In The Lab
- Thread starter Doc Bud
- Start date
Conradino23
Well-Known Member
Ah what the hell, I'll drop that one as well. Some great info for High Brix crowd from the horse's mouth.
Nutrition and Disease – Interview with Professor Don Huber – Part 1
Nutrition and Disease – Interview with Professor Don Huber – Part 1
- Thread starter
- #2,823
Great info Condradio! Thankfully, all this and more is taken into account with my High Brix gear. However, I was not familiar with the Sap pH tester. I'll have to look into it.
Conradino23
Well-Known Member
It looks useful, but $200 tag would have to be justified.
- Thread starter
- #2,825
I have a soil pH probe and a soil ERGS meter that I never use. Such things are very useful in the field when trying to diagnose problems, and I suspect that the Sap meter is much the same.
My focus is much more controlled, so these tools aren't as useful as a refractometer to me. Lab analysis of soil works better than probes anyways, but I can see how such tools might be good for large scale agriculture and diagnosing problems.
Gazoo
Member
Thanks I liked this, gave me some ideas
Especially liked this part, I only included a short part of the full paragraph
and the comparisons by using both meters makes sense
Myth 4 – Refractometers and Sap pH Meters both measure nutritional status so you don’t need both.
The principal difference between these tools, then, is that the refractometer is monitoring the presence of minerals, amino acids and sugars while the Sap pH Meter is really just about minerals. Using a combination of monitoring tools can offer good diagnostic potential. For example, if brix levels were low but the dividing line on the refractometer was blurry, then calcium is not the culprit and phosphorus may be suspect. If the sap pH is high (above 6.4) and a Horiba Nitrate Meter confirms that nitrates are not high then we have further indication that a lack of phosphorus may be the problem. Using a similar process of elimination, if the plant sap pH was low (below 6.4), then we assume that one or more alkalising minerals are deficient.
I would be very interested to hear DOC's view on the following
Myth 5 – The Reams Test is of more value because it monitors biological availability of minerals.
Reality Check:We include a basic Reams Test as part of our standard Soil Therapy™ package. This test uses a mild acid to mimic the biological acids in the soil that assist with nutrient availability. It supposedly offers a snapshot of biological activity in the soil at any given time and is very popular with some of the American consultants with links to the US energy farming pioneer, Dr Carey Reams. We have found this test to be inconsistent, confusing and of minimal value although it remains as part of our analysis out of curiosity. Virtually every test comes back with low levels of biologically active phosphorus, including organic paddocks. This could theoretically reflect the decimation of Mychorrizal fungi in most soils (as they are the creatures most linked to phosphorus availability), but it should also be consistently reflected in leaf tests. There should obviously be low phosphorus in the leaf if there is very low levels of biologically active phosphorus in the soil and no foliars have been used, but this is not the case. Similarly, we have not seen much crop related significance to the all-important phosphate to potassium ratio promoted by the Reams people. The inherent value of any concept is based on its performance in the field and in this context, the Reams Test hassimply not delivered.
- Thread starter
- #2,827
Thanks I liked this, gave me some ideas
Especially liked this part, I only included a short part of the full paragraph
and the comparisons by using both meters makes sense
Myth 4 – Refractometers and Sap pH Meters both measure nutritional status so you don’t need both.
The principal difference between these tools, then, is that the refractometer is monitoring the presence of minerals, amino acids and sugars while the Sap pH Meter is really just about minerals. Using a combination of monitoring tools can offer good diagnostic potential. For example, if brix levels were low but the dividing line on the refractometer was blurry, then calcium is not the culprit and phosphorus may be suspect. If the sap pH is high (above 6.4) and a Horiba Nitrate Meter confirms that nitrates are not high then we have further indication that a lack of phosphorus may be the problem. Using a similar process of elimination, if the plant sap pH was low (below 6.4), then we assume that one or more alkalising minerals are deficient.
I would be very interested to hear DOC's view on the following
Myth 5 – The Reams Test is of more value because it monitors biological availability of minerals.
