Soil test??'s [Archive] - GardenBanter.co.uk

J Kolenovsky

03-03-2003, 01:30 AM

I am a native plant habitat landscaper in Houston,
http://www.celestialhabitats.com
and the Master Gardeners, Master Naturalists, other landscapers, land
and ag suppliers all say to use http://www.txplant-soillab.com/. These
folks are in Edinburgh, TX and are organically oriented. You tell them
your goals and they analyze the soil and then tell you what steps you
need to take to take to achieve your goals organically. No one buy kits
off the shelf. The cost runs about $55.00 and is well worth it. I hear
their name over and over and over in the organic circle. Bob Randall
with Urban Harvest can vouch for them as well as Malcolm Beck. =

J. Kolenovsky

"news.houston.sbcglobal.net" wrote:
> =

> Moved into a house a while ago and am just getting around to sending in=
soil
> samples to see what I need to feed it with (yard with some St Augustine=
and
> bermuda, normal suburban shrubs and trees). There are a LOT of options=
for
> the test including:
> =

> - Routine analysis (pH, NO, P, K, Ca, Mg, S and Conductivity)
> - Routine +Micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn)
> - Routine +Micronutirents +Boron
> - Routine + Detailed salinity
> - Routine + micro+salinity
> - Routine + micro+detailed Lime requirement
> - Routine+ micro+Boron+Lime+organic matter+salinity
> - Routine+texture analysis
> - Routine +organic matter
> =

> This is way too many choices. I am gardening organically if it changes=

> anything. Anybody know what test I should get?
> =

> Thanks,
> Hank Longino

-- =

J. Kolenovsky, A+, Network +, MCP
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.celestialhabitats.com - commercial
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.hal-pc.org/~garden/personal.html

animaux

03-03-2003, 02:39 PM

Save your money. Unless you are growing fancy exotic plants you can, in mid to
late April put down fertilizer for your turf, which will also feed trees.
Buying compost from a reputable compost maker, like The Natural Gardener, is a
good idea. You can spread that out over the lawn area at 1/4 inch and if you
want to really do something to help the turf, aerate with a core aerator. You
can hire someone to do it very inexpensively. Leave the plugs on the lawn and
they will break down when you water or after it rains.

We have very calciferous soils in N.Central Texas. The pH is going to be
between 7.5 and 8.5. If you stick with native plants, which include trees,
shrubs, perennials, conifers, etc., you will not have to amend soils, only top
dress them with organic matter.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:15:51 GMT, "news.houston.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote:

>Moved into a house a while ago and am just getting around to sending in soil
>samples to see what I need to feed it with (yard with some St Augustine and
>bermuda, normal suburban shrubs and trees). There are a LOT of options for
>the test including:
>
>- Routine analysis (pH, NO, P, K, Ca, Mg, S and Conductivity)
>- Routine +Micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn)
>- Routine +Micronutirents +Boron
>- Routine + Detailed salinity
>- Routine + micro+salinity
>- Routine + micro+detailed Lime requirement
>- Routine+ micro+Boron+Lime+organic matter+salinity
>- Routine+texture analysis
>- Routine +organic matter
>
>This is way too many choices. I am gardening organically if it changes
>anything. Anybody know what test I should get?
>
>Thanks,
>Hank Longino
>

NOSPAM@rigney.org

04-03-2003, 06:51 PM

You have to be very careful on this. I put down a general turf fertilizer
last year, only to find out that the phosphorus levels in my soil are
crazy stupid high. I just sent off my sample to A&M for the routine analysis.
They sent back the analisys with a long list of suggested ways to amend the
soil. The local Ag office mentioned that high phosphorus is a VERY common
problem in Austin-area soils. The problem is that it binds to iron easily,
and can result in nutrient uptake problems for your plants.

The A&M test is somehting like $12. Well worth it, even if just for
curiosity's sake.

-parc

animaux > wrote:
> Save your money. Unless you are growing fancy exotic plants you can, in mid to
> late April put down fertilizer for your turf, which will also feed trees.
> Buying compost from a reputable compost maker, like The Natural Gardener, is a
> good idea. You can spread that out over the lawn area at 1/4 inch and if you
> want to really do something to help the turf, aerate with a core aerator. You
> can hire someone to do it very inexpensively. Leave the plugs on the lawn and
> they will break down when you water or after it rains.
>
> We have very calciferous soils in N.Central Texas. The pH is going to be
> between 7.5 and 8.5. If you stick with native plants, which include trees,
> shrubs, perennials, conifers, etc., you will not have to amend soils, only top
> dress them with organic matter.
>
>
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:15:51 GMT, "news.houston.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote:
>
>>Moved into a house a while ago and am just getting around to sending in soil
>>samples to see what I need to feed it with (yard with some St Augustine and
>>bermuda, normal suburban shrubs and trees). There are a LOT of options for
>>the test including:
>>
>>- Routine analysis (pH, NO, P, K, Ca, Mg, S and Conductivity)
>>- Routine +Micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn)
>>- Routine +Micronutirents +Boron
>>- Routine + Detailed salinity
>>- Routine + micro+salinity
>>- Routine + micro+detailed Lime requirement
>>- Routine+ micro+Boron+Lime+organic matter+salinity
>>- Routine+texture analysis
>>- Routine +organic matter
>>
>>This is way too many choices. I am gardening organically if it changes
>>anything. Anybody know what test I should get?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Hank Longino
>>
>

--
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a
period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission,
will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it.
Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted
to do." --Woody Guthrie on Copyright

J Kolenovsky

04-03-2003, 11:16 PM

You live in Houston. Call me 713 665 5055 and I can give you some
references.

