For the most part (unless Boron is excess) you can just cruise and concentrate on N additions (if/when needed).

Most stuff isn't very toxic to all but the most specific-nutrient sensitive plants, or not toxic at all, when in excess...the biggest problem being runoff into the water table or nearby waters. Managing concentrations for runoff is important, but for most home gardeners it's not much of a big deal.

You should go back to where you got the soil test done and ask them what you need to do. It's part of the deal when you get a soil test done here at the University of Florida.

What you need to know is if the nutrients are in balance. They may be high optimum, but if in balance they may not present that much of a problem. Some of us long time organic growers have found that soil nutrient levels can get into that high optimum level and stay there but as long as they are in balance that is not a problem.
Talking with the people at the UCONN CES offices may be a bit difficult but the people at your local (Universi8ty of California) CES office should be able to answer your questions just as well.

Thanks for the input here, folks. Have a great Thanksgiving. :)

-Ray

Ray your soil test sounds a lot like mine. Concentrate on using nitrogen only fertilizer and less manure. I thought my soil was just naturally high in P, K, etc but I think I am increasing those through manure application rather than bringing the numbers down through adding organic matter as I had thought. My recommendation from the lab was to just use N. I have a slight boron and manganese deficiency too.

Hi little_minnie.

Funny, my soil was slightly low on boron as well.

I thought manure was largely a nitrogen boost. What organic fertilizer are you using to supplement the nitrogen if you're not using manure?

For bang-for-the-buck (cheap/effective/available), blood meal is an awesome (mostly) N-only supplement.

Blood meal, alfalfa meal or nitrogen only fish emulsions. I used to think manure was mostly N too. Some is higher in it. The animals that have their pee as part of the manure have more N like chickens and rabbits. Also legumes and legumes cover crops help.

Nitrogen may not be needed and excessive levels can create more problems then that nutrient will solve. Too much N can cause lush plant growth that is more attractive to insect pests and can interfere with fruit production.

Be very careful with bloodmeal, it's quite the srongest form of nitrogen. I suggest don't use it, but if you must be very clear just how much (or little) is needed for your garden, and apply it in solution for even spread. A far better source for nitrogen is to grow legumes in rotation, better than fetility-out-of-a-bag, and you can eat the peas and beans. I haven't applied nitrogen for many years, and the test always comes up with the requisite 100 lbs, give or take; more than 50% is in organic form, but the soil critters will transform it to mineral form. Regards, Peter.

Thanks for your concern, kimmsr and peter_6. My soil test came back with the recommendation of adding nitrogen before planting, but skipping everything else. They were specific about how much blood meal to use, and if my calculations are correct, it came down to about half a pound per 4'x8' raised bed.

After this much discussion I was expecting to hear some comment as to why heavily mineralized soils loaded with high amounts of P, K, Ca, and Mg. would be a problem.
Is there a problem with lots of these nutrients in the soil?
What happens if they are out of balance?

Ray put the nitrogen down ahead of only crops that can handle it, not root crops and be careful with fruiting crops. A careful rotation will make the most of it.

Think about it. A half pound of blood meal per 32 square feet is not a lot. Every soil test I have seen for the last 40 plus years had recommended adding some small amount of Nitrogen and in my gardens I have not seen a problem by not adding that N. In another garden where they did they seemed to have more insect pest problems because of lush green growth.
Whether high levels of nutrients in soil would be a problem depends on the balance of those nutrients. High levels of one nutrient can cause problems with others, but if the nutrients are in balance they will not.

Sure if you are growing tomatoes or cucumbers but what if you are growing broccoli, Brussels, corn or spinach? You need to get some N in there without raising P and K.

I wonder whether the silt that fills in around lakes and stream would have too much OM and therefore too much of various minerals that may be out of balance.
In Nature we don't see problems with high OM areas that prevent healthy and spirited growth when ever there is enough water. Sometimes we overthink simple issues IMHO... :)

This morning I spoke with one of the lab techs that did my soil test. (They were pleasantly easy to get a hold of at UCONN.) I asked if my Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus and Potassium were all above "optimum" levels yet in balance, why would that be considered a bad thing? She replied (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the superfluous nutrients wind up in our waterways and can create problems.

raymondo, Do you think that YOUR nutrients ARE winding up in the waterways?

I suspect that many soil testers are getting a bit eco freaky maybe.....Do you suppose?

>raymondo, Do you think that YOUR nutrients ARE winding up in the waterways?Wayne, as a mere mortal gardener and not a super soil scientist, I can't answer that question. But the report's recommendation to coast for a few years without adding any kind of amendments beyond a little nitrogen does make my gardening life a lot easier and less expensive. :)

Unless you are in a really high water table area, your garden is extremely close to a waterway, or for some reason planting in an extremely sandy soil area where you also have a lot of moisture...then most home gardeners are having an extremely small (to none) impact on their local water tables.

We gotta remember there's 2 main worlds in the outdoor food production game...those managing a few sq foot to a couple acres...and those managing 100s-1000s+ of acres.

While some information you get may be technically true for everyone, it may not be an issue depending on the actual variables and the scale of the operation it's being applied to.

There's no shortcut around managing nutrient runoff on 1000+ acres even in the most hospitable areas. The home gardener gets a whole lot more leeway.

I think she gave you a load of crap. The problem with too high of numbers is balance. Just like if you took too much magnesium supplement your digestion would get out of whack.

"Balance" can't be measured by nutrient content, alone.

A clay soil can be massively over-run by a nutrient that will out compete other nutrients, but as long as the other nutrients are also high then the effect of competition is usually negligible unless you have a sensitive crop.

pH can also effect this, positively or negatively.

So can leeching...etc. etc. etc...

Soils (both physical and chemical composition) mostly hold the nutrients they trap in a solution or hold by charge on an exchange site. They can vary on their ability to buffer both the good and bad things about being overloaded with nutrients.

The idea of OM buffering has been a common notion for decades, buffering pH and providing balance in the immediate area of Carbon exchange.
It would be interesting to see an agriculture/horticulture research paper on balance and buffering.

It has always been my understanding that the plant exchanges carbon with microbes in exchange for the nutrient it needs at the moment.
As was mentioned above, there are things that may be relevant to large farms that do not apply to gardening in the same way.