Re: CEC
- Original Message - From: Jose Luiz M Garcia Hi Liz : Jose > "Im trying to get my head around CEC, if you add Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, > you get the CEC. The remainder is what, hydrogen? Is this assumed, > what about aluminium? Any comments would be greatly appreciated." > ----- > > The CEC is calculated taking into consideration the bases mentioned > above plus > Hydrogen and Aluminum which constitutes the acidity part of the CEC. I guess I am being picky on this but - exchangeable aluminium is a result of excess acidity brought about by too much hydrogen in the soil solution (for whatever reason). What Jose has said is not wrong but I think we should see this as a chain of events - the end result of which is an acid, aluminium toxic, low organic matter soil, the pH of which will be somewhere under 4.5 in calcium chloride solution test. Available aluminium will increase rapidly from 1 to 5% CEC at 4.5 pH to probably 15 to 25% CEC at pH 4.2 to probably in excess of 40%CEC at 4pH, add enough time and a moderate rainfall and we end up with a washed out sand with a layer of bauxite (aluminium ore) underneath as we find in Western Australia. (probably some other chemistry involved in this last bit) First comes the run down in base exchange (depleted calcium usually) and organic matter. Accompanied by increasing acidity (hydrogen) Then comes excess aluminium increasing eventually to toxic levels. Plant available aluminium is not a problem so long as we keep the soil pH up above that 4.5pH (calcium chloride) level! Lloyd Charles > Some > micro nutrients like Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu also should be considered but > their quantity > is so small as compared to the others that thay are not generally > considered in > the CEC > > > jose > > >
CEC
"Im trying to get my head around CEC, if you add Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, you get the CEC. The remainder is what, hydrogen? Is this assumed, what about aluminium? Any comments would be greatly appreciated." ----- The CEC is calculated taking into consideration the bases mentioned above plus Hydrogen and Alluminum which constitutes the acidity part of the CEC. Some micro nutrients like Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu also should be considered but their quantity is so small as compared to the others that thay are not generally considered in the CEC jose
CEC
Hugh & LLoyd; Thank you both for your time & explanations of CEC, you've helped me to get a better picture of the way it works. I'll work on it a bit more and see if I can't pose some questions to you both to see if I do have the basics ofthe processes involved. Thanks again L&L Liz
Re: CEC
Dear Liz, et. al., CEC means Cation Exchange Capacity. That is, how much capacity does a given soil have to hold and exchange cations, which are positively charged ions? It's like measuring how big a larder one has. Some people have a 24' by 24' root cellar with 8' ceilings. Others may only have a 500 gallon drain tile sunk in the ground. In general it is clay that provides the negative charges that hold onto cations, which are positively charged. Clays are aluminum silicates which can come in a wide variety of combinations with various admixtures. As well, phosphates as well as halides (e.g. chlorine, bromine, iodine) provide some stable negative charges. However, nitrates and nitrites, while negatively charged, are so soluble they cannot provide stable negative charge as they quickly enough wander off into the water table, as, indeed, positively charged ammonia volitalizes off into the atmosphere. Where you get some stability with nitrogen is when it is in the form of amino acids and complex humates. Carbon compounds can go either way, so organic matter acts as a buffer; and thus in sandy soils where there is little or no hope of applying any significant amount of clay to ammend the low cation exchange capacity, building organic matter commonly is the answer to raising the CEC. (I have found that with up-and-running BD corn can do this admirably with little or no nitrogen fertilizer as long as calcium is adequate.) The CEC can be filled with almost any mixture of cations. It could be 70% Mg, 15% Ca, 3%K, 1% Na and 10.8% H, with some traces thrown in, for example. But that would hardly be desirable. Ideally one hopes for about a ratio of betwseen 4 parts Ca to one part Mg to 7 or 8 parts Ca to one part Mg. Magnesium, being lower in the periodic table than its sister, calcium, works more strongly. It draws the light into the carbon framework in the leaf. Whereas calcium, working more moderately, draws nitrogen into the soil at the root. Available calcium levels must be fairly robust before significant nitrogen fixation can occur, especially free fixing of nitrogen by azotobacters, in the root zone. BD 500 is rich in azotobacters and creates the conditions for them to thrive--but there must be adequate calcium for this to occur, which is why both the chamomile and the oak bark remedies involve calcium. As you say, aluminum, though it is a plus three (trivalent) cation, is so tightly bound to silica that it does not become available in significant quantity until the pH gets rather low. Hope this helps. Best, Hugh Lovel >- Original Message - >From: Liz Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:28 AM >Subject: Rain/CEC > > >> We also experienced our first rain yesterday and last night. Heralding in >> the Spring. The drought seems to have made it a mild winter, with my >> dreaded willows only loosing their leaves for 5 weeks. >> >> I'm trying to get my head around CEC, if you add Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, you >> get the CEC. The remainder is what, hydrogen? Is this assumed, what >about >> aluminium? >> Any comments would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Hope many went to sleep to the sound of rain on the tin roof last night. >> >> L&L >> Liz >> >Hi Liz > No rain in the Riverina - we'll probably get a wet summer I suppose. > Re CEC - first -who did the test? - most fertiliser company tests dont >count hydrogen in the exchange complex, and in an acid soil this can >artificially inflate your calcium % by 20 or 30 % easy. >The Perry, Brookside, and Swep tests that I have all show hydrogen in >the raw numbers from the lab but if you're working with the jazzy graphs >that consultants provide for these same labs, most dont show it. You would >then assume most of whats missing is hydrogen but leave a little for >assorted other bases (usually up to 2% but sometimes as high as 6). A rule >of thumb is if your pH (in water) is in the ideal 6 to 6.2 then exchangeable >hydrogen is close around 12% of CEC - we need this little bit of acidity to >keep some chemical activity happening in the soil >Aluminium is everywhere in soil but its locked up as alumino-silicates >and exchangeable Al only becomes available when soils get very acid - >increasing rapidly as pH goes into low 5's (water) or under 4.5 (calcium >chloride test) - this seems to happen a little quicker and worse in grey >gravelly soils than in red soil - these low pH soils grow a diverse range of >aluminium tolerant plants - blakeleys red gum (snappy gum - brittle gum) - >ironbark - black cypress pine etc - but when we try to farm them its a >disaster - serradella and lupins do ok but most normal crop and pasture >species just can't hack it without serious help. There is usually also very >low organic carbon so holding added calcium in the profile is a problem too. >Hope maybe this helps >Cheers >Lloyd Charles Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Rain/CEC
