From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Grittyville, WA

Thanks for sharing your results and your thoughts! It surely helps the hobby to have top growers sharing info like this. Maybe someone has the answer about sulfer. Sulfer must not go straight into the plant easily, because then the tissue levels wouldnt be so low. Maybe there is some intermediate mechanism where bacteria consume the sulfer first. I feel like you're onto something important, something that might make a difference! I dont have the answer. I hope you find it because I think this could be very important.

[Last edit: 01/14/25 8:23:02 PM]

1/14/2025 8:17:05 PM

Mission Viejo, CA

Really interesting to see how the guideline or target for various elements may differ from lab to lab ever so slightly. Comparing your results to mine in my diary. Thanks for sharing, Ian!

1/14/2025 8:34:43 PM

valtierra/spain

IAN, I've always wondered, why you always have such a high EC. My soils always have twice as many nutrients as yours, sometimes triple, with 600 sulphur, 6000 calcium, 800 potassium, 600 magnesium, but my ec in the soil of the old greenhouse, never exceeded 1.0. I have read something, and it may be that you have some excess salts, which do not appear in the analyzes, for example Chlorine. Do you ever water with chlorine? Maybe the high% of organic matter retains that type of salts, and the eco comes out quite high.

1/15/2025 4:15:49 AM

Lymington UK

I’m not really sure why that would be Ruben. Even just our background plain water is around EC •6. Those numbers are really high but like I said at the end of the post, there is no right or wrong way.
What would your background water be Ruben?

1/15/2025 2:59:33 PM

valtierra/spain

My water is 0.4 Ec Ian. Yes, it is possible that the ec of 2.5 may be due to some heavy metal. I'm not an expert in this, but with the nutrient levels in your soil, something seems to raise the Ec quite a bit. Organic matter usually catches those heavy metals well, they don't disappear so easily.

1/16/2025 3:15:37 AM

Grittyville, WA

Rmen, maybe the EC would only measure the soluble portion of what is in the soil. Its unlikely that all of those substantial mineral quantities on the soil test are fully soluble.

I'll add this if I may, (but it would be great if we had a resident chemist here on bp to fact check me): if I remember anything correctly from school I would say that generally the most soluble ions will also be the most electrically conductive (sodium, chloride, ammonium)? The smaller and more strongly charged ions will be both more soluble and more electrically conductive than larger, less charged ions??? It might be a like comparing apples and oranges but with some cherries and pineapples thrown in too. Since Im not a chemist, I dont know for sure.

@ IanP I think EC 2.5 is spot on for yields for tomatoes. I cant say that I remember what the advice for cucurbits was, so not much help there, but if you wanted to try growing a tomato you'd be spot on. So, you'll get no differences in opinion from me. Good luck.

[Last edit: 01/16/25 7:05:07 AM]

1/16/2025 6:11:13 AM

valtierra/spain

That's it. But when you have nutrient analyses available, it is understood that they are there. Clay soils and with more organic matter, are the ones that trap the most, especially heavy metals, I think. In sandy soils they leach more easily, and the CE is lower, and more nutrients must be added. It may be the % of organic matter of the Brothers' Soil, the one that captures the most ions, but as we say we have no idea about this, I think it is an interesting topic to study, or that Matt or Joe, give us some idea of this topic.

1/17/2025 3:12:38 AM