Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation

A great video to watch. Personally, I agree a bit more with Albrecht and Tiedjens.... closer to 85% Ca.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-aOvYH-HNQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The Hefty brothers do a real good job in that video.

At 85% ca what percentages do you like to see the other base cations at?

GHands,

The idea of managing an annual (cannabis) is to start with high calcium and in a form that we know the plant has a chance to pick it up.

This number 85% Ca has to vary on the basis of the medium/soil that you are in. The problem is that the mix, even if it is a specific one like Coots, will always be different chemically depending where you are. This is because compost, manure and worm castings will vary chemically greatly depending on the geography and chemistry of where it came from. If you are in a soil in an area with high K, no P and lots of iron and no manganese, the organic material, whether manure, compost or worm castings, will have a chemical profile in very near proportions, high K, little P, lots of iron and no manganese.

If the soil is very sandy and has a low CEC, 85% Ca will be too much Ca. The number will be closer to 80-82% Ca, needing more K and more Mg. The Mg will make the sand drain less and hold both more water and build up more fertilizers. This would call for a 10-12% Mg and 6 to 8% K. This CEC would probably range from say 4 to 12 meq..

In a soil or mixed medium (no one I have seen so far runs a real medium) where there is a large donation of charges coming from the organic material, say 14 and above, one would start pushing Ca a little higher, 82-84%, 8-10% Mg, 5 to 6% K. If the soil has a charge of 20 meq and above, that is a soil that will respond better to more airspace and need to maintained open, 85-87% Ca or even more., 7-8% Mg, 4 to 5% K.

Note that I am not mentioning Na. I want the least possible. When folks say they get better results adding Na, they needed more K. Not Na.

This would be to start your crop and get a great root system. Once the plant has established well, only maintenance applications of K, Mg and Ca will need to be applied. At the end, to beef things up a bit, I would then push more potassium, not much, but more at the end to bulk up. You never want to have a K deficiency, ever. But with high enough Ca, you will have so many roots, that K uptake is not an issue, even when borderline low, say 3 or 4%.

If one looks at the guys from Nectar of the Gods, their line relies on calcium, all the way to the end.

As well, they are running a 2-5-2 relationship for NPK and adding back lots of Ca and P on a constant basis. No one is pushing K above P at the Oregan Nectar company and folks rave about their results. It isn't the foo foo in their line, they are using amino acids, good seaweed, etc.. but it is the high P constantly that makes that line so good along with constant Ca. It is the attention to running more K than P along with Ca constantly that is setting them apart.

That idea will only work well where P is not already dominating K, but from everything I have seen so far, everyone has high K compared to their P.

So put me down for super stoner move...somehow I erased the email. Can you resend it or give me the info here? I blame redthumb's kush.

And I am in for a pot first and then we will see. I got an indoor down for about a month so I should have time for the analysis and amending. I will get something off to Spectrum Monday.

http://www.growersmineral.com/about is Tiedjens old company right.

From about us...

The three main points of the Growers Program are:

1.provide a good growing medium by insuring adequate calcium in the soil


2.supply necessary nutrients to the plant by applying balanced high quality soluble plant nutrients at the correct time


3.and put in comparison plots and yield check to verify profitable results.

So is "making room for" about leaving stuff other than Ca on the low side so you can add those soluble nutrients...kinda like using Pro Mix in a greenhouse? It is the one concept I am still fuzzy on after talking

So lets take the KQ mix as an example. Obviously it is low on Ca and I get it is probably lower than that on an AA 8.2 mix. There is definitely Ca in there that has not released yet.

In your method I should have added a bunch of available Ca at the start of the yr...is that correct. Maybe CaNO3 early and gypsum a little later?

I get the concept of starting the plant with enough Ca. And over the years as the Ca is made available to the cec sites I will probably need less.

Maybe even some gypsum right now that they are setting buds?

Not my crop, but the first couple of weeks of switch, I would push calcium. Then I would bring K up. I would also be pushing P at this time in general

Awesome thread Slownickel. Tagged. You even have Milky (aka jidoka) changing labs and concepts. Impressed.

The video says:

Cal 65-80
Mg 12-25
k 4-8
Na less than 1%
hydrogen less than 10%

I have been taught the Mg is way too high here, and the Na less than 1% is strange to me also.

Your thoughts?

You have me doing a trial...changing methods will take proof it works. I will admit I now see a big advantage to using the aa 8.2 until I know my silicate/ carbonate has broken down and even the if my pH is over 7.

Footsy,

If there is no hydrogen, redo the math.... what do you do with that 10% H? And if you want less than 1% Na? Do the math?

You come up with Tiedjens! and me....

It took me more than 20 years to figure it out. Then after I figured it out, I thought that I was the only one that did the math. Then I realized that Albrecht came to the same realization. Then I found Tiedjens. Oh well.. guess I wasn't the genius after all! But hey, I can at least rub shoulders!

I'm in...lounge chair locked in recline. Note book out and joint burning.

Vortex,

I got a big kick out of the Solomon (I am in his last book) and Hugh (old friend) regarding calcium and Tiedjens conversation in Hugh's page.

Solomon only in the last couple of years came around to Albrecht with the push of Astera. Then I came in and rocked the boat with Tiedjens. Solomon actually threw me off the webpage until he realized who Astera really was. Then he asked me to come back... I am still there.... Astera is long gone.

The idea here is to discuss the mechanics and why's.... I think Hugh pushed a very valid point that you cannot even think about pushing the calcium numbers all the way with carbonates. That the final push should be with calcium sulphate. Hugh as always, is a real big help. Boy do I have some stories about Hugh and his Radionics black box... Makes me laugh just thinking about that one...

