[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[compost_tea] Re: Correction on Soil Analysis



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@yahoogroups.com, Merla Barberie <herbnmerla@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@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@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


------------------------ 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@yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/