Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experiments

[JNG]

Feldspar, Very encouraging result. Am I understanding this correctly, just by applying Kieserite and Sulfate of Potash you have increased the availability to the plant of Mg,Na,Mn,Fe, Cu,Zn and B. If that is the case it is amazing. I think with that result you need to check the other crops also, find something in the budget to cover the cost, its info that could save you money in years to come. Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

[Feldspar]

Feldspar, Very encouraging result. Am I understanding this correctly, just by applying Kieserite and Sulfate of Potash you have increased the availability to the plant of Mg,Na,Mn,Fe, Cu,Zn and B. If that is the case it is amazing. I think with that result you need to check the other crops also, find something in the budget to cover the cost, its info that could save you money in years to come. Thanks for sharing it with us.

You are correct in your understanding. I am a little surprised that there are such big discrepancies in the amount of trace elements in the plant. This field was one of our best fields that I tested in terms of micro-nutrient levels. I suppose I wonder two things: firstly, why are the levels so low in the untreated plots and, secondly, by what mechanism have the levels been raised by the MgSO4 and K2SO4? My guess is that there is some sort of acidfication effect due to the SO4 ion at work because only Molybdenum is high in the control sample which is obviously the one micro-nutrient that is available at higher pH. Only other thing I can think of is the lack of Mg in the control plot is somehow blocking the uptake of other nutrients.

I've got some winter wheat results coming back in a day or so and I will take at least one more further trial/control pair of samples in another crop type. Depending on those results I will probably do one or two more if the wheat results are also encouraging.

The control plot result does make some sort of sense though. High Ca, high Mo and OK S and N are what would be expected as we have chalky boulder clay, highish pH and have applied Doubletop and Nitram to the whole field.

 

[Feldspar]

So the plot thickens. I've attached the WW tissue sample results (each with an accompanying soil test as the sampled areas were larger than 20ac). The trial plot, "Swampy-K2013", received 263 kg/ha of Kieserite and 150 kg/ha of potassium sulphate on the 7th April. The whole field has had 200 kg/ha of N in the form of Nitram and no blanket sulphur application in any form. I've also attached a picture of a typical plant from the field (both control and trial look the same visually) to give an idea of plant growth stage.

Apologies about the dodgy colours in the tissue sample results - the printer is short of ink.

I hope to test this field again once the flag leaf is fully emerged to see the trend in nutrient levels over time.

 

[Feldspar]

Obviously, compared to the rape results, the differences between the trial and control are not as large. This makes me think that the rape results may be erroneous as the difference between trial and control was often up to a factor of 100. What is odd though is that the pattern in the rape control result does make sense as I have mentioned above.

Anyway, back to this sample. Here are some things that interested me:

1. Even though the trial plot received 80 kg/ha of S (not SO3) the plant is still short of sulphur.
2. The Mg levels are elevated in the trial plot but interestingly the Ca:Mg ratio has increased.
3. Despite the trial plot receiving potassium sulphate the K levels are down.
4. The nitrogen is significantly (in the statistical sense) higher in the trial plot. Does this indicate that the N uptake efficiency in the trial plot is better? Possible scope for total N rate reductions if so (or just a yield increase).
5. Despite the boron levels in the soil samples being deficient the plants in the trial sample have acceptable boron levels unlike the control. What is causing this difference?
6. There are increases in Mn, Zn and Na in the trial but notice that these levels vary between the soil tests and so I'm not sure one can claim that the applied Kieserite and K2SO4 are responsible.
7. One big thing for me is that it shows the conventional soil tests are questionable. All our soils test at index 2 for Mg and 2+/2- for K and yet here there are clear deficiencies in both of these nutrients. Maybe these deficiencies will have no final yield effect but I'd be surprised. On the other hand the Albrecht soil test has done a much better job of predicting what would show up as deficient in the plant.
8. Copper is OK in the tissue results and yet shows up as severely deficient in the soil samples (NB the figure of 7.00 in one of the samples is an error. Probably should read 0.7 like the other soil sample.)

 

[7800]

In 20 years of taking tissue tests I have never seem a result like your rape control result, there must have been something gone wrong!

 

[Feldspar]

In 20 years of taking tissue tests I have never seem a result like your rape control result, there must have been something gone wrong!

I think you're right. I will ring up NRM and question them.

 

[Elmsted]

I think you're right. I will ring up NRM and question them.

Feldspar. Have done tissue tests before on anything.

I still do not change my view of like 7800 20 odd years of tissue. It is the way to go. Despite going to Kinsey and despite knowing York well. I still only trust tissue. Though soil is of interest it does not really help. What Kinsey which I thought was the best thing he said in 3 days stick with same lab and whatever way over years to build a picture.
On tissue I do not like taking new leaves only or particular bits of plant. Just cut the whole plant off at ground level. Then get only the figures back. Then get impartial results to build guidelines which are well documented from many places of pure research

 

[Clive]

Just a thought but could the tissue tests been flawed if the plant was under any stress from environmental issues basically making it look deficient in many things ?

My agronomist reckons tissue testing in anything other than ideal growing conditions is a waste of time for this reason ?

Lets face it there has been plenty for plants to stress about o far this season !

 

[Feldspar]

Feldspar. Have done tissue tests before on anything.

