RES: [compost_tea] Correction on Soil Analysis

From: Jose Luiz M Garcia (gingerjo@terra.com.br)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 13:16:32 EST


Hi Merla,
 
Discussion brings light.
First of all I would like to pay my deep respect for the
plants that we are discussing their elimination from road sides.
Some of them are even Medicinal Plants but the fact that they
are vegetating on the road side precludes their use as herbs.
We don’t want all those heavy metals on our herbal medicines, do we ?
Thanks for taking the time of copying all the soil analysis.
Again, I would like to emphasize the importance of a
proper soil analysis.
Reams said that you need to have a 2:1 relationship of
P:K in order to be able to see less weed pressure when we are
talking about broad leaf weeds. I forgot to mention that in my
last post. This relationship is only valid for broad leaf weeds.
Hawkweed being a Compositae falls into that category.
Common Tansy as well.
Knapweed is also a broadleaf plant.
This relationship could be as high as 4:1 if you want to grow
wheat, etc…
Now comes the trick. This relationship that I am talking about
is only valid if one is using the type of soil test used by Reams.
That is the so called La Motte test.
 
Why is this so ?
Because like I said every soil test is language. Not all the soil
tests are alike. Acres USA have sent the same soil sample to
17 different labs and got back 17 different soil test results with
17 different recommendations . Some of the recommendations like
Lime for instance varied from none to 2,000 lbs/acre. A broad
variation. Which one of those 17 results was the correct one ?
All of those labs used official procedures.
La Motte test uses a very weak extractor ( Morgan). Almost water.
So when Reams says P 2:1 K he is talking about La Motte soil
test which uses a modified Morgan extractor and not Weak Bray or Strong
Bray.
If you look at the results from your own soil analysis you will see that
results for P will vary from Very Low to Very High if you use weak Bray
or Strong Bray.
How come that is possible ?
 
So, let’s forget strong bray for a while. That shows you what is in your
soil
but that P is deposited on the “savings account” . That P is not readil=
y
available
but it is still a good information. That information tell us that we can
make that
P available over time, IF we work the biology properly.
Let´s look at Weak Bray results. What do that tell us ?
You have two soils that are Very Low, one that is average and one that
is high.
Now, I dare to say that if those samples were analyzed with a Modified
Morgan
extractor all of them would fall into Low to Very Low categories.
So, I stand behind of I have said before. That is : YOU HAVE VERY LOW
AVAILABLE
PHOSPHORUS. The key word is AVAILABLE.
I am not talking about your P “savings account” but actually what plant=
s
can draw
from that soil in terms of P. Little to none .
So if Strong Bray says that your phosphorus is Very High that doesn’t
mean that your
Phosphorus is AVAILABLE but you know you can make it available over time
IF you work the biology properly. And this is where Compost Tea fits in.
Steve Diver says that he doesn’t even have Compost Tea as one of the
listed alternatives
to control weeds. Well, I think he should review his point of view.
I believe that even alternative people still have the Nuke’em mind set
when they talk about using
vinegar or to burn them. That is the same as taking an aspirin to
“resolve” a headache problem.
Go the root of the problem !!
There is no vinegar or flame ( or even the discussed chicken shit )
deficiency on you soil.
You do have a Phosphorus deficiency on your soil coupled with a
Potassium excess.
Apply Soft Rock Phosphate or MAP
to all the plots ( some plots needs more than the others ) and those
weeds wouldn’t need to grow there.
Nature’s plans are different than ours. Grasses will indicate excess
nitrate or lack of calcium.
Most likely lack of calcium ( you don´t see excess nitrate too often as
you see lack of calcium
due to low fungi in the soil )
Broad leaf “weeds” will indicate excess potash with a decreased P
availability.
As far as I know one of the ways to increase P availability is by
increasing soil microbial
activity and I don´t see why Compost Tea can’t help in that respect.
One of the research I would like to do is to measure Phosphorus levels
in several kind of soils
just by applying Compost tea and nothing else. Apply CT and measure P
over time.
I am not talking about the mind set of elimination or destruction ( now
actually being used in a whole
country). I am talking about making the terrain inhospitable for weeds
to grow or unnecessary
for the weeds to grow there .
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?
 
Like I said it will depend on the type of soil analysis you do.
Numbers from a conventional lab means very little for us when we want to
apply Reams concept.
Albrecht here is not going to help and there isn’t any point in reading
the papers
gathered in the 4 volumes published by Acres USA. The best way to get
Albrecht concepts
is to take Kinsey’s classes or to talk to someone who did and utilize
his concepts on a
daily basis.
 
Revert the P:K relationship , apply Compost Tea and if the weeds grows
even nicer, as they
should after receiving Compost tea ,you go ahead and cut them making a
nice mulch.
This process may take a year or so but you should be able to see less
and less weed pressure
over time.
 
All your Potassium levels are Very High even with the regular extractors
now imagine if we had
used La Motte extractors. They would have been Extremely High.
I see no room for calcium in this soil as their levels is already high.
Calcium could expel Potassium
from that soil.
So, in a situation in which we have High Potassium , High Calcium and
adequate magnesium
I wold suggest adding Gypsum. This is the only situation where Gypsum
would be recommended
when Calcium is close to 60% of base saturation. Sulphate from the
Gypsum will draw K out
of you soil. It will also draw calcium but you have a fair amount of
calcium already.
Gypsum is also a cheap soil amendment.
 
Summarizing :
Apply Phosphorus, Gypsum and work the biology with Compost Tea.
Forget about the minors since it is a road side plot.
 
Regards
 
Jose
 
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@terra.com.br>
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@terra.com.br>
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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1=
707
418612:HM/A=1513703/R=0/*http:/www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F=
/
g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egro=
u
pmail/S=:HM/A=1513703/rand=628128373>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.

  _____

Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra
<http://www.emailprotegido.terra.com.br/> .
Scan engine: VirusScan / Atualizado em 26/03/2003 / Versão: 1.3.13
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://www.emailprotegido.terra.com.br/







This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 16:57:48 EDT