Yay a Slownickel thread!
I'm making an excel spreadsheet right now
I'm thinking the "Ideal Soil" ratios for >7 PH even though mine are <7
83.5% Ca
10% Mg
5% K

Ca= TCEC*400*.835
Mg= TCEC*240*.10
K= TCEC*780*.05

this is for lbs/acre
Is this correct? My K Target number comes out much lower than Logan's desired target for K. Like 1/2 as much, on the document it says they are using 3-5%

Thanks Slownickel and everyone else.

Those numbers are correct. Is Logan reporting ppms on your test? That would be half the lbs per acre.

I'm not sure what's up. Looks like lbs/acre to me. I know what Slownickel will say about the lab. I'm game to try other things.Thanks Jidoka.

The Logan numbers are reported in lbs/acre.... As you all can see from EVERY Spectrum test with M3 and [email protected], the calcium is grossly over calculated and thus swaying the distribution of bases dramatically.

Ah... Ideal Soil.... leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We'll just leave that one alone.

Growers was a company that belonged to Tiedjens and some partners. Read Tiedjens. Several of you have received free copies by email. Read it over and over. Do the math yourselves. And realize that both Albrecht, Tiedjens as well as Spectrum and almost all labs, are or were not practicing the very important lessons we are learning from the PGA agronomists. The PGA guys figured it out. Everyone that tries to run numbers will be cutting their possibilities short by not looking at the whole picture as demonstrated by these PGA agronomists. The guys at the PGA demonstrated how to dial calcium in, even better than we could ever conceive of using M3.

We have to learn. No one is the owner of the truth. The truth only comes from experimenting and learning but with real numbers based on real investigations. Not guessing. I want to learn with you all. I can teach you and you can teach me.

Glad you all are open minded about this, I hate getting into pissing matches and I really think that everyone that learns this lesson will be a zillion times better off. These concepts should not "belong" to anyone.

Looking forward to visiting a bunch of you this winter.... (I am a skiier).

Mizer,

This TCEC thing is useful but again can be very misleading.

If you stick a magnet on a soil here in Peru, almost always you will come away with a lot of soil sticking to that magnet. Sometimes it is almost ridiculous how much sticks to the magnet, other times, not so much.

If you measure with M3 using a 5 minute shake time, you will see 100 or 120 ppm of Fe on those soils that stick to the magnet, however, if you use a 30 minute shake time, that number doubles, often more than doubles. Yet manganese with a 30 minute shake time will barely move from 20 ppm, maybe go to 25 ppm or so.

Aluminum as well, goes up dramatically.

The 5 vs 30 minute shake time barely moves Ca, Mg, K or much of anything else, only Al and Fe go up.

In this case, if the numbers are high enough, Al and Fe are swaying the base distributions. However, if those numbers are low or even adequate levels, their influence on the base distribution is minimum.

Realize that there is NO research that I know of summing up to a TCEC, much less making calculations from them.

At the end of the day, that little bit of difference between CEC and TCEC won't make much of a difference on your Ca recommendation. But what worries me is Mg. Anyone that gets the brilliant idea to apply Mg on the soil in MgSO4 or Dolomite form, is committing themselves to a slow death. It cause large nutrient and water build ups, quite the same as using a lot of worm castings or compost. All of these factors, nutrient build up, water retention etc.. all cause one simple problem. No or little air. The more that the Mg is UNDER estimated (by using concepts like TCEC), the more most will apply more Mg. I made this mistake for more than 20 years. Cost me millions.

This is why lots of you all went to this mediums where the water pours through like a sieve. Makes it nearly idiot proof to those that want to put on these absurd amounts of water.

Ask the guys at Growers what comes back in the soil analysis that they use and what recommendations will come back. They test for a CEC and Calcium to my understanding, nothing else. Why? Because everything else is in the woowoo juice that they sell, which is according to everyone that I have heard use it, is nothing short of spectacular.

I believe it has to do with the relationship of the NPK. The same type relationship of NPK as the Oregon Organic NPK product has. Basically a 1-2-1 (N, P2O5, K2O) Which is really a 1-1-0.8 or so of a real N-P-K

That is a lesson in P folks.... very few companies work that relationship anymore, much less claim that it is an all in 1 bottle.

slownickel said:

The Logan numbers are reported in lbs/acre.... As you all can see from EVERY Spectrum test with M3 and [email protected], the calcium is grossly over calculated and thus swaying the distribution of bases dramatically.

Ah... Ideal Soil.... leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We'll just leave that one alone.

Growers was a company that belonged to Tiedjens and some partners. Read Tiedjens. Several of you have received free copies by email. Read it over and over. Do the math yourselves. And realize that both Albrecht, Tiedjens as well as Spectrum and almost all labs, are or were not practicing the very important lessons we are learning from the PGA agronomists. The PGA guys figured it out. Everyone that tries to run numbers will be cutting their possibilities short by not looking at the whole picture as demonstrated by these PGA agronomists. The guys at the PGA demonstrated how to dial calcium in, even better than we could ever conceive of using M3.

We have to learn. No one is the owner of the truth. The truth only comes from experimenting and learning but with real numbers based on real investigations. Not guessing. I want to learn with you all. I can teach you and you can teach me.

Glad you all are open minded about this, I hate getting into pissing matches and I really think that everyone that learns this lesson will be a zillion times better off. These concepts should not "belong" to anyone.

Looking forward to visiting a bunch of you this winter.... (I am a skiier).

Click to expand...

Is it worth spending 200k to make another 2 zillion?