I posted this in a different forum, but I think this forum may be the most appropriate place to ask the question. I got my soil tested and got this:

Organic Matter, 7.4% (very high)
Phosphorus 9 ppm P (very low)
Potassium 168 ppm K (medium)
Magnesium 805 ppm Mg (very high)
Calcium 3150 ppm ca (medium)
cation Exchange Capacity 22.9 meq/100g (very high)
pH 7.5 (slightly alkaline)

So everything looks normal here except for the PH, which is higher than usual and low phosphorus. Is the low phosophorus due to the high PH. I looked around and saw a paper that talked about P being locked up when the PH is high.

For some reason, I did not get a Nitrogen test result, but I was told later that I needed a different test for that.

So far, I have been amending the soil by top dressing with a layer of leaf compost every year. Is that enough or do I need to do more?

Paul

Actually the lab that did the test should (usually) offer advice on what to add and a lb/1000 sq ft application rate. Call them back and ask them if they offer that.

I assume you're not adding lime, if you are, stop because your pH is already high. The lab may have some suggestions for reducing pH, and you can also search this forum for "Lowering pH".

18-24-6 starter fertilizer 2.2 lbs per 100 sq ft
10-18-6 starter fertilizer 4.0 lbs per 100 sq ft

I do strictly organic if I can help it. Actually, I thought of using some phosphate rock. Bone meal is organic right? Thought about changing the PH of the soil but that means adding sulfa, turning stuff into acid sounds like a bad idea.

No, I am not adding lime, I didn't want to add anything until I get a test. A good clue not to add lime, the blue hydrangea turned pink.

Paul

As far as the pH goes, making the soil acidic is indeed a good idea. Most plants perform best in a slightly acidic soil with a pH somewhere in the 6's. You can do that with soil sulfur. I would incorporate somewhere around 5 to 10 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. to a depth of 6 or 8 inches. I would also avoid adding organic amendments for a while. 7.9% is pretty dang high.

Garg - isn't it true that pH is affected by more than "lime?" That, Ca, Mg, K and the other base cations will all influence pH?

...."I think what you may be referring to is the fact that calcium and magnesium (along with potassium and sodium) are sometimes referred to as the "base cations".
Although it can be a handy phrase when used correctly, it can a bit misleading when it isn't. It can give the impression that these cations will act as a base in solution, which simply isn't the case.
Another phrase that's a little better, but can still be a bit confusing, is "base forming cations".
That is, these cations (Ca, Mg, K and Na) will react readily with hydroxide (the OH- I was talking about up there) to form a strong base:
Ca(OH) - calcium hydroxide
KOH - potassium hydroxide
etc.
The cations are no more a base than a set of tires is a car.
Remember, it's the balance of OH- to H+ that dictates the acidity or alkalinity of the solution.
If you have (and I am really reeeeeally simplifying things here):
10 OH- and 10 H+, your solution will be neutral. If you throw in some calcium, you will still have 10 OH- and 10 H+ in solution and it will still be neutral. Of course, the chemistry is very dynamic and the calcium atoms will be spontaneously hooking up with, and then disassociating from, the OH- constantlty, just like the H+ will be spontaneously hooking up with and disassociating from water to form the hydronium I was talking about up there. In a solution, nothing sits still but that won't change the balance of 10 OH- to 10 H+ in the solution and it will remain neutral."

So, how does one square the Albrecht philosophy with the notion that Ca, Mg and the other base cations have no bearing on pH?

A perfect example is part of the discussion in the linked thread. There was a mistaken idea that additional calcium or an improvement in Ca/Mg balance shifts soil pH upwards because calcium carbonate lime is often recommended to make a soil more alkaline. To paraphrase: "Calcium carbonate is added, pH goes up, and there's your proof that calcium raises the pH". However, that's not the case. It's the carbonate that does all the work. See the thread for details. If someone gets the idea into their head that they need to add calcium to the soil to "balance the cations" in their acidic soil, they're going to have a really tough time raising their pH with gypsum. And the issue isn't just limited to lime and pH. That's just one example. Acid base chemistry is very straight forward and the cation balance does not affect the pH in the way that some folks think. When you look at the basic chemistry of it, it's like saying 2+2 = 5.

