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

Re: RES: RES: [compost_tea] Re: Correction on Soil Analysis



Thanks for that Jose,

Jose Luiz M Garcia wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynton,
> 
> It is good that you have asked this question because then I
> will have the chance to explain you that the soil does not
> work like a chemical laboratory bench.
> This has been the mistake of Soil scientists for decades.
> Dr Albrecht have wrote a nice paper on that matter entitled :
> "Insoluble yet Available" in which he explain how soil works.
> 
> Sometimes we see things happening in soil that just defies
> logical and traditional chemical thinking because in soil things
> just don't happen like in a lab bench inside of a glassware.
> Many other factors are involved that have to be also taken into
> consideration.
> We know that applying gypsum will deplete calcium because this
> is simply a fact. It has happened a thousand times even though
> Gypsum is Calcium Sulphate. You measure calcium before, then
> apply gypsum and after 2 or 3 years you measure again. You should be
> able to get a figure lower than previous measurement.
> When soil opens by the action of Gypsum, Calcium will just leach
> by itself . It doesn't need to be bound to anything to leach the
> soil. Actually cations Ca++  will go away by themselves depleting the
> soil of calcium.
> This is why we recommend having more than 60% of base saturation with
> calcium
> if you want to apply Gypsum.
> By doing that you minimize this calcium depletion aspect of gypsum.
> You can ask anyone of those eco-ag consultants. I learned that from Neal
> Kinsey
> that have learned that from Dr Albrecht himself.
> 
> Now I will give another example that soil chemistry is not a chemical
> lab bench
> chemistry.
>  There was a time in which Sugar Mills in Brazil were dumping what is
> left from
> sugar cane fermentation that unfortunately I do not know the English
> terminology,
> in the rivers. So government came up with a law that would prohibit them
> of doing that.
> It is a liquid very rich in Potash but has a very low pH close to 3.
> Then they decided to dump it in the land but soil scientist say : "Ok.
> You will have to
> neutralize it first because being a low pH ( 3.0) you will lower soil
> pH". A typical
> Chemical Lab bench thinking. So they all did it. Who would dare to say
> no to a
> Soil Chemistry Professor ? They would add some lime to it before putting
> in the field.
> But one day, a " dummy" guy , that never went to school and who was in
> charge of
> dumping that stuff in the fields have did it straight without
> neutralizing. He never
> heard about neutralizing and was not aware of pH or anything. A simple
> man.
> When Sugar Mill directors found out the panic and went on to measure
> soil pH.
> What they have found was that the liquid that had a pH of 3.0 actually
> increased soil
> pH because they all forget about soil biology and this is why I am in
> this list.
> I know sufficient soil chemistry to the point I get nauseated by it
> sometimes.
> Soil Biology is beautiful and also has to be taken into account.
> What happened probably in that case was that the liquid was full of
> nutrients and
> have increased soil biology and those organisms have started to exudate
> all those
> wonderful organic acids which have buffer capacity. Probably there was
> an outburst
> of bacteria ( residual sugars) and they have exudated compounds that
> have raised the pH, maybe some of those acids have solubilized calcium,
> who knows ?
> We don't know. They have never bother studying that phenomena. Today
> nobody
> neutralizes it before adding to the soil because it poses no more threat
> of lowering
> soil pH.
> Who discovered that fact ? A simple worker .
> 
> So your thinking is correct inside of a glass ware but not in a soil of
> any kind.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> Jose
> 
> -----
> > to the clay is the following : H+, Na+, K+, Ca++, Mg++
> 
> Jose,
> 
> I am not a chemist in the slightest degree, so please excuse my
> ignorance here;
> If gypsum is CaSO4, then I'm guessing that in order for it to tie up
> something the Ca is displaced from the molecule
> CaSO4 + Na -> NaSo4 + Ca
> But of course the Na is not there by itself, so maybe
> CaSO4 + NaCl -> NaSO4 + CaCl ???
> 
> With this, I don't see how gypsum can remove more Ca.
> 
> Or is it that gypsum can 'grab' extra stuff without losing Ca?
> 
> Thanks
> Lynton
> 
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/


------------------------ 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/