- Original Message - From: Liz Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:28 AM Subject: Rain/CEC > We also experienced our first rain yesterday and last night. Heralding in > the Spring. The drought seems to have made it a mild winter, with my > dreaded willows only loosing their leaves for 5 weeks. > > I'm trying to get my head around CEC, if you add Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, you > get the CEC. The remainder is what, hydrogen? Is this assumed, what about > aluminium? > Any comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Hope many went to sleep to the sound of rain on the tin roof last night. > > L&L > Liz > Hi Liz No rain in the Riverina - we'll probably get a wet summer I suppose. Re CEC - first -who did the test? - most fertiliser company tests dont count hydrogen in the exchange complex, and in an acid soil this can artificially inflate your calcium % by 20 or 30 % easy. The Perry, Brookside, and Swep tests that I have all show hydrogen in the raw numbers from the lab but if you're working with the jazzy graphs that consultants provide for these same labs, most dont show it. You would then assume most of whats missing is hydrogen but leave a little for assorted other bases (usually up to 2% but sometimes as high as 6). A rule of thumb is if your pH (in water) is in the ideal 6 to 6.2 then exchangeable hydrogen is close around 12% of CEC - we need this little bit of acidity to keep some chemical activity happening in the soil Aluminium is everywhere in soil but its locked up as alumino-silicates and exchangeable Al only becomes available when soils get very acid - increasing rapidly as pH goes into low 5's (water) or under 4.5 (calcium chloride test) - this seems to happen a little quicker and worse in grey gravelly soils than in red soil - these low pH soils grow a diverse range of aluminium tolerant plants - blakeleys red gum (snappy gum - brittle gum) - ironbark - black cypress pine etc - but when we try to farm them its a disaster - serradella and lupins do ok but most normal crop and pasture species just can't hack it without serious help. There is usually also very low organic carbon so holding added calcium in the profile is a problem too. Hope maybe this helps Cheers Lloyd Charles
Rain/CEC
We also experienced our first rain yesterday and last night. Heralding in the Spring. The drought seems to have made it a mild winter, with my dreaded willows only loosing their leaves for 5 weeks. I'm trying to get my head around CEC, if you add Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, you get the CEC. The remainder is what, hydrogen? Is this assumed, what about aluminium? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Hope many went to sleep to the sound of rain on the tin roof last night. L&L Liz
Re: CEC balancing for ornamentals
Rambler wrote:
>
> Jose Luiz Moreira Garcia wrote:
> > .
> > What is your CEC by the way ?
> > I need to know also your humus content.
> > Tell me any figure regarding Ca, Mg, K, Na and also your micro nutrient
> > levels such as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and Boron. Once your soil is put in the
> > Albrecht ratios a special attention has to be given to the micronutrients.
> > Knowing those numbers it allows me to give you some suggestions.
> > However, I might warn you that the numbers vary from lab to lab and
> > a 65% calcium reading from one lab may not be the same 65% figure
> > from another lab. Knowing that limitation we can take my advise as a
> > guideline
> > and not as any absolute figure that would need to be strickly followed.
> >
>
> Thankyou Jose and Lloyd for your most helpful replies.I am now starting
> to build a picture of what i have done to my soil. I look forward to
> your guiding comments.
> I have looked back at my old notes from the 1980,s. I grew alot of
> Gypsophlia and statices during that period.They are lime and magnesium
> lovers so plenty of dolomite lime was used up until about 1993 This was
> went i changed to BD.
> The following is a BRookside test taken july 2000
> Total Exchange Capacity [ME/100g] 25.73
> pH7.1
> Organic Matter[hummus%] 8.72
> Soluble Sulphurppm80
> Phosphorus
> Easily extractable kg/ha p as P205 3447
>ppm of p672
> Bray 11kg/ha Pas P205 1185
>ppm of P231
> Olsen kg/ha431
>ppm of P 84
> Calciumkg/ha8691
>ppm 3880
> Magnesium kg/ha1292
>ppm 577
> Potassium kg/ha 661
>ppm 295
> Sodium kg/ha 314
>ppm 140
> Aluminium [KCL ext] kg/ha31
>ppm14
>
> Base Saturation Percent
> Ca % 75.4
> Mg % 18.69
> K % 2.94
> Na % 2.37
> Al % 0.60
> H % 0.00
> Extractable Minors
> Boron[ppm] 1.62
> Iron [ppm] 236
> Manganese [ppm] 39
> Copper [ppm]2.98
> zinc [ppm]19.47
> Aluminum {ppm] 730
> N03-N 22.6
> NH3-N 1.5
> Total Acidity [ME/100] 0
> cobalt[ppm]0.01
> Molybdenum 0.39
>
> Thankyou
> Tony Robinson
> Rambler FLowers
> > > New Zealand
> > >
RE: CEc balancing I for ornamental
Jane, Yes, the Rescue Remedy is diluted 10 drops per litre of water and sprayed over the transplants, as soon as possible after transplanting, and then last thing again before the end of the day. Stephen Barrow
Re: CEc balancing i for ornamental
Dear Tony Robinson, The idea of using those ratios came to Dr Albrecht´s mind after extracting the bases ( cations with an alcaline reaction like Na, K, Ca and Mg ) from the humus portion of the soil ( Kinsey´s personnal communication ). He then thought : Why not expand those ratios to all CEC which is formed basically by colloidal clay and humus ? With some electrical and chemical manipulations Dr Albrecht have managed to extract all the bases from a large colloidal clay portion previously gathered and substitute them by H+. He then did back all sort of base saturations and combinations and came to the conclusion that those ratios he found in the humus portion were indeed the ones that would give maximum plant growth with quality ( mineral content, density, etc...) The questions was : Is there different CEC´s to different crops ? The answer is yes. Bananas, Pineapples and grapes for instance as well as woody plants requires a higher K base saturation. They require 7.5% of K as oposed to from 3 to 5% for most of the crops. However, Calcium and Magnesium remain the same . Are there different CEC for different soil pHs ? The answer is No. Once you saturate your CEC with say 65% of calcium 15% of Magnesium and 3 to 5% of Potassium the pH goes to where it should be that is close to 6.3 to 6.5 simply bacause what is left in the CEC for Hydrogen which would be around 15% would always give you that same pH reading. Are there CEC ratios for different soils ? The answer is Yes. Sandy soils are loose by nature and we do not want to increase this characterist by having a higher base saturation with calcium. According to Kinsey, in those soils a more conservative figure, i.e. 60% is recommended with 20% of Magnesium that do have an aggregation effect in the soil whereas in very heavy clay soils that are sticky by nature we can have as high as 68% of Calcium and only 12% of Magnesium. In my oppinion you can choose any figure from those two extremes to match your soil conditions. A CEC of 4 would be a good example of a sandy soil and a CEC of 20 would be a good example of a heavy clay soil. If you have a heavy clay soil as you said you will need then 68% of Calcium, 12% Magnesium. What