Albrecht / Kinsey or bust?

[The Ruminant]

We have to respect him for his knowledge and achievements but he has no idea about our individual soils which is my point, so all he can provide is a very basic starting point which must be developed soley for your own land using your own knowledge with reference to him at certain times.

I know exactly what you mean, WF but consider it this way: If I had a computer diagnosis of a petrol engine done, then sent that analysis to an engineering expert who lived on the other side of the world I would expect him to be able to tell me what is wrong with the engine and to give direction as to how it should be repaired / improved, even if he had never seen my make and model of car beforehand. Why would he be able to? Because the laws of physics and laws of chemistry of what goes on in a car engine do not change.

Kinsey went through the Professor Albrecht system. He explained that the laws of chemistry are as constant in the soil as they are in the car engine. If you have a clay colloid, it has negative charges all over it - this is part of its chemical make-up. These negative charges attach to positively charged cations. Again, the laws of chemistry don't permit more positive charges to attach than there are negative spaces on the colloid - this is the cation exchange capacity.

The elements each attach more or less strongly than other types of elements, hence Albrecht / Kinsey can predict which elements on the colloid will be replaced if another element is added to the soil. He went as far as to say it is calculated using formulae - the effects can be foreseen with mathematical certainty.

That's a very simplistic view from a layman, but it makes sense and tied in with what little I remember from my chemistry at school. I know soils are infinitely more variable than car engines, but the laws of science governing what goes on stay the same. Does this make sense or am I just rampling again?

 

[warksfarmer]

I know exactly what you mean, WF but consider it this way: If I had a computer diagnosis of a petrol engine done, then sent that analysis to an engineering expert who lived on the other side of the world I would expect him to be able to tell me what is wrong with the engine and to give direction as to how it should be repaired / improved, even if he had never seen my make and model of car beforehand. Why would he be able to? Because the laws of physics and laws of chemistry of what goes on in a car engine do not change.

Kinsey went through the Professor Albrecht system. He explained that the laws of chemistry are as constant in the soil as they are in the car engine. If you have a clay colloid, it has negative charges all over it - this is part of its chemical make-up. These negative charges attach to positively charged cations. Again, the laws of chemistry don't permit more positive charges to attach than there are negative spaces on the colloid - this is the cation exchange capacity.

The elements each attach more or less strongly than other types of elements, hence Albrecht / Kinsey can predict which elements on the colloid will be replaced if another element is added to the soil. He went as far as to say it is calculated using formulae - the effects can be foreseen with mathematical certainty.

That's a very simplistic view from a layman, but it makes sense and tied in with what little I remember from my chemistry at school. I know soils are infinitely more variable than car engines, but the laws of science governing what goes on stay the same. Does this make sense or am I just rampling again?

I get what he is saying but dont believe you can gain anything once you've read the book. If I did not believe his generalised view it then I would not have albrect tested the soil, but its only a starting point and I would not adopt the total package from somebody based in another country that has never set foot on the farm. He will never have the knowledge you have your own soils - ever.

 

[Elmsted]

Its difficult to explain what i mean without sounding rude, but its not meant that way ......

My point is that 'HE' was saying that. There's 70 million people in the UK alone let alone the world so what makes him right? If his system was so proven the worlds farming would be using his system, but its not.

I get what he says because if I didn't I would not of adopted the albrect system but just because Kinsey says this and Kinsey says that, it does not mean its right. We have to respect him for his knowledge and achievements but he has no idea about our individual soils which is my point, so all he can provide is a very basic starting point which must be developed soley for your own land using your own knowledge with reference to him at certain times.

I think if you've read his book and heard him speak, then thats you and Kinsey done because the rest of it is between you and your own soil. Even if he spent a day with you on your own farm thats great but you've been there 35 years +. He cannot possibly know about all the little issues and why one field in a block of land yields different to another over the hedge.

If you have a father and son team farming together then generally theres a good 60 years experience of the land that can be sat round the kitchen table. Thats far more beneficial knowledge which combined with a bit of Kinsey info from his book, than getting him to visit for the day. Combine that with some upto date soil analysis, some tissue sample results and your own agronomist then thats as good as it gets for me .......