I'm not saying that Albrecht wasn't bright. I'm saying that A) I think he misinterpreted some of the things that he observed and B) a lot of work has been done by a lot of smart people since he introduced his theories and that repeatable work by countless others does not bare out what Albrecht theorized in a good many cases.

If you want to raise Ca without changing pH, use gypsum. I'm not sure why your mulch has gypsum in it, but unless you have too much Ca, it will not hurt anything.

Finally, there is nothing in gypsum for aluminum sulfate to counteract since it is not alkaline.

But all calcium must be some kind either carbonate or maybe from bones or egg shells. If one could buy pure calcium? That won't raise the ph? But, if can't get any pure calcium without the carbonate part, then what? I am just trying to figure it out. If all sources calcium has something to raise ph, then adding calcium will raise the ph.

I have heard that too high a magnesium content in relation to calcium in clayey soils causes soil tightness [cloddy, wet, and stiff]. Perhaps the compounds matter?

I wish I could argue the point with you, Garg. Suffice to say, for every expert who swears Albrecht's theories don't hold water, there's a successful practitioner on the other side of the fence who swears by them.

I am unfamiliar with the various theory of PH and CA balancing. I have avoided growing anything that can't take a 7.5 PH. Even with this limitation, there appears to be plenty of plants I can still grow.

I talked with my wife. She indicated that the area the house is in used to be a swamp. This may explain the somewhat high organic material. They must have amended it over the years, since the soil doesn't really drain that poorly.

I will see if I can locate some rock phosphate and add it. I am patient. Is rock phosphate better or is bone meal better?

On another note, someone once suggested Sphagnum Peat Moss as an amendment that may reduce PH and amend the soil at the same time. I have also been told that Sphagnum Peat Moss isn't renewable and should avoid using it.

Thank you everyone for your help so far.

Paul

someone once suggested Sphagnum Peat Moss as an amendment that may reduce PH and amend the soil at the same time.

I like peat moss and have no philosophical problem with it, but you have plenty of organic matter already. I'd just use the sulfur at the rate garg recommended.

"he discounted soil pH, stating that "plants are not sensitive to, or limited by, a particular pH value of the soil." Instead, he believed that the benefits of liming soil stem from the additional calcium available to the plant, not the increase in pH. "

Of course, in that regard he was woefully mistaken and that's a great example of the thought process that tainted a lot of the ideas that he proposed. You can take an action and see a response but completely miss the point if you misinterpret what you observe. Yes, you can follow his advice and often have good results but there are a number of potential problems when you have a skewed understanding of what is going on.

Here is one problem. It may not work every time. Let's say that there are two people who follow Albrecht and they both have soils in which calcium does not "balance" magnesium. Further more, let's say one has strongly acidic soil and one has strongly alkaline. If you believe Albrecht, then adding lime will improve plant performance. In the acid soil, you will see that improvement and think that it's because you added calcium and ignore the fact that you brought the pH into a more favorable range. Now you have someone who swears by Albrecht and his ideas. In the alkaline soil you will end up with a train wreck because you locked up nutrients and trashed your soil microbes' environment. Then that person is left chasing their tail trying to figure out what could have possibly gone wrong because their Ca and Mg are now quite balanced indeed.

Here is another potential issue. Let's say that you have a soil with calcium that is below a sufficient level for your plants but magnesium is fully sufficient for your soil type. Now let's also assume that you have a Ca to Mg ratio of 2 to 1. All you have to do is add a little calcium to get that nutrient up to full sufficiency....maybe 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. But, if you're chasing a "balance" you may have to add 25 or 50 lbs. to get the ratio that you are looking for. In both cases, the plants respond favorably but you end up spending 5 or 10 times the money and effort.

Or how about this? Again calcium is deficient but in this instance magnesium is also deficient. There physically is not enough of either nutrient in the soil to satisfy plant requirements for those elements. But they're at a Ca/Mg ratio of 8 to 1 so you don't add anything. Your plants will starve.

That's the issue I have with Albrecht's ideas regarding plant nutrition in the soil. Often times you can follow the Albrecht ideas and have good results. However, a skewed understanding of plant nutrition has a significant potential to either cause a problem, result in an "over kill" solution, or leave the true root of poor plant performance unaddressed. The virtually accidental successes only mask a flawed theory.