is your CEC by the way ? I need to know also your humus content. Tell me any figure regarding Ca, Mg, K, Na and also your micro nutrient levels such as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and Boron. Once your soil is put in the Albrecht ratios a special attention has to be given to the micronutrients. Knowing those numbers it allows me to give you some suggestions. However, I might warn you that the numbers vary from lab to lab and a 65% calcium reading from one lab may not be the same 65% figure from another lab. Knowing that limitation we can take my advise as a guideline and not as any absolute figure that would need to be strickly followed. Jose > Hi Lloyd, Jose, Tim > > I am part way through reading Albrecht vol 1 and have some questions. > > 1. Are there different CEC ratios for different crops? > > 2 Are there different CEC ratios for different soil Ph? > > 3 Are there different CEC ratios for different soils? > > I grow ornamental crops ie perennial flowers and all year round > harvesting of cut ferns. > I have a heavy clay soil and all my crops require a ph of between 5-6 > > In vol 1 Albrecht is mainly discussing grain and lequme crops that grow > in a ph range 6-7. As i have been reading the above qeustions have > come to mind. Any thoughts please.I am working with soils that have been > thrashed to death after 20 years of chemical farming. All my crops are > perenials and take 2 years to replace and bring into full production > again. Progress is very slow and i still have a very large morgage to > clear before i achieve a level of sustainability. > > Thankyou > Tony Robinson > Rambler FLowers > New Zealand >
Re: CEc balancing i for ornamental
Dear Tony Robinson, The idea of using those ratios came to Dr Albrecht´s mind after extracting the bases ( cations with an alcaline reaction like Na, K, Ca and Mg ) from the humus portion of the soil ( Kinsey´s personnal communication ). He then thought : Why not expand those ratios to all CEC which is formed basically by colloidal clay and humus ? With some electrical and chemical manipulations Dr Albrecht have managed to extract all the bases from a large colloidal clay portion previously gathered and substitute them by H+. He then did back all sort of base saturations and combinations and came to the conclusion that those ratios he found in the humus portion were indeed the ones that would give maximum plant growth with quality ( mineral content, density, etc...) The questions was : Is there different CEC´s to different crops ? The answer is yes. Bananas, Pineapples and grapes for instance as well as woody plants requires a higher K base saturation. They require 7.5% of K as oposed to from 3 to 5% for most of the crops. However, Calcium and Magnesium remain the same . Are there different CEC for different soil pHs ? The answer is No. Once you saturate your CEC with say 65% of calcium 15% of Magnesium and 3 to 5% of Potassium the pH goes to where it should be that is close to 6.3 to 6.5 simply bacause what is left in the CEC for Hydrogen which would be around 15% would always give you that same pH reading. Are there CEC ratios for different soils ? The answer is Yes. Sandy soils are loose by nature and we do not want to increase this characterist by having a higher base saturation with calcium. According to Kinsey, in those soils a more conservative figure, i.e. 60% is recommended with 20% of Magnesium that do have an aggregation effect in the soil whereas in very heavy clay soils that are sticky by nature we can have as high as 68% of Calcium and only 12% of Magnesium. In my oppinion you can choose any figure from those two extremes to match your soil conditions. A CEC of 4 would be a good example of a sandy soil and a CEC of 20 would be a good example of a heavy clay soil. If you have a heavy clay soil as you said you will need then 68% of Calcium, 12% Magnesium. What is your CEC by the way ? I need to know also your humus content. Tell me any figure regarding Ca, Mg, K, Na and also your micro nutrient levels such as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and Boron. Once your soil is put in the Albrecht ratios a special attention has to be given to the micronutrients. Knowing those numbers it allows me to give you some suggestions. However, I might warn you that the numbers vary from lab to lab and a 65% calcium reading from one lab may not be the same 65% figure from another lab. Knowing that limitation we can take my advise as a guideline and not as any absolute figure that would need to be strickly followed. Jose > Hi Lloyd, Jose, Tim > > I am part way through reading Albrecht vol 1 and have some questions. > > 1. Are there different CEC ratios for different crops? > > 2 Are there different CEC ratios for different soil Ph? > > 3 Are there different CEC ratios for different soils? > > I grow ornamental crops ie perennial flowers and all year round > harvesting of cut ferns. > I have a heavy clay soil and all my crops require a ph of between 5-6 > > In vol 1 Albrecht is mainly discussing grain and lequme crops that grow > in a ph range 6-7. As i have been reading the above qeustions have > come to mind. Any thoughts please.I am working with soils that have been > thrashed to death after 20 years of chemical farming. All my crops are > perenials and take 2 years to replace and bring into full production > again. Progress is very slow and i still have a very large morgage to > clear before i achieve a level of sustainability. > > Thankyou > Tony Robinson > Rambler FLowers > New Zealand >
Re: CEc balancing I for ornamental
I assume you dilute this a great deal? Jane - Original Message - From: "Stephen Barrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:44 PM Subject: RE: CEc balancing I for ornamental An aside to Lloyd Charles' answer to Tony Robinson, re the use of Rescue Remedy. I spray it on any transplants to help them overcome the transplant shock. Sounds rather crazy, but it works. Stephen Barrow
RE: CEc balancing I for ornamental
An aside to Lloyd Charles' answer to Tony Robinson, re the use of Rescue Remedy. I spray it on any transplants to help them overcome the transplant shock. Sounds rather crazy, but it works. Stephen Barrow
Re: CEc balancing i for ornamental
Tony and fellow Kiwis On 7 Mar 02, Lloyd Charles wrote: > It might be useful to direct a question to Elaine Ingham... FYI... Elaine will be in NZ later this month. I've only learned about this in the last few days, it maybe old news to you? The itinerary includes Tauranga, Cambridge, Napier and Christchurch. Bill Quinn is the contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Cheers... Rex
Re: CEc balancing i for ornamental