Albrect has shown me I need gypsum, slag and compost. Job done which combined with tissue analysis and some trace elements where required is as good as it gets. Seed breeders are holding yields back more than soils.

KInda +1 but get rid of your own agronomist.

 

[Getnthair]

A quote from Albert Einstein sort of sums up my views very simply.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

And there is no doubt that we have caused a problem or two with the way we have farmed our farm.
Cheers.
SD.

I think this sums up my interest - for now - in the subject.

Here I'm quite shocked at how my farm has changed. I started recording annual rainfalls below 40 inches and now (25 years later) have seen 60 inches. Machinery has got heavier, stocking levels higher, yields have been good. Suddenly with two wet summers it all seems to be falling apart.

I think it is simply a physical problem - a bit of a lift here and a slit there will make a big difference. However if (IF?) the climate is changing, if we are to see more rain, then I think I need to treat my soil differently and look after it better.

Albrecht/Kinsey may not be the final answer but I do (kind of) understand the chemistry and am willing to try something different.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

I think it all highlights the massive difference of opinions in farming. They are as varied as the soils themselves.

Whilst I agree with Lee and his "experience wins" theory, there are a lot of farmers who don't know their soils so well. ie New managers, new tenants or maybe a new farm owner. For them, getting to know soils will be a lifetimes work so Albrecht tests could be helpful. It would be great to hear from someone taking a half Albrecht, half VRA/GPS approach on the farm.

I think you have to be very open to different views if you are going to go Albrecht testing. It seems to turn a lot of thinking completely on its head.

 

[Robert]

I know exactly what you mean, WF but consider it this way: If I had a computer diagnosis of a petrol engine done, then sent that analysis to an engineering expert who lived on the other side of the world I would expect him to be able to tell me what is wrong with the engine and to give direction as to how it should be repaired / improved, even if he had never seen my make and model of car beforehand. Why would he be able to? Because the laws of physics and laws of chemistry of what goes on in a car engine do not change.

Kinsey went through the Professor Albrecht system. He explained that the laws of chemistry are as constant in the soil as they are in the car engine. If you have a clay colloid, it has negative charges all over it - this is part of its chemical make-up. These negative charges attach to positively charged cations. Again, the laws of chemistry don't permit more positive charges to attach than there are negative spaces on the colloid - this is the cation exchange capacity.

The elements each attach more or less strongly than other types of elements, hence Albrecht / Kinsey can predict which elements on the colloid will be replaced if another element is added to the soil. He went as far as to say it is calculated using formulae - the effects can be foreseen with mathematical certainty.

That's a very simplistic view from a layman, but it makes sense and tied in with what little I remember from my chemistry at school. I know soils are infinitely more variable than car engines, but the laws of science governing what goes on stay the same. Does this make sense or am I just rampling again?

I agree with what you say here, this to me is exactly what he was putting across, and on that basis suggests a very realistic prospect of being able to control your soil's nutrient status very precisely via the albrecht test and his formulated recommendations to bring about optimal changes in its chemical and physical properties and therefore enable optimal yields for those soils. You could in theory make a silk purse out of a sows ear but highly unlikely to be economic. There were unfortunately too many references to higher value crops though most of the examples involving corn and grass should bear relevance to the uk. Also too many references to the advanced course which seemingly unveils the maths behind the formulated recommendations; even a couple of examples would have engendered real credibility. Thinking about it, and being pedantic, he should have the ability within his business to redo his presentation in metric too, seems we're already paying for the privilege of giving him the opportunity to market his wares, and then we have to do half the work in translating it!!!!

I was however convinced enough that it is something that definitely merits our own trials, and coming from a traditional nutrient analysis history, there simply must be ample scope to understand all our soils far more specifically and implement some far better and orecise nutritional supplementation than currently occurs. I hope this will give the physical properties for more reliable and cheaper crop establishment and the chemical and biological improvements which will create the most efficient environment for the plants to thrive.

