Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation

[slownickel]

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

Lend him your meter to justify putting on more K on a soil that won't take much more.

Your comments about using that 12,000ppm of Ca vs potassium are yours, not mine.

Fizz test is meaningless by the way.

Maybe call the PGA and complain about their research. Sure they would love to hear from you.

 

[slownickel]

Mizer,

Yes, the CEC base distribution for Na and the M3 ppms are at the bottom of the page too.

 

[jidoka]

and an aa 8.2 test at a ph of 6.6 proves?

and you are the one that brought up fizz tests in the first place. you even ask me to do one

i give up. you are the all knowing oz...praise whoever the fuck you were a few minutes ago

 

[plantingplants]

Mizer- thanks for that link.

K3? Well that's awesome you got them to do it for only $9 more... but fuck- right after I receive $300 of results! Do I need to recalculate ppms as 40% less to be safe?

Here's my latest garden results from K2 (emailed to you SN).. added Si, Co, and Mo. Co and Mo are 9.2 and <3 mg/kg respectively.

Needs micros. Mg is high, needs more Ca, so I need to add gypsum but I really need to lower pH-- do I add elemental S, or peat, or citric acid? Spectrum has a great page on acidifying artificial peat based media-- do the tables for adding S apply to my soil at all? This page gives recs for mineral soils but it's in lbs/acre. Suggests around 700 lbs/acre (which is around 1.15 lb/cubic yard) of S while the peat page says 1.2 lb for 50% peat/50% sand, with the number roughly doubling for 100% peat. I plan on amending this soil by ordering fresh amended soil ordered with the extra amendments that I need for the old soil, and then mixing the old with the new when I get it.



So are these AA8.2 BCS calculations and gyp calculations off because of the inaccurate sample size?

K - 0.6 meq/100g ... 3.9%
Mg - 2.45 ... 15.9%
Ca - 12.2 ... 79.4%
Na - 0.1 ... 0.65%
H - 0

CEC = 15.35 meq/100g soil


Is this how you figure out how much gyp to add:

13.1 meq/100g Ca would give me 85% BCS. 13.1*400 = 5240 lbs/ac or 2,620 ppm Ca needed... 3.785L in 1 gal... so 9.91g Ca per gallon total. I already have 2440 mg/l which is 9.23g per gallon so I need 680 mg more. Gyp is 22.5% Ca so I need 3.1g gypsum per gallon, or 1.4 lbs per yard.

edit: I found Spectrum's equation for changing Ca bcs:
lb. gypsum/acre = C.E.C. x (desired %Ca sat. - present %Ca sat) x 18

So 15.35*(85-79.4)*18 = 1547 lbs/acre or 1.9 lbs/yd3. My number was 1.4 lbs. They say "Typically, commercial gypsum is not 100% efficient in displacing Na, and some authorities suggest using an 80% efficiency factor." So 1.4/0.80= 1.75 lbs. I was close.


I have a million questions.

EDIT: i fucked up the aa bcs calcs. H should be zero since pH is 7. i recalculated everything.

 

[slownickel]

and an aa 8.2 test at a ph of 6.6 proves?

An [email protected] test proves that there is calcium present that you cannot count on being available for the plant, most especially if it is an annual. Read the pga article again.

and you are the one that brought up fizz tests in the first place. you even ask me to do one

You can have carbonates in a soil and they will not react to the acid test. I have only seen reactions historically at a pH of 7 and above. Doesn't mean that they are not there, just that they won't fizz. I was trying to see what kind of soil you were in and I believe you had not sent in a soil sample. If you had sent in a sample, the only reason I would ask for you to do a fizz test is because a pH of 6.9 is very close to pH 7.