"news.houston.sbcglobal.net" wrote:
> =

> Moved into a house a while ago and am just getting around to sending in=
soil
> samples to see what I need to feed it with (yard with some St Augustine=
and
> bermuda, normal suburban shrubs and trees). There are a LOT of options=
for
> the test including:
> =

> - Routine analysis (pH, NO, P, K, Ca, Mg, S and Conductivity)
> - Routine +Micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn)
> - Routine +Micronutirents +Boron
> - Routine + Detailed salinity
> - Routine + micro+salinity
> - Routine + micro+detailed Lime requirement
> - Routine+ micro+Boron+Lime+organic matter+salinity
> - Routine+texture analysis
> - Routine +organic matter
> =

> This is way too many choices. I am gardening organically if it changes=

> anything. Anybody know what test I should get?
> =

> Thanks,
> Hank Longino

-- =

J. Kolenovsky, A+, Network +, MCP
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.celestialhabitats.com - commercial
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.hal-pc.org/~garden/personal.html

Terry Horton

05-03-2003, 12:39 AM

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:47:25 GMT, wrote:

>You have to be very careful on this. I put down a general turf fertilizer
>last year, only to find out that the phosphorus levels in my soil are
>crazy stupid high. I just sent off my sample to A&M for the routine analysis.
>They sent back the analisys with a long list of suggested ways to amend the
>soil. The local Ag office mentioned that high phosphorus is a VERY common
>problem in Austin-area soils. The problem is that it binds to iron easily,
>and can result in nutrient uptake problems for your plants.

This was a striking revelation when I first heard it at an Aggie soil
science lecture a few years ago. Homes of in our area which have been
fertilized even intermittently over the years were showing phosphorus
at levels high enough to last for generations! Yet lawn centers
continue to push "balanced" fertilizers, and then later Ironite to
overwhelm the iron deficiency caused by the P they sold you in the
first place (Ironite in any case being a problem worse than any
symptom it might mask). Even organic gardeners need to consider this
as most organic matter contains moderate levels of P (sorry, I can't
stomach blood meal :-)

The best lawn fertilizer for our area, imho, is the slow-release
"Sustain", available at places like Lowes. I've come to think that,
for an organic gardener myself who lives over the Edwards recharge
zone, Sustain may be a more environmentally sound lawn fertilizer than
compost.

animaux

05-03-2003, 01:39 AM

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:32:09 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:

>
>This was a striking revelation when I first heard it at an Aggie soil
>science lecture a few years ago. Homes of in our area which have been
>fertilized even intermittently over the years were showing phosphorus
>at levels high enough to last for generations! Yet lawn centers
>continue to push "balanced" fertilizers, and then later Ironite to
>overwhelm the iron deficiency caused by the P they sold you in the
>first place (Ironite in any case being a problem worse than any
>symptom it might mask). Even organic gardeners need to consider this
>as most organic matter contains moderate levels of P (sorry, I can't
>stomach blood meal :-)
>
>The best lawn fertilizer for our area, imho, is the slow-release
>"Sustain", available at places like Lowes. I've come to think that,
>for an organic gardener myself who lives over the Edwards recharge
>zone, Sustain may be a more environmentally sound lawn fertilizer than
>compost.

Compost is not a fertilizer, it contains humates which is a necessary product
for good soil structure and texture. Putting down 1/4 inch on turf which has
been core aerated is not going anywhere other than into the soil. Sustane is a
great product, but LadyBug Brand is made by Sustane and has molasses coating on
the prill. Horticultural molasses contains approximately 15% Fe (iron).
Ironite has arsenic and is most useless. Chelated iron is much better for our
soils in this area.

I'm fortunate in that I have very deep soil. When we dug the pool, it wasn't
till we got to about 4 feet before we reached caliche. LadyBug brand can be
bought at Home Depot. Sustane at Lowes. Both 8-2-4 and have sufficient levels
of phosphorous NOT to be hazardous to our saturated with phosphorous soils.

Victoria

Steve Coyle

06-03-2003, 04:51 AM

Howdy folks,
The high level of phosphates in Austin soil is a big issue. I've
talked at length with Skip Richter, our Horticultural Ag agent sbout
this, and I've talked to the folks at the city of Austin who put
together the Grow Green program.
Skip took a number of soil tests in the neighborhood centered on
Steck and Mesa ( He had gotten a private grant and has not had funding
for city wide city testing. ) He found 100% of the reults showed
excessive to toxic levels of Phosphate the middle number in ratio mix.
He was very concerned about this, since 100% of any result
statisticly is unusual.
His recomendations for lawn fertilizing are in a leaflet available
in many nurseries around town through the Austin Grown Green program.
He has also on occasion talked about this problem on Central Texas
Gardener on PBS.
( They also have a website www.growgreen.com )
Ask for the Grow Green Earthwise guide to Lawn Care, it covers
this topic in greater depth.

As a result of talking to him, two years ago I started telling all
my customers while I was working at a retail nursery here, to get soil
tests before fertilizing since they may be creating more damage to
their lawns by using Phosphates then they are doing good.
Most folks were not interested in going to that much trouble but a
large number did, and came back to show me the results. This is of
course anecdotal but in two years, without exception every single
customer who brought in their results to show me had excessive levels
of Phosphate and were advised to only add nitrogen to their soil.