Reality Check:We include a basic Reams Test as part of our standard Soil Therapy™ package. This test uses a mild acid to mimic the biological acids in the soil that assist with nutrient availability. It supposedly offers a snapshot of biological activity in the soil at any given time and is very popular with some of the American consultants with links to the US energy farming pioneer, Dr Carey Reams. We have found this test to be inconsistent, confusing and of minimal value although it remains as part of our analysis out of curiosity. Virtually every test comes back with low levels of biologically active phosphorus, including organic paddocks. This could theoretically reflect the decimation of Mychorrizal fungi in most soils (as they are the creatures most linked to phosphorus availability), but it should also be consistently reflected in leaf tests. There should obviously be low phosphorus in the leaf if there is very low levels of biologically active phosphorus in the soil and no foliars have been used, but this is not the case. Similarly, we have not seen much crop related significance to the all-important phosphate to potassium ratio promoted by the Reams people. The inherent value of any concept is based on its performance in the field and in this context, the Reams Test hassimply not delivered.
We use the Foramazon test, mostly. It is a variation on the Ream's test and it is quite accurate....a long ways from being "inconsistent."
I'm not sure what this particular company is doing with their testing, but the all-important P-K ratio is indeed all-important. In fact, it has been studied and re-studied for decades and it holds true to the point of being a gold standard for High Brix.
I don't know how this company is performing their tests, so I can't comment on why they may have come to this conclusion, but consistency is is not an issue with the soil tests I use. They are fantastically consistent and the results are predictable.
Gazoo
Member
Thanks I was very curious to hear your input.
I found it interesting to read they run the test and report the results
but don't think it has value ? I suspect they run the test because that is
the GOLD STANDARD and the customers want that information.
- Thread starter
- #2,829
I dunno. I thought that was interesting too. I don't know why they run it if it's no-good. It's a pretty easy test to run and pretty hard to screw up. It's also repeatable with very good accuracy.....I'd love to send them some soil and see what they have to say, but they're in Australia from what I can tell.
And a big AMEN to that!
OttawaGreen
Well-Known Member
More questions as I try to figure out why my stuff isn't working too well. I am using the suggested soil, suggested castings, RO water, and the kit and currently following directions as best I can. Max temp is 28c mintemp is 22c. RH is 45-65.
Today's questions to be sure I am doing the same as everyone else:
How much recharge should each 10 gallon pot get?
How much amendment should each full batch of new soil get?
Perhaps I got those wrong as I had no measurement for it.
Today's questions to be sure I am doing the same as everyone else:
How much recharge should each 10 gallon pot get?
How much amendment should each full batch of new soil get?
Perhaps I got those wrong as I had no measurement for it.
Top of the mornin to ya OG! Your enviro is good.....Use 680 grms..or 1, 1/2 pounds of Doc's Amendment for each 3.8 cu. ft. bale of ProMix HP. Use 1/4 of the full bag of ReCharge for every 10 gal. pot. So the Recharge will approx. do 4, 10 gal. pots OK. Cheers bud...have a great Sunday!
I simply laid the bag of recharge out on the counter in a long fat line and cut it into individual portions and put it into baggies. Since it has a mix of mineral particles from small pebbles to dust, I wanted to be sure one bag didn't get all pebbles and another all dust. So I didn't weigh - and didn't have to.
The measures are for 42 gallons of soil, so in my case, with 6 gallon pots, I split the recharge into 7 portions. For 10 gallons it'd be quarters.
The most I've split amendment into was halves, so I could mix and rotate half batches of soil.
If I remember correctly, Amendment is 1.5 lbs and Recharge is 1 pound?
The measures are for 42 gallons of soil, so in my case, with 6 gallon pots, I split the recharge into 7 portions. For 10 gallons it'd be quarters.
The most I've split amendment into was halves, so I could mix and rotate half batches of soil.
If I remember correctly, Amendment is 1.5 lbs and Recharge is 1 pound?
Sounds right Gray, I use 10 gallon pots and use 4 oz of recharge per pot.
I use 3 oz recharge or 4 oz amendment per 7 gallon pot.
OttawaGreen
Well-Known Member
Weighed ounces or measuring cup?
Weighed. 
OttawaGreen
Well-Known Member
Posted an update in my journal,
Please let me know if you have tips.
Please let me know if you have tips.
Gazoo
Member
Just noticed this section of the instructions, Looks like I will need to add more
amendment for the second & 3rd run. Is this correct ? I suspect its the same
Amendment as the first run so I will need to resupply yes ?
Thanks in advance
HortiShorti
Well-Known Member
After looking through many Hi-Brix journals and reading almost 50 pages of this, I've decided my next generation shall be done with your kit, Doc. Sent you a PM 
Similar threads