From: Rambler > > I am part way through reading Albrecht vol 1 and have some questions. > > 1. Are there different CEC ratios for different crops? Technically the answer is probably yes but I believe if you get somewhere in the ballpark range with CEC numbers then it is likely that something else is then the most limiting factor. Microbial activity - nutritional factors - moisture stress - low brix etc > > 2 Are there different CEC ratios for different soil Ph? No this is a cart before the horse thing - always remember that pH number is the result of whats going on in your soil not the cause of it - you can get pH into the ideal reading (temporarily) and still be in big trouble because the underlying problem is not properly dealt with > > 3 Are there different CEC ratios for different soils? To a degree yes - you wouldnt put dolomite on a clay soil - it probably works better with the calcium / magnesium ratio at the high end of ideal and magnesium lower (say 12%ofCEC) , whereas a light sandy soil would be better with the magnesium at the higher end (say 18 or 20 %ofCEC). But if you are ANYWHERE in this range you are already better than most of the agricultural soils on earth. Also these numbers are only the BASE from which we work and the real key to how well things grow is the functional nutrition that we provide to plants and that can be mightily different from what a CEC soil test shows. > > I grow ornamental crops ie perennial flowers and all year round > harvesting of cut ferns. > I have a heavy clay soil and all my crops require a ph of between 5-6 > It might be useful to direct a question to Elaine Ingham - a fungal dominated compost would probably be useful to hold pH down in this range if it suited the plants that you grow > In vol 1 Albrecht is mainly discussing grain and lequme crops that grow > in a ph range 6-7. As i have been reading the above qeustions have > come to mind. Any thoughts please.I am working with soils that have been > thrashed to death after 20 years of chemical farming. > Maybe you need a detox - I was talking to a fellow the other day that uses homeopathic rescue remedy for this and there are also Malcolm Rae cards, (we use these) for unbeneficial effects of pesticides etc > All my crops are perenials and take 2 years to replace and bring into full production > again. Progress is very slow and i still have a very large morgage > I know this feeling intimately and it really does bring a strong dose of reality into how we think and operate. I thought I was the only one on this list that owed a big chunk of money to the bank too. > to clear before i achieve a level of sustainability. > Tony Robinson > Rambler FLowers > New Zealand All the best Lloyd Charles
CEc balancing i for ornamental
Hi Lloyd, Jose, Tim I am part way through reading Albrecht vol 1 and have some questions. 1. Are there different CEC ratios for different crops? 2 Are there different CEC ratios for different soil Ph? 3 Are there different CEC ratios for different soils? I grow ornamental crops ie perennial flowers and all year round harvesting of cut ferns. I have a heavy clay soil and all my crops require a ph of between 5-6 In vol 1 Albrecht is mainly discussing grain and lequme crops that grow in a ph range 6-7. As i have been reading the above qeustions have come to mind. Any thoughts please.I am working with soils that have been thrashed to death after 20 years of chemical farming. All my crops are perenials and take 2 years to replace and bring into full production again. Progress is very slow and i still have a very large morgage to clear before i achieve a level of sustainability. Thankyou Tony Robinson Rambler FLowers New Zealand
Re: CEC Balancing
That is much better. This University I do know. Even though it just does not justify him publishing wrong information. Jose > surely knows this as he earned a doctorate in agriculture at Pulman> University in eastern Washington state. That's a very good ag > college, I> might add. Correction for accuracy: that's Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. I believe Walter's degree advisor was John Reganold, lead author in the paper in the weekly magazine Science a few years back comparing biodynamic and conventional fields in New Zealand.___Barry Lia \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Seattle WA
RE: CEC Balancing
>Hugh, > >Thanks for the comments on the Albrecht Model and Walter Godstein's "slip" - >we all make mistakes. > >Maybe you, Dave or somebody else could give us a brief resume of Walter's >work. While his mistake may seem to be inexcusable, I feel that the record >should be set "straight", as he is well respected within the BD community. >On a personal level, has been very obliging and informative in replying to >my queries which I sent to him, in the days before I knew of BDNOW!. > >I know that the Albrecht Model has been discussed by the Group in the recent >past - my question, is there anybody in the Group who has experience of it >and who has not yet offered their comments? More from Jose perhaps? I >certainly would like to find out more about it, both the theory and >experience. Are Albrecht's papers available on the Internet, or must they >be purchased from Acres USA? > >Thanks > >Stephen Barrow Stephen, I got my Albrecht books from ACRES. I do think it makes good sense, but you have to know that a great many farmers get by without fully following the theory because it can run into too much expense. Myself I think it is more important to get life revved up in the field than to completely balance the cations. Hugh
Re: CEC Balancing
> surely knows this as he earned a doctorate in agriculture at Pulman> University in eastern Washington state. That's a very good ag > college, I> might add. Correction for accuracy: that's Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. I believe Walter's degree advisor was John Reganold, lead author in the paper in the weekly magazine Science a few years back comparing biodynamic and conventional fields in New Zealand.___Barry Lia \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Seattle WA
Re: CEC Balancing
Hi Michael, I believe you have put it in the right way. A Model is a guideline. Something to be used as a pathway. Every place is difference and every product is a different one. I am amazed I just got back an analysis of crushed ancient oyster shell and their Neutralizing Power is 113% that is equivalent to the best available High Quick limes in the market and is totally natural. Bark in the Steiner conception is nothing more than condensed soil and some barks have high Calcium levels. In the E Pfeiffer´s book " Soil Fertilility" he recommends preps 500, 503 and 505 to compensate for lack of "Lime" ( in this context lime should be understood as calcium).page 146. This is why we are here. There lots of things that we can do to counteract lack of Calcium. Maybe to broadcast some calcium energies or to broadcast BD 500, 503 and 505. Unfortunately I do not have abroadcaster. I wish I could have one. We have to separate two things. One is Calcium and the other is lime. I have said that "Calcium" is needed for microbial growth not Lime.Please don´t take me wrong. Lime is another thing. Some limes does burn Organic matter. Tillage also burns organic matter ( and consequently humus) not calcium. As far as I know Albrecht never that phrase. Meanwhile we are exchanging ideas and therefore interacting a lot. Jose > > > Please FWD: > > Dear Hugh, Jose, etal, > > I'm a little confused. In my memory, one of the > Albrect saying was; "Lime, lime and no manure, make > the father rich and the son poor", which is basically > showing how easily lime sucks up and burns organic > matter content. > > To open up another can of worms, Dr Carey Reams > suggested that calcuim at times measures less than 40 > ergs at certain times of year and more than 40 at > other times. Perhaps this is related to calciums > ability to absorb other elements? Whew, what a diet! > > Here in the SE what we seem to have a problem with is > that calcium disappears so quickly from the soil > complex. Based on this ag agents are quick to give > advice on liming in total disreguard of the ca:mg > ratio. So what are we left to do? > > The way I seet calcium is that it is extremely mobile > in the soil complex. This