6.6 is not. Maybe I am wrong! Mizer, got any muriatic acid? Saying that the test is worthless may have been a touch harsh. You cannot take everything I say out of the context with which it was written. At a pH of 6, there should be some H. If there is H, the fizz should be gone unless you can find rocks and even then, you would have to break them up a bit.

i give up. you are the all knowing oz...praise whoever the fuck you were a few minutes ago

Aw, you can say shit all you want and then come back and say, ah, only fucking with you.... yet, you say out right stuff that is wrong and run ratio analysis on my thread using ppms on the bases? and now I am the all knowing wizard of oz? What you smoking? Must be good.

You don't do ratios of bases with ppms. It is done in meq's. Not my opinion, just basic soil science. Read that book you bought from Asstera, even he gets that one correct. (It was easy to copy and paste).

In an acid soil, calcium problems are easy to see and calculate. Applying calcium carbonate (provided you use a fine grind) and the Ca carbonate will become available fairly easily but can take time to penetrate. Above a pH of 6.2 or so, things start to change. At a pH of 6.6 look at the variance in Mizers analysis of the two calcium numbers.

But in a neutral or even slightly alkaline soil, the numbers can easily make no sense without [email protected]. That 12,000 ppms of Ca in Mizers soil analysis makes no sense in this soil analysis even at this pH. You got that right.

The lab knows this and does their best to show this by using statistics from their area. Which for you in hybrid or even heavy organic soils is not going to fit into their model, but that is ok if you know to ignore it and do numbers yourself. Just like Mizer is trying to do.

Instead of using their statistical adjustments, I depend on the the [email protected] analysis method to better calculate calcium requirements. Did I recommend to read the PGA article yet?

Spectrum never did the [email protected] process previously. Before I mentioned it on Solomons forum, Solomon nor Astera nor Logan labs used the process nor even knew the problem existed much less when to use the procedure. I read about it as I built a golf course in Costa Rica and was dealing with the PGA folks a lot.

Because I send in 600 to 800 samples per year, Spectrum agreed to do the process and other processes for me. And when I do talk to them, I deal with them in at a professional level plus I give them the respect they deserve. They are a very professional lab. I discussed with the lab the issues of the hybrid medias in a group call with the owner, the lab tech and the head agronomist and have come to agreements with them all on how to best handle the problem. They agreed with me. Was an easy conversation actually.

Where did you get dealing with them? Oh yeah, I remember....

Bashing a very successful business that does me and a lot of other people good pisses me off. You calling the lab and making an ass of yourself makes me look real good, thank you so much.

And then you say, "Let's work to figure this out...." Yeah, let's.

You get bent out of shape over my woowoo comments when you were Mr buddy buddy with the AEA folks and yet you can hand out bad information on my thread and you don't want me to react? And now the AEA guys are your latest enemy?

I don't want to argue with you. I get drained easily now a days with folks that all they want to do is throw rocks in someones path. That is a drain of energy. Even your good buddy Astera must have thought I was right, he acknowledged who showed him (me) in his first book and then in his second edition used my writings as if they were just more of his best guesses. Then he came on here and denied I was even in his book... Yeah, let's...

I do not claim to know everything, sorry to come off that way, but you blurt crap out like it is gospel and sometimes it is just wrong. I'm going to call you out when you get things wrong.

Don't know how to say it without offending you. But your behavior with the lab guys was extremely embarrassing and has made me a bit rough around the edges when it comes to some of your comments. I apologize in advance. I have been writing and editing these comments for more than an hour now and I am pulling up hard on the reins, but I had to get it off my chest. 12 hours in 110 F sun makes me a bit less willing to pull back today..

I have to deal with these guys on a regular basis and I don't appreciate the way you tried to deal with the lab PERIOD. So if you feel a bit bad about me telling you that you are wrong, I apologize. But read what you wrote.

I thought you changed nicks because you were tired of so many people asking for help?

 

[slownickel]

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.

