> L L
>
> Soluble
> Salts 1:1 0.2 L 0.1 L 0.2
> L 0.1 L
>
> THANKS, JOSE, ELAINE or anyone who wants to take a crack at this.
I'm
> enclosing the soil analyses also as an attachment. Webmaster,
it's a
> lot to ask, but can you straighten it out if it's garbled?
>
> Best,
>
> Merla
>
> * * * * *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:10:12 -0300
> From: "Jose Luiz M Garcia" <gingerjo_at_t...>
> Subject: RES: RES: Correction on Soil Analysis
>
> I got it. Part of the analysis was missing.
> Soil analysis results are like an idiom ( a language ).
> Every lab has its own.
> The numbers reflects the extraction methods
> ( there are different extractors ), extraction
> times, reagents, equipment used to read the
> results, etc... Even taking all those factors into
> consideration I still think that micro elements are
> on the low side as well as Phosphorus and
> this is why they recommended 200 # per acre of P.
> The recommendations for the minor elements are
> kind of low in my opinion. But that is not the main point.
> In my opinion what is giving you the proper
> terrain for this weed to grow is the relation between
> Phosporus and Potassium.
> According to the late Dr Carey Reams and today's major
> eco-ag consultants like Dr Arden Ardensen , Dr Phil Wheller,
> etc... when you have more Potassium than Phosphorus weeds
> will florish. That is exactly your case. Potassium is high and
> Phosphorus is low.
> Look at the K in Base Saturation. It reads 5.4%.
> According to Dr Albrecht, K should be from 3 to 5% except for
> plants like bananas, pineapple and some trees that requires high
> Potash. Yours is just slightly above ideal. I would not add a
single
> gram of Potassium to that soil and at this point I do not
understand
> why the lab says Potash is VH or Very High and your friend have
> recommended 2 ppm of Potash. It doesn't make sense. Does it ?
> On the other hand your Phosphorus is low. Therefore you have to
> shift this relation the other way around.
> You can add the phosphorus that they have recommended and work
> the biology. Apparently your Organic Matter level is High.
> By the way the "H" means High. VL= Very Low and so on.
> Since O.M. is high you can then add Compost Tea and watch you
> Phosphorus levels go all the way up without any further addition.
> Trust me. One of the major organic growers problems down here
> is excess phosphorus due to excess manure or compost and phosphate
being
>
> released by high microbial activity. I have witnessed Phosphate
increase
>
> without any phosphate addition many times with just improving the
> biology and this is where Compost Tea fits in.
> So according to your analysis you have Phosphorus VL or Very Low
> and Potassium VH or very high. This is conductive to weed growing.
> Switch the balance to Phosphorus High and Potassium M and you
should
> see less weed pressure on your patch.
> "See what you look at " was what Dr Reams used
> to say and he was totally right.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Jose
>
> P.S. In case you want a quick result you can use Soft Rock
Phosphate
> as a source of P . I understand you are bound to organic
> standards.
> If not MAP would be the best choice.
> If you have got time Hard Rock Phosphate and Compost Tea
would
> do the job.
> In either case Compost Tea as a soil drench is a must to
improve
>
> soil biology.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Hi Jose,
>
> I am the leader of a cost-share grant to do non-chemical weed
control on
>
> an 8-mile long county road that has glacial till soil. I quoted
the Soil
>
> Analysis in a previous CT Digest. It was garbled in transmission
and I
> was just correcting it. Here is the whole analysis. You must have
> missed my introduction. This soil is on a road right-of-way that
> contains hawkweed. CT specialists have recommend balancing the
soil as
> part of a program to eliminate weeds. I was asking for ideas on
using CT
>
> for weed control and got many suggestions from the list.
>
> I do not have a good enough background to interpret a soil
analysis. I
> do not even know what the "VH", "VL", and "M" stand for so I can't
> understand the significance of the numbers. I assume "H" is
hectare and
>
> "L" is liter. I just have to go by recommendations from people who
can
> quantify for analysis.
>
> Bruce Tainio of "Tainio Technology and Technique" in Cheney,
Washington,
>
> USA, a nearby town, very kindly helped us. We sent 4 soil tests
to his
> preferred lab, Mid-West Labs in Omaha, Nebraska, and from those
four
> tests, he gave us his nutrient balance calculation for how much
mineral
> to add per acre of soil. I am repeating what I sent before for
your
> benefit. The problems with the garbled email transmission and
with the
> ambiguity of my own message made it hard for Elaine to comment.
That
> particular site had only a thick patch of hawkweed [spreads by
runners
> as well as seed and goes through 3 or 4 life cycles per season] and
> kinnickinnick, a native ground cover and some native grass. It is
in an
>
> area where the forest comes right up to the side of the road.
This area
>
> had been cleared to about 12 ft deep sometime in the past, but was
> nicely covered with vegetation (including the unwanted hawkweed).
We
> have a test plot there and will use Bruce's suggested
micronutrients and
>
> microorganisms ("Biogenesis I) to see if the hawkweed diminishes.
We
> live in a rural culture of 2,4-D use here and we're trying to find
some
> practicable non-chemical solution.
>
> Here is the Soil Analysis (one report) and Bruce's Nutrient Balance
> Calculation (another report) side by side. Hope it comes through
> ungarbled. I did my best to line it up within the parameters of
this
> email. I can't send an attachment. Best, Merla
>
>
> SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT NUTRIENT BALANCE
> Hawkweed CALCULATION
> (From Mid-West Labs) (From Bruce Tainio)
>
> Organic matter 4.5 H
> Phosphorus, weak bray 5 ppm VL P 200# / acre
> Phosphorus, strong bray 59 ppm VH
> Potassium 182ppm VH K 2ppm
> Magnesium 134ppm H Mg 10ppm
> Calcium 1229ppm H Ca 76ppm
> Sodium 19ppm VL
> pH 1:1 6.3
> pH buffer index 6.9
> Cation Exchange Capacity 8.7
> % Base Saturation
> Potassium 5.4
> Magnesium 12.8
> Calcium 70.6
> Hydrogen 10
> Nitrate 1ppm N 60#/acre
> Nitrate 2lbs/A
> Sulfur 19ppm H S 0
> Zinc 1.3ppm M Mn 20#/acre
> Iron 39ppm VH Fe 0
> Copper 0.7ppm L Cu 2.6#/acre
> Boron 0.5ppm L B 2#/acre
> Excess Lime Rate L
> Soluble Salts 1:1 0.2mmhos/cm L
>
> * * * * *
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:48:14 -0300
> From: "Jose Luiz M Garcia" <gingerjo_at_t...>
> Subject: RES: Correction on Soil Analysis
>
>
> I find this soil analysis very strange.
> I don't see Ca, Mg, K, CEC, Organic Matter, Phosphate.
> It is mostly micronutrients and sulphur.
> The sulphate goes hand in hand with Phosphate levels.
> Without knowing one I cannot recommend the other.
> I consider ideal levels the following :
> Zinc .............. 15 ppm
> Copper ......... 5 ppm
> Boron ........... 1 ppm
> Manganese ... 50 ppm
> Iron ............... 100 ppm
> To raise by 1 ppm each mineral you will need approximately
> one kilogram ( 2.2 Lbs) per hectare ( about a pound per acre)
> I don't see how the iron was considered OK. It is definitely low.
> The other amounts recommended will not bring mineral levels
> to ideal.
> Am I missing something ?
>
> Jose
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: VirusScan / Atualizado em 26/03/2003 / Versão: 1.3.13
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra:
http://www.emailprotegido.terra.com.br/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars=
for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/0PSxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Sun Mar 30 2003 - 13:55:40 EST