Hi All, Thank you all for so many comments to my query about the Albrecht System! I will follow up the contacts in the new year. So, maybe I am writing a bit prematurely, but to continue the discussion I thought I might describe my question in more detail: Accuracy of soil analysis is greatly dependent on soil type. There are different elemental extraction methodologies for the same elements with differing results because a) the methods differ, b) soil conditions are different. Methodologies are soil specific. Therefore whatever lab one uses it seems to me advisable: 1. to tell the lab exactly what types of soil and climate one has and 2. to stick with one lab and learn from the changes in soil analyses over the years. The Perry laboratory in Adelaide uses for most or all elements commonly used methodologies, some of which are not the best ones for the calcareous, high pH soils around Mildura, where I live. (Peverill, K.I et al. eds, 1999, Soil Analysis An Interpretation Manaual, CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia). CEC determination is given also by conventional laboratories. The only difference so far I have been able to ascertain is that: 1. It has been claimed that only Perry laboratory CEC methodology results in figures that lead to the best interpretation, without having yet been able to find out what exactly that methodology is. 2. From one paper (C. Owen Plank, http://oit.caes.uga.edu/css/turf/) that mentions Sufficiency Level of Available Nutrient Concept versus Maintenance Level Concept, I understand, that the Albrecht System would fall under the second category. An ideal cation saturation percentage is being sought to attain and retain in the soil, i.e. the soil is being fertilised and not the plant. Researchers other than William Albrecht are mentioned. The ideal CEC percentages and ratios are very similar to Albrecht
's, with slight variations for different types of soils. However, some scientists have questioned the scientific and economic validity of basing fertiliser recommendations solely on the Maintenance Level Concept. I haven't been able to get hold of those papers as yet, as our librarian is on leave; but this critique seems understandable to me, when I think of my situation, where we alter the soil chemistry by irrigation and force 'unnatural' agricultural temperate climate commercial crops onto soils that normally grow semi-arid plants. Question: Should we try to change the exchangeable cation percentages and ratios in the soil to fit what has proven to be correct for these plants in other parts of the world? Or can we allow ourselves to see, if they grow okay also under the natural balanced soil in our parts of the world or not grow these crops at all, but only those crops that don't mind semi-arid calcareous and low organic matter soils? Would it be possible to combine the philosophy behind the Albrecht System's soil test interpretation with some newer analysis methodologies, e.g. Mehlich-3 or ammonium bicarbonate ?DTPA, to get the most useful results for nudging the complex soil-plant system towards growing commercially viable crops within the organic energy individuality of each farm and farmer? I am beginning to think more clearly that a soil test is always only a snap shot and the crux lies in the interpretation of that snapshot and the snapshots over time. Perhaps in a BD or organic system, where the emphasis is on working with ecological and cosmic systems, instead of force feeding with massive amounts of fertiliser, the soil nutrient analysis is less important than a soil biological test and does not need to be rated as highly as in a conventional system for the success of the farming operation? Please, don't get me wrong by querying. I believe that organic farming is benign conventional farming and I am philosophically and ideally inclined towards BD, the holistic cosmic worldview and nudging within it. But I am not yet convinced that the Albrecht System promotion in Australia is done for the System's objective merits and not largely because of very good marketing. Cheers and apologies, if this is too long Christiane Jaeger
