Coots mix test results with fish compost

[milkyjoe]

So they are biodynamic...right? How long do they compost?

I am pretty sure the biodynamic guys do not uses windrows so hopefully they go a long time. But I think I heard 6 months or less, I could be wrong.


edit...also what was the EC of that compost? The lower it goes the better the compost.

 

[milkyjoe]

Ok thanks milkyjoe,

Would something like AEA MicroPak be fine to apply? YES It has no Mg to impede Mn uptake. Plus it has all the other traces and no iron. I could mix it with Albion Ca right? YES

Is the ammonium acetate test another way of determining cec that won't mistake the free Ca? YES I have a $9 credit with LL so maybe I'll do that.

I'm not actually worried about any of this since shcrews ran it with just water. I'd rather err on the side of safety so with all this cec stuff in mind I'm going to be sparing with the amendments.


MileHighHorse, j/k, we are all just doing whatever we think will get the best results. I'd rather keep it simple and cheap but I'm new so I'm just the apprentice mimicking what I see working. I have my suspicions about a handful of the ingredients in this soil mix but I'm certainly not going to change it my first try. I'd be pulling my hair out wondering the whole time if that one amendment I took out was the critical one!


FoothillFarming, it smelled like it. It's the only other compost besides the fish compost which is dark black and finished. I had big black balls of dark black fish compost, and wet balls of grayish green clayish feeling stuff that actually had seeds in it? They weren't alfalfa seeds. Unless rare earth accidentally scooped some other extra manure or ripped me off and just gave me cheap manure in place of bu's?

I personally don't care what grow paradigm you pick. I answered the question because it was ask about soil testing. All that I would ask is if you do choose another paradigm just let me know so I don't take the time.


The only thing I will say is if I went to a doctor and he told me he doesn't need tests to know what is wrong with me cause he has a belief that he knows patients...well, ima find a new doctor.

 

[plantingplants]

Thanks milkyjoe-- I think there may have been a misunderstanding so to be clear, I like the science based paradigm and appreciate your advice and will be following it.

Foothill, I think you may be right. On second thought I think the clumps may actually be their native soil accidentally scooped up. The seeds are throwing me off though..... I'll post a pic.

Orechron, you nailed it. Without an attempt at scientifically studying a plant's response to certain levels of certain nutrients then how could one even rely on visual cues? We don't just innately know to feed our plants a certain amount of nitrogen when they turn yellow, and there is nothing wrong with attempting to use science to dial it in and understand the workings of plants and their relAtion to nutrients and soil. MileHigh, you've probably carefully figured out how much of X to add when Y happens and we are just doing the same exact thing with more detail and with a thirst for knowledge of the secret soil interactions that make it all possible.

 

[FoothillFarming]

Can't wait for the day you can extract some sap and have a portable meter tell you everything you need to know. Or stick said meter in into soil. One day soon, in my lifetime I would wager.

 

[FoothillFarming]

So they are biodynamic...right? How long do they compost?

I am pretty sure the biodynamic guys do not uses windrows so hopefully they go a long time. But I think I heard 6 months or less, I could be wrong.


edit...also what was the EC of that compost? The lower it goes the better the compost.

Yes they are biodynamic, but I honestly don't know the answer to how long they compost for, and I even checked their website. I know their product must be screened, because it is very uniform. Almost like castings. They claim on their website they turn a minimum amount of times for optimal microbial levels, but I have never seen unfinished Bu's compost, and I have seen many yards. Lynso in Redwood city Ca, had a batch once. A good 100 yards, and it looked very uniform.

I think that was the only time Lynso sold it, because people were not willing to pay for the extra cash. This was maybe 5 years ago now?

 

[plantingplants]

Wait so can you get AEA products in store? I'd rather not pay $56 shipping for a gallon....

 

[MileHighGlass]

Bu compost is some of the best compost in the country........It wasn't the bu, and you should keep using it for sure.

How do you know this? I'm curious because I was looking into trying some.

Science "fact" changes everyday. It is as fluid as the oceans.

 

[leadsled]

The alfalfa added more N, the crab could also be a source of sodium.

Malibu from California is not the same as the Malibu from Oregon as far as content.
Have seen high levels of sodium in both oly and ca malibu.

The green clumps are probably alfalfa.

The clack coot mix leaves alot of room for error. The compost used is the other reason the clack mix gives inconsistent results.
The nitrogen in relation to all the other elements is out of balance.