This shift in thinking has met with hugh resistance from many local
nurseries, let alone the Megamarts that sell a lot of national brands
with high Phosphate.

I had a second concern, which had to do with the EPA approved
practice of allowing mine tailings, industrial pollution ( even in a
case in Oklahoma, radioactive medical waste ) to be disposed of by
'recycling' into fertilizers for lawn and agriculture use.
If the EPA was allowing a certain amount of lead and heavy metals
into the fertilizers because 'at the recommended' rates it was
tolerable for us folks, could there be a problem with these same
levels reaching dangerous levels if there was evidence of over
fertilizing beyond recommended levels and shouldn't we test for that
problem in Austin?

This is sort of a personal mission for me and I write about my
progress on my web site, but so far the answer seems to be the Ag
Extension does not have the funding for this, the water quality folks
are restrained by looking for only certain toxins that get into the
watershed, and the Health department assumes toxicity of soils to be
some other department's concern, and will only commit resources to
check for problems once a threat to public health has been
demonstrated.
It has been interesting.

I would suggest getting a soil test or at least follow Skip and
the Grow Green's recommendations.

take care,
Steve Coyle
www.austingardencenter.com

Terry Horton

06-03-2003, 06:18 AM

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:29:05 GMT, animaux >
wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:32:09 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:
>
>>This was a striking revelation when I first heard it at an Aggie soil
>>science lecture a few years ago. Homes of in our area which have been
>>fertilized even intermittently over the years were showing phosphorus
>>at levels high enough to last for generations! Yet lawn centers
>>continue to push "balanced" fertilizers, and then later Ironite to
>>overwhelm the iron deficiency caused by the P they sold you in the
>>first place (Ironite in any case being a problem worse than any
>>symptom it might mask). Even organic gardeners need to consider this
>>as most organic matter contains moderate levels of P (sorry, I can't
>>stomach blood meal :-)
>>
>>The best lawn fertilizer for our area, imho, is the slow-release
>>"Sustain", available at places like Lowes. I've come to think that,
>>for an organic gardener myself who lives over the Edwards recharge
>>zone, Sustain may be a more environmentally sound lawn fertilizer than
>>compost.
>
>Compost is not a fertilizer, it contains humates which is a necessary product
>for good soil structure and texture. Putting down 1/4 inch on turf which has
>been core aerated is not going anywhere other than into the soil. Sustane is a
>great product, but LadyBug Brand is made by Sustane and has molasses coating on
>the prill. Horticultural molasses contains approximately 15% Fe (iron).
>Ironite has arsenic and is most useless. Chelated iron is much better for our
>soils in this area.

"Sustane"... I walk past a stack of it in the garage every day and
never noticed they misspell it. ;-)

High phosphorous levels is a widespread, largely undiagnosed (or
misdiagnosed) problem for soils here in west Austin.. Stillhouse
Hollow http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/growgreen/stillhouse.htm seems in
most ways typical of west Austin neighborhoods built around the same
time, and virtually every yard tested in Stillhouse showed positive
for excessive phosphorous and potassium.

Compost provides soluble nutrients, beneficial microorganisms, organic
matter, humates ...and applied judiciously should be a core part of
responsible organic soil amendment. Depending on its composition
compost's nutrients may come primarily indirectly through the action
of decomposers. Some composts such as those based on poultry manure
quite high in soluble nutrients.

Compost should not be used on soils where phosphorous levels are known
or suspected to be high.

BTW, our Austin tax dollars have funded an extraordinarily useful
study, "Evaluating Potential Movement of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in
City of Austin Soils Following Varying Fertility Regimes: Greenhouse
Simulations". Open the Word doc at the bottom to see the tables:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/growgreen/fertstudy.htm .

>I'm fortunate in that I have very deep soil. When we dug the pool, it wasn't
>till we got to about 4 feet before we reached caliche.

Here it would take a weapon of mass destruction to reach 4'. :-) We're
over Edwards karst (I once discovered a small cavern while digging to
plant a Mex. buckeye). We have little springs and seeps al over the
place.

> LadyBug brand can be bought at Home Depot. Sustane at Lowes.
> Both 8-2-4 and have sufficient levels of phosphorous NOT to be
> hazardous to our saturated with phosphorous soils.

I agree a product like Ladybug shouldn't add too significantly to the
problem. But any P will delay remediation in soils where high
phosphorous is a problem. It may also end up as runoff into our
streams and aquifers. Since phosphorus is rarely a limiting factor for
growth and bloom here it makes sense for most homeowners to use low P
organic fertilizers anyway. This year we'll use Sustane 10-1-2.

animaux

07-03-2003, 02:58 PM

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 06:16:33 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:

>"Sustane"... I walk past a stack of it in the garage every day and
>never noticed they misspell it. ;-)

Yes, well, play on words counts!

>High phosphorous levels is a widespread, largely undiagnosed (or
>misdiagnosed) problem for soils here in west Austin.. Stillhouse
>Hollow http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/growgreen/stillhouse.htm seems in
>most ways typical of west Austin neighborhoods built around the same
>time, and virtually every yard tested in Stillhouse showed positive
>for excessive phosphorous and potassium.

Yes, but it while it may be toxic levels, it is not toxically available unless
it is met with other elements.

>Compost provides soluble nutrients, beneficial microorganisms, organic
>matter, humates ...and applied judiciously should be a core part of
>responsible organic soil amendment. Depending on its composition
>compost's nutrients may come primarily indirectly through the action
>of decomposers. Some composts such as those based on poultry manure
>quite high in soluble nutrients.

