-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
C
CaliGabe
C-ray is in the same group as those other guys? I remember C-ray from some other forum many years back. There was a CD I got from Acres some years back that Bruce Tainio did and great starter info for sap pH and it's value in monitoring plant health. He used it mainly as a trending indicator from what I remember where pH swings would be noticeable before the problem would show up visibly on the plant.
Anyway regarding the K great info from you and Milkyjoe. One of my local friends beating his high soil K back with Ca foliars and only lasts 5 days so he's changing the Ca program to 5 day intervals and keeping the rest of his foliar program on 7 day intervals.
C
Cep
He's a member here, although I don't think he's achieved celebrity status like the other names.
The foliar Calcium along with the other AEA stuff has given me plant health that I wouldn't have been able to achieve with just my normal foliar regimen. I took brix readings today while it was sunny and the numbers were significantly better. pH is still high, however. With my soil K levels it might be difficult to drop those numbers.
Row 1: 15 brix (cloudy line), 7.2pH
Row 2: 13.5 brix (sharp line), 7.2pH
Row 3: 16 brix (sharp line), 7.3pH
Brix of rows 2&3 increased significantly since last week, difference is more than just weather I think. I also tested only the juiced leaves and my reading from them are on average 2.5% higher than with the petioles included:
I'm scratching my head with that one because I wouldn't expect the plants from the bed with the highest base cation % for K (14) to produce such high brix plants. I retested with a second set of 24 leaves from that row just to make sure and got the same reading.
I have some buckwheat hanging around from early spring. Some of them have been close enough to my plants to get hit by the foliar treatment.
Foliar:
Non:
Notice the blossom set difference. Also, I don't know if its visible in the pics but there is a Mg deficiency in the non foliar treated plants.
The foliar Calcium along with the other AEA stuff has given me plant health that I wouldn't have been able to achieve with just my normal foliar regimen. I took brix readings today while it was sunny and the numbers were significantly better. pH is still high, however. With my soil K levels it might be difficult to drop those numbers.
Row 1: 15 brix (cloudy line), 7.2pH
Row 2: 13.5 brix (sharp line), 7.2pH
Row 3: 16 brix (sharp line), 7.3pH
Brix of rows 2&3 increased significantly since last week, difference is more than just weather I think. I also tested only the juiced leaves and my reading from them are on average 2.5% higher than with the petioles included:
I'm scratching my head with that one because I wouldn't expect the plants from the bed with the highest base cation % for K (14) to produce such high brix plants. I retested with a second set of 24 leaves from that row just to make sure and got the same reading.
I have some buckwheat hanging around from early spring. Some of them have been close enough to my plants to get hit by the foliar treatment.
Foliar:
Non:
Notice the blossom set difference. Also, I don't know if its visible in the pics but there is a Mg deficiency in the non foliar treated plants.
I have a theory, just a theory and I may be completely out of my mind, a state I occasionally love to be in...but I digress already.
Anyways, see what you think. Brix is really the amount of solids in the sap, anything that refracts light. When you replace Ca with K you end up getting a lot of K in the sap whereas if you had plenty of Ca it gets tied up in the tissue and is not so present in the sap.
I like to play with salts indoors and I see this time after time with high K salt formulas...high brix, sharp line.
My take is that too high brix is just as bad as too low because the base cation saturation of the plant itself is not correct. To me that sharp line indicates that you have a lot of simple carbon chains in the plant vs long, complex chains.
Just a thought...not a fact.
Also I am not sure about juicing to get a sample. Seems to me you are getting a lot of actual plant matter along with the sap. You might give Bob Pike a call about that...he seems to be the go to expert.
Anyways, see what you think. Brix is really the amount of solids in the sap, anything that refracts light. When you replace Ca with K you end up getting a lot of K in the sap whereas if you had plenty of Ca it gets tied up in the tissue and is not so present in the sap.
I like to play with salts indoors and I see this time after time with high K salt formulas...high brix, sharp line.
My take is that too high brix is just as bad as too low because the base cation saturation of the plant itself is not correct. To me that sharp line indicates that you have a lot of simple carbon chains in the plant vs long, complex chains.
Just a thought...not a fact.
Also I am not sure about juicing to get a sample. Seems to me you are getting a lot of actual plant matter along with the sap. You might give Bob Pike a call about that...he seems to be the go to expert.
C
Cep
How do the flowers come out with the high K salt formulas? You're in soil right? I've run coco the past few years and almost all of the coco nutrients are high K. The yield is good, but the individual bracts aren't as robust as I think they should be.
I think we will be able to verify your theory. Next week I'll collect enough leaves to submit the petioles and I'll be able to match the brix/pH numbers to the tissue analysis. I've already seen tissue results where K was 5% of the dry weight. Maybe current results will be higher.
