You literally have an 11.5 to 1 ratio of Ca to K. You are fine on your base cations. No way in hell that is 53% bcs of Ca.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation
- Thread starter slownickel
- Start date
- Status
You literally have an 11.5 to 1 ratio of Ca to K. You are fine on your base cations. No way in hell that is 53% bcs of Ca.
_tessarecting
ஓ
Basically what I gather is people are rxing spectrum lab analysis by comparing the average differences between them and Logan labs.
Now, how that is done without a database is beyond me, perhaps impossible?
Will they report sodium if you ask? I don't see it on either of our tests.
Edit, hey thanks planting I see that now
Now, how that is done without a database is beyond me, perhaps impossible?
Will they report sodium if you ask? I don't see it on either of our tests.
Edit, hey thanks planting I see that now
HillMizer
Member
So for the sake of our science here, is there a good way to determine my cec? Should I be sending it out for the fancy barium extraction?
I can calculate it in reverse using the all of the total reported minerals and figuring the hydrogen based on the PH?
If my CEC is ACTUALLY 75 then 75*200*.835 = 12,525 PPM is what is needed and I'm there.
plantingplants
Active member
Jidoka- do they only count 3000 ppm towards bcs based on that whole 'this soil must have been recently limed' thing?
T- i have a K2 report from last sept that has both Na m3 and aa8.2. They were both in the bottom row.
T- i have a K2 report from last sept that has both Na m3 and aa8.2. They were both in the bottom row.
yup...calculate the cec. i didnt look at micros but you are good to go on base cations
Please contact the lab and ask for the K-3 process. It will cost an extra $9 or so.
I have requested that the lab sift out all the OM after drying it before they grind the sample. That would explain the huge difference in OM.
The K-3 process is what I am having them do on these hybrid media soils due to the density issues.
They are going to take the sample and weigh it to 2 grams and add the reactant per the standard for both processes, M3 and [email protected]
And then they are going to give us the exact weight from their scoop so we can calculate the density.
The proportions of the CEC stay the same, just that the real numbers are off by factors of the 30% to 40%.
Grinding up peat moss or any other material in the mix is not the best science.
Ideally you all would take a volume measurement and then weigh it at home. Sift it, take out all the stuff that isn't going to react in the soil in the next 100 days or more and then weigh it again to understand your proportions.
Then send in the sample of the screened material so we can work the numbers out.
There are "media" tests procedures, however, media testing is assuming there is no worm castings, compost, sea shells, and who knows what else...
This has been discussed with the lab folks a couple of times and I negotiated the price down to $9. extra to deal with these hybrid medias.
I have requested that the lab sift out all the OM after drying it before they grind the sample. That would explain the huge difference in OM.
The K-3 process is what I am having them do on these hybrid media soils due to the density issues.
They are going to take the sample and weigh it to 2 grams and add the reactant per the standard for both processes, M3 and [email protected]
And then they are going to give us the exact weight from their scoop so we can calculate the density.
The proportions of the CEC stay the same, just that the real numbers are off by factors of the 30% to 40%.
Grinding up peat moss or any other material in the mix is not the best science.
Ideally you all would take a volume measurement and then weigh it at home. Sift it, take out all the stuff that isn't going to react in the soil in the next 100 days or more and then weigh it again to understand your proportions.
Then send in the sample of the screened material so we can work the numbers out.
There are "media" tests procedures, however, media testing is assuming there is no worm castings, compost, sea shells, and who knows what else...
This has been discussed with the lab folks a couple of times and I negotiated the price down to $9. extra to deal with these hybrid medias.
_tessarecting
ஓ
Right when I'm about to figure this out everything changes!
I might still k2 and try to calc it
I might still k2 and try to calc it
Jidoka,
You really think all the Ca in Mizers analysis is in a form that is usable to the plant? No it is not.
That is how you do your ratios?
Sorry. Not the way it is. Everything is relative to where You are standing. That goes for labs too. Their base distributions as calculated aren't always right as they are assuming that there is a lot of Ca in a form that is not available. They are correct. With the advent of the PGA discovering the correct way to calculate this with [email protected], Mizer got back 3860 ppms of Ca with [email protected] vs the M3 Ca at 12,790 ppms.
I should go to the farm more often and stop posting for a while and let you all drive the thread for a couple of weeks.
Let me tell you how I look at it.
K is 9% Mg is 13% Ca is 77% Na is 1%
OPINION: He has no space to put on more K.
Guess what he needs? Begins with a g.
Please Doctor Jidoka. Keep going!
hillmizer...would you be willing to do a fizz test?
slow...a g...good advice free of confirmation bias? that 3000 number is based on what?
i may be totally wrong. but lets work to figure this out without you puffing up and thinking you are the only one that could possibly be right.
if you are wrong gypsum will drive that k and mg off cec sites and hill will have to guess how much to feed
hill...if nothing else give me a single pot and lets find out
slow...a g...good advice free of confirmation bias? that 3000 number is based on what?
i may be totally wrong. but lets work to figure this out without you puffing up and thinking you are the only one that could possibly be right.
if you are wrong gypsum will drive that k and mg off cec sites and hill will have to guess how much to feed
hill...if nothing else give me a single pot and lets find out
But that 9% K will drop quick, if you just let it fall naturally. A growing plant will take that K and assimilate it quickly, and some of it will leach off with watering. You might need gypsum, but only small maintenance amounts, I would think, because it would be too easy to push out excess K and get below that 3% threshold.
yeso dulce
New member
mg barely moves with tons of gypsum put on but K will be gone though but give more "room to fertilize". looking at old soil tests, my best quality came from 6-8% mg
well first of all first post...this is not suspicious at all.
what was your cec? were mg ppms abovw slan numbers?
HillMizer
Member
I'm down for whatever. I only have 2 2 yard beds with each with a completely different varietal. They are growing like crazy now.
Actually I do think I have a leftover 5 gallon bucket of mix.
So the idea is we drop HCL on the soil, if it fizzes that indicates the presence of free carbonate?
I did take it easy on the carbonate. Most of the calcium I added was in the form of Dicalcium Phosphate and Calcium Sulfate. No oyster, no crab, no whole bonemeal (dical is already fizzed right?), no fishbone. There is CACO3 that accounts for about 20% by amendment weight of the calcium amendments I added to the peat.
Thanks to all of you smart fellers for teaching and innovating. You all should be proud of the questions and hypothesis being raised, problems being solved and techniques being developed. I'm super grateful. I've never even taken high school chemistry!
I found this handy cheat sheet for a method of estimating (calculating?) CEC. http://www.clemson.edu/public/regulatory/ag_svc_lab/soil_testing/cec_calculations.html
Jidoka,
You are barking up the wrong tree. This is the lab that I use and have had great results working with. I don't own the lab and I pay the same as you.
The labs process is their process. Their model does not fit your soil nor mine. It fits where they are in their part of the world and is based on years of experience and thousands of samples per day.
I don't use their base distribution calculations. Not sure why you don't understand the lab, you called and made enough headache. Use Logan or another lab ok?
I do the math myself using the [email protected] numbers.
This is the reason to use the [email protected] Not sure how to make that any clearer.
HillMizer
Member
I feel stupid that I totally missed the AA results at the bottom of my test. I may not have even been asking these questions if it wasn't for my own error. I just started entering data that wouldn't add up. I forgot there was an m3 for the macros and thought it was the N results at the bottom!
I hope it adds to the conversation, it looks like something is happening.
Well, I wasn't lying when I said I was confused last night!
- Status