Correct, and it slowly seeps in feeding the organisms which produce the waste in
the form of available nitrogen. This year I am planting white Dutch clover in
the fall with an inoculant. Nitrogen will always be available that way. Of
course the perfect lawn police in my area will frown, but I personally don't
care. I have the greenest garden around.

>Compost should not be used on soils where phosphorous levels are known
>or suspected to be high.

Why?

>BTW, our Austin tax dollars have funded an extraordinarily useful
>study, "Evaluating Potential Movement of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in
>City of Austin Soils Following Varying Fertility Regimes: Greenhouse
>Simulations". Open the Word doc at the bottom to see the tables:
>http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/growgreen/fertstudy.htm .
>
>>I'm fortunate in that I have very deep soil. When we dug the pool, it wasn't
>>till we got to about 4 feet before we reached caliche.
>
>Here it would take a weapon of mass destruction to reach 4'. :-) We're
>over Edwards karst (I once discovered a small cavern while digging to
>plant a Mex. buckeye). We have little springs and seeps al over the
>place.

Yes, that's why I said I was fortunate. The woman at the top of the hill on my
block needed dynamite to dig her pool in the solid rock not 10 inches down. I
should let you know I'm on the east side of 35 in far northeast Round Rock, not
directly in town or in the hills. I do live in hills, but not Austin hills!

>> LadyBug brand can be bought at Home Depot. Sustane at Lowes.
>> Both 8-2-4 and have sufficient levels of phosphorous NOT to be
>> hazardous to our saturated with phosphorous soils.

>I agree a product like Ladybug shouldn't add too significantly to the
>problem. But any P will delay remediation in soils where high
>phosphorous is a problem. It may also end up as runoff into our
>streams and aquifers. Since phosphorus is rarely a limiting factor for
>growth and bloom here it makes sense for most homeowners to use low P
>organic fertilizers anyway. This year we'll use Sustane 10-1-2.

Phosphorous is very stable and doesn't move in the soil nearly as well as other
leaching materials like N or K. There's far more atrazine in our water than any
other chemical on the market. That's the "weed" in weed-n-feed products. Me, I
garden. I weed with hands and gloves. To me, gardening is a verb!

Thanks for the info,

Victoria

Victor M. Martinez

07-03-2003, 04:21 PM

>Yes, but it while it may be toxic levels, it is not toxically available unless
>it is met with other elements.

It is not available, period! While there might be an excess of phosphorous,
that doesn't mean plants don't need bio-available phosphorous to thrive.
Our plants respond great to bone meal. I'm sure if we test our soil it would
be high in phosphorous.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

Joe Doe

07-03-2003, 07:44 PM

In article >,
(Victor M. Martinez) wrote:

> >Yes, but it while it may be toxic levels, it is not toxically available
unless
> >it is met with other elements.
>
> It is not available, period! While there might be an excess of phosphorous,
> that doesn't mean plants don't need bio-available phosphorous to thrive.
> Our plants respond great to bone meal. I'm sure if we test our soil it would
> be high in phosphorous.
>
> --
> Victor M. Martinez

You are partially correct (& practically correct). Phosphorous is
generally found as a precipitate because it precipitates with Aluminium
and Iron at acidic pH ranges and with Calcium in Alkaline pH ranges. So
under many common soil conditions it will not be mobile or available.
Because our soils are so alkaline it is generally found as a calcium
precipitate. If you do suceed in moving the pH to neutrality with sulfur
more phosphate becomes available but it is unlikely to ever really
runoff.

The fact that phosphate levels are of the scale is widespread: for
example in the book Gardening In the Humid South (written by two retired
Louisiana State Horticulture researchers one of whom has expertise in soil
science) they say this is also true for all measurements made in
Louisiana. They make the same point that you do: even though the
Phosphate is off the charts, that does not mean it is available. They
recommend side dressing. They approach this reluctantly because the
phosphate sources are not renewable yet do come down on the side of adding
some.

Another interesting point raised in this book is how difficult it is to
raise soil organic content. The example they run through is the
following: the top 6 inches of 1000 sq ft of soil weighs 46000 pounds!!
To raise the organic content by 1% you need to add 460 pounds of stable
gums and humates and this will take 4600 pounds (dry weight) organic
matter because the stable gums and humates are about 10% of the original
dry weight. In practical terms this would require a layer of 2 feet of
Oak leaves. Similarly a cover crop only yields about 230 pounds of dry
weight/100 sq ft . I know compost by wet weight is about 1000 pounds a
yard. Its dry weight is ? I would guess in the range of 100-200
pounds/yard. So for each yard of compost you add to 1000 sq ft you are
adding about 10-20 pounds of stable gums/humates and raising the stable
organic matter by .04-.08 % !!! The only way to raise organic content is
slowly over time.

Roland

Victor M. Martinez

07-03-2003, 09:45 PM

Joe Doe > wrote:
>precipitate. If you do suceed in moving the pH to neutrality with sulfur
>more phosphate becomes available but it is unlikely to ever really

You can't really change the pH of our soils to neutral for long. It would
be a losing battle. Most of us have some soil above limestone (alkaline)
and water with tap water which comes from the city (pH of 9-10) or even
worse, from a well (pH of 10-11 and hard with carbonates).

>organic matter by .04-.08 % !!! The only way to raise organic content is
>slowly over time.