Then there is the growers that do not do any math and then put more-on because cootz said that is ok.

If you have the TCEC and add the clack mix recommended amount of gypsum, you will overshoot the sulfur levels by a large amount.

Some people do fine with those types of sulfur levels, others do not. Size of plant and strain also makes a difference. Seen a OG kush stunted and yellowed out because of excess sulfur. Also seen buds not develop like they should.

The chemistry interaction between Na and K.
Look at a mulder chart, one line goes from sodium to potassium. There is correlation between the two.

When you have an excess of sodium in your body, the doc gives you potassium.
When the sodium levels get higher than potassium combined with hot and dry weather plants can start taking a shit.

For some growers this is all too complicated, not needed or too much work. just like the car nazis that tell you how to build a car to there specs or else it is "not cool".

The fact is this: It is your car, you can do what ever you like. You built it for yourself not for others that "know it all".

Just diagnostic tools to know more about what is going down.
The logan test is not all knowing and do not solely take the values as being gold.

This is just one of many diagnostic tools. I know growers that are very in tune with there plants. They know what they need and what to give the plants.

Some growers do not have the time or experience yet. This is a way to confirm or deny your theroy on what the problem could be.

Or let say there is a problem and you can not figure out the source of the problem. Here is another diagnostic tool to help determine what the problem is.

OW well, if you got the blinders on and know it all, you will not learn anything new.

No matter how much I learn, still possible to learn something new or a different perspective.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[plantingplants]

Thanks Lead! I finally took a look at the mulder chart.

I should mention, Lead's analysis was great- he took the time to answer all of my many questions, and it was a super quick turnaround time.



Does anyone know where to get Tainio or AEA products in stores? I'm not trying to pay $37 for a gallon and $56 to ship it. Or is there a powder product similar to micropak with no iron and all the traces?

 

[milkyjoe]

The real problem with gypsum, which again I never saw coot reccomend, and oyster is this. In excess...this case...is that when the oyster breaks down that Ca bumps K off the cec sites. It then hooks up with SO4 and leaches out

So a prediction to see if I know what I am talking about...by the end of this grow Cs at least high enough, K to low...even if you don't add a gram of Ca.

Lead...have you noticed when sulfate is the form of S that gets added it disappears quickly? I am starting to think of S and SO4 as two different things entirely

 

[Microbeman]

Just some thoughts

Just some thoughts

Belief is not required for these methods. People are trying to figure out how to grow healthier plants by customizing nutrient levels. Belief is different than knowledge. For example, I know that a soil with 10ppm Manganese will not stack flowers as well as a soil with 35ppm Mn. How? I test, then add micro sulfates based on that test...

So therefore if one does not believe in the Albrecht balance which has been totally disproven by contemporary science but is getting testing done at a laboratory giving recommendations based on this paradigm, then this does not really matter?

If one does not understand the basis of the testing being done, meaning the total skinny, then how meaningful are the results, except to the one doling out the advice and the customer with the faith that they are doing the right thing?

Are the results warrantied?

It is the same at some biological labs which do not actually show you the microbial activity but have a range of numbers which they pronounce as good. The customer goes away with that yummy feeling stating so and so (Mr Big and Important) said my protozoa numbers are 300,000.

What does that mean? Well I dunno but he said it was good. How did he test? Well I dunno but everybody's following him.

The only thing I will say is if I went to a doctor and he told me he doesn't need tests to know what is wrong with me cause he has a belief that he knows patients...well, ima find a new doctor.

It is the testing paradigm that counts here. You can go to a vascular surgeon for leg vein blockages who knows that the local valves need to be ultrasound scoped or you can go to one who only orders the ultrasound of the valves in the upper thigh. This is a very common and potentially deadly error. The same can be said of many medical practitioners in many areas of specialty.

Likewise soil tests.

One can say they are following science but are they? Or are they just following the latest trend calling itself such? Science is a set logical sequence of questioning or challenging propositions.

When we are contemplating the elements and minerals exchanged in the cation exchange process are we including the myriad of organic acids involved - shifting daily (hourly?-less?) in response to plant and microbial need and interaction? How do we really have this picture?

Just some thoughts from a wannabe scientist.

 

[orechron]

Science "fact" changes everyday. It is as fluid as the oceans.