leads to the larger > question of how we might be able to get the calcium in > a form that will have a greater life expetancy than > those purchased in mineral form; dolomitic, gypsum, > lime hydrate, etc.. Why one time I even got some > calcite and crushed it down to a powder to stir and > spray for its young form. Why? At that point I was > convinced that calcium that plants could use came to > us in the form of rocks. This was until I > happen-chanced on an article concerning cork. > > Cork is produced by removing the bark of Quercus Suber > L., an oak every 20 years or so somewhere around > Summer Solstice. I don't know the entire process but > the first step in production is boiling to remove the > oak bark tannins. Well to make a long story short, > the bark of this tree is highly polymorphic and forms > a > bond that shuts out oxygen; the primary reason for > using cork stoppers in wine bottles - to keep out > oxygen and prevent the wine from turning to vinegar. > > I brought this up due to Steiners' using the bark of > the Quercus Ruber oak. If I remember correctly, ash > analysis revealed a 72% calcium level. Perhaps this > bark is a living, younger form of calcium. > > Jose, I hope you will keep this in mind since you are > translating an article into Portuguese and since that > quite a bit of the worlds production of cork comes > from Portugul and the Azores. There may be something > more in this mobility of calcium than meets the eye > that can be found in current chemical formulations. > > The Albrect Model is just that = a model. A gauge to > go by, a measuring stick. The key word though is > balance. A method of balancing. I think that many of > Albrects ideas were based primarily on his local > experiance based there in Missouri. Sometime I got > the impression that Albrect was trying to challenge > people into thinking about their own local conditions. > > Michael. > > with Walter on this topic on other occasions. > > First I'm surprised if Walter referred to Magnesium as > a monovalent cation. It is in the IIa family of > elements along with calcium and is Mg++. Walter > surely knows this as he earned a doctorate in > agriculture at Pulman University in eastern Washington > state. That's a very good ag college, I might add. > > In Wisconsin where Walter founded the Michael Fields > Institute there has long been a debate whether the > Albrecht model is valid or not. Writers in such > journals as Hoard's Dairyman commonly advise farmers > to apply whichever lime is cheapest and disregard the > Ca/Mg ratios. And Wisconsin soils commonly are what is > considered high magnesium. A ratio of 2 parts CA > to 1 part Mg is not too uncommon. Still farmers in > that state get high corn yields regardless that b
CEC Balancing
Hi Christiane and List, I believe that Mr Goldstein have lost one great opportunity when it comes to comment the so called Albrecht Model. The Model is good in my oppinion and it works. However, I cannot accept that in all the world with plenty of good labs only two labs are capable of doing the job. I know that there is that variability among labs but it does not get into my mind that only two guys in the world are capable of analysing soils and giving recommendations like the idea that is officially sold by Kinsey. Jose Jose, and other contributors to the CEC debate Jose, Mr Goldstein and many other authors, scientists are not saying that Albrecht was wrong. They are saying that 'soils ain't soils', meaning the correct formula for the interaction of climate-soil-plant at one locality of the globe might not be the ideal formula at another locality. Perhaps Albrecht never claimed that his formula is ideal for every spot on the earth? And it is only the marketing of the few private laboratories who use his formula for fertiliser recommendation who do that? I posed the original question and I got lots of answers. Thanks to everyone who contributed! I conclude that Albrecht's concept of looking at soil management and fertilisation ought not to be discarded, but balanced with local and crop conditions and the other concept of supplying the crops needs with fertiliser. In practice it means for me that, when a soil laboratory tests my soil and comes up with fertiliser recommendations, I want to know which concept they used so that I can put their recomendation into the context of my management strategy Christiane
Re: Re CEC Balancing/Goldstein Mg
Dear Cristiane, I believe that what happens in the soil is exactly the opposite . let me illustrate the point. Cations are attached ( adsorbed not absorbed ) to the clay colloids by their positive charge. Calcium and Magnesium have a double positive charge and therefore they can push away single + elements like Hydrogen, Potassium, Sodium, etc Hydrogen is at the bottom of the pecking order. Then comes Sodium, Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium in that order. Therefore, Mag has a strong link than Calcium. This is why most of the soils have low than desired Calcium and Higher than desired Mag because Mg stays more than Calcium in the clay colloids. This is what Soil Science teachs us but I would love to learn how you have come to this conclusion. From what I know it has nothing to do with hydration energy. Please throw some more light into that subject. > > > Hi > > Therefore it is bound more strongly to the clay particles than Mg and because it > is more 'dehydrated' having a lower hydration energy acts less as a dispersant > than magnesium. That's what Goldstein pointed out in the paragraph. > > Christiane >
Re: CEC Balancing
Only a few articles from " The Albrecht Papers" are available in the net I guess through that soil and health library. The four volumes need to be bough from Acres USA and they must be readed folks. I believe I have been exposed to Albrecht ideas to a great deal I did read several of his articles and Kinsey´s book . I also took a course with Kinsey which helps a lot the understanding of the whole process. I teach a similar course down here so please fell free to ask any question you immagine on the Albrecht Model and if I don´t know the answer I can always ask Neal Kinsey directly. Jose > Hugh, > > Thanks for the comments on the Albrecht Model and Walter Godstein's "slip" - > we all make mistakes. > > Maybe you, Dave or somebody else could give us a brief resume of Walter's > work. While his mistake may seem to be inexcusable, I feel that the record > should be set "straight", as he is well respected within the BD community. > On a personal level, has been very obliging and informative in replying to > my queries which I sent to him, in the days before I knew of BDNOW!. > > I know that the Albrecht Model has been discussed by the Group in the recent > past - my question, is there anybody in the Group who has experience of it > and who has not yet offered their comments? More from Jose perhaps? I > certainly would like to find out more about it, both the theory and > experience. Are Albrecht's papers available on the Internet, or must they > be purchased from Acres USA? > > Thanks > > Stephen Barrow >
Re: CEC Balancing
