Albrecht versus conventional soil testing - my experiments

[Elmsted]

I really need to sit down over the winter and look at the research behind the banding of "deficient", "excessive" etc. because at the moment raw data isn't going to mean anything to me. I do wonder why it is that the lower results are given in mg/kg whereas the top results are given as %s. Obviously mg/kg figures have the problem of the differing atomic weights of the different elements. That said, to me that tissue result is extremely plausible and fits the jigsaw very well and it's not as if the lab knows the story behind the sample and so can fiddle the results in some way.

I can see how different lab's extraction methods will give different readings and I can also see how it is debatable where to set the line between good, bad and so on but I don't see why %s are any less raw (if the figure gives the % of ions of that element in solution as is my guess) than ppm or mg. Can you explain.

Yes the raw data is essential in that the labs give their opinion not based upon researched data. And science fact. In so much as that be it a lab which has potential commercial gain or an apparent " Independence" The fundamental underlying facts seem to have buried in a rush to adopt the present norms. Which IMO is wrong in so much as we as growers need to work with nature not fight her. Hence my well known view that hand held N leave sensors work as a predictive tool.
It is a bit like the long standing debate here and elsewhere regarding Albrecht based soil sampling and " Standard norms" both analysis are valid but different in their results. It depends upon extraction methods used. The conclusions of both could and will be contested in regard to more calcium or sulphur etc. My personal choice is to revert to raw data from a tissue analysis.Which cleaarly indicates what the crop we trying to grow is actually getting from the enviroment in which it grows.

As in my earlier post the two graphs show nutrient uptake/need. From independent researchers combined peer reviewed studies.

Please do hope you continue to look at things. Regards

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

Well here's the answer which explains why the effect was worse in the sandier, lighter areas:

View attachment 16943

Question is to what extent the banded Nitram was affecting the uptake of sulphur. Local agronomist I spoke to said he's never seen S deficiency this early in the season. I'm a bit worried about the Ca and Mg numbers because, as mentioned in the comments section, I did leave the plants in a bag over the weekend before posting and they did go off a bit which may have affected things. Roots were included in the sample and I washed everything with de-ionised water and then dried before sending.

Generally tissue analysis is calibrated to specific parts of the plant and differs by growth stage (as @Elmsted showed in his graphs). It may well be that the lab basic interpretation is geared for the usual "3rd most fully expanded leaf" and not whole plant as you have provided them. While the plants might have 'gone off a bit' this shouldn't matter unless a complete mush, as the material is generally completely dry ashed in an oven and then digested in a strong acid before dilution and measurement.

BTW, mg/kg is essentially the same as ppm (i.e. 1 mg in 1 kg = 1 ppm). There is no need to involve different atomic weights etc. - this is a red herring.

The reason that some are quoted as percentage (%) and others as mg/kg (or ppm if you prefer) is that N, P, K, Ca, Mg & S are found in much larger quantities than the micronutrients (Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, B) - i.e. Potassium at 4.31% is 43,100 mg/kg (ppm).

Without knowing more about the crop, the sample and the soil it is not possible to say whether it is 'deficient' in Sulphur or not at this stage. N:S ratio may not be entirely meaningful at this stage of growth, especially in a whole crop sample as I'm not aware that this has ever been calibrated. However, it is potentially indicative of low Sulphur, so worth looking at other indicators too.

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

I really need to sit down over the winter and look at the research behind the banding of "deficient", "excessive" etc. because at the moment raw data isn't going to mean anything to me. I do wonder why it is that the lower results are given in mg/kg whereas the top results are given as %s. Obviously mg/kg figures have the problem of the differing atomic weights of the different elements. That said, to me that tissue result is extremely plausible and fits the jigsaw very well and it's not as if the lab knows the story behind the sample and so can fiddle the results in some way.

I can see how different lab's extraction methods will give different readings and I can also see how it is debatable where to set the line between good, bad and so on but I don't see why %s are any less raw (if the figure gives the % of ions of that element in solution as is my guess) than ppm or mg. Can you explain.

The lab extraction method is usually straightforward. For tissue samples the material is dry ashed and then digested in a strong acid to completely dissolve all remaining minerals. The resulting solution is diluted and then passed through analysis machines, such as gas plasma, to determine total elemental content. Generally, there is no determination of the original different constituents within the plant, it is just the overall totals - as is the result in the table you've shown.

% and mg/kg (ppm) are only used to give a convenient number i.e. Potassium at 4.31% could also be expressed as 43,100 ppm (or mg/kg). Obviously 4.31% is easier to read.

 

[York]

Generally tissue analysis is calibrated to specific parts of the plant and differs by growth stage (as @Elmsted showed in his graphs). It may well be that the lab basic interpretation is geared for the usual "3rd most fully expanded leaf" and not whole plant as you have provided them. While the plants might have 'gone off a bit' this shouldn't matter unless a complete mush, as the material is generally completely dry ashed in an oven and then digested in a strong acid before dilution and measurement.

