In The Lab

It looks useful, but $200 tag would have to be justified.
 
conradino23 said:
It looks useful, but $200 tag would have to be justified.
Click to expand...

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.
 
conradino23 said:
This one made me thinking:

Monitoring Myths
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gazoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doc Bud said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gazoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doc Bud said:
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.
Click to expand...

And a big AMEN to that!
 
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.
 
OttawaGreen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Graytail said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sounds right Gray, I use 10 gallon pots and use 4 oz of recharge per pot.
 
Weighed. :cheesygrinsmiley:
 
Doc Bud said:
The Kit:


Recycling Soil

After the first crop is harvested, put the soil, including the roots, mixed with fresh EWC, perhaps 20 lbs worth along with another bag of amendment back into the barrel and cook it for another month, then use as always.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 :thumb:
 
Back
Top Bottom