I mean, if it is working for you, go for it. But, I would recommended if someone is at the point where they need to choose either base case saturation ratios or sufficiency as a standard for their own fertility program, be informed about it. Also, if you do follow BCSR methods and end up with mysterious problems, consider re-thinking your understanding of soil fertility.

I think I would likely take a middle course in the 2 to 1 case...like add 15 pounds rather than 5 or 50.

Albrecht considered Calcium's primarily important as a mineral nutrient. But, that doesn't mean he discounted the significance of pH. He just approached it from the standpoint of: if your base saturation %s are in line, your pH will be in it's "sweet" spot. pH is dictated by the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.). So, by recommending his "ideal" %s, Albrecht was simply saying, if you're hydrogen % is right, your pH will be right. I don't see this as a radical idea; it's just a different way of considering the same thing.

In the alkaline soil you will end up with a train wreck because you locked up nutrients and trashed your soil microbes' environment.

The idea of balancing the cations would lead one to balance what is excessive with what is deficient. What's driving the high pH? If you have an excess of both calcium and magnesium, no one (certainly not Albrecht) is suggesting that you add more lime just to attain a "balance."

Here is another potential issue. Let's say that you have a soil with calcium that is below a sufficient level for your plants but magnesium is fully sufficient for your soil type. Now let's also assume that you have a Ca to Mg ratio of 2 to 1. All you have to do is add a little calcium to get that nutrient up to full sufficiency....maybe 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. But, if you're chasing a "balance" you may have to add 25 or 50 lbs. to get the ratio that you are looking for. In both cases, the plants respond favorably but you end up spending 5 or 10 times the money and effort.

There's more to the equation than simply the Ca/Mg ratio. From what I understand, the "ideal" ratio is going to maximize efficiency. For example, maybe you obtain the same yield per acre on your corn crop (with a sub-optimal Ca/Mg ratio), but it's going to require significantly more nitrogen.

Or how about this? Again calcium is deficient but in this instance magnesium is also deficient. There physically is not enough of either nutrient in the soil to satisfy plant requirements for those elements. But they're at a Ca/Mg ratio of 8 to 1 so you don't add anything. Your plants will starve.

The ratio has to be considered within the context of the proper base saturation. Albrecht recommended a 4.3:1 Ca/Mg ratio (base saturation %s). BUT, if both Ca/Mg are deficient--even if the ratio is correct--you would add lime. However, I suppose if you're working with a low CEC soil, you could achieve the recommended base saturation %s and ratios and and still have a deficit according to the sufficiency school. In this case Albrecht would be advocating the more conservative approach.

That perfect ratio according to Albrecht is found on the high plains where buffalo roamed. That is why they roamed there, in fact. Presumably, though, one could achieve that balance between Ca, Mg and K as well as bringing up deficient traces even in a high-rainfall region without too much difficulty by using the various rock dusts.

Garg, are you maintaining that Ca is not a plant nutrient?

Albrecht considered Calcium's primarily important as a mineral nutrient. But, that doesn't mean he discounted the significance of pH. He just approached it from the standpoint of: if your base saturation %s are in line, your pH will be in it's "sweet" spot.
This is simply not true.

pH is dictated by the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.).
Actually no. pH is dictated not by what is on the exchange but what is in solution. It is also not a function of hydrogen in relationship to other cations. It is a direct, measurable and easily calculated relationship between hydrogen (or more correctly, hydronium) to the hydroxyl anion (OH-). If he really believed it was a relationship of hydrogen to other cations, he was flat-out wrong.

So, by recommending his "ideal" %s, Albrecht was simply saying, if you're hydrogen % is right, your pH will be right. I don't see this as a radical idea; it's just a different way of considering the same thing.
No, it really isn't the same thing. If that were true, you could increase your pH by adding calcium to "overwhelm" the amount of hydrogen, in which case you would still have the same amount of hydrogen but it would be a smaller portion of the over all cations, resulting in hydrogen making up a smaller percent of the total cations. But you can't change pH by fiddling with the amounts of those other cations. That's why you can add gypsum (calcium sulfate) all the live long day and it won't budge your pH one way or the other because you're just adding caclium (and sulfate). You're not increasing H+ or decreasing the OH-. The relationship of H+ to OH- in solution is quite literally the definition of pH.
('pH' being a mathematical expression meaning "find the antilog of hydronium in a solution. The inverse of the equation is pOH and will determine the OH in solution, giving you a scale that is a mirror image of pH). It really is that simple and it really isn't a function of any of the other cations in any other way.

