Lightweight Peat's Mucky Muck soil testing

[acespicoli]

In my head i keep calling it the Insane Clown Posse machine because I never remember what ICP stands for. I really annoy myself sometimes

ICP is a good band brother!

spectrascope would be a better discription

 

[biggreg]

Silicon is supplemented in naturally low organic soils and supplemented on Si loving crops like corn and rice in the Everglades Ag area ( peaty soils)

Read somewhere that plants can uptake Si in levels on par with NPK

In mineral soil, Si is abundant. In peat, not so much

 

[acespicoli]

Silicon is supplemented in naturally low organic soils and supplemented on Si loving crops like corn and rice in the Everglades Ag area ( peaty soils)

Read somewhere that plants can uptake Si in levels on par with NPK

In mineral soil, Si is abundant. In peat, not so much

Yeah we need a baseline of whats recommended for ag crops
Back to the tests im thinking your right about going customized

All 12 or 15 nutes tested will run me $35 + shipping
$5& 2x14= You agree thats the test to run? (S22)

S22. Individual Elements in the Digest by ICP:
$5.00/sample for first element, $2.00/element/sample for each additional
element. e.g. 3 elements would cost $5.00+$2.00+$2.00 or $9.00 per
sample
Varies

 

[biggreg]

The total digest tests won't relate to potentially available elements like the Mehlich 3 was designed to extract. It could be done for curiosity but it probably isn't that helpful

Get the Mehlich 3 with the works. We want to look at potential plant available elements.

I haven't ever tested for N. Tried 1000g feather meal per yard3 last go and it was ok. Didn't burn due to slow release. I don't know anything about N testing other than I read its problematic

 

[acespicoli]

The total digest tests won't relate to potentially available elements like the Mehlich 3 was designed to extract. It could be done for curiosity but it probably isn't that helpful

Get the Mehlich 3 with the works. We want to look at potential plant available elements.

I haven't ever tested for N. Tried 1000g feather meal per yard3 last go and it was ok. Didn't burn due to slow release. I don't know anything about N testing other than I read its problematic

Ok I was confusing the M1 with the M3 tests

Mehlich-1 (Dilute Double Acid)
Mehlich-1, or the dilute double-acid extractant, is one of the earliest versions of “universal” soil extractants (single chemical reagent that can extract all the essential plant nutrients), and is especially suited for the acidic, low organic matter, mineral soils of the southeastern United States. Adopting the M1 procedure enabled universal extraction of all standard plant nutrients in the soil sample, including P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Mn, and B. The M1 extractant is composed of two dilute acids: 0.05M HCl and 0.0125M H2SO4 (Table 1). Mehlich-1 was the soil extractant used as the standard method by the UF/IFAS Extension Soil Testing Laboratory for acidic-mineral soils in the state. This extractant is well designed for soils in the acidic pH range with low CEC (Mylavarapu and Miller 2014).

However, M1 should not be used to extract neutral or alkaline soils. When exposed to a neutral or alkaline pH soil, M1 rapidly loses effectiveness because the dilute acids are effectively neutralized. M1 is also rendered ineffective in soils with high cation exchange capacity (CEC), high Al and Fe accumulation, and high organic matter (>5%) content.

Mehlich-3 (M3)
In order to overcome the limitations of M1, Mehlich improved the chemistry and developed the Mehlich-3 (M3) extraction solution (Mehlich 1984). In the M3 extractant, the two dilute double acids used in M1 have been replaced with 0.2M CH3COOH, 0.015M NH4F, 0.013M HN03, 0.001M EDTA, and 0.25M NH4N03. Presence of 0.001M EDTA essentially enhanced the extraction of micronutrients, particularly Cu. It was expected that this extractant would also make the extraction of Mn and Zn consistent and result in a better correlation with plant uptake. In the M3 development process, emphasis was placed on detection of micronutrient deficiencies compared with toxicities. Soil sample pH in the acidic range of pH ~ 2.5 (accomplished through the addition of 0.2M CH3COOH) was required during the M3 extraction process to take advantage of the fluoride component. A pH of 2.5 helped prevent reaction of Ca and F to form a CaF2 precipitate. The fluoride facilitated the extraction of phosphates associated with Fe and Al while ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) effectively extracted exchangeable cations. State extension laboratories in several southern US states have since moved to the M3 extraction procedure because of its improved efficiency (particularly for micronutrients) and its broad range of applicability (slightly beyond neutral pH) (Zhang et al. 2014). Also, the M3 procedure has been the only soil test extraction method that has been validated through interlaboratory studies for extraction of plant-available phosphorus and used as a reference method for testing soil materials for extractable P (Zhang et al. 2009).

