Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation

[plantingplants]

OK I have my results from Spectrum. This sample is after adding 27g/gal (12 lbs per cu yd) of gypsum and micros to a half yard of my full season soil (which I have 80 yds of and is a mix of 1 yr old coots and 2 yr old shitty soil). I irrigated heavily and rain dumped on it for a week. Slow, this has been added to your account, sample name is MOUNDMICROS.

The numbers using aa8.2 Ca and the rest m3 (and no H) are:
Ca 76.7%
Mg 19.5%
K 2.7%
Na 1.1%

This is the original test before amendment. Calcium actually went down after adding gypsum. I guess what happened is that it replaced Mg since that went down from 1000 ppm to 849 ppm.

1) Is Mg still too high? Do I need to scrap all 80 yds and start over and just use some damn Tom Hill mix?

2) Is K ok that low? Do I need to regularly lightly feed K or just come flip time?

3) I planned on using this soil for vegging clones (and maybe raising seedlings), but is that B going to be too high? I added that much because my first gyp test showed 10k ppm Ca aa8.2 (heavily irrigate your samples before sending them in!). Or maybe even too high for adult plants since Ca is only 5,570?

4) Should I just try more gypsum??

 

[jidoka]

Let's see what slow says

But if you go TH I got an idea, in a yard replace the 33.5 or whatever it is of bonemeal with 20 lbs of wollastonite. Trade all that excess P for some Si while maintaining Ca

 

[jidoka]

Eh fuck it. On either m3 or aa8.2 you are over 10:1 Ca:Mg. I would add enough K to raise K ppm to Mg ppm then let her rip tater chip

 

[slownickel]

OK I have my results from Spectrum. This sample is after adding 27g/gal (12 lbs per cu yd) of gypsum and micros to a half yard of my full season soil (which I have 80 yds of and is a mix of 1 yr old coots and 2 yr old shitty soil). I irrigated heavily and rain dumped on it for a week. Slow, this has been added to your account, sample name is MOUNDMICROS.

View Image

The numbers using aa8.2 Ca and the rest m3 (and no H) are:
Ca 76.7%
Mg 19.5%
K 2.7%
Na 1.1%

This is the original test before amendment. Calcium actually went down after adding gypsum. I guess what happened is that it replaced Mg since that went down from 1000 ppm to 849 ppm.

1) Is Mg still too high? Do I need to scrap all 80 yds and start over and just use some damn Tom Hill mix?

2) Is K ok that low? Do I need to regularly lightly feed K or just come flip time?

3) I planned on using this soil for vegging clones (and maybe raising seedlings), but is that B going to be too high? I added that much because my first gyp test showed 10k ppm Ca aa8.2 (heavily irrigate your samples before sending them in!). Or maybe even too high for adult plants since Ca is only 5,570?

4) Should I just try more gypsum??

PP,

You are doing great pal! Just a tad bit more gypsum and you are there. Plenty of space to put on K! Excellent P! The same with your Mn! That B makes you the king of B on this page.

Where did all that B come from?

 

[GreenHands13]

Boron at 8 ppm from spectrum I'm sure is fine. I know it sounds like a lot, but I have healthy small plants that got started in soil with 7 ppm Boron. IMO you should definitely at least feed some K from jump, give them steady small gypsum feeds regularly to try and knock some more of that Mg down. Did you add anything for N? If your going to plant small plants directly into the soil give them a little buffer and they will be OK even with those high zn, B, and Mg levels. Not ideal but they will grow well.

 

[led05]

RE Soil Testing Samples

RE Soil Testing Samples

When you collect your samples do you say... fill ten buckets Mix in something like a concrete mixer or however you do it and send in one sample or 10 samples....? Or something like 40 buckets across 4 regions, mix respective regions and send in 4 samples? How do you guys like to do it to get as good a representation as to what's below your feet, especially with the amount of amending being done?