If you have an excess of both calcium and magnesium, no one (certainly not Albrecht) is suggesting that you add more lime just to attain a "balance."
Two things: If someone focuses on BSCR without a good understanding of soil chemistry, they certainly might. Hence my "be informed" statement. As to whether or not Albrecht would actually say to lime an alkaline soil or not, I honestly don't know. I would assume he held that view based on the Wikipedia quote but if you say that's not right, I'd definitely believe you over Wikipedia.

There's more to the equation than simply the Ca/Mg ratio. From what I understand, the "ideal" ratio is going to maximize efficiency. For example, maybe you obtain the same yield per acre on your corn crop (with a sub-optimal Ca/Mg ratio), but it's going to require significantly more nitrogen.
There we just have to disagree, I suppose. All day long I look at data and plant response. I just haven't seen it play out that way.

The ratio has to be considered within the context of the proper base saturation. Albrecht recommended a 4.3:1 Ca/Mg ratio (base saturation %s). BUT, if both Ca/Mg are deficient--even if the ratio is correct--you would add lime.
Even in an alkaline soil? Of course I know that's not what you mean but that's how quickly someone can get tripped up and make things worse if they are too focused on cation ratios. Besides, I'm still not sure one way or the other if Albrecht would have recommended lime in such an instance.

However, I suppose if you're working with a low CEC soil, you could achieve the recommended base saturation %s and ratios and and still have a deficit according to the sufficiency school. In this case Albrecht would be advocating the more conservative approach.
....and it would starve the plants. You can eat a perfectly balanced diet but if it's only giving you 200 calories a day, you won't be all that healthy.

Garg, are you maintaining that Ca is not a plant nutrient?
Oh goodness, no. It's a huge player.

http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Albrecht Lecture - Health y Soils Healthy People.htm

IMO, the prevailing "sufficiency" model of soil science has to take responsibility for livestock and human health, since nearly every calorie in the food supply traces back to a conventional production system (by which I include large-scale "organic" operations). When the majority of the populations of countries with modern science-dominated growing systems are unhealthy and/or obese, I have to reject the prevailing soil science.

The sufficiency model is very clearly insufficient, to put it mildly, if we are willing to open our eyes a little wider and place blame where it belongs.

As far as human and animal nutrition go, I'm not an expert in that regard and can't speak too much to that. However, I would hesitate to place so much blame on a single factor when discussing such a complex issue.

For what it's worth, I'm all for something better than a sufficiency model if it's better. I just don't see BCSR as that model.

Perhaps apropos to the discussion is the question of how to know the value of one's produce without having to become unhealthy as a metric. I just ran a little home-cooked refractometer test: I took a highly-refined cane sugar (confectioner's sugar) mixed in a little water and put in the meter. It happened to come out a 15 on the brix scale and with an absolutely flat and clear dividing line in the background. I then took molasses and mixed in water until I got to 15 brix, and the background was very hazy, with the two colors bleeding into each other significantly. This seems to support the idea that the haziness of the field gives an approximate measure of how many different minerals are in the solution, since we know for sure that confectioner's sugar has virtually nothing but sugar whereas molasses is famous as a mineralizing tonic.

So when you have a 6-brix tomato clearly-divided field vs a 6-brix hazy field you can throw the first one in the compost pile.

Most cotton seed meal is GMO and wouldn't be considered organic by OMRI standards. Since it's not a food crop, it is also subject to relentless pesticide use. I understand there IS organic CSM, but it is hard to find and relatively expensive.

Why do you consider Albrecht's pH axiom to be lunacy? I'm sure there may be technical examples of soils that don't follow the axiom, but I think one could safely qualify Albrecht's statement to read: "practically speaking, with regard to most agricultural soils..." balance the cations and the pH will be right.

pH is dictated not by what is on the exchange but what is in solution.