 

[biggreg]

Get that S5 mehlich 3. Add Na if they can.

 

[acespicoli]

Get that S5 mehlich 3. Add Na if they can.

ok sounds good, Thanx for working through this with me biggreg!
Im going to email them and ask some questions, I will add the salinity ec level of 2 or below is my target ...also the N has to be asked I will give them the whole list of nutes.

Im going to make sure my ph is in a acceptable range 5.8ph ? (slighty acidic)
pH levels

between 5.5 and 5.8 perfect
between 5.3 and 6.5 good
between 5.0 and 7.0 acceptable
below 4.5 and above 8.0 disrupted absorption of nutrients
below 3.5 and above 9.0 irreversible damage to the roots

 

[biggreg]

I don't know the answer to optimum ph for peaty soils but looking at the chart. 6.0 looks perfect for organic soils and 6.5 for mineral soils.





The muck farmers run theirs low. Above 5 is what they shoot for mainly for economic reasons. Takes a bit of lime for high CEC soil to move up in ph. The extra expense isn't worth it to most of them without a return on yield.

If your mix has mineral soil added, it may contain substantial Al. And the ph should be over 6. More like mineral soil. Any clay added would push the nutrient availability at a ph of the organic soil toward the mineral soil chart as well.

 

[acespicoli]

I don't know the answer to optimum ph for peaty soils but looking at the chart. 6.0 looks perfect for organic soils and 6.5 for mineral soils.


[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=70606&pictureid=1681199&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=70606&pictureid=1681198&thumb=1]View Image[/url]


The muck farmers run theirs low. Above 5 is what they shoot for mainly for economic reasons. Takes a bit of lime for high CEC soil to move up in ph. The extra expense isn't worth it to most of them without a return on yield.

If your mix has mineral soil added, it may contain substantial Al. And the ph should be over 6. More like mineral soil. Any clay added would push the nutrient availability at a ph of the organic soil toward the mineral soil chart as well.

Those are some beautiful charts there biggreg this thread is quickly becoming a book of knowledge.


I just need to figure out how to upload pdf's now...

 

[biggreg]

Those are some beautiful charts there biggreg this thread is quickly becoming a book of knowledge.
[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=70564&pictureid=1682828&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=70564&pictureid=1682829&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

I just need to figure out how to upload pdf's now...

The funny part is I snagged those charts off a soil lab's site and that lab has no clue what organic soils are or how to weigh them.

 

[biggreg]

Maybe no one on this forum has looked at a Mehlich 3 test on their soil in which the lab either actually weighed the soil properly with a balance ( no mineral soil calibrated weighing scoop) or the lab performed proper 2.5cc volumetric style test reported in mg/L and meq/100cm3?

I know some of you out there have had this test run. Have you asked your labs if they "weigh" your soil with a scoop calibrated for mineral soil?

Anyone looking at these tests reported in mg/kg volumetrically? Converting them to mg/L with a bulk density?

Has this been addressed in other threads?

Just judging by the lab's responses when I call, and I've called most, no one is getting a proper test done except growers sending their tests to labs in WA or BC ( no scoops in this area apparently ) or North Carolina with their NCDA volumetric style report.

Anyone?

 

[biggreg]

If the labs would just follow their own agreed to standards, they would never "weigh" organic soils with a mineral soil calibrated scoop. The standard on the mass style Mehlich 3 is weigh in 2.05+/-grams of soil or a CALIBRATED scoop. The lab is required to weigh the soil if they have no ORGANIC soil calibrated scoop.

The other legit option per their own standards is the 2.5cc volume style test done in North Carolina ( any where else? Anyone know?) these reports are in mg/L.

This is written out in the lab manuals. Any lab deviating from this is in the wrong. Read your own standards Labs!