BTW, mg/kg is essentially the same as ppm (i.e. 1 mg in 1 kg = 1 ppm). There is no need to involve different atomic weights etc. - this is a red herring.

The reason that some are quoted as percentage (%) and others as mg/kg (or ppm if you prefer) is that N, P, K, Ca, Mg & S are found in much larger quantities than the micronutrients (Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, B) - i.e. Potassium at 4.31% is 43,100 mg/kg (ppm).

Without knowing more about the crop, the sample and the soil it is not possible to say whether it is 'deficient' in Sulphur or not at this stage. N:S ratio is not meaningful at this stage of growth, especially in a whole crop sample as I'm not aware that this has ever been calibrated.

Does it need to be calibrated?
If you look at Prof. W. Bergmann's book about S you will find that in all crops a N:S ratio of 10 : 1 is the optimum.
Calibration: Even Prof. Bermann, who puglished the "disirable ranges at the various growth stages in 1993 he admitted that the ranges should be reviewed as his numbers where based on yields like 6 to 8 t/ha in wheat. At least over here we use the same "disired ranges" now for 10+ t/ha.
One more point. How did the "desired ranges" come to place? As far as I know did the researchers gather lot's of tissue results and then they "eliminated" the High & Lo side of the whole numbers and the middle resulted in the "desired levels".
We find that if we have B in the plant over the desired level we see healthier plants.
Also, one more point to consider. Up until the early 90's our S intake via rain was much higher than it's today.
Leaves us lot's to consider as well.
York-Th.

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

Does it need to be calibrated?
If you look at Prof. W. Bergmann's book about S you will find that in all crops a N:S ratio of 10 : 1 is the optimum.
Calibration: Even Prof. Bermann, who puglished the "disirable ranges at the various growth stages in 1993 he admitted that the ranges should be reviewed as his numbers where based on yields like 6 to 8 t/ha in wheat. At least over here we use the same "disired ranges" now for 10+ t/ha.
One more point. How did the "desired ranges" come to place? As far as I know did the researchers gather lot's of tissue results and then they "eliminated" the High & Lo side of the whole numbers and the middle resulted in the "desired levels".
We find that if we have B in the plant over the desired level we see healthier plants.
Also, one more point to consider. Up until the early 90's our S intake via rain was much higher than it's today.
Leaves us lot's to consider as well.
York-Th.

An N:S ratio of 10:1 is a significant oversimplification.

Firstly, different crops require different amounts of a whole variety of nutrients to achieve what we are looking for i.e. a given maximum yield and quality of specific parts of the plant (i.e. grain, tubers, oil, fibre). As an example, malting barley and milling wheat have very different desirable N:S ratios.

Secondly plants have considerably varied uptake of nutrients not only through the growing season and the growth stages, but also even on time of day.

Thirdly, different parts of the plant will preferentially take up different proportions of nutrients - again this will vary by season, growth stage and time of day.

Therefore, measurement of the top-most leaves will give a different reading to the above ground parts of a plant, which in turn will give a different reading to measuring the whole plant. To be meaningful in terms of, let's say a N:S ratio, this has to equate to a known measurement at a given stage against a desired yield/quality benefit.

So if you measure the whole plant at the 5-leaf stage and get a N:S ratio of 7.2:1 then, for this to mean anything, it has to be equated to replicated trials data where this exact measurement has been shown to have an effect on yield.

 

[Feldspar]

This is all fascinating stuff and definitely reveals even more of my ignorance! Thank you for the informative replies. Lots to chew on.

So it would seem that the % figures given have not been corrupted by any interpretation or opinion and are comparable to ppm and mg/kg which is good to know. Given that NRM do ask for the entire above ground portion of the plant and not the roots they will not have been comparing apples with apples when determining what is deficient, excessive etc.

Next step is to try and unearth some of this trial data to see the accompanying text. As pointed out above if the target yield was 8 t/ha and one is aiming for higher then this will change what is considered the optimum range. Equally as soils change and the world above the soil changes (like S deposition rates) then again the optimum levels will change.

It would be interesting to find out from the lab how clever they are with the setting of the bands. Do they, for example, change the preferred level depending on the likely growth stage of the crop.

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

This is all fascinating stuff and definitely reveals even more of my ignorance! Thank you for the informative replies. Lots to chew on.

So it would seem that the % figures given have not been corrupted by any interpretation or opinion and are comparable to ppm and mg/kg which is good to know. Given that NRM do ask for the entire above ground portion of the plant and not the roots they will not have been comparing apples with apples when determining what is deficient, excessive etc.

Next step is to try and unearth some of this trial data to see the accompanying text. As pointed out above if the target yield was 8 t/ha and one is aiming for higher then this will change what is considered the optimum range. Equally as soils change and the world above the soil changes (like S deposition rates) then again the optimum levels will change.

It would be interesting to find out from the lab how clever they are with the setting of the bands. Do they, for example, change the preferred level depending on the likely growth stage of the crop.