 

[slownickel]

When you collect your samples do you say... fill ten buckets Mix in something like a concrete mixer or however you do it and send in one sample or 10 samples....? Or something like 40 buckets across 4 regions, mix respective regions and send in 4 samples? How do you guys like to do it to get as good a representation as to what's below your feet, especially with the amount of amending being done?

If you have a mix that all receives the same fertilization via the irrigation system, you can take 5 or 6 samples and mix them together and send in one.

If it is a new mix, I would first wash it good with some heavy irrigations. Let some stuff wash out before you send in a sample of a new mix.

I would suggest sifting them and only sending in what goes through the sifter.

If you have a planted bag in production and it is 24" or more deep, I would take a 0"-12" sample and a 12"-24" sample and send them in separately using 5 or so sub samples to make 1 sample for that particular depth.

 

[cbcool]

How do you guys like to do it to get as good a representation as to what's below your feet, especially with the amount of amending being done?

I try to take samples at depth, from 10-15 locations, then put it all in tarp and roll the corners turning the sample over on itself, with at least 30-50 rolls or 10 mins time, whichever I remember first. Then I cone and quarter taking the A and C quarters and then start the process over until I have the desired sample size.

 

[cbcool]

Hey slow, I got a reply from spectrum on how they calculated my TDS on water analysis, here is their response.

We use the equation 640*EC to get the TDS. Hope this answers your question, let me know if you have any further questions.

I asked them what the 640 represents and here's that reply.

It is used in the Water Quality Handbook see attached.

[/IMG]

I would assume they don't evaporate a volume of water to determine TDS by weight and only give an approximation with math.

 

[led05]

Hey slow, I got a reply from spectrum on how they calculated my TDS on water analysis, here is their response.

I asked them what the 640 represents and here's that reply.

View Image]View Image[/URL]

I would assume they don't evaporate a volume of water to determine TDS by weight and only give an approximation with math.

Wasn't each line item listed as ppm for each element though? and they didn't even add up close to the total ppm listed, which I took to mean some large pieces of the total wasn't listed in the details, I don't see how the above would get to the 900& change I remember seeing, still confused on that

I get EC * 640, just not the actual sum of parts per the details

 

[cbcool]

Led, ya everything was listed in ppm. I think your right there is obviously more elements in the water that was not tested for.

I guess I could take a 10ml aliquot and evaporate it to calculate a true TDS, might be interesting to see the difference.

 

[led05]

Led, ya everything was listed in ppm. I think your right there is obviously more elements in the water that was not tested for.

I guess I could take a 10ml aliquot and evaporate it to calculate a true TDS, might be interesting to see the difference.

The amount missing is significant, did you sum The details and note difference? Wonder what it is, I'd hope the lab could offer back a little more on that difference than the standard US methodology formula which isn't what you even asked them, was it?

It looks like an error to me or there's a lot of nasty in your water they don't test for considering most everything that should be there was tested for and listed, what else you think could make up that large difference?

Maybe ask them what could make up that difference, what they do & don't test for, I don't know this lab so am not sure what all they run for

 

[slownickel]

Led, ya everything was listed in ppm. I think your right there is obviously more elements in the water that was not tested for.

I guess I could take a 10ml aliquot and evaporate it to calculate a true TDS, might be interesting to see the difference.

High nitrates in the water usually means pollution of some type. Could be human waste, animal waste or even fertilizers.

Given that his nitrates are so high, something else is going on.

Do you have a conductivity meter or TDS meter?

 

[led05]

High nitrates in the water usually means pollution of some type. Could be human waste, animal waste or even fertilizers.

Given that his nitrates are so high, something else is going on.

Do you have a conductivity meter or TDS meter?

Yes, please do throw a pen into it to verify, 900 ppm water bothered me a ton(if you don't know what it is) when u first posted it, still does, like someone else said ... it Is a nutrient solution but what are its components if in fact, its 900, this will certainly effect how you fertilize and or treat this water / input ... curious what you find

 

[plantingplants]

I want to say thanks for everyone helping not just today but for the past year. I have gotten a lot of good advice from everyone and I really appreciate it.