He is an endearing character and did very well to speak for 3 days straight; as someone else pointed out for much of that time you could hear a pin drop.

 

[warksfarmer]

I agree with what you say here, this to me is exactly what he was putting across, and on that basis suggests a very realistic prospect of being able to control your soil's nutrient status very precisely via the albrecht test and his formulated recommendations to bring about optimal changes in its chemical and physical properties and therefore enable optimal yields for those soils. You could in theory make a silk purse out of a sows ear but highly unlikely to be economic. There were unfortunately too many references to higher value crops though most of the examples involving corn and grass should bear relevance to the uk. Also too many references to the advanced course which seemingly unveils the maths behind the formulated recommendations; even a couple of examples would have engendered real credibility. Thinking about it, and being pedantic, he should have the ability within his business to redo his presentation in metric too, seems we're already paying for the privilege of giving him the opportunity to market his wares, and then we have to do half the work in translating it!!!!

I was however convinced enough that it is something that definitely merits our own trials, and coming from a traditional nutrient analysis history, there simply must be ample scope to understand all our soils far more specifically and implement some far better and orecise nutritional supplementation than currently occurs. I hope this will give the physical properties for more reliable and cheaper crop establishment and the chemical and biological improvements which will create the most efficient environment for the plants to thrive.

He is an endearing character and did very well to speak for 3 days straight; as someone else pointed out for much of that time you could hear a pin drop.

Hold on a minute so you have bought a book (peanuts), then you go to a seminar (about £500 with hotel etc?) and now you need to go to an 'advanced course' (how much?) which is where Jesus comes back down to earth and at the same time you get the eternal key to high yields off your own soils that Kinsey has never even seen

I think I'll stick with my albrect test results, compost, gypsum, slag and some common sense .......

 

[Clive]

Hold on a minute so you have bought a book (peanuts), then you go to a seminar (about £500 with hotel etc?) and now you need to go to an 'advanced course' (how much?) which is where Jesus comes back down to earth and at the same time you get the eternal key to high yields off your own soils that Kinsey has never even seen

I think I'll stick with my albrect test results, compost, gypsum, slag and some common sense .......

Advanced course looked well worth doing to me - in fact more so than this first one that was a bit basic at times (especially if you have already read the book)

Think your being a bit quick to judge this Lee, even Richard had many 'lightbulb moments" over the 3 days

There is no conjecture or snake oil in this that requires faith like some soil specialists are selling - this is simple chemistry, biology and physics

Kinsey is just a man explaining it and relaying his real world experience of it - not the messiah ! He has nothing to sell me

He's a big fan of compost BTW

 

[warksfarmer]

Just think you can get equally beneficial advice from experience (the old man), guys out in the field spreading materials like Cab over Pete, talking to local farmers on the same soils and some common sense.

I get the albrect test and what info it gives but dont get taking the advice from somebody that lives the other side of the world and cant be arsed to convert his power point presentation into metric. The fact that he kept referring to 'corn and crops not popular over here' also tells me he is simply just selling a system like all the other suppliers to the industry.

Again if it was so good the whole world would be farming under Kinseys guidance. The key here is the original albrect test which I think is right but dont really know for sure, but I certainly wont be paying somebody to advise me on the results from the other side of the world.

 

[Clive]

I agree Lee

But have to differ on one point - science is the same the world over, so the theory is right regardless of location

I think the right solution is using experience alongside the science

Cab-over-Pete was there and learning just as much as the rest of us I would say

 

[JD-Kid]

we got the tests done it highlighted a few areas we need to target frist what every system we use ..
thing that could rock the boat is the soils the idea is based on if you watched cows grazeing in other countrys and tested there " fav grazeing areas" the basics may come back a bit diffrent

is it worth geting the tests done yes it is is it worth corecting major inbalances yes as money alows and traget them frist then retest and start fine tuneing

 

[Cab-over Pete]

I think that is key JDK. I get the feeling a lot of farmers may get some problem fields tested, those that no matter what they do they just don't perform. From then on, we'll see I guess.