You're not entirely wrong here. Physics is a prime example. However, we're talking about about a method where we can match lab values to our own observations. If I get an analysis from logan that shows low potassium, I can confirm it with a horiba sap meter and see the visual deficiency on the leaf margin of plants grown in that soil.

So therefore if one does not believe in the Albrecht balance which has been totally disproven by contemporary science but is getting testing done at a laboratory giving recommendations based on this paradigm, then this does not really matter?

Totally disproven? There is something to say about Ca:Mg ratios not having to be exact. 5:1 or 7:1 work. Mg can also swing between 12% and 20% and it doesn't seem to matter much. However, when K saturation gets above 10% you can bet you'll have issues outdoors.

You also don't have to stay strict to their recommendations. I go over their Calcium and under their Potassium recommendations regularly. That's my opinion based on trial and error using their analysis.

If one does not understand the basis of the testing being done, meaning the total skinny, then how meaningful are the results, except to the one doling out the advice and the customer with the faith that they are doing the right thing?

Are the results warrantied?

I don't think so. For the majority of their customers (corn, wheat, soy, etc.) these numbers work well. I think their business would tank otherwise.

It is the same at some biological labs which do not actually show you the microbial activity but have a range of numbers which they pronounce as good. The customer goes away with that yummy feeling stating so and so (Mr Big and Important) said my protozoa numbers are 300,000.

What does that mean? Well I dunno but he said it was good. How did he test? Well I dunno but everybody's following him.

It seems that soil chemistry is much less complicated than soil microbiology. We appear to have identified most elements required for plant growth. I'm certain that's not the case for microbes.

When a soil analysis shows lack of cations and the resulting plants grown in that soil have acidic sap, I can expect that an addition of cations will raise the sap pH and correspond to healthier growth. When Coot's mix has an excess of cations, especially K, you can expect plant sap pH to be high. Guess what? The aphids and mites are called to the dinner table. Milky pointed out that there is always talk of IPM (AgSil and neem oil foliars) that becomes a regular part of Coot followers' growing methods. They need an IPM program because they are always getting mites. It doesn't have to be this way.

It is the testing paradigm that counts here. You can go to a vascular surgeon for leg vein blockages who knows that the local valves need to be ultrasound scoped or you can go to one who only orders the ultrasound of the valves in the upper thigh. This is a very common and potentially deadly error. The same can be said of many medical practitioners in many areas of specialty.

Likewise soil tests.

One can say they are following science but are they? Or are they just following the latest trend calling itself such? Science is a set logical sequence of questioning or challenging propositions.

What you're missing I think, is that we are challenging established methods. Using soil tests, refractometers, and sap meters are the tools we are using as well as our eyes.

When we are contemplating the elements and minerals exchanged in the cation exchange process are we including the myriad of organic acids involved - shifting daily (hourly?-less?) in response to plant and microbial need and interaction? How do we really have this picture?

Rhetorical question because you know we aren't. We don't have the whole picture. Maybe it is practically impossible to do so. Cannabis does seem to have some sweet spot ranges for some nutrients. A dandelion, for example, seems to be able to handle Calcium saturation in soil below 50%. Maybe it produces a different set of compounds that attracts the right microbe to make that Calcium more available. I don't know and don't care that much because I don't grow dandelions. What I do know is that cannabis doesn't like soils with 50% Ca base cation saturation.

Just some thoughts from a wannabe scientist.

You're more than a wannabe. I give you more credit than that.

 

[milkyjoe]

MM...first of all I have nothing but respect for you. Your mix is far closer to what I do than the Coot thing. Second I think when you get right down to it Orech, Lead and I would all agree microbes are the single most important thing. I think we agree on a lot more than most would suspect. If you check m Astera's thread I was asked if someone could only use 3 AEA products what would they be...all 3 choices were aimed at microbes.

Secondly I would agree that no science is settled. That is the nature of it...every single new discovery leads to another question. None of us are saying this is the absolute answer, there is always more to learn after every discovery.

And I agree, you can point to certain people that say Albrecht is wrong. And can I show you a lot of peer reviewed science that says different. nope. But I can show you, well point you to anyways, people that do thousands of acres that are also then tested with tissue testing that get fantastic results. is it pure college science...no, but it is what most serious companies do, test things out and decide do they work or not, that is what six sigma is all about.

When I first got into this I started talking with Neal Kinsey. He runs thousands of acres of broadacre crops, most corn and soybeans. He was horrible at getting results back to me, but there is no doubt he is a very successful, very smart guy Then I kinda moved on to Graeme Sait, who also has thousands of acres around the world with plenty of soil test followed by leaf test info.