Your CEC is actually closer to 25 than it is 28. Also realize that this method of measuring CEC is the sum of the bases. The high Ca number you got back was in great part calcium carbonate, which is highly unlikely to become available quickly at your pH of 6.6 so that part of your Ca in the M3 procedure is way over estimated. That is what the PGA agronomists figured out. No ag school came up with this idea.

I adopted the process several years ago and both Astera and Solomon as well as all their readers are now running with it. Funny how things spread.

I calculate for a soil that you need 3.3 kgs per square meter. (39 inches by 39 inches) for the first 7 inches or so... and that is to get your Ca to 85% Try half the dosis on one plant, 75%, 100% and even 125%.

Could you make a calculation on your density for us? Take a physical measurement like a cup. Weigh a soil and then weigh your media. That will give us a reference of density.

Did you screen your sample? If so, weigh the unscreened sample, screen that sample and weigh what you screened. Then we can know what % of what you are reporting to apply.

Ideally we would get the lab to run the new K-3 process and it would get us past this issue. Sorry for the late information, but we just finally got the price down to reasonable. You won't believe how much extra they wanted in the beginning of the conversation....

Proportions are going to stay pretty constant, but there is a lot of error if we don't get these issues corrected. I believe we now have a better way of getting better data. Sorry it too so long. Just been super busy....

 

[slownickel]

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.

Me thinks that 800+ppms of K is not going to go away very quickly. At 9% there is no room to put on more. How much Ca do you figure it will take to push off even 400 ppms of K? Remember, 1 meq pushes 1 meq....

If I was about to put in a new plant, I would not want to start at 9% K. If I was finishing up a plant getting read to harvest, yes, 9% is a good objective. He also has 1.3% Na.

I sure wouldn't want to start a plant in that mix. He has all the space in the world to be supplementing with Ca. He has no space to add more K. And he has an EC of 2.6!

If I am not mistaken, my rec of 3.3 kgs per square meter for this first 7 inches ends up being 7.3 lbs/35 cubic feet. Remember Tonygreen used 1 lb per cubic foot and loved it.... and only had a bit of a K issue at the end. With high Ca, you don't need high K, at least not to the near finish...

 

[HillMizer]

It sure is amazing how much K comes out of compost. Those Rodale hippies must be drowning in K. I reduced the amount of compost I used down to 25% of the mix along with what seemed like an insane amount of what I believed to be mostly available Ca.
Thanks Slownickel. I'm going to have some coffee and snort a line of gypsum and go spread some. I'll grab another sample in a week or so.

 

[plantingplants]

Mizer, where did all that S come from?? Also do you think the dical turned out to be unavailable?

 

[orechron]

But in a neutral or even slightly alkaline soil, the numbers can easily make no sense without [email protected]. That 12,000 ppms of Ca in Mizers soil analysis makes no sense in this soil analysis even at this pH. You got that right.

It almost looks too good to be true. I've never seen an acid soil analysis with realists like that; I would've expected the AA8.2 number to be lower. Not saying it's wrong, but Mizer is in for a good run it looks like. K definitely needs to be bummed down, not to 3% however.

The lab knows this and does their best to show this by using statistics from their area. Which for you in hybrid or even heavy organic soils is not going to fit into their model, but that is ok if you know to ignore it and do numbers yourself. Just like Mizer is trying to do.

Instead of using their statistical adjustments, I depend on the the [email protected] analysis method to better calculate calcium requirements. Did I recommend to read the PGA article yet?

Because I send in 600 to 800 samples per year, Spectrum agreed to do the process and other processes for me. And when I do talk to them, I deal with them in at a professional level plus I give them the respect they deserve. They are a very professional lab. I discussed with the lab the issues of the hybrid medias in a group call with the owner, the lab tech and the head agronomist and have come to agreements with them all on how to best handle the problem. They agreed with me. Was an easy conversation actually.

Where did that conversation go with them? I remember the talk about it when the density issue first came up but forgot if there was resolution. Are they weighing the sample? I would be very excited about that. I've had years of Logan data before I realized how weird their Boron numbers were and if Spectrum is handling hybrid soil/medias in a better way I'll certainly continue with them.