Certainly the few farmers I have mentioned it to seem to be thinking that way. If they get results there, we may see a shift to a more widespread use of the system. I can see a few dipping their toe in.

Lee, one of the key points Kinsey made was that soils good for growing oranges and corn (maize) would also grow good wheat and OSR. He seemed to be saying the basic needs of most plants require the same basic needs for a soil. Whether that spans the whole globe, we'll have to wait and see, but that seemed to be a key point for me.

Thank you for the generous comment, by the way. And Clive is right, I did find the whole thing interesting and learnt some things I can put to good use.

 

[Mounty]

As a few have already mentioned, all the required treatments will have to feature somewhere in the bottom line though. When we got into these systems in the mid 90's it literally took off overnight. We had to employ another full time adviser, a delivery driver and an office person to cope with the demand. Results seemed to be positive and people were buying products they had never used before in abundance. Then, wheat prices fell. The orders and interest in this alternative system dried up as the extra expense to balance the soil and grow these crops couldn't be justified. The staff all had to go and at this time precision sampling had just got going in the UK offering farmers 'savings' on fertilisers and balancing the major nutrients in a different way, using new technology.
One job that does stick in my mind (which was not a Kinsey idea) but connected to soil microbes was how we managed to help a large potato grower reduce scab by about 80% by working with the the microbes and a simple magic ingredient. He still uses it today as the benefits far out weigh the cost.

 

[Will Blackburn]

According to a current study at IBERS Aberystwyth the ideal soil CEC comprises 68% Ca 12% Mg etc. If that is not mainstream science using Albrecht then I will eat my hat.

The whole NPK index system is contrived to allow average Joe farmer some level of understanding so he will use mainstream fertiliser.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

That seems to be a very popular opinion.

 

[SilliamWhale]

According to a current study at IBERS Aberystwyth the ideal soil CEC comprises 68% Ca 12% Mg etc. If that is not mainstream science using Albrecht then I will eat my hat.

The whole NPK index system is contrived to allow average Joe farmer some level of understanding so he will use mainstream fertiliser.

There is no such thing as an ideal CEC. It is what it is by and large, although can be altered over time.

A Ca/Mg ratio is not the exclusive preserve of Albrecht it has been experimented and tested many times before and since his time. The data seems to suggest that generally 68/12 may be good but it really doesn't matter if you are higher or lower by much. The balanced ratio theory is still not that radically different from the law of the minimum, excess of some will lead to less of the other, relatively speaking and any detailed soil test will also allow you to pinpoint absolute values in the soil (which may or may not be worth anything because as we know soil tests themselves are limited snapshots both in space and time of a field).

NPK is still a reasonable system. Along with tissue testing. I don't see a particular point in testing Ca/Mg that often. You can pinpoint your underlying problem and then apply your type of amendment accordingly. Ph is still a very important tool once you know your CEC, soil type and Ca/Mg situtation, especially on Calcium deficient land.

There have been a lot of excellent soil scientists over the years, why put Albrecht on a pedestal? The conspiracy theory suits Kinsey's marketing arm because it feels david and goliath but read Nature and Property of soils by Nyle Brady.

+1 with Lee/ Warks Farmer. Get fundamentals of underlying chemistry right, look to build better biological systems, look to build better physical soil conditions (OM, structure, worms, drainage, cover crop, no till), look for more benign sources of fert than antagonistic ones, tissue test to see deficiencies and question whether they can be economically dealt with or indeed is there a need (some plants show fleeting deficiencies during certain growth stages ie stem extension, but it may not necessarily be economic to treat). I'm open minded about it all and have read much of the data but you only have to do a search on something like newagtalk to see that whilst Albrecht "system" has its merits very very few stick with it all lock stock and barrel, but it is a good business model for selling some extra products which can have a high mark up, which I don't think anyone can deny does go on.