I wouldn't hold your breath! There is unlikely to be any trials data that supports this ratio for this timing. Nevertheless, a N:S ratio of about 28:1 is sufficiently far out of line to be a bit suspect. Note that your Nitrogen % is high - I'd be expecting a N% of between 4.5% - 5.75% and a Sulphur level of around 0.60%. HOWEVER, these are the figures for the 3rd fully emerged leaf and NOT the whole plant. They are also for those expected at the start of Spring Growth. Nevertheless, as a guide, they would indicate the possibility of N being a bit high and S being a bit low at this time.

Is the land light or heavier? The photos suggest a clay loam, but difficult to judge. What fertiliser/FYM did you apply last season to the wheat crop? I assume, like the rest of us, you had heavy Winter rainfall? What is your Potash status? pH - Calcium suggests quite high pH status?

BTW, I would rate that Boron as borderline deficient - but only based on criteria above.

 

[Feldspar]

I wouldn't hold your breath! There is unlikely to be any trials data that supports this ratio for this timing. Nevertheless, a N:S ratio of about 28:1 is sufficiently far out of line to be a bit suspect. Note that your Nitrogen % is high - I'd be expecting a N% of between 4.5% - 5.75% and a Sulphur level of around 0.60%. HOWEVER, these are the figures for the 3rd fully emerged leaf and NOT the whole plant. They are also for those expected at the start of Spring Growth. Nevertheless, as a guide, they would indicate the possibility of N being a bit high and S being a bit low at this time.

Is the land light or heavier? The photos suggest a clay loam, but difficult to judge. What fertiliser/FYM did you apply last season to the wheat crop? I assume, like the rest of us, you had heavy Winter rainfall? What is your Potash status? pH - Calcium suggests quite high pH status?

BTW, I would rate that Boron as borderline deficient - but only based on criteria above.

Broadly the main soil type across the various farms is Hanslope series chalky boulder clay. This farm is at the lighter end of our range, a sandy clay, and in particular the worst affected areas are the lightest bits of this farm. The cropping before the rape was wheat which received about 200 kg/ha of N but no sulphur (and none the year before that either). No FYM at all. We did have a lot of winter rainfall. According to conventional soil tests our K is 2-/2+. pH hovers around the 7.5 mark and the calcium is very high.

 

[Elmsted]

Feldspar & Emerald

Firstly fascinating. However my take is that whole plant is essential in that the top growing leaf is at a time of rapid growth going to get an abundance of elements and given day lengh and soil tempretures there will be a transition from Xylem and phloem flows. I am sure we all concur that lighter land will show exactly as posted. Though regarding Boron on the light sandier soils of North East Europe one can often detect Boron lack with a knive from bottom of tap root and up through stem. As a brown stain or hollow heart. This seems to lay the plant more open to winter stem borer attack in my experience.
Hence my view be it legal or not to apply CCC and use Cytokinins. Also the effect of prochloraz as a growth regulatory effect as well as phoma suppresion.
Having said all the foregoing on Kent brick earth soils and kent chalk the ph tends to reduce availability.
As per this chart.



And the sort of universal one like this.



And here the offical view.



Relating to Feldspar query on growth stages.

 

[franklin]

Often see this, we put it down to extra N in the soil from lack of crop removing it the previous year, as well as lack of residue (which would also be locking up available N)

It is anecdotal of course, but I tend to find that my best rape is grown after milling wheat to which I use a "late bag" or perhaps two of a nitrogen plus sulphur product for protein rather than after feed wheat. I have always put this down to a higher residue in the soil at planting.

 

[Feldspar]

Just in case anyone is interested, here is a recent tissue test for the OSR which was short of sulphur in the autumn.

Tissue test was taken from the next-door field from the last test so not strictly comparative.

I do not have a soil test for this field, only the one next door which I would say is pretty similar to the soil in Park Field. Will try and put that up later.

 

[SilliamWhale]

did you send that to the "proper" lab?

 

[Feldspar]

did you send that to the "proper" lab?

What is "that"? The tissue test, or the soil test? And what is the "proper" lab?!

 

[SilliamWhale]

What is "that"? The tissue test, or the soil test? And what is the "proper" lab?!

The tissue test. Neal Kinsey recommended lab on the states?

 

[Feldspar]

The tissue test. Neal Kinsey recommended lab on the states?

In which case the answer is no.

 

[SilliamWhale]

In which case the answer is no.

Ah.

 

[Clive]

The tissue test. Neal Kinsey recommended lab on the states?

Surely tissue would be pointless done in the USA - sample needs to be fresh surely ?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Surely tissue would be pointless done in the USA - sample needs to be fresh surely ?

Agree. But weve been told unless you use the proper kinsey recommended lab its not correct.

 

[Clive]

Agree. But weve been told unless you use the proper kinsey recommended lab its not correct.

Must be right if we were told that then ! Lol

 

[franklin]

Agree. But weve been told unless you use the proper kinsey recommended lab its not correct.

Dislike.