Where did you get dealing with them? Oh yeah, I remember....

Bashing a very successful business that does me and a lot of other people good pisses me off. You calling the lab and making an ass of yourself makes me look real good, thank you so much.

Jidoka was upset about the huge fee they tacked on, double the price I think? I'll send more samples to them if it's only 9$ extra now.

You get bent out of shape over my woowoo comments when you were Mr buddy buddy with the AEA folks and yet you can hand out bad information on my thread and you don't want me to react? And now the AEA guys are your latest enemy?

I don't want to argue with you. I get drained easily now a days with folks that all they want to do is throw rocks in someones path. That is a drain of energy. Even your good buddy Astera must have thought I was right, he acknowledged who showed him (me) in his first book and then in his second edition used my writings as if they were just more of his best guesses. Then he came on here and denied I was even in his book... Yeah, let's...

I don't think anyone here is friends with Astera. His book was instrumental in pointing us in a better direction away from shooting in the dark. Your back and forth and Bulldog's key exposure post was the end of his participation on this forum it seems...

Mizer- thanks for that link.

K3? Well that's awesome you got them to do it for only $9 more... but fuck- right after I receive $300 of results! Do I need to recalculate ppms as 40% less to be safe?

Here's my latest garden results from K2 (emailed to you SN).. added Si, Co, and Mo. Co and Mo are 9.2 and <3 mg/kg respectively.

You're results are better than most. I'm in agreement with other here that Mg is very hard to displace, even with gypsum. K on the other hand is easy and you will get K deficiencies even if you don't use gypsum. They would probably show up in the 3rd week of flower, but that will vary quite a bit depending on how long you veg them in a given volume of media. Be prepared to add Ksulfate or spray with later in the run. 3% is way too low in my opinion regardless of lab. Shoot for 5 or 6%.

Needs micros. Mg is high, needs more Ca, so I need to add gypsum but I really need to lower pH-- do I add elemental S, or peat, or citric acid?

Zn, Mn, and Copper availability is always a problem with high organic matter media. Slow pointed this out earlier and I can verify it. My current soil is basically a worm bed now and I'm chasing K and spraying micros.

It sure is amazing how much K comes out of compost. Those Rodale hippies must be drowning in K. I reduced the amount of compost I used down to 25% of the mix along with what seemed like an insane amount of what I believed to be mostly available Ca.
Thanks Slownickel. I'm going to have some coffee and snort a line of gypsum and go spread some. I'll grab another sample in a week or so.

Consider going down to even 10% compost its basically a biological inoculant and an exchange site for anions. You don't need much, N for example will only cause you problems if it gets higher than 75-100 ppm.

 

[plantingplants]

Thanks O- glad you brought up K. Do you have any insight on acidifying this peat/compost mix? I want to chill at 6 pH. I'm guessing more peat to immediately bring it down, plus elemental S in the right quantity and size to break down through the year, offsetting my
very high bicarbonate water (along with small applications of gyp, aminos, and citric acid).

Edit: idk maybe this doesnt qualify as organic soil so ph should be higher than 6. Also, since I'm prdering new coots mix to mix with the old soil, maybe i'll just keep the ph lower by removing the caco3 in the new mix and it will bring the old soil down and even out. Then ill just keep water treated.

 

[_tessarecting]

I think its great if we can improve the accuracy of tests, my only hesitation w the k3 right now stems from how I've been working to figure out the k2. If I do a k3 I'm going to be right back to square one. Perhaps that's a good thing? Daunting for a n00b like me tho.

 

[plantingplants]

^^^google the sunk cost fallacy. You just started. Be easy

'but i just figured out how to do it the inaccurate way! Why would i switch now!' Hahaha

 

[HillMizer]

Mizer, where did all that S come from?? Also do you think the dical turned out to be unavailable?

