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: 6988" data-attributes="member: 386"><p><strong>Re: Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experimen</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting that you saw no effect from kieserite. What were your Ca and Mg levels? What rate did you apply it at and at what time of year? TIA</p><p></p><p>I think it was a point made by Fred on BFF that in many cases you simply cannot economically achieve what Kinsey considers to be the "ideal" soil. I am certainly not trying to do that. My hope was that the test would give a broad brush picture of the likely major problems. The tactic then would be to recognise the weaknesses of your soil and apply maintenance (rather than corrective) applications to mitigate against the shortcomings. </p><p></p><p>No I am not going to carry out all of the recommendations. The Kinsey recommendations include all manner of trace element products in quite considerable quantities which can, I hope, be fixed another way with the exception of trace elements that are used up and not replenished such as boron. On the recommendations that I got there was a priority list. At the moment I am simply trying to investigate the most pressing deficiencies according to Kinsey and will use that as evidence for / against. </p><p></p><p>I think it's worth remembering that in some years there will be Mg deficiencies in soils as they are, in other years there won't and so the response will be variable. I have talked to Slejpner quite a bit and he has very similar soils to us. He applied kieserite and saw a 2 t/ha yield response (IIRC!). </p><p></p><p>I was reading through the Frontier trials results from the last couple of years. They conducted Mg trials and there were a few very interesting things to notice. Firstly in nearly all of the plants that they tested there were Mg deficiencies despite, in some cases, the conventional soil test saying that the Mg levels in the soil were fine - the most interesting part of the test for me. The yield responses to their applied Mg were not statistically significant. This fact should be seen in the light of two further bits of information. The first is that the rates they were using were absolutely minimal compared to typical deficiencies according to Kinsey (something like 100 times smaller) and so from a Kinsey standpoint it's hardly surprising nothing happened. The second observation is that they never bothered to retest their plants after their foliar Magflo applications to see if the Mg levels were raised in the plants. The final observation is that their soil test did not identify in a convincing manner what the limiting factor was in that soil. For example no Ca tests were done to see what was present in the soil.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 6988, member: 386"] [b]Re: Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experimen[/b] Interesting that you saw no effect from kieserite. What were your Ca and Mg levels? What rate did you apply it at and at what time of year? TIA I think it was a point made by Fred on BFF that in many cases you simply cannot economically achieve what Kinsey considers to be the "ideal" soil. I am certainly not trying to do that. My hope was that the test would give a broad brush picture of the likely major problems. The tactic then would be to recognise the weaknesses of your soil and apply maintenance (rather than corrective) applications to mitigate against the shortcomings. No I am not going to carry out all of the recommendations. The Kinsey recommendations include all manner of trace element products in quite considerable quantities which can, I hope, be fixed another way with the exception of trace elements that are used up and not replenished such as boron. On the recommendations that I got there was a priority list. At the moment I am simply trying to investigate the most pressing deficiencies according to Kinsey and will use that as evidence for / against. I think it's worth remembering that in some years there will be Mg deficiencies in soils as they are, in other years there won't and so the response will be variable. I have talked to Slejpner quite a bit and he has very similar soils to us. He applied kieserite and saw a 2 t/ha yield response (IIRC!). I was reading through the Frontier trials results from the last couple of years. They conducted Mg trials and there were a few very interesting things to notice. Firstly in nearly all of the plants that they tested there were Mg deficiencies despite, in some cases, the conventional soil test saying that the Mg levels in the soil were fine - the most interesting part of the test for me. The yield responses to their applied Mg were not statistically significant. This fact should be seen in the light of two further bits of information. The first is that the rates they were using were absolutely minimal compared to typical deficiencies according to Kinsey (something like 100 times smaller) and so from a Kinsey standpoint it's hardly surprising nothing happened. The second observation is that they never bothered to retest their plants after their foliar Magflo applications to see if the Mg levels were raised in the plants. The final observation is that their soil test did not identify in a convincing manner what the limiting factor was in that soil. For example no Ca tests were done to see what was present in the soil. [/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