- Location
- Ashford, Kent
From an article:
William A. Albrecht was a giant in the field of biological agriculture. His impact on agriculture around the world can hardly be overstated. Dr. Albrecht had an early fascination with soil and studied it meticulously for 6 decades.
Albrecht worked in the university system as the head of the soils department at the University of Missouri. He stayed very focused to study nature and animal performance. These observations positively tied nutrition in the soil to profitability for the farmer and health to the consumers.
In this email I will be addressing the pros and cons of the Albrecht system. At the same time I highly encourage all serious students of soil to thoroughly study all 8 volumes of the Albrecht series. Volume 5, devoted to calcium, is particularly suggested just to drive home the importance of limestone and calcium.
Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Reams were contemporaries and friends. They enjoyed back and forth correspondence regarding soil and frequent visits by Dr. Reams to Missouri to visit Dr. Albrecht. In one of his recorded seminars Reams relates how one time Albrecht visited him in Florida and hired him for an entire week to teach him one on one about Reams Biological Theory of Ionization.
In one area Reams and Albrecht were very united. Both men held calcium in the soil of supreme importance. Albrecht looked at calcium as the king of nutrients. Reams looked at calcium as the primary growth energy element that all reproductive nutrients needed to react against in order to create energy for crop growth.
So what is the Albrecht system? Albrecht developed the concept of total exchange capacity. This really means how much holding capacity does the clay and humus fractions of soil have. When clay content is less, nutrient holding capacity is reduced. Holding capacity could be likened to "How big is your bucket." Albrecht also looked at how empty was the bucket. This represents hydrogen on the clay colloid instead minerals such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium. Hydrogen on the clay is acidic and indicates a deficiency of cations. A final concept is the idea of proportion of cations on the clay colloid. This is called base saturation.
The basic approach in the Albrecht system is to fill the empty part of the bucket to nearly full with additional nutrients and end up with soil colloids having the following percentage of nutrients.
The value of the Albrecht approach is that it is fairly easy to understand. Just create the ideal ratio of the cations on the clay colloid and supply the needed anions and now you have a balanced soil, plain and simple. The simplicity and logical approach has appealed to many people resulting in great popularity.
There are, however, several problems with the Albrecht approach;
In short, the base saturation test is good. And for many people it is good enough. On the other hand...
"Good is the greatest enemy excellent ever had."
The downside of the Reams approach is that the concepts are harder to grasp, the fertility recommendations are not linear, and the whole idea of growing plants with energy is not understood by many growers or consultants. It most certainly does not jive with the university approach. On the positive side, the energy concept takes plants higher in production and quality. The Reams approach looks at all 3 foundational sciences--not just soil agronomy. We also include soil microbiology and crop physiology. This means recommendations include microbial inoculants, sugars, and biostimulants for the microbiology and foliar sprays to nutritionally feed plants directly through the leaves.
This more comprehensive view of growing a crop and the use of foliar sprays to supply growth or reproductive energy puts the Reams approach on a much higher plateau.
Reams is better than Albrect?
Discuss
William A. Albrecht was a giant in the field of biological agriculture. His impact on agriculture around the world can hardly be overstated. Dr. Albrecht had an early fascination with soil and studied it meticulously for 6 decades.
Albrecht worked in the university system as the head of the soils department at the University of Missouri. He stayed very focused to study nature and animal performance. These observations positively tied nutrition in the soil to profitability for the farmer and health to the consumers.
In this email I will be addressing the pros and cons of the Albrecht system. At the same time I highly encourage all serious students of soil to thoroughly study all 8 volumes of the Albrecht series. Volume 5, devoted to calcium, is particularly suggested just to drive home the importance of limestone and calcium.
Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Reams were contemporaries and friends. They enjoyed back and forth correspondence regarding soil and frequent visits by Dr. Reams to Missouri to visit Dr. Albrecht. In one of his recorded seminars Reams relates how one time Albrecht visited him in Florida and hired him for an entire week to teach him one on one about Reams Biological Theory of Ionization.
In one area Reams and Albrecht were very united. Both men held calcium in the soil of supreme importance. Albrecht looked at calcium as the king of nutrients. Reams looked at calcium as the primary growth energy element that all reproductive nutrients needed to react against in order to create energy for crop growth.
So what is the Albrecht system? Albrecht developed the concept of total exchange capacity. This really means how much holding capacity does the clay and humus fractions of soil have. When clay content is less, nutrient holding capacity is reduced. Holding capacity could be likened to "How big is your bucket." Albrecht also looked at how empty was the bucket. This represents hydrogen on the clay colloid instead minerals such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium. Hydrogen on the clay is acidic and indicates a deficiency of cations. A final concept is the idea of proportion of cations on the clay colloid. This is called base saturation.
The basic approach in the Albrecht system is to fill the empty part of the bucket to nearly full with additional nutrients and end up with soil colloids having the following percentage of nutrients.
- Calcium 65-70%
- Magnesium 15-20%
- Potassium 5-10%
- Sodium ½ - 3%
- Hydrogen 5-10%
The value of the Albrecht approach is that it is fairly easy to understand. Just create the ideal ratio of the cations on the clay colloid and supply the needed anions and now you have a balanced soil, plain and simple. The simplicity and logical approach has appealed to many people resulting in great popularity.
There are, however, several problems with the Albrecht approach;
- There is no concept of using soil conductivity to measure soil energy.
- Recommendations are based on soil holding capacity--and are not tailored to the crop being raised.
- There is no concept of certain crops requiring growth energy dominance vs. reproductive energy dominance and the use of specific fertilizers to bring this about.
- The Albrecht approach does not achieve the higher levels of brix and nutrient density. This is why contemporary followers of Albrecht avoid the topic.
- It can be very expensive and requires an extreme amount of nutrients to balance the soil.
In short, the base saturation test is good. And for many people it is good enough. On the other hand...
"Good is the greatest enemy excellent ever had."
The downside of the Reams approach is that the concepts are harder to grasp, the fertility recommendations are not linear, and the whole idea of growing plants with energy is not understood by many growers or consultants. It most certainly does not jive with the university approach. On the positive side, the energy concept takes plants higher in production and quality. The Reams approach looks at all 3 foundational sciences--not just soil agronomy. We also include soil microbiology and crop physiology. This means recommendations include microbial inoculants, sugars, and biostimulants for the microbiology and foliar sprays to nutritionally feed plants directly through the leaves.
This more comprehensive view of growing a crop and the use of foliar sprays to supply growth or reproductive energy puts the Reams approach on a much higher plateau.
Reams is better than Albrect?
Discuss