Then I started experimenting myself. Soil tests, tissue tests until they told me no. And I can say from personal experience a few things are important. Orecheron can tell you a tale of growing in basically a rain forest and overcoming all mold problems in maybe 3 yrs time using this method. I can tell you, other than taking in clones, I have not used ipm for maybe 3 yrs. The Coot guys, maybe other than Schrews, cannot say that.

I totally welcome debate...it would move us all forward. Hopefully you feel free to say whatever you want. I promise I will listen and experiment based on what you say

And that analogy I made to the med system may not have been the best. They are ranked number 3 in killing Americans now. In fact they damn near killed me this winter. So I take that one back.

 

[Microbeman]

Orechron & Milky Joe;

I think that both of you may have got my points to lesser or greater degrees. I was not condemning your methods. I was only trying to encourage you to see that you may be treating your method(s) as hardcore scientific fact which then rubs off on others attempting to 'join in'.

When I read that someone is putting down another's method, of gardening and their way of gauging gardening success, by stating something like "I'd rather use science than grope in the dark" it is paradoxical (to me) when the opposing gardener's views are just as scientific.

Joe, you both brought up the microbial aspect which I did not even dwell on outside of using biological testing as an analogy. Seemingly this is based upon things I have written previously.

I think we both know that growing is not a question of chemistry or biology - mineral balance or microbial interaction but a combination of the two, along with the electromagnetic part of which we know even less.

I think you also know that I believe in tissue testing (at least in terms of testing that tells something), so long as it is done correctly using the best methods available and that those methods are spelled out to the customer/grower.

I also was not making a statement that the Albrecht balance hypothesis is incorrect but that it has been thoroughly disproven by solid scientific evidence. This was brought up to ask in effect whose science is correct?

There will always be the 'proof is in the pudding' statements, some of which are 100% valid and some are perhaps premature as 10 or 15 years may be too short a period to evaluate potential negatives.
Some are just shameless (or shameful) testimonials.

[Non-fiction - fiction to protect the innocent]
Some agricultural communities have faithfully followed laboratory proscribed amendments to thousands of acres for years, swearing by the results. Later profound errors were discovered in the testing procedures. Were they right or wrong to put all those amendments on their fields? They got good yields (until they quit and the soil was dead).

I always have my skeptic's eye turned on.

Rhetorical question because you know we aren't.

All of my questions were rhetorical and socratic.

One thing I do pick up on coming out of these types of discussion is the trend back to the NPK mentality. I do not see its place in natural growing. That is my personal opinion on the matter and of course everyone makes up their own mind.

I have no objection to the testing based methods which you council. I find it interesting. I just think others using their opposing methods should not be told they are gardening blind because maybe they are not.

 

[orechron]

.

.

Orechron & Milky Joe;

I think that both of you may have got my points to lesser or greater degrees. I was not condemning your methods. I was only trying to encourage you to see that you may be treating your method(s) as hardcore scientific fact which then rubs off on others attempting to 'join in'.

Perhaps. It's clear to me that you're intentions on this board is not to bash people. I think the appearance of us treating this method as scientific fact stems from how effective it has been for us.

When I read that someone is putting down another's method, of gardening and their way of gauging gardening success, by stating something like "I'd rather use science than grope in the dark" it is paradoxical (to me) when the opposing gardener's views are just as scientific.

I think that all opposing gardening methods being just as scientific is a really tough standpoint to argue for. Yes, people like Coot did the trial and error thing where he played around with different mixes and amendment amounts to find something that worked better than the previous trial, but he stopped at a place where there were still obvious problems (insect pressure) and declared mission accomplished. He now has a huge following of people that follow his formula and run into mites. That bugs me

Joe, you both brought up the microbial aspect which I did not even dwell on outside of using biological testing as an analogy. Seemingly this is based upon things I have written previously.

I think we both know that growing is not a question of chemistry or biology - mineral balance or microbial interaction but a combination of the two, along with the electromagnetic part of which we know even less.

I'm on board with this. I just picked up some works by Phil Callahan that I'm anxious to get to.

I think you also know that I believe in tissue testing (at least in terms of testing that tells something), so long as it is done correctly using the best methods available and that those methods are spelled out to the customer/grower.