I hope a lab out there reads this thread and decides to step up and properly serve us lightweight, peaty, mucky muck, recycled, organic soil container farmers with our high value crops.

 

[biggreg]

If you've been reading this thread,you'll know I could rant all day on how misweighing our soils skews our tests. Let's get back to the point. How organic soils differ from mineral soils as pertaining to soil tests. The Mehlich 3 in particular.

BCSR base cation saturation ratio. Lots of info out there on ideal ratios for mineral soil. Depends on who you follow and the soil type as to what those ratios are. The concept is somewhat controversial. Mainstream Ag is about the dollar and they will not suggest anymore fertilizer as necessary to have a yield response. Often when chasing an ideal ratio, the soil percription would call for more fertilizer than could be expected to increase yield. The BCSR guys argue it ain't all just about yield and claim healthier plants with higher nutrient density and disease resistance with better soil properties with an ideal ratio. BCSR concepts have been incorporated in mainstream Ag in those states that have a range of Low and high CEC soils. Tying fertilizer recommendations to the soil's exchange capacity. In states with homogenous soil exchange capacity, you'll find the non believers in BCSR. Don't want to debate BCSR vs SLAN here just want us to think about the ratios of cations and how they affect mineral soil vs organic soil. All the info out there that I've found on BCSR is addressing mineral soil. What about organic soil? I'm not sure anyone has explored this.

Just look at those nutrient availability at a ph charts again.



Organic soils have a lower ph than mineral soils at the same base cation ratios. Hmmmm.

Click the PDF and look over the diffrences again in organic vs mineral soils.

 

[acespicoli]

I dont know if this helps its what I have found
The Ideal Soil Type: Loam. The type of soil that gardens and gardeners love is loamy soil. It contains a balance of all three soil materials—silt, sand and clay—plus humus. It has a higher pH and calcium levels because of its previous organic matter content. (less than 5% organic matter is common) I realized my soil mix does not have much in common with what is naturally available.



Soil texture refers to the weight proportion (relative proportion by weight percentage of sand, silt, and clay) of the mineral soil separates for particles less than two millimeters (mm) as determined from a laboratory particle-size distribution.



The permeability of the soil leads me to believe I need to change my mix

 

[biggreg]

Loam is great in the ground. In containers, it has physical property issues with water holding and compaction. That's one reason we add organic matter and peat.

Test your mix. Check your own air porosity if you want to quantify it.

As our peaty mixes break down into muck, air porosity and water holding are something we have to manage.

 

[jidoka]

nice thread biggreg. I happen to be an Albrecht guy...but I do recognize that not weighing my sample sucks. not so bad on the major base cations cause you are dealing with ratios but fucking horrible on the micros...if your soil weighs 1/3 of 2 million pounds per acre and you need 10 ppm, good fucking luck figuring that out.

 

[biggreg]

nice thread biggreg. I happen to be an Albrecht guy...but I do recognize that not weighing my sample sucks. not so bad on the major base cations cause you are dealing with ratios but fucking horrible on the micros...if your soil weighs 1/3 of 2 million pounds per acre and you need 10 ppm, good fucking luck figuring that out.

If the test were properly weighed, the result would be in mg/kg and can be converted into mg/L with a bulk density measurement of the mass of a dried field moist volume.

If a micro has a 10 mg/kg limit in mineral soil ( 1g/cm3 density) , the equilivant limit in lightweight soil would be 10mg/L. Equal amount of element per volume. Soil mass ppm (mg/kg) is all over the map with the various densities of lightweight, organic based , non-mineral soil.

30, 40, 50, 60 ppm on a soil test may all be the same actual amount of element per volume as 10mg/L depending on density.

 

[biggreg]

What gets me is the lab should damn well know when some peaty soil comes in the mail that it can't be weighed with a mineral soil calibrated scoop.

If they don't realize peat soils aren't as dense as mineral soil, then they are sleepwalking through their job and should re-read a basic soil text book.

If they do know they are not approximating 2g with that scoop, then they are dishonest in their report.

 

[jidoka]

Spectrum offered to weigh my samples for the bargain price of double. The test I wanted cost 50...100 to weigh it, wtf. and they do know they are wrong, the just don't give a fuck.

 

[biggreg]

The don't give a *uck was common as I went down the list calling labs.