Please FWD: Dear Hugh, Jose, etal, I'm a little confused. In my memory, one of the Albrect saying was; "Lime, lime and no manure, make the father rich and the son poor", which is basically showing how easily lime sucks up and burns organic matter content. To open up another can of worms, Dr Carey Reams suggested that calcuim at times measures less than 40 ergs at certain times of year and more than 40 at other times. Perhaps this is related to calciums ability to absorb other elements? Whew, what a diet! Here in the SE what we seem to have a problem with is that calcium disappears so quickly from the soil complex. Based on this ag agents are quick to give advice on liming in total disreguard of the ca:mg ratio. So what are we left to do? The way I seet calcium is that it is extremely mobile in the soil complex. This leads to the larger question of how we might be able to get the calcium in a form that will have a greater life expetancy than those purchased in mineral form; dolomitic, gypsum, lime hydrate, etc.. Why one time I even got some calcite and crushed it down to a powder to stir and spray for its young form. Why? At that point I was convinced that calcium that plants could use came to us in the form of rocks. This was until I happen-chanced on an article concerning cork. Cork is produced by removing the bark of Quercus Suber L., an oak every 20 years or so somewhere around Summer Solstice. I don't know the entire process but the first step in production is boiling to remove the oak bark tannins. Well to make a long story short, the bark of this tree is highly polymorphic and forms a bond that shuts out oxygen; the primary reason for using cork stoppers in wine bottles - to keep out oxygen and prevent the wine from turning to vinegar. I brought this up due to Steiners' using the bark of the Quercus Ruber oak. If I remember correctly, ash analysis revealed a 72% calcium level. Perhaps this bark is a living, younger form of calcium. Jose, I hope you will keep this in mind since you are translating an article into Portuguese and since that quite a bit of the worlds production of cork comes from Portugul and the Azores. There may be something more in this mobility of calcium than meets the eye that can be found in current chemical formulations. The Albrect Model is just that = a model. A gauge to go by, a measuring stick. The key word though is balance. A method of balancing. I think that many of Albrects ideas were based primarily on his local experiance based there in Missouri. Sometime I got the impression that Albrect was trying to challenge people into thinking about their own local conditions. Michael. >I have glanced the article which was kindly sent >to me by Dave Robinson or the >Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics >" Cation Balancing : Is it beneficial or Bogus ?" >It came to me as a surprise because I had this >magazine in high respect. To my knowledge they don¥t >have any one to review the articles otherwise they >would not allow such a bunch of crap like that to be >published . Here is why. >Page 30 First paragraph. " >The effect of calcium ( a divalent cation) in >stabilizing structure is not as strong as that of >iron ( a trivalent cation) but it is stronger than of >magnesium ( a monovalent cation)" (sic). >Is Mr Goldstein an iliterate person or is he a >misinformed person ? >How can a magazine such as Biodynamics allow low >quality material to be printed ? >Not only the article is full of bad information but >this person did not do his home work properly. >Mr Goldstein who has no knowledge on The Albrecht >Model ( I know that because his level of doubts are >the ones from a person who has not readed the 4 >volumes of The Albrecht Papers or at least the >book "Hands-on-Agronomy or any other book from Dr >Ardensen like "Science in Agriculture" or even >"The Anatomy of Life and Energy in Agriculture") >tried to write about the Albrecht Model which was the >culmination of a life time of teaching and research of >one of the best person United Stated has ever >produced. He based his article only in an interview >done with Neal Kinsey after one of his speaches at >Acres USA. >He hasn¥t got a clue. The Albrecht Model today is >recognized by all major consultants in Eco Agriculture >not only in the States but also in Australia and in >other 25 countries. I have started using 3 years ago >and I can tell you the difference in my soils are day >and night. >I am now able to harvest record breaking crops after >twenty years of hard working. >The Albrecht Model was what made that possible and is >what made the difference. >I feel sad because today I have just finished >writting an article about the Albrecht Model >in portuguese and in march I will teach an intensive >a course on Albrecht Model for 40 agronomists >in Brazil who are eagerly waiting and asking me to do >so. I was nearly forced to teach this course. I had >no choice so is the interest in hi
CEC Balancing
Dear Hugh and List, Thanks for explaining many things. I went to Michigan State and there they tought me that Mg is a divalent cation. I am not familiar to the University you have mentioned. I simply don´t know it. It can be a good one but I simply never heard of it before. There is little I can comment about Biodynamics since I am a freshmen in the field but I consider myself a Dr Steiner fan and student. I would use a Field Broadcaster and in fact I have sent you an e mail about that and never got a reply but that is another story.Incidently I am reading "Stone Age Agriculture" and there is a nice drawing of your Field Broadcaster there which made feel even more compelled to use one. So please do not let me in the dark. Throw some light down here whenever you can. The Biodynamic movement in Brazil is a very weak one. After 27+ years they have accomplished nearly nothing. Now there are other groups being formed and there are few good BD growers who are really doing a good job but that is in Southern Brazil not close to where I live. I wish them all the luck in this world as we really need something like BD agriculture. The BD growers that I visited in Brazil were talking about transmutation but I have measured their soils with a penetrometer and I found a compacted layer in all of them. That is certainly not what I call a live soil. If there is compaction there is anaerobiosis. If there is lack of oxygen there is no life. I have two books from Prof Kervran and I do think that transmutation do happens but this is something that you can´t account for in your daily life. I mean in terms that you would consider part of the problem being solved simply because there is transmutation and therefore I don´t need to apply Calcium to my soil. Calcium helps the soil microbiology probably more than any other element. >From the smallest bacteria to animals and even man, everyone is dependent of a good supply of calcium in the soil.In Dr Albrecht own words " Calcium is what makes the other elements get into the plant more efficiently" . Actually he would tell a laymen audience that " every element rides in the back of calcium into the plant". By the way, there is plenty of scientific research proving this statement. Potassium, Phosphate, etc... all get into the plant more efficiently at high calcium levels. The main point that made me really upset about Mr Goldstein article is that he have based it in a very old papers from the 80´s in which they were trying to disprove Albrecht theory. In that paper that is being cited all over the world " ad nauseam" to disprove Albrecht theory they have used several Ca:Mg ratios and have concluded that there was no difference in the production. Every paper that is done with a hidden purpose is not a trustable one to start with. Secondly , you can play as much as you want you Ca/Mg ratios but if you get to some high ratios in which you would be