Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experiments
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Feldspar" data-source="post: 6985" data-attributes="member: 386"><p><strong>Re: Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experimen</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A couple of points in response:</p><p></p><p>It may well be the case that the Ca/Mg ratio is discussed in other sources - I obviously need to do more reading as I haven't read many of those that you mention - nevertheless I see no evidence that the majority farmers are actually taking this advice on board and are paying attention to it. You say the Ca/Mg test is common - in my experience it is not a common test amongst the farmers that I know of. Basic availability of N, P, K, Mg and pH is what I would call the common test. Rothampstead do not agree that ratios between nutrients are of any significance their publications and advice reflects this.</p><p></p><p>I think a combination of tissue testing and soil testing is important. I think without both you do not get a full picture. I agree that things change throughout the year so don't take one sample (be it tissue or soil) a year, take several until you understand the annual patterns. Of course a tissue test is just a snapshot too and the tissue results will change thoughout the growing season. If all you do is just tissue test you often do not have enough information to decide. For example you might see a P deficiency in the plant and conclude that you must raise your P indicies yet without a soil test you have no idea which form of fertiliser you should use. TSP in a high pH, high Ca soil is not going to be very helpful. You need the full picture. Sure you might attach significant uncertainties on a lot of values that result from soil testing but I still think that these uncertain results nevertheless have a value. </p><p></p><p>A soil test is important for understanding how best to provide plants with micronutrients. OK pH might change throughout the year but if it is always above 8, for example, then you know that an acidfying fertiliser might be appropriate and could work instead of having to foliar feed the plants. Wihout a soil test you wouldn't know this. </p><p></p><p>I do strongly agree, however, that improving soil health will sort out a lot of the problems that have been discussed and I agree that it should be a major goal. Obviously though it is a goal that won't be achieved overnight and so in the meantime these nutrition problems are relevant and need to be addressed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 6985, member: 386"] [b]Re: Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experimen[/b] A couple of points in response: It may well be the case that the Ca/Mg ratio is discussed in other sources - I obviously need to do more reading as I haven't read many of those that you mention - nevertheless I see no evidence that the majority farmers are actually taking this advice on board and are paying attention to it. You say the Ca/Mg test is common - in my experience it is not a common test amongst the farmers that I know of. Basic availability of N, P, K, Mg and pH is what I would call the common test. Rothampstead do not agree that ratios between nutrients are of any significance their publications and advice reflects this. I think a combination of tissue testing and soil testing is important. I think without both you do not get a full picture. I agree that things change throughout the year so don't take one sample (be it tissue or soil) a year, take several until you understand the annual patterns. Of course a tissue test is just a snapshot too and the tissue results will change thoughout the growing season. If all you do is just tissue test you often do not have enough information to decide. For example you might see a P deficiency in the plant and conclude that you must raise your P indicies yet without a soil test you have no idea which form of fertiliser you should use. TSP in a high pH, high Ca soil is not going to be very helpful. You need the full picture. Sure you might attach significant uncertainties on a lot of values that result from soil testing but I still think that these uncertain results nevertheless have a value. A soil test is important for understanding how best to provide plants with micronutrients. OK pH might change throughout the year but if it is always above 8, for example, then you know that an acidfying fertiliser might be appropriate and could work instead of having to foliar feed the plants. Wihout a soil test you wouldn't know this. I do strongly agree, however, that improving soil health will sort out a lot of the problems that have been discussed and I agree that it should be a major goal. Obviously though it is a goal that won't be achieved overnight and so in the meantime these nutrition problems are relevant and need to be addressed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experiments
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top