We've been adding compost to our garden by the truckload. We've got a pretty
good soil now, but we'll always keep adding compost.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

animaux

07-03-2003, 11:09 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:10:57 +0000 (UTC), (Victor M.
Martinez) wrote:

>>Yes, but it while it may be toxic levels, it is not toxically available unless
>>it is met with other elements.
>
>It is not available, period! While there might be an excess of phosphorous,
>that doesn't mean plants don't need bio-available phosphorous to thrive.
>Our plants respond great to bone meal. I'm sure if we test our soil it would
>be high in phosphorous.
>

We are in agreement. That's why I grow native and adapted plants which have the
capacity to adapt to our calciferous soils and levels of whatever element is
overabundant.

animaux

07-03-2003, 11:21 PM

Thank you, Joe Doe for this post. However, changing the pH of soil is a most
useless, exhausting task in high pH soils...as we have. The addition of compost
and leaving as much organic matter on the soil is what will feed microbial
activity, which in turn makes elements available, slowly. Slowly is how plants
use elements, and I've proved more than once there are myriad plants with rich
foliage, flower and form which will thrive in our soils.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:26:54 -0600, (Joe Doe) wrote:

>You are partially correct (& practically correct). Phosphorous is
>generally found as a precipitate because it precipitates with Aluminium
>and Iron at acidic pH ranges and with Calcium in Alkaline pH ranges. So
>under many common soil conditions it will not be mobile or available.
>Because our soils are so alkaline it is generally found as a calcium
>precipitate. If you do suceed in moving the pH to neutrality with sulfur
>more phosphate becomes available but it is unlikely to ever really
>runoff.
>
>The fact that phosphate levels are of the scale is widespread: for
>example in the book Gardening In the Humid South (written by two retired
>Louisiana State Horticulture researchers one of whom has expertise in soil
>science) they say this is also true for all measurements made in
>Louisiana. They make the same point that you do: even though the
>Phosphate is off the charts, that does not mean it is available. They
>recommend side dressing. They approach this reluctantly because the
>phosphate sources are not renewable yet do come down on the side of adding
>some.
>
>Another interesting point raised in this book is how difficult it is to
>raise soil organic content. The example they run through is the
>following: the top 6 inches of 1000 sq ft of soil weighs 46000 pounds!!
>To raise the organic content by 1% you need to add 460 pounds of stable
>gums and humates and this will take 4600 pounds (dry weight) organic
>matter because the stable gums and humates are about 10% of the original
>dry weight. In practical terms this would require a layer of 2 feet of
>Oak leaves. Similarly a cover crop only yields about 230 pounds of dry
>weight/100 sq ft . I know compost by wet weight is about 1000 pounds a
>yard. Its dry weight is ? I would guess in the range of 100-200
>pounds/yard. So for each yard of compost you add to 1000 sq ft you are
>adding about 10-20 pounds of stable gums/humates and raising the stable
>organic matter by .04-.08 % !!! The only way to raise organic content is
>slowly over time.
>
>Roland

Rusty Mase

08-03-2003, 01:20 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:37:25 +0000 (UTC), (Victor
M. Martinez) wrote:
>Joe Doe > wrote:
>>precipitate. If you do suceed in moving the pH to neutrality with sulfur
>>more phosphate becomes available but it is unlikely to ever really
>
>You can't really change the pH of our soils to neutral for long.

I had a series of soil tests done on my yard when I first bought my
home. The results showed I had 9,000 pounds of "excess" calcium per
acre in the top 6 inches. To convert the excess calcium to calcium
sulphate or calcium phosphate would take roughly the same weight of
sulphur or phosphorus. And that is just for the top six inches.

LCRA completed a study several years ago looking at the subsurface
migration of phosporus from a septic tank leach field. It did not
occur due to the reaction with calcium - the phosphorus was
precipitated immediately and was no longer soluable.

What is a problem here and Victoria has something posted about it here
is the weed and feed products. There was an ad in the paper the other
day which included 7 different lawn fertilizer products. Only one of
these did not have herbicides in it. Some of the bags had big
Atrazine labels. Every bag, however, was label "Put the contents of
this bag on 5,000 square feet (or so)". No mention of weight of
contents of the bag. State law makes them put the numbers on the bags
for N-P-K content since it is a fertilizer, an agricultural product.

Soil nutrient chemistry is a lot more interesting and fun that that.

Rusty (on a soapbox) Mase

Victor M. Martinez

08-03-2003, 02:23 PM

Rusty Mase > wrote:
>What is a problem here and Victoria has something posted about it here
>is the weed and feed products. There was an ad in the paper the other

Agreed. However, I would thing that folks that go through the trouble of
reading a forum like this one, or listen to the radio shows on the weekend
or watch CTG on PBS really are not going to go and buy these products.
Ok, raise your hands those of use who use these things?
Anybody?

>Soil nutrient chemistry is a lot more interesting and fun that that.

Indeed! We just planted our 4-inch tomatoes into temporary 1-gallon pots
using Vortex soil, some organic fertilizer, some mineral mix, and dry
molasses. We then watered them with seaweed solution. We'll see how they
do. This is the first time we've started tomatoes this way (we also have
some seeds in 4-inch pots).

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

animaux

08-03-2003, 03:22 PM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:07:39 +0000 (UTC), (Victor M.
Martinez) wrote:

>Agreed. However, I would thing that folks that go through the trouble of
>reading a forum like this one, or listen to the radio shows on the weekend
>or watch CTG on PBS really are not going to go and buy these products.
>Ok, raise your hands those of use who use these things?
>Anybody?