influencing pH then all microelements will have to be taken care otherwise the less availabilty of micro nutrients at a higher pH will off set the benefit of the suposedly "good" Ca/Mg ratio. I suspect that this is what really happened. Mr Goldstein apparently does not have a good soil chemistry otherwise he would know all that. If you are to play with Ca/Mg ratios you should account for a decreased availability of micro elements at higher pH. How are you going to do that I simply don´t know but one should devise a way to take that effect into consideration. I know that Mr Goldstein have written about the economics of the CEC balancing and I cannot comment on that. Any grower has to do his own math. For some crops it may pay but for others it may not. I do not enjoy seeing people being ripped off as well. You are so right about a live soil being less and less dependent on CEC balancing. In fact I have seen some soils in which the grower did nothing but to add cattle manure. Guess what , in those soils you would notice a almost perfect balance exactly like Albrecht would like to see. The rationale behind this is that since humic material is originated from organic matter and in the organic matter the relationship would be exactly like the one recommended by Albrecht the higher the organic matter ( and consequently the humus) the closer to Albrecht levels the soil will get. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the gentleman that have recommended the farmers to apply whichever lime was available or go for the cheapest one. I have done that exactly for 20 years at not avail. Cheap Limes are the ones which normally have a low reactivity. This lime may take as much as 5 years to released the calcium and by the time it is released ( if you don´t have a live soil ) all that calcium would have been leached away perpetuating the situation on and on. If there is a need for calcium then a highly reactive type should be used. I don´t like the High Calcium limes that are manufactured by man. I pref
re CEC
Jose, and other contributors to the CEC debate Jose, Mr Goldstein and many other authors, scientists are not saying that Albrecht was wrong. They are saying that 'soils ain't soils', meaning the correct formula for the interaction of climate-soil-plant at one locality of the globe might not be the ideal formula at another locality. Perhaps Albrecht never claimed that his formula is ideal for every spot on the earth? And it is only the marketing of the few private laboratories who use his formula for fertiliser recommendation who do that? I posed the original question and I got lots of answers. Thanks to everyone who contributed! I conclude that Albrecht's concept of looking at soil management and fertilisation ought not to be discarded, but balanced with local and crop conditions and the other concept of supplying the crops needs with fertiliser. In practice it means for me that, when a soil laboratory tests my soil and comes up with fertiliser recommendations, I want to know which concept they used so that I can put their recomendation into the context of my management strategy Christiane
RE: CEC Balancing
Hugh, Thanks for the comments on the Albrecht Model and Walter Godstein's "slip" - we all make mistakes. Maybe you, Dave or somebody else could give us a brief resume of Walter's work. While his mistake may seem to be inexcusable, I feel that the record should be set "straight", as he is well respected within the BD community. On a personal level, has been very obliging and informative in replying to my queries which I sent to him, in the days before I knew of BDNOW!. I know that the Albrecht Model has been discussed by the Group in the recent past - my question, is there anybody in the Group who has experience of it and who has not yet offered their comments? More from Jose perhaps? I certainly would like to find out more about it, both the theory and experience. Are Albrecht's papers available on the Internet, or must they be purchased from Acres USA? Thanks Stephen Barrow
Re: CEC Balancing
Dear Jose and List, I haven't read the Goldstein article, but I've talked with Walter on this topic on other occasions. First I'm surprised if Walter referred to Magnesium as a monovalent cation. It is in the IIa family of elements along with calcium and is Mg++. Walter surely knows this as he earned a doctorate in agriculture at Pulman University in eastern Washington state. That's a very good ag college, I might add. In Wisconsin where Walter founded the Michael Fields Institute there has long been a debate whether the Albrecht model is valid or not. Writers in such journals as Hoard's Dairyman commonly advise farmers to apply whichever lime is cheapest and disregard the Ca/Mg ratios. And Wisconsin soils commonly are what is considered high magnesium. A ratio of 2 parts CA to 1 part Mg is not too uncommon. Still farmers in that state get high corn yields regardless that by Albrect model standards they have far too much mag. The Albrecht model seems to apply less and less the more alive a soil is. Where the soil is alive the corn seems to get all the calcium it needs from the micro-organisms sifting it out for the corn plant. With a good BD program this probably works at near optimum levels, though I don't know that anyone has done meticulous research on this. The main debate, however, centers around cost. Who wouldn't follow the Albrect model, even if it is unproven, if only it was cheap? But it is not cheap to load vast quantities of calcium into 100 or 1,000 acres of corn land. It gets real spendy real fast. So if one can leave the ratios alone and just apply Steiner remedies, especially if they are applied with a field broadcaster, this has a lot of appeal. Not that Walter would ever use a field broadcaster, which he considers "Ahrimanic." But his advice iin general is to go for economy in fertility inputs. It's not so hard to see where he is coming from. As for the article, well, I haven't read it and can't talk about it. (Dave, can you send me a copy?) While I respect the Albrecht model and think it should be considered when one is talking about fertility inputs, there is debate about it and it is not set in concrete as sacred agricultural writ. Best, Hugh Lovel >I have glanced the article which was kindly sent >to me by Dave Robinson or the >Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics >" Cation Balancing : Is it beneficial or Bogus ?" >It came to me as a surprise because I had this magazine in >high respect. To my knowledge they don´t have any one to review >the articles otherwise they would not allow such a bunch of >crap like that to be published . >Here is why. >Page 30 First paragraph. " The effect of calcium ( a divalent cation) >in stabilizing structure is not as strong as that of iron ( a trivalent >cation) >but it is stronger than of magnesium ( a monovalent cation)" (sic). >Is Mr Goldstein an iliterate person or is he a misinformed person ? >How can a magazine such as Biodynamics allow low quality material >to be printed ? >Not only the article is full of bad information but this person did not >do his home work properly. >Mr Goldstein who has no knowledge on The Albrecht Model ( I know that >because his level of doubts are the ones from a person who has not readed >the 4 volumes of The Albrecht Papers or at least the book "Hands-on-Agronomy >or any other book from Dr Ardensen like "Science in Agriculture" or even >"The Anatomy of Life and Energy in Agriculture") tried