 

[SilliamWhale]

And just one more thing - Ok I'm a no till fan obviously but generally its not about not tilling the soil for the sake of it but because of the improvement in soil health. If you are farming degraded soils with no decent oxygen until they are tilled and then slumped and tilled again then its easier to say "ok the soil test shows poor exchangability between certain elements etc." but the thing is once you start getting your soil functioning better with better physical and biological conditions then you can get good results from soils well outside of the limits of what traditional "albrecht" thinking considers ideal.

I'm not saying Albrecht is nonsense and I'm saying recognise its limitations, the alternatives and that in order to get most of their nutrition it has to go through the guts of an animal of some sort (a tiny microbial one maybe) so you need to help them along as well.

good reads:

how Soils work - Paul syltie (amazing book but there is a bit of religious stuff which is unnerving to a British perspective)
Teaming with Microbes - lowenfels et al

 

[warksfarmer]

I think for once Will we agree on something .

I have got 26 fields that are mine to crop year in year out and now have albrect tests for each one. It cost me under £2,000 from memory (would need to check before anybody ask for lab phone number). I think good value but no good for precision farming.

Had I done it via gps in grid squares then it would of cost me about £24,000 and if I had done it by soil conductivity mapping it would be approx £5,500 (bit of a guess) but neither would be of any use if applying bulk products like compost, so really precision farming and albrect/kinsey dont match if you want to use the cheaper readily available products.

 

[Will Blackburn]

There is no such thing as an ideal CEC. It is what it is by and large, although can be altered over time.

A Ca/Mg ratio is not the exclusive preserve of Albrecht it has been experimented and tested many times before and since his time. The data seems to suggest that generally 68/12 may be good but it really doesn't matter if you are higher or lower by much. The balanced ratio theory is still not that radically different from the law of the minimum, excess of some will lead to less of the other, relatively speaking and any detailed soil test will also allow you to pinpoint absolute values in the soil (which may or may not be worth anything because as we know soil tests themselves are limited snapshots both in space and time of a field).

NPK is still a reasonable system. Along with tissue testing. I don't see a particular point in testing Ca/Mg that often. You can pinpoint your underlying problem and then apply your type of amendment accordingly. Ph is still a very important tool once you know your CEC, soil type and Ca/Mg situtation, especially on Calcium deficient land.

There have been a lot of excellent soil scientists over the years, why put Albrecht on a pedestal? The conspiracy theory suits Kinsey's marketing arm because it feels david and goliath but read Nature and Property of soils by Nyle Brady.

+1 with Lee/ Warks Farmer. Get fundamentals of underlying chemistry right, look to build better biological systems, look to build better physical soil conditions (OM, structure, worms, drainage, cover crop, no till), look for more benign sources of fert than antagonistic ones, tissue test to see deficiencies and question whether they can be economically dealt with or indeed is there a need (some plants show fleeting deficiencies during certain growth stages ie stem extension, but it may not necessarily be economic to treat). I'm open minded about it all and have read much of the data but you only have to do a search on something like newagtalk to see that whilst Albrecht "system" has its merits very very few stick with it all lock stock and barrel, but it is a good business model for selling some extra products which can have a high mark up, which I don't think anyone can deny does go on.

So who else can I attribute the idea to. You see everybody knows what your on about if you mention Albrecht?

 

[Clive]

I think for once Will we agree on something .

I have got 26 fields that are mine to crop year in year out and now have albrect tests for each one. It cost me under £2,000 from memory (would need to check before anybody ask for lab phone number). I think good value but no good for precision farming.

Had I done it via gps in grid squares then it would of cost me about £24,000 and if I had done it by soil conductivity mapping it would be approx £5,500 (bit of a guess) but neither would be of any use if applying bulk products like compost, so really precision farming and albrect/kinsey dont match if you want to use the cheaper readily available products.

think samples can be done for about £55 each now

not convinced that precision is needed but if it was the best approach (kinsey seemed to think) was to EC scan field to identify soil type variation and sample the different areas rather than grid sample Soyl style - that way maybe 3 or 4 samples per filed could let you use Albrect principles in a VRA way

Out of interest Lee of you 26 filed samples how much did they vary ?? was there a common pattern in the balance ?