My garden is most likely going to be filmed for Central Texas Gardener in June
of this year. I have to determine when I feel it's at peak. I was floored when
the offer was made. I'm so excited I can hardly believe it.

Here is a link to some photo's at times during the growing season.

http://home.austin.rr.com/animaux/newgarden/Page_1x.html

This little website (I'm computer illiterate) was thrown together so my mother
could see the gardens. I do plan to fix it and make it more informative. I'm
also writing a book with a working title of "When North Moves South."

I find the most exasperating problem is when people move from piney, moist
forests with 50 inches of rain and up, in acidic soils with available nutrients,
then try to garden in our soils which are the complete opposite.

I will only be writing about my experiences, not making any claims to be a pro
or expert, just a simple gardener, as H.H. The Dalai Lama always says, he's just
a simple monk! I think he is much more humble than I :)

Victoria

Victor M. Martinez

08-03-2003, 06:34 PM

animaux > wrote:
>My garden is most likely going to be filmed for Central Texas Gardener in June
>of this year. I have to determine when I feel it's at peak. I was floored when
>the offer was made. I'm so excited I can hardly believe it.

Cool! You'll enjoy Linda and her crew. She's a bit of an oddball, but she's
very sweet and easygoing.

Cheers.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

Terry Horton

08-03-2003, 11:37 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:10:57 +0000 (UTC), (Victor
M. Martinez) wrote:

>>Yes, but it while it may be toxic levels, it is not toxically available unless
>>it is met with other elements.
>
>It is not available, period!

Well, yes and no. :-) Phosphorus is in constant flux in soil (a
single atom of phosphorus could be available and unavailable to the
plant several times a day). Roots hairs exude acids that solubilize
nearby phosphates.

>While there might be an excess of phosphorous,
>that doesn't mean plants don't need bio-available phosphorous to thrive.
>Our plants respond great to bone meal. I'm sure if we test our soil it would
>be high in phosphorous.

I don't see where more P can ever be a solution to high P. At some
point the owner has to begin the process of removing more phosphorous
from the soil than is being applied, or suffer increasing problems
from P in the long run.

One interesting question (at least to me :-) is why is there so little
bioavailable phosphorous in the first place. My own conjecture is
that it may be due to the impact of our soil cultural practices on
root mycorrhizal fungi.

Almost all plants in nature maintain and have evolved to take
advantage of mycorrhizal associations (myccorhiza - symbiotic soil
fungi that provide water and minerals to the plant in exhange for
sugar and protein). A primary mineral made available by mycorrhizae
is phosphorous.

Conversely mycorrhizal colonization and growth are inhibited by even
high-moderate soil phosphorous (and a number of other nutrients and
lawn/garden chems). Applications of P can even kill plants with
established mycorrhizal relationships. So as we use more and more
exogenous P the soil flora continues to decline, and natural soil
cycling of P decreases. The plants become largely dependent on
frequent high doses of externally applied P. Fe and Z soon become
unavailable, so we supplement those too. On and on...

Perhaps an effective treatment for high P would involve removal of
grass clippings and leaves followed application of a low-P organic
fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizers and compost (which tends to be
poorly analyzed but in general relatively high in P) would be avoided.

Terry Horton

08-03-2003, 11:50 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:26:54 -0600, (Joe Doe)
wrote:

>You are partially correct (& practically correct). Phosphorous is
>generally found as a precipitate because it precipitates with Aluminium
>and Iron at acidic pH ranges and with Calcium in Alkaline pH ranges. So
>under many common soil conditions it will not be mobile or available.
>Because our soils are so alkaline it is generally found as a calcium
>precipitate. If you do suceed in moving the pH to neutrality with sulfur
>more phosphate becomes available but it is unlikely to ever really
>runoff.

Phosphorous is generally associated with surface runoff rather than
through percolation.

OTOH a relatively fast moving, dilute P solution formed during a storm
event over porous soil offers a higher likelihood of phosphorous
runoff than that posed by normal irrigation rates. Since phosphorous
is rate-limiting for O2-depleting algal blooms even a few percent
runoff is significant,

>The fact that phosphate levels are of the scale is widespread: for
>example in the book Gardening In the Humid South (written by two retired
>Louisiana State Horticulture researchers one of whom has expertise in soil
>science) they say this is also true for all measurements made in
>Louisiana. They make the same point that you do: even though the
>Phosphate is off the charts, that does not mean it is available. They
>recommend side dressing. They approach this reluctantly because the
>phosphate sources are not renewable yet do come down on the side of adding
>some.

It strikes me as rather like maintaining an addiction that you know
one day you must kick or it will get you in the end.

Do they propose a turning point - some method by which the overuse of
phosphorous fertilizers will be reversed and soils restored?

Terry Horton

08-03-2003, 11:56 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:48:17 GMT, animaux >
wrote:

>>Compost should not be used on soils where phosphorous levels are known
>>or suspected to be high.
>
>Why?

Compost's chemistry is generally poorly quantified if at all, and its
phosphorous content can be quite high. This is standard Aggie soil
lab recommendation.

Joe Doe

09-03-2003, 01:44 AM

In article >,
(Terry Horton) wrote:

>
> Phosphorous is generally associated with surface runoff rather than
> through percolation.

That is true. But then it is also a problem of managing erosion/land
management.