to write about the >Albrecht >Model which was the culmination of a life time of teaching and research of >one of the best person United Stated has ever produced. He based his article >only >in an interview done with Neal Kinsey after one of his speaches at Acres >USA. >He hasn´t got a clue. >The Albrecht Model today is recognized by all major consultants in Eco >Agriculture >not only in the States but also in Australia and in other 25 countries. I >have started using >3 years ago and I can tell you the difference in my soils are day and night. >I am now able to harvest record breaking crops after twenty years of hard >working. >The Albrecht Model was what made that possible and is what made the >difference. >I feel sad because today I have just finished writting an article about the >Albrecht Model >in portuguese and in march I will teach an intensive a course on Albrecht >Model for 40 agronomists >in Brazil who are eagerly waiting and asking me to do so. I was nearly >forced to teach >this course. I had no choice so is the interest in his ideas today in this >country. >Eco Agriculture stands in several shoulders and one of the shoulders is >certainly >William A Albrecht, PhD shoulder. Nothing more upsetting, disgusting, biased >and certainly incorrectly than this article. > >For your information > Before I was thinking about subscribing this >magazine. >Not anymore after I have read such a bunch of crap like magnesium being a >monovalent cation. I have a recommendation to Mr Walter Goldstein : Go back >to
Re: CEC Balancing
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". -- so 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
Re: CEC Balancing
At 08:23 PM 1/30/02 -0200, you wrote: >I have glanced the article which was kindly sent >to me by Dave Robinson or the >Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics >" Cation Balancing : Is it beneficial or Bogus ?" >It came to me as a surprise because I had this magazine in >high respect. To my knowledge they don´t have any one to review >the articles otherwise they would not allow such a bunch of >crap like that to be published . Whoa! Enough with these personal attacks! Walter is a very careful researcher and author, whom I hold in friendship and respect. He is deeply committed to BD and trying hard to gain acceptance for it in the world of conventional ag. If you have problems with his analysis, I suggest you contact him thru Michael Fields Institute. You may disagree with another's article, but please treat other persons with common courtesy and respect. 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". I think if you discussed the matter you would find that Walter's position is not as different as you think. As for Biodynamics magazine, I would be the first to agree that they do a poor job of reviewing the articles they publish. But that's another story. Those who get the magazine may have noticed my letter in the last issue. I have had no response from anyone on the BDA board re) their lack of contact with constituents and no response from Heinz on my offer to help with reviewing articles. Oh well. == Dave Robison
CEC Balancing
I have glanced the article which was kindly sent to me by Dave Robinson or the Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics " Cation Balancing : Is it beneficial or Bogus ?" It came to me as a surprise because I had this magazine in high respect. To my knowledge they don´t have any one to review the articles otherwise they would not allow such a bunch of crap like that to be published . Here is why. Page 30 First paragraph. " The effect of calcium ( a divalent cation) in stabilizing structure is not as strong as that of iron ( a trivalent cation) but it is stronger than of magnesium ( a monovalent cation)" (sic). Is Mr Goldstein an iliterate person or is he a misinformed person ? How can a magazine such as Biodynamics allow low quality material to be printed ? Not only the article is full of bad information but this person did not do his home work properly. Mr Goldstein who has no knowledge on The Albrecht Model ( I know that because his level of doubts are the ones from a person who has not readed the 4 volumes of The Albrecht Papers or at least the book "Hands-on-Agronomy or any other book from Dr Ardensen like "Science in Agriculture" or even "The Anatomy of Life and Energy in Agriculture") tried to write about the Albrecht Model which was the culmination of a life time of teaching and research of one of the best person United Stated has ever produced. He based his article only in an interview done with Neal Kinsey after one of his speaches at Acres USA. He hasn´t got a clue. The Albrecht Model today is recognized by all major consultants in Eco Agriculture not only in the States but also in Australia and in other 25 countries. I have started using 3 years ago and I can tell you the difference in my soils are day and night. I am now able to harvest record breaking crops after twenty years of hard working. The Albrecht Model was what made that possible and is what made the difference. I feel sad because today I have just finished writting an article about the Albrecht Model in portuguese and in march I will teach an intensive a course on Albrecht Model for 40 agronomists in Brazil who are eagerly waiting and asking me to do so. I was nearly forced to teach this course. I had no choice so is the interest in his ideas today in this country. Eco Agriculture stands in several shoulders and one of the shoulders is certainly William A Albrecht, PhD shoulder. Nothing more upsetting, disgusting, biased and certainly incorrectly than this article. For your information > Before I was thinking about subscribing this magazine. Not anymore after I have read such a bunch of crap like magnesium being a monovalent cation. I have a recommendation to Mr Walter Goldstein : Go back to scholl ( elementary) and then go back to college and try to learn a little bit more chemistry.If you can do like I did and go to a first class University and learn a little bit more of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Plant Physiology, Soil Science, etc.. and then and only then try to read The Albrecht Papers. It takes more than the knowledge that you have to try to stain Dr Albrecht´s reputation. Jose
Re: Goldstein CEC
How does one send a message in private, Allan? heehee, Deborah
Re: Goldstein CEC
My I request the document also?. AllanE
Re: Goldstein CEC
>I would like to have it too! Michael Anyone who needs instruction on how to send a message via private mail only needs to ask me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks -Allan
Goldstein CEC
I would like to have it too! Michael
Re: CEC balancing
Dave Robison a écrit : > > I scanned up Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics. If > anyone wants, respond to me personally, ie) you don't have to bother > the entire list. > > Etiquette note: we would have a lot less stuff on this list if people > responded with personal notes only to the individual, rather than > broadcasting to the entire list. > > == > Dave Robison hello I would like to have it, if it' possible, thanks PB A+
CEC balancing
I scanned up Walter Goldstein's article from Sept Biodynamics. If anyone wants, respond to me personally, ie) you don't have to bother the entire list. Etiquette note: we would have a lot less stuff on this list if people responded with personal notes only to the individual, rather than broadcasting to the entire list. == Dave Robison
