-
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
Good water! Almost too good!
led05
Chasing The Present
Like this lab results , their numbers add up / tie, where they based ?
plantingplants
Active member
Slow, what are your thoughts on why my gyp calculations failed? 27g a gal was supposed to bring me to 85% and I even added extra gyp, assuming it would only be 80% effective. I ask because I am trying to calculate how much more to add for another trial.
I guess I can do the math based on what 27g accomplished. But i am curious why it didn't work.
I guess I can do the math based on what 27g accomplished. But i am curious why it didn't work.
neverforget4/20
Member
Folks, Here's a couple pics of a plant that was potted up into the soil that was shown in the analysis posted a couple pages back.
This plant is in approx 7 gals fabric. I applied gypsum 2x @ 150gms each. It was also drenched with accelerate @45mls gal. The gypsum slurry applications resulted in very obvious, positive responses both times.
According to my #'s, Slownickel's rec is ~75gms per gal.
This plant is in approx 7 gals fabric. I applied gypsum 2x @ 150gms each. It was also drenched with accelerate @45mls gal. The gypsum slurry applications resulted in very obvious, positive responses both times.
According to my #'s, Slownickel's rec is ~75gms per gal.
Define failed.
If you define success as moved the m3 numbers and you are over 3000 ppm ca you will always fail according to spectrum. And not only spectrum but in real life you will lower first H (all micros) and then na and k and if you keep it up also mg
On the other hand if you define success/fail as yield/quality a different picture will emerge
IMO
plantingplants
Active member
Well my end goal is of course increasing plant health, but to do that I need to be able to dial my soil in, and if I can't reliably predict what my amedments will do to my soil, then I'm left wasting a bunch of money and time amending and reamending. On the scale of 90 yards, that is serious time and money.
But yea i dont pay any attention to their saturation percentages. But what do you mean in real life i will be lowering H (all micros)??
But yea i dont pay any attention to their saturation percentages. But what do you mean in real life i will be lowering H (all micros)??
Hey PP, did you calculate cation reduction with gyp then calculate Ca saturation with gyp?
Define failed
plantingplants
Active member
Failed would be what happened, ie, I try to adjust my soil with a formula and the formula doesn't quite work. For the micros, my formula worked decently, with an acceptable margin of error, but for the gyp calculation, it was off by a wide margin. So the formula failed to achieve my target Ca level. That may or may not mean increased plant health. I could find a formula that is accurate in raising Ca but ifI raise it to 85% maybe that ends up not working out for some reason. Sometimes the wrong train gets you to the right station.
Cbcool, not surewhat you mean. I calculated how many meq of calcium would be needed in the given cec to replace enough meq of other elements to raise ca to my target. Maybe the formula failed because it didnt include the reality of other bases contributing to the cec?
Cbcool, not surewhat you mean. I calculated how many meq of calcium would be needed in the given cec to replace enough meq of other elements to raise ca to my target. Maybe the formula failed because it didnt include the reality of other bases contributing to the cec?
led05
Chasing The Present
maybe the formula inherently has it's limitations, some pretty big ones IMHO and labs do too... And there's been errors for sure in what we've already seen... Too much emphasis on any one thing, for whatever reason is risky - Soil, Water, Fertilizer, Temp, Sun, Humidity ---- the soil changes often as well due to all those factors, why does anyone have to be dialed in perfectly or ever expected to be..... it's all a very dynamic process, understanding what's going on, managing and accepting flux will suit you well
This ain't my thread. Ask slow and see if he answers or ignores like the 3000 thang
Edit...or the insect thing I asked...aphids or thrips is my bet
Last edited:
I'm still learning the same as you, trial and error in most cases.
The way I understand it there is a formula to calculate how much gyp it takes to displace a specific cation, because it's displacing another cation that number can't be used towards your Ca base saturation.
Therefore after you calculate how much gyp it takes to displace a cation, then in addition, you can calculate for Ca saturation, if that makes sense?
This is just the way I understand it, so anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
As nice as it would be to get perfect numbers, they don't exist. Soils are different. This is why it is so important to learn as you go. Take your numbers and apply the math and extrapolate forward.
How much got you to where you are? Look at all that Mg you pushed out. Your bases are moving. Just that they are not moving as fast as you would like.
The soil density issue could also be at play. This is why I think sifting is going to help. We see much bigger numbers and are calculating much higher dosages as a result.
At the end of the day, YOU MUST RUN TRIALS. Incremental dosages... there are no perfect numbers. We are getting closer and closer, but the numbers are not perfect.... yet.
Could you call and ask them if that EC was calculated from the ppms or was it tested with a conductivity meter?
led05
Chasing The Present
It does tie out nicely doesn't it..., probably one of their limitations in process or corner cut
Hey Slow & Led, I tested my well water today to compare to spectrum's results, I got a pH of 7.6 and an EC of 1.4 mmho/cm, Exactly the same they reported.
Then I pH'ed the water to 6.47 and got an EC of 1.28 mmho/cm.
With carbonates and bicarbonates in my water I really expected a lower EC after pH'ing my water down, not sure how to interpret the results??? any input is welcomed?
Then I pH'ed the water to 6.47 and got an EC of 1.28 mmho/cm.
With carbonates and bicarbonates in my water I really expected a lower EC after pH'ing my water down, not sure how to interpret the results??? any input is welcomed?
- Status