>
> >The fact that phosphate levels are of the scale is widespread: for
> >example in the book Gardening In the Humid South (written by two retired
> >Louisiana State Horticulture researchers one of whom has expertise in soil
> >science) they say this is also true for all measurements made in
> >Louisiana. They make the same point that you do: even though the
> >Phosphate is off the charts, that does not mean it is available. They
> >recommend side dressing. They approach this reluctantly because the
> >phosphate sources are not renewable yet do come down on the side of adding
> >some.
>
> It strikes me as rather like maintaining an addiction that you know
> one day you must kick or it will get you in the end.
>
> Do they propose a turning point - some method by which the overuse of
> phosphorous fertilizers will be reversed and soils restored?

I actually think this "overuse" of phosphate fertilizers story is not the
only issue. It is also a land management issue to minimise surface
erosion. It appears that there is plenty of phosphorous already in many
soils (not applied).

For example, the extension at Nebrasca Lincoln says: "Nebraska soils are
generally well supplied with phosphorus. Total phosphorous content
average about 4700 pounds phosphorous pentoxide per acre for each foot of
soi. Assuming a root zone of six feet, most Nebraska soils contain about
28,000 lbs of total phosphorus as phosphorous pentoxide. If our crops
could use all of this phosphorus we would have a 500 year supply for
growing 150 bushels of corn per acre each year. Unfortunately, only a
very small amount of this total phosphorus supply is available each year
because it must undego weathering before it becomes available to plants.
Even with 28,000 lbs of total phosphorus present in the root zone,
phosphorus may be deficient for maximum crop yields." (found at
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/soil/g601.htm).

Incidentally this PDF (http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uc162.pdf)
has a nice picture of the distribution of areas in the country with high P
and addresses many issues of management.

What all this ignores is the practical problem of dosing a plant with
phosphorous (even in the presence of a lot of bound unavailable
phosphrous). This returns us to the book: What they actually recommend
doing is applying phosphate as a band. This is the most effective way of
using phosphate because you minimise the soil to phosphate interaction
area (it will only interact at the edges and a core area will not be in
contact with the soil. This ensures that only the material at the
boundaries becomes unavailable because of soil interactions while the rest
continues to be available. All that has to happen is a root has to find
the band and then it can mainline enough phosphorous for the whole plant.
This is similar to old garden advice of putting bone meal in a planting
hole -i.e. you put it where you want the root to find it. The opposite
way of applying phosphorus is broadcasting where in fact the soil to
phosphorus contact area is maximixed,

The book is written in a style where two old codgers are debating how to
do things: In general it is relatively superficial because it is wide
ranging. They are not overly dogmatic over too much: for example they
describe fertilization practices for a lawn and then say they themselves
do not do what they recommend - they say they fertilize every other year
or so because they do not particularly care about their lawns and do not
want to mow or water often and so limit fertilizer.

Despite the light treatment of many topics, they raise other interesting
points:

1) Predatory insects as a control mechanism cannot work too effectively,
because if the prey levels fall too much the predator will move to greener
pastures. They say fire ants are the champion predators (much better than
ladybugs etc.) and if you could find a way to live with them, you would
have a tick and flea free yard!!

2) Raise the possibility of mulches having allelopathic effects:
strawberries mulched with hay yield considrably less than those mulched
with a synthetic mulch. I have since done a search and confirmed
literature exists on allelopathic effects of various mulches. This shows
the world is more nuanced than the genrally held view that mulching only
does good.

Roland

animaux

09-03-2003, 08:10 PM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:33:46 +0000 (UTC), (Victor M.
Martinez) wrote:

>Cool! You'll enjoy Linda and her crew. She's a bit of an oddball, but she's
>very sweet and easygoing.
>
>Cheers.

Great! I stand there in the barren garden of winter and see every single thing
wrong, nothing right! I suppose I'm a typical gardener who is never content.
I've been pruning and pulling and xplanting and shaping and, well, you know the
work of early spring.

I did see bees and wasps and lacewings and the lizards are moving faster and the
pond is starting to green up with foliage, the echinacea is peeking up and life
is good.

Victoria

animaux

09-03-2003, 08:10 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:52:50 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:48:17 GMT, animaux >
>wrote:
>
>>>Compost should not be used on soils where phosphorous levels are known
>>>or suspected to be high.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Compost's chemistry is generally poorly quantified if at all, and its
>phosphorous content can be quite high. This is standard Aggie soil
>lab recommendation.

I rarely follow aggie instructions, nor do I always trust their methods...being
a land grant University and all.

I've been a gardener all my life and nothing has ever been more viable to soil
structure and texture than compost. I'll stick with my own findings.

On the other hand, finally the aggies came to the conclusion all of us organic
gardeners have known for decades that, slow release organic fertilizer is
superior to any and all other forms of synthetic fertilizers. They don't force
feed and make turf dependant, but they add OM to the soil which feeds organisms
which make available elements which otherwise would be tied up in the soil.

Thank you FINALLY Texas A&M.

Victor M. Martinez

10-03-2003, 03:32 PM

Terry Horton > wrote:
>Well, yes and no. :-) Phosphorus is in constant flux in soil (a
>single atom of phosphorus could be available and unavailable to the
>plant several times a day). Roots hairs exude acids that solubilize
>nearby phosphates.

And the same acids are readily neutralized by the soil. I'd agree there is
a state of flux, but I'm guessing the overall balance remains neutral.

>point the owner has to begin the process of removing more phosphorous

If the P available is not bio-available, then the plants will suffer from
lack of P. But you know this.

>from the soil than is being applied, or suffer increasing problems
>from P in the long run.