I agree. Maybe a better word would be "correlate," e.g. "pH correlates to the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.)." A very quick Google search turned up others from the "conventional" camp who seem to agree:

"The concentration of hydrogen ions in the soil solution is directly proportionate to and in equilibrium with the hydrogen ions retained on the soil's cation exchange complex. Thus, the hydrogen ions retained by clay particles replenish, or buffer, the hydrogen ions in soil water."(University of Hawaii http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_acidity.aspx)

"The more hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex of a soil in relation to the basic ions held, the greater the acidity of the soil" (Dr. Cliff Synder for the Mosaic Corporation, "Efficient Fertilizer Use Manual")

"The proportion of CEC satisfied by basic cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) is termed percentage base saturation (BS%). This property is inversely related to soil acidity. As the BS% increases, the pH increases." (Washington State University, http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/04CEC.htm)

"Soils tend to become acidic as a result of: (1) rainwater leaching away basic ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium)." (State University of New York, http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm)

Don't these statements suggest there IS a relationship between the basic (or base forming) cations and soil pH?

"The more hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex of a soil in relation to the basic ions held, the greater the acidity of the soil" (Dr. Cliff Synder for the Mosaic Corporation, "Efficient Fertilizer Use Manual")

This is the same correlation as discussed in the above quote. The higher the H+% you see on the exchange the more acidic your soil will be. However, adding or removing calcium (or potassium or sodium) will not change the amount of hydrogen on the exchange.

these two fall into a second category:

"The proportion of CEC satisfied by basic cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) is termed percentage base saturation (BS%). This property is inversely related to soil acidity. As the BS% increases, the pH increases." (Washington State University, http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/04CEC.htm)

and

"Soils tend to become acidic as a result of: (1) rainwater leaching away basic ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium)." (State University of New York, http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm)

The one from U or New York was written by an "instructional support specialist" and the Washington one looks like it was written by an extension agent. I'm not knocking either one, but that fact is, nobody is an expert in everything. Those folks are in "catch all" positions and write a lot of information on a lot of topics, and not everything they write can be in their area expertise. As such, they sometimes misinterpret information that is outside their area of focus. It's a somewhat complicated thing and there is some pretty unfortunate terminology used. This is a concept that confuses a lot of people, including professionals and academics in hort and ag.

And again, I'm not knocking them. That's just the way it is. As I noted above, I am not an expert in animal or human nutrition even though it is related to what I do. If I was asked to write a paper on nutrition I could do some research and throw together something that sounds really good and is mostly correct but I may make a mistake or two on some of the more nuanced facets of the topic.

I'm starting to feel at a bit of a dead end here. I'm sorry, but I just can't break down the chemistry any more simply than I have. I wish I was a better teacher. I think at this point all I can say is, I've done my best and I'm just going to leave out there for people to take or leave.

Garg - thanks for your time and sorry to beat the proverbial dead horse. I'm having a hard time understanding because: 1) as you pointed out, there's conflicting information out there; and, 2) once I've learned something, it's doubly hard to unlearn it.

Not exactly. As you know the device measures *dissolved* solids (i.e. sugar), but what I heard you saying is that sometimes the solution was fuzzy and that this might have something to do with nutritional value of the juice. If the fuzziness is due to turbidity, i.e. fine suspended solids or colloidal material, I was simply saying that whatever it is, you can't assume that it has more nutrient value than clear juice just on that basis alone.

The publication also suggests that most crop plants will still grow well in a ph range of 7.8 - 8.2.

So the question is, what are your thoughts on adding micro nutrients instead of trying to lower ph?

The link to the publication is posted below.

If you're adding compost, you're adding micronutrients, generally speaking. I would only add specific ones if you have symptoms of a problem, like yellow leaves from lack of iron.

What i have read is that this fuzziness correlates with the range of minerals in the sap, or perhaps more accurately with the complexity of the molecules which would themselves depend on range of minerals available to the plant. I would like to devise some empirical way to verify this for myself beyond much doubt, so I thought of the test with two different common sweeteners that are known to be nutritionally different.