-
0
0
491
Hi Darrin-
Magnesium levels are right on the high end of good, according to the M3 analysis, so I’m going to leave Mg alone and forego any dolomite treatment.
It is also my understanding that sulfur levels are indeed linked to SOM, as an anion. I believe that the reported SOM level on the analysis was compromised by the inclusion of roots in the sample, so I am not considering it reliable. That theory is generally confirmed by low levels of anions across the board, and historical knowledge of our soil profile as a whole.
Your question of sulfur’s role within SOM is really interesting- I had never considered that, and had just assumed it would be sulfur adsorbed on to SOM binding sites. My immediate thought would be that perhaps it depends on the type of SOM? Decaying plant and insect matter, microbial necromass, root exudates, microbial excretions like glomalin, etc. Great question. Caused me to look up sulfur and microbial necromass on google, and discover a great study, which I will link at the end of this comment. It didn’t yield any answers in the brief overview I gave it.
I have not done any sap or tissue analysis of any kind, as there has yet to be any plantings on the site. Brand new plot. I will be interested to see what plant sulfur uptake looks like compared to the soil report though.
Perhaps your idea of the gypsum+ lime is good. I did speak with Bill McKibben about this issue yesterday- he was of the opinion that the inclusion of zinc, copper, and particularly potassium sulfates will supply adequate sulfur. I am curious to see how front loading an entire crop fertility requirement will go vs what I have been doing, which is a standard AEA program of soil applied biologicals and calcium w foliars. It will be an interesting test- though I don’t think it counts as a test of Albrecht balancing, because my CEC level is low enough to render that kind of balancing unworkable.
Sorry about writing a novel here, lol.