I'll also see how much of a difference there is in squeezing vs juicing. Theres a fine filter in the juicer that I use and I don't see solids in the mix but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Thanks for the insight.
I think we will be able to verify your theory. Next week I'll collect enough leaves to submit the petioles and I'll be able to match the brix/pH numbers to the tissue analysis. I've already seen tissue results where K was 5% of the dry weight. Maybe current results will be higher.
I'll also see how much of a difference there is in squeezing vs juicing. Theres a fine filter in the juicer that I use and I don't see solids in the mix but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Thanks for the insight.
Do you think its possible to achieve optimal nutrition that enables advanced function in plants using a soil less medium like coco?
FE
FE
I would prefer not to answer those questions cause taste is totally subjective the fact my current soil has zero compost to avoid high k should tell you where my taste lies
..subjectivly speaking. You can finish plants with no oxidation of essential oils though.
..subjectivly speaking. You can finish plants with no oxidation of essential oils though.
goldcountryguy2
Member
Everybody talks of high K in their soil because of the compost. EWC is the answer to that problem IMO.
But if you used EWC in the % that people are using green waste compost , you will have other problems.
Like? EWC is pretty balanced usually? My personal mix I used 2/3 bu blend steer compost and 1/3 EWC and I have been happy. But I don't see why EWC couldn't take up 33% of a soil mix.
Try it and find out why
L
Luther Burbank
BYF, wish I had the soil test still for my last run of EWC to share. Albrecht would have masturbated over the ratios.
Right but if you put 30% worm castings what will happen to the bulk density and total CEC...?
There's no broad stroke answer.
The real reason green waste compost has the numbers it does is because most of the starting material was grown conventionally with lots of K and no3 to make things really green...not sure what composting process if any , can deal with that...even with loads of biology. At the worm farm they mix green waste with vermicompost for the base of NorCal blend
Midwest bio systems turner is similar to the one the worm farm uses that's from frontier industrial,
There's no broad stroke answer.
The real reason green waste compost has the numbers it does is because most of the starting material was grown conventionally with lots of K and no3 to make things really green...not sure what composting process if any , can deal with that...even with loads of biology. At the worm farm they mix green waste with vermicompost for the base of NorCal blend
Midwest bio systems turner is similar to the one the worm farm uses that's from frontier industrial,
goldcountryguy2
Member
The answer is if u don't know the other 70 percent of the mix u have no conclusions or assumptions to make....
How about I re-word my comment then.
If one is worried about too high of K, then I suggest cutting their current compost with 50% EWC in the total mix. That would help IMO.
If one is worried about too high of K, then I suggest cutting their current compost with 50% EWC in the total mix. That would help IMO.
C
Cep
I'd like to see an analysis on worm castings. Now that I've seen the makeup of a few different composts in the area I'm in agreement with Backyard and Milkyjoe that the inputs are bad. Most people fertilizing their lawns don't think about ratios. They want the highest NPK values for their dollar.
That being said, what are the worms being fed? It probably matters. K is the major intracellular cation in their cells but I'm sure they could only hold so much when they are processing animal crap or veggie matter. If they are fed a high K diet then I'd assume the castings are going to be high in K. Dig up that analysis Luther!
That being said, what are the worms being fed? It probably matters. K is the major intracellular cation in their cells but I'm sure they could only hold so much when they are processing animal crap or veggie matter. If they are fed a high K diet then I'd assume the castings are going to be high in K. Dig up that analysis Luther!
I don't need to know what else is in the mix , it doesn't matter.
I've already touched a bit on why.
If you want good compost you need to make it yourself and really manage it ...
It isn't feasible to do for the amount of soil you throw at a full term plant.
Some of mine are in five yards. So I turn to an outfit like worm soil factory for green waste compost blended with worm castings ...but the base is really peat moss , perlite, and lava rock...
Some compost outfits start with mill waste too and call it "forest humus" which is laughable ...
Compost can be a good way to deliver biology and other positive attributes , like increasing water retention...but it can kill you just as easily,
I've already touched a bit on why.
If you want good compost you need to make it yourself and really manage it ...
It isn't feasible to do for the amount of soil you throw at a full term plant.
Some of mine are in five yards. So I turn to an outfit like worm soil factory for green waste compost blended with worm castings ...but the base is really peat moss , perlite, and lava rock...
Some compost outfits start with mill waste too and call it "forest humus" which is laughable ...
Compost can be a good way to deliver biology and other positive attributes , like increasing water retention...but it can kill you just as easily,
When I buy Vermi Compost it varies from as high as 2-1-1 and as low as 1-.5-0. I don't have a worm bin going right now but when I did I would add kelp, alfalfa, rock dusts, compost, soft rock ext. My vermi - compost might have been a little higher NPK, but nothing that would send your K levels off the charts.