I think the Sulfur has to be from the from Gypsum. I think the dical is working, that phos+cal bond has to be broken though. I tried to read about it, lower ph really helps with the breakdown. Dical is not a popular garden amendment but I believe in it.

Consider going down to even 10% compost its basically a biological inoculant and an exchange site for anions. You don't need much, N for example will only cause you problems if it gets higher than 75-100 ppm.

10% seems like a great number. What about no lime next time? Just dical and gypsum.

 

[plantingplants]

Tess i hope i didnt seem too harsh-- just teasing homie.

Mizer- I was just told recently that S on a soil test is not a measurement of sulfate. Was that wrong?

 

[HillMizer]

Tess i hope i didnt seem too harsh-- just teasing homie.

Mizer- I was just told recently that S on a soil test is not a measurement of sulfate. Was that wrong?

Just as P is not necessarily not a measurement of Phosphate?

My interpretation of that statement would because a sulfate number would include the weight of the combined oxygen molecules.

I tried to look for any information on the subject in the context of analysis but I could not find anything to indicate that to be the case. Elemental sulfur appears to be converted by bacteria to sulfate within the soil before use by plants. Sulfate appears to be preferred for Sulfur deficient soils.
http://www.cropnutrition.com/sulfate-sulfur-vs-elemental-sulfur-part-2 These guys are selling shit though.


It's time for me to get a new soil science book. The only one I have is Astera's. It only has a few sentences on sulfur but it does have 4+ pages dedicated to gggGGggypsum!

 

[HillMizer]

Your CEC is actually closer to 25 than it is 28. Also realize that this method of measuring CEC is the sum of the bases. The high Ca number you got back was in great part calcium carbonate, which is highly unlikely to become available quickly at your pH of 6.6 so that part of your Ca in the M3 procedure is way over estimated. That is what the PGA agronomists figured out. No ag school came up with this idea.

I adopted the process several years ago and both Astera and Solomon as well as all their readers are now running with it. Funny how things spread.

I calculate for a soil that you need 3.3 kgs per square meter. (39 inches by 39 inches) for the first 7 inches or so... and that is to get your Ca to 85% Try half the dosis on one plant, 75%, 100% and even 125%.

Could you make a calculation on your density for us? Take a physical measurement like a cup. Weigh a soil and then weigh your media. That will give us a reference of density.

Did you screen your sample? If so, weigh the unscreened sample, screen that sample and weigh what you screened. Then we can know what % of what you are reporting to apply.

Ideally we would get the lab to run the new K-3 process and it would get us past this issue. Sorry for the late information, but we just finally got the price down to reasonable. You won't believe how much extra they wanted in the beginning of the conversation....

Proportions are going to stay pretty constant, but there is a lot of error if we don't get these issues corrected. I believe we now have a better way of getting better data. Sorry it too so long. Just been super busy....

So I'll use a cup of "soil" as in mineral based stuff from outside? Use that as the reference to compare the density of my medium to the density of actual soil. Then we can adjust numbers accordingly?

I spoke with Bill McKibben at one point and he suggested that I may need as much as twice the amendments as prescribed using a normal soil analysis. Oh ya I go his book too. He shoulda made this sumbitch spiral-bound like Astera did and I'd look at it more. Slow make sure your's is spiral bound when you write it. Laminated too so you can wipe the hash off.

 

[plantingplants]

Sorry i meant i was told that sulfate won't raise S on results. I dont see how else your S numbers were so high tho

 

[reppin2c]

How many pages precentage wise of said book would be about gypsum?

 

[brown_thumb]

Hazy, here's the code... remove the spaces...

Put this before the text: [ quote]

And this after the text: [ /quote]

If you want to include the member name then add "=username" to the first set of brackets, after 'quote' and before the closing bracket... no spaces and no quotation marks. The quote will look like the following.

copied text

or

copied text