Recently Plowed Field Impact on Detector Signals?

Were you able to successfully GB at the site where you found the dime?

I didn’t make it as clear as I wanted, but the dime was found at the same chisel plow field site, just not in the field itself - it was in a grassy area that was part of the property but wasn’t part of the plowed field. But yes, I think I got a decent GB there, which I carried over into the field.

Next time you get a "good" signal, before digging, lower your sensitivity to get an idea how how much difference it'll make, then note the depth of the target.

I’ll absolutely do this - great common sense advise! Thanks! Again...I shoulda thought of that! :lol:

I know it's one of the farmers busiest times of the year, but I'd ask him the 1st chance I got (without bothering him) if there was something "different" done in that field, between the time frame of the 2 hunts where you'd experienced the issues.

I was thinking the same - that’s definitely worth a shot to ask.


Thanks much for these. The Metal Detecting World article is especially interesting - among several other things, it gives a some interesting tips for exactly how to adjust GB to help in soil that is suspected to be more aggressively mineralized. Good stuff!
 
A lot of misinformation in this thread. Fertilizer definitely can effect mineralization and the condition of some finds. I guess the amount of the effects depends on location and the type and amount of fertilizer used. My ground balance numbers are ALWAYS different in a local farm field vs local yard/park and almost anything deeper than a 3-4” is going to be a choppy signal. Recently plowed fields seem to magnify this problem. Ive dug large coppers at over a foot in a local park that were crisp and clear dig me signals

Feel free to cite some evidence, outside of your personal opinion. I'm all for being educated.

I’m going with Toasted and my original belief on this one. Take this with a grain of salt (see what I did there?) because I’m obviously no expert, but the more I’m looking into it, I don’t see how certain fertilizers wouldn’t impact mineralization at the specific field locations where they’ve been used. Gauntlet, the Metal Detecting World article you linked to said this on mineralization caused by mineral salts:

“Common causes are the following:
...
2) the spontaneously occurring "pockets" of mineral fertilizer (inorganic);”

Based on that, I started to look into the makeup for inorganic fertilizers used for crop production: ridiculous quantities of potash (potassium chloride), potassium-magnesium sulfate, etc: Mississippi State University website on Inorganic Fertilizers for Crop Production.

Both salts (potassium chloride) and metals (potassium and magnesium) - I don’t think there’s any doubt that that type of material is going to impact a detector. All that said, obviously it’s just a matter of compensating for it with a proper ground balance.
 
Thanks for that info, Texaspast! I originally thought they were some sort of ball bearing for railroad equipment (there was a rail depot at the town), but brass/bronze/copper seems too soft for that type of application. Others have suggested they were milling balls too, and your info adds even more credence to the idea. I’ve found more shot shell head stamps at the site than I can count, so there may be a correlation there. Also, the town was likely associated with the oil boom in the area - so it might be more likely that someone was milling black powder to use for shooting the wells. I think they tended to use dynamite/nitroglycerin for that, but I’m pretty sure black powder was used in many cases, as well.


I have found brass balls like that at sites that were houses only no railroads no factories. Here is another thought they could have been used in a anti-siphoning valve because they do not rust. Here is a picture explaining what I'm trying to say.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181021_224754.jpg
    IMG_20181021_224754.jpg
    29.5 KB · Views: 114
  • IMG_20181021_224605.jpg
    IMG_20181021_224605.jpg
    92.3 KB · Views: 117
I’m going with Toasted and my original belief on this one. Take this with a grain of salt (see what I did there?) because I’m obviously no expert, but the more I’m looking into it, I don’t see how certain fertilizers wouldn’t impact mineralization at the specific field locations where they’ve been used. Gauntlet, the Metal Detecting World article you linked to said this on mineralization caused by mineral salts:

“Common causes are the following:
...
2) the spontaneously occurring "pockets" of mineral fertilizer (inorganic);”

Based on that, I started to look into the makeup for inorganic fertilizers used for crop production: ridiculous quantities of potash (potassium chloride), potassium-magnesium sulfate, etc: Mississippi State University website on Inorganic Fertilizers for Crop Production.

Both salts (potassium chloride) and metals (potassium and magnesium) - I don’t think there’s any doubt that that type of material is going to impact a detector. All that said, obviously it’s just a matter of compensating for it with a proper ground balance.

Well since many fertilizers are 'salts' maybe it is the soil conductivity that is changed rather than the mineralization.
 
I’m going with Toasted and my original belief on this one. Take this with a grain of salt (see what I did there?) because I’m obviously no expert, but the more I’m looking into it, I don’t see how certain fertilizers wouldn’t impact mineralization at the specific field locations where they’ve been used. Gauntlet, the Metal Detecting World article you linked to said this on mineralization caused by mineral salts:

“Common causes are the following:
...
2) the spontaneously occurring "pockets" of mineral fertilizer (inorganic);”

Based on that, I started to look into the makeup for inorganic fertilizers used for crop production: ridiculous quantities of potash (potassium chloride), potassium-magnesium sulfate, etc: Mississippi State University website on Inorganic Fertilizers for Crop Production.

Both salts (potassium chloride) and metals (potassium and magnesium) - I don’t think there’s any doubt that that type of material is going to impact a detector. All that said, obviously it’s just a matter of compensating for it with a proper ground balance.

Sorry, not buying it, and here's why.

"Pockets".

Stuff is trucked-in and dumped, or loaded into equipment by bags, and spilled.

That creates a "pocket" in the field. How does this "pocket" affect an entire field? It doesn't.

Again, ask the farmer what's been done different.
 
Back
Top Bottom