At 09:44 AM 12/28/01 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi all, > >May I ask, if anyone has any experience or knowledge of the Albrecht >System for >soil analysis and fertiliser recommendations versus the 'conventional' >laboratory approach? > >In the organic circles in Australia the Albrecht system is being hailed as the >best one to use. Except for anecdotal evidence that some growers say that it >works for them, I have not seen any other literature about it, especially in >regards to its adaptation to Australian soils. > >I am writing as research officer for organic vegetables with the Department of >Natural Resources & Environment - Agriculture Victoria, and am thinking of >writing an Agnote on soil testing. > >Many thanks for your time and any information you may have to offer. > >PS: I also have a small patch to grow organic vegies on and some data >would help >me to decide, if I should use the Albrecht System. > >Regards, >Christiane Jaeger Interestingly, Walter Goldstein published a critical article in the latest issue of Biodynamics. I think there is good support for Albrecht's focus on CEC and an appropriate soil test. The difference in approach is covered by Acres, USA books and, to some extent, by Wood's End Test labs. But Albrecht's "ideal" level of Ca was intuitive, not supported by empirical data. Walter points out that soils with a higher Mg level are not necessarily any worse. Of course, as BD practitioners we are understand why Ca is given such an important role. It's just interesting that the champion of a rational soil science made his decision without scientific evidence. ========================== Dave Robison