I also was not making a statement that the Albrecht balance hypothesis is incorrect but that it has been thoroughly disproven by solid scientific evidence. This was brought up to ask in effect whose science is correct?

There will always be the 'proof is in the pudding' statements, some of which are 100% valid and some are perhaps premature as 10 or 15 years may be too short a period to evaluate potential negatives.
Some are just shameless (or shameful) testimonials.

[Non-fiction - fiction to protect the innocent]
Some agricultural communities have faithfully followed laboratory proscribed amendments to thousands of acres for years, swearing by the results. Later profound errors were discovered in the testing procedures. Were they right or wrong to put all those amendments on their fields? They got good yields (until they quit and the soil was dead).

I wish they wouldn't added just the minerals instead of the glyphosate.

I always have my skeptic's eye turned on.

All of my questions were rhetorical and socratic.

One thing I do pick up on coming out of these types of discussion is the trend back to the NPK mentality. I do not see its place in natural growing. That is my personal opinion on the matter and of course everyone makes up their own mind.

Man I hope I don't come off as sounding like I'm pushing NPK. I thought that paradigm asserted that N, P, and K were all that plants need. On the contrary, we've been looking at around 20 different elements and their compounds and that number might grow. Plants an animals will make innumerable compounds with those building blocks and I'm less curious to know what they are. I'm more curious to know the amounts of the building blocks that I can provide for the soil biology and plants to do as they will. FWIW my grows are almost entirely organic with the exception of a small amount of calcium nitrate. My soil is at a 15:1 C:N ratio now so maybe this round I won't need anything? I hope so.

I have no objection to the testing based methods which you council. I find it interesting. I just think others using their opposing methods should not be told they are gardening blind because maybe they are not.

I must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Microbeman again.

 

[milkyjoe]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

 

[Microbeman]

Goodnight

 

[plantingplants]

This is a bad photo but a handful of plants have thin wrinkly new growth and some leaves have a purple tinge. They're just now growing out of their old root balls of 707 soil but this was happening while they were in it. I thought the coots would help them out but maybe they just need more time in it? I'm not sure what deficiency this is but I'm hoping MicroPak with Ca will correct it.

 

[milkyjoe]

Can you get a wider picture from a couple of angles? I cant tell for sure but it looks like the old leaf is yellow which would be N or K. I am not familiar with Roots soil so I may not be the best to answer this.

 

[MileHighGlass]

Orechron & Milky Joe;

I think that both of you may have got my points to lesser or greater degrees. I was not condemning your methods. I was only trying to encourage you to see that you may be treating your method(s) as hardcore scientific fact which then rubs off on others attempting to 'join in'.

When I read that someone is putting down another's method, of gardening and their way of gauging gardening success, by stating something like "I'd rather use science than grope in the dark" it is paradoxical (to me) when the opposing gardener's views are just as scientific.

Joe, you both brought up the microbial aspect which I did not even dwell on outside of using biological testing as an analogy. Seemingly this is based upon things I have written previously.

I think we both know that growing is not a question of chemistry or biology - mineral balance or microbial interaction but a combination of the two, along with the electromagnetic part of which we know even less.

I think you also know that I believe in tissue testing (at least in terms of testing that tells something), so long as it is done correctly using the best methods available and that those methods are spelled out to the customer/grower.

I also was not making a statement that the Albrecht balance hypothesis is incorrect but that it has been thoroughly disproven by solid scientific evidence. This was brought up to ask in effect whose science is correct?

There will always be the 'proof is in the pudding' statements, some of which are 100% valid and some are perhaps premature as 10 or 15 years may be too short a period to evaluate potential negatives.
Some are just shameless (or shameful) testimonials.

[Non-fiction - fiction to protect the innocent]
Some agricultural communities have faithfully followed laboratory proscribed amendments to thousands of acres for years, swearing by the results. Later profound errors were discovered in the testing procedures. Were they right or wrong to put all those amendments on their fields? They got good yields (until they quit and the soil was dead).

I always have my skeptic's eye turned on.



All of my questions were rhetorical and socratic.

One thing I do pick up on coming out of these types of discussion is the trend back to the NPK mentality. I do not see its place in natural growing. That is my personal opinion on the matter and of course everyone makes up their own mind.

I have no objection to the testing based methods which you council. I find it interesting. I just think others using their opposing methods should not be told they are gardening blind because maybe they are not.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's as if you went in my head and read my mind!

Truth though.