I'm happy about the micros. I was nervous because I was basing my micro amendments based on volume calculations (ie, to raise 5 ppm B (mg/l), there are 3.785L in a gal so 3.785*5 = 18.9mg B per gallon), but it worked out pretty well. For Mn I shot for 164 ppm from 84 which was overshot by 20, for Cu I shot for 43.6 ppm which did not work out so well (and from what I hear it's hard to get Cu levels up), for B I shot for 9.6 from 2.4 (anticipating 10k ppm Ca in first test) and got 8.8, Zn I shot for 60 from 26.4 (anticipating having to raise P higher) and it overshot by 7.8ppm. Not bad. I'm going to adjust my formulas from this data and try again on some more soil to see if it's repeatable.

But if you go TH I got an idea, in a yard replace the 33.5 or whatever it is of bonemeal with 20 lbs of wollastonite. Trade all that excess P for some Si while maintaining Ca

Eh fuck it. On either m3 or aa8.2 you are over 10:1 Ca:Mg. I would add enough K to raise K ppm to Mg ppm then let her rip tater chip

I like that T Hill idea- I'm going to try it on a pot. You're right, my Ca:Mg is pretty good. I'm gonna raise K up. Thank you jidoka.

PP,
You are doing great pal! Just a tad bit more gypsum and you are there. Plenty of space to put on K! Excellent P! The same with your Mn! That B makes you the king of B on this page.

Where did all that B come from?

Thanks SN, I amended with Fertibor at 36.8g/yd. How much gypsum are you thinking? I calculated 27g/gal to hit 85% Ca but that didn't work out. I had a feeling I should have gone higher.

Boron at 8 ppm from spectrum I'm sure is fine. I know it sounds like a lot, but I have healthy small plants that got started in soil with 7 ppm Boron. IMO you should definitely at least feed some K from jump, give them steady small gypsum feeds regularly to try and knock some more of that Mg down. Did you add anything for N? If your going to plant small plants directly into the soil give them a little buffer and they will be OK even with those high zn, B, and Mg levels. Not ideal but they will grow well.

Thanks GreenHands. The weighed values are nearly double the scooped values for this soil, so the micro #s you see, as you noticed, are much lower than they seem (except Fe). But I'm curious how your plants survived 7ppm boron from a scooped test. Was it a heavier soil?

I didn't add anything for N. How would I calculate K fertilization?

The amount missing is significant, did you sum The details and note difference? Wonder what it is, I'd hope the lab could offer back a little more on that difference than the standard US methodology formula which isn't what you even asked them, was it?

It looks like an error to me

My water test from spectrum also had a higher tds than the total element ppms. Isn't it bicarbonates?

 

[jidoka]

OK I have my results from Spectrum. This sample is after adding 27g/gal (12 lbs per cu yd) of gypsum and micros to a half yard of my full season soil (which I have 80 yds of and is a mix of 1 yr old coots and 2 yr old shitty soil). I irrigated heavily and rain dumped on it for a week. Slow, this has been added to your account, sample name is MOUNDMICROS.

View Image

The numbers using aa8.2 Ca and the rest m3 (and no H) are:
Ca 76.7%
Mg 19.5%
K 2.7%
Na 1.1%

This is the original test before amendment. Calcium actually went down after adding gypsum. I guess what happened is that it replaced Mg since that went down from 1000 ppm to 849 ppm.

1) Is Mg still too high? Do I need to scrap all 80 yds and start over and just use some damn Tom Hill mix?

2) Is K ok that low? Do I need to regularly lightly feed K or just come flip time?

3) I planned on using this soil for vegging clones (and maybe raising seedlings), but is that B going to be too high? I added that much because my first gyp test showed 10k ppm Ca aa8.2 (heavily irrigate your samples before sending them in!). Or maybe even too high for adult plants since Ca is only 5,570?

4) Should I just try more gypsum??

