Subject: Re: CEC Balancing
Dave - pr'haps Jose got a bit excited but when somebody questions the validity of Albrecht's work then at least they should please get the chemistry correct. All my chem books have Mg++ Dave Robinson wrote > Walter is a very careful researcher and author, (snip) ---if so then he has made a goof up in the article.---- > I interpret Walter's article as in no way disagreeing with CEC balancing, > but as saying there is no evidence for the particular level of Ca that > Albrecht identified as "ideal". ------ sooooo this is not disagreeing??? Like Jose I believe that there is ample "evidence" to support the work of Albrecht and also that to be able to criticise it then it is necessary to be reasonably familiar with what he was saying . Methinks Mr Goldstein should go read the books --- then look at some farmers who are doing it successfully --- in the end he would probably conclude that Steiner and Albrecht had a lot in common . Apart from all that, it seems that all concerned here have fallen into the usual trap and GOT HUNG UP ON THE NUMBERS -- Albrecht's ideal calcium number is somewhere between 60 and 75 depending on * the lab analysis and there system for calcium extraction (variable) *do they include hydrogen as part of the base exchange--our fertiliser people dont and this can double the calcium % in some cases- * the soil type - sand or heavy clay (variable) * to a lesser extent the type of crop to be grown (another variable) and after all that you can have a chemically correct soil that is energetically and microbially dead and gives very little result --- or on the other hand a soil with good energy and microbial activity can be a fair way off the Albrecht balance but have good functional nutrition and produce very nicely. I think this is where the Steiner remedies fit best - in providing the functionality and lifting energy. Any other thoughts on this ?? Lloyd Charles