I still do not change my view of like 7800 20 odd years of tissue. It is the way to go. Despite going to Kinsey and despite knowing York well. I still only trust tissue. Though soil is of interest it does not really help. What Kinsey which I thought was the best thing he said in 3 days stick with same lab and whatever way over years to build a picture.
On tissue I do not like taking new leaves only or particular bits of plant. Just cut the whole plant off at ground level. Then get only the figures back. Then get impartial results to build guidelines which are well documented from many places of pure research

Thanks for your comment. The reason I wanted to ring NRM was not to question their levels of "normal", "deficient" et cetera but rather to ask if something could have gone wrong in the testing procedure in the control rape sample. When sampling both the rape and the wheat I took the whole plant.

OK so you think tissue tests are better than soil tests but what about the relative merit of different types of soil testing? My original question was whether the standard index method was a reliable guide of what can be expected to happen in the plant. It seems from the Mg and K shortages in the wheat control plot that they are not very useful. The Albrecht method seems to have predicted more accurately what the plant will have enough of and what it will be short of.

I will have to do some research into these impartial guidelines and how they are arrived at. York has provided me with the levels that Prof Bergmann recommends.

 

[Feldspar]

Just a thought but could the tissue tests been flawed if the plant was under any stress from environmental issues basically making it look deficient in many things ?

My agronomist reckons tissue testing in anything other than ideal growing conditions is a waste of time for this reason ?

Lets face it there has been plenty for plants to stress about o far this season !

But remember that the other half of the same field showed normal levels across the board - different from the control by 100 times in many cases. When I sampled there was plenty of moisture in the soil, I only took plants from parts of the field that had not been compacted by harvest traffic and the sample was 200g of tissue taken from about 15 acres. What I need to find out is how much of that 200g sample is used for each test. I spoke to a lady who worked for the NRM soil sampling arm and she said, for example, when testing for phosphorus only very small portion of the sample that they have is used for the test. Whilst the sample may have been mixed beforehand this still introduces quite a bit of error into the result.

 

[Feldspar]

I've just walked thorough our spring barley and there is a visual difference between trial and control. In the untreated area there is apparent mottling and paler edges of the leaves which, I think I'm right in saying, is typical of magnesium deficiencies. In the treated area I can find no mottling, the leaves are a uniform green. The interesting question that arises from this observation relates to transient effects; looking at the Mg section of this page (http://www.fielder-nutrition.co.uk/cereals.htm) it is possible that this difference will have no final effect on the yield meter. I'll tissue test this field at the end of tillering.

Also it turns out that there was a slight hiccup with the control rape result. I should have the revised result shortly.

 

[Elmsted]

I've just walked thorough our spring barley and there is a visual difference between trial and control. In the untreated area there is apparent mottling and paler edges of the leaves which, I think I'm right in saying, is typical of magnesium deficiencies. In the treated area I can find no mottling, the leaves are a uniform green. The interesting question that arises from this observation relates to transient effects; looking at the Mg section of this page (http://www.fielder-nutrition.co.uk/cereals.htm) it is possible that this difference will have no final effect on the yield meter. I'll tissue test this field at the end of tillering.

Also it turns out that there was a slight hiccup with the control rape result. I should have the revised result shortly.

Mg = magnesium = margins green.
MNG = Manganese = Margins not green.

 

[Feldspar]

Mg = magnesium = margins green.
MNG = Manganese = Margins not green.

Hmm ... a rethink needed then. I'll try and get some pictures tomorrow.

 

[7800]

Mg = magnesium = margins green.
MNG = Manganese = Margins not green.

Is this the margins/edge of the leaf?
cheers

 

[7800]

Is this mg deficiency? I think it is

 

[7800]

previous pic taken today

 

[Elmsted]

Is this mg deficiency? I think it is

YES I THINK IT IS.

 

[7800]

Ok great (I think). 5kg/ha bittersaltz in next few days? good idea?
The soil is high pH, high calcium, pretty much chalky boulder clay. Crop looks great lovely dark green but inspection shows this mg def.

Was going with 1L bravo plus cerone in next few days anyway so will add mg.
Adexar a week or so later at full flag. Disease getting stirred up now.

 

[Elmsted]

Ok great (I think). 5kg/ha bittersaltz in next few days? good idea?
The soil is high pH, high calcium, pretty much chalky boulder clay. Crop looks great lovely dark green but inspection shows this mg def.

Was going with 1L bravo plus cerone in next few days anyway so will add mg.
Adexar a week or so later at full flag. Disease getting stirred up now.

File cerone under bin. Mix the bravo with your main fungicide and apply so that as the ear emerges it gets covered each night with dew and Bravo as the contact element. Personal view at ear emergence with full flag leaf is best return. To chance upon the idea of rain splash spreading Bravo upwards is good but not as predictable as shoving it on flag leaf and washing it around the ear. Bit of study on mancozeb might help.

Bittersaltz sure see if cost allows you can increase dose a bit.

 

[Steevo]

File cerone under bin. Mix the bravo with your main fungicide and apply so that as the ear emerges it gets covered each night with dew and Bravo as the contact element. Personal view at ear emergence with full flag leaf is best return. To chance upon the idea of rain splash spreading Bravo upwards is good but not as predictable as shoving it on flag leaf and washing it around the ear. Bit of study on mancozeb might help.

Bittersaltz sure see if cost allows you can increase dose a bit.

Is it not a bit late to be applying the fungicide to the ear and flag leaf together? Sounds like it's leaving quite a gap between that and the previous fungicide.