Just for fun...27.4 (cec) x 0.548 (bcs%) x 200 (meq Ca) = 3000. Whaaaaat.

 

[GreenHands13]

That's what I meant the weighed sample from spectrum seems really high but is OK. The 7 ppm B test was a weighed sample. I would definitely get some N in there. I bet your c:n is sitting really high. Calculate K the same way you did the micros. Everytime you feed you would know about how many ppm per yard you are adding to your soil.

 

[led05]

I want to say thanks for everyone helping not just today but for the past year. I have gotten a lot of good advice from everyone and I really appreciate it.

I'm happy about the micros. I was nervous because I was basing my micro amendments based on volume calculations (ie, to raise 5 ppm B (mg/l), there are 3.785L in a gal so 3.785*5 = 18.9mg B per gallon), but it worked out pretty well. For Mn I shot for 164 ppm from 84 which was overshot by 20, for Cu I shot for 43.6 ppm which did not work out so well (and from what I hear it's hard to get Cu levels up), for B I shot for 9.6 from 2.4 (anticipating 10k ppm Ca in first test) and got 8.8, Zn I shot for 60 from 26.4 (anticipating having to raise P higher) and it overshot by 7.8ppm. Not bad. I'm going to adjust my formulas from this data and try again on some more soil to see if it's repeatable.



I like that T Hill idea- I'm going to try it on a pot. You're right, my Ca:Mg is pretty good. I'm gonna raise K up. Thank you jidoka.




Thanks SN, I amended with Fertibor at 36.8g/yd. How much gypsum are you thinking? I calculated 27g/gal to hit 85% Ca but that didn't work out. I had a feeling I should have gone higher.



Thanks GreenHands. The weighed values are nearly double the scooped values for this soil, so the micro #s you see, as you noticed, are much lower than they seem (except Fe). But I'm curious how your plants survived 7ppm boron from a scooped test. Was it a heavier soil?

I didn't add anything for N. How would I calculate K fertilization?




My water test from spectrum also had a higher tds than the total element ppms. Isn't it bicarbonates?

Mg/l...mg/kg...ppm= same... add the results, not close to total, don't double count your bicarbonates

 

[cbcool]

The amount missing is significant, did you sum The details and note difference? Wonder what it is, I'd hope the lab could offer back a little more on that difference than the standard US methodology formula which isn't what you even asked them, was it?

Ya, when I total it up based off what they tested for I got a total ppm of 300, 600 ppm difference. I ordered the W2 test which was the highest water test they had available, test included,
W2
Irrigation Water Suitability Test Package: Includes Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Iron, Chloride,
Conductivity, Sulfate Sulfur, Nitrate Nitrogen, pH, Carbonate, Bicarbonate, Total Alkalinity, Phosphorus,
Potassium, Boron, Total Dissolved Solids, and Sodium Absorption Ratio.

It looks like an error to me or there's a lot of nasty in your water they don't test for considering most everything that should be there was tested for and listed, what else you think could make up that large difference?

Not sure on that one, I may have to send a sample to my old and have my former boss run it on the ICP-OES/MS to see whats all in there.

High nitrates in the water usually means pollution of some type. Could be human waste, animal waste or even fertilizers.

This is a farming valley, so that wouldn't surprise me, but I live on a bench above all the corn and alfalfa farms.

Given that his nitrates are so high, something else is going on.

Do you have a conductivity meter or TDS meter?

Ya I have an EC meter, I'll test in the morning.

Yes, please do throw a pen into it to verify, 900 ppm water bothered me a ton(if you don't know what it is) when u first posted it, still does, like someone else said ... it Is a nutrient solution but what are its components if in fact, its 900, this will certainly effect how you fertilize and or treat this water / input ... curious what you find

LOL, on the bright side I don't think I'll have to add any nitrogen this season!!!

 

[led05]

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/sup...to_interpreting_irrigation_water_analysis.pdf

This is packed full of goodies...note the introduction, it says what I've been trying to say much, much better... hdha