So how do you propose dealing with the fact that the P in the soil is not
available for plants to use? Acidify the soil? That ain't gonna work.

>Perhaps an effective treatment for high P would involve removal of
>grass clippings and leaves followed application of a low-P organic
>fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizers and compost (which tends to be
>poorly analyzed but in general relatively high in P) would be avoided.

I fail to see how that would make existing P available for the plants. Am
I missing something?

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

Terry Horton

10-03-2003, 05:20 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:38:11 -0600, (Joe Doe)
wrote:

>In article >,
(Terry Horton) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Phosphorous is generally associated with surface runoff rather than
>> through percolation.
>
>That is true. But then it is also a problem of managing erosion/land
>management.

Hopefully not a big issue for most home gardeners. :-)

>Incidentally this PDF (http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uc162.pdf)
>has a nice picture of the distribution of areas in the country with high P
>and addresses many issues of management.

An impressive little publication. I've saved it to my HD. Thanks.

>The book is written in a style where two old codgers are debating how to
>do things: In general it is relatively superficial because it is wide
>ranging. They are not overly dogmatic over too much: for example they
>describe fertilization practices for a lawn and then say they themselves
>do not do what they recommend - they say they fertilize every other year
>or so because they do not particularly care about their lawns and do not
>want to mow or water often and so limit fertilizer.
>
>Despite the light treatment of many topics, they raise other interesting
>points:
>
>1) Predatory insects as a control mechanism cannot work too effectively,
>because if the prey levels fall too much the predator will move to greener
>pastures. They say fire ants are the champion predators (much better than
>ladybugs etc.) and if you could find a way to live with them, you would
>have a tick and flea free yard!!

Green lacewing adults feed on nectar and pollen. Providing food
sources during the adult stage encourages them to stay put. And you
can always re-apply. ;-)

Fire ants? Ever see the movie "The Naked Jungle"? :) A cure worse than
any disease.

>2) Raise the possibility of mulches having allelopathic effects:
>strawberries mulched with hay yield considrably less than those mulched
>with a synthetic mulch. I have since done a search and confirmed
>literature exists on allelopathic effects of various mulches. This shows
>the world is more nuanced than the genrally held view that mulching only
>does good.

This has been understood for many years. Don't most mulches lose their
allelopathic effects with age?

Terry Horton

10-03-2003, 06:00 PM

On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:07:25 GMT, animaux >
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:07:25 GMT, in austin.gardening you wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:52:50 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:48:17 GMT, animaux >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Compost should not be used on soils where phosphorous levels are known
>>>>or suspected to be high.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Compost's chemistry is generally poorly quantified if at all, and its
>>phosphorous content can be quite high. This is standard Aggie soil
>>lab recommendation.
>
>I rarely follow aggie instructions, nor do I always trust their methods...being
>a land grant University and all.

One aggie pest control seminar I attended should've been titled "How
to Become a Superfund Site". :-) I left with an arm-length list of
chemical pesticides, with hardly a mention of an alternatives.

But there's a sustainable gardening wing at aggieland universities
too. Remember that our Texas Master Gardener and Texas Master
Naturalist programs are out of TAMU. Benny Simpson, Skip Richter,
Jill Nokes to name a few... all Aggies products. The fellow that held
the lecture on high P soils was recommending Sustane (this was
pre-Ladybug :-).

>I've been a gardener all my life and nothing has ever been more viable to soil
>structure and texture than compost. I'll stick with my own findings.

Whatever works for you.

>On the other hand, finally the aggies came to the conclusion all of us organic
>gardeners have known for decades that, slow release organic fertilizer is
>superior to any and all other forms of synthetic fertilizers. The y don't force
>feed and make turf dependant, but they add OM to the soil which feeds organisms
>which make available elements which otherwise would be tied up in the soil.

Whether or not this applies to you in Round Rock you'll have to
determine. Organic gardeners (like me) who live on high-moderate P
soils (>100ppm or so) can not turn away from the devastating effect on
soil mycorrhizae referred to earlier. Mycorrhizal association is an
_integral part_ of the physiology of most of the plants we grow.

Reducing nutrient input to help grow soil organisms that will extract
those nutrients for you.... organic gardening doesn't get any more
cool than that.

Terry Horton

10-03-2003, 10:00 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:20:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Victor M. Martinez) wrote:

>Terry Horton > wrote:
>>Well, yes and no. :-) Phosphorus is in constant flux in soil (a
>>single atom of phosphorus could be available and unavailable to the
>>plant several times a day). Roots hairs exude acids that solubilize
>>nearby phosphates.
>
>And the same acids are readily neutralized by the soil.

And more is exuded. Plant roots actively maintain a lower pH
microclimate in the rhizosphere. In fact the zone immediately around
the roots is quite different from the surrounding soil. Sugars,
enzymes, amino acids, lipids, all manner of compounds are "oozed" into
the adjacent soil.

Plants are not just passive recipients of whatever is in solution
around them. They in effect chemically "mine" surrounding minerals,
and feed other organisms in return for a supply of water and minerals

>I'd agree there is
>a state of flux, but I'm guessing the overall balance remains neutral.

Depending on where it and how it was measured... an plug of our soil
would show a pH of 8-9. A few microliters next to the root tip might
be 1.5-2 points lower.

>>point the owner has to begin the process of removing more phosphorous
>
>If the P available is not bio-available, then the plants will suffer from
>lack of P. But you know this.

Are you seeing evidence of P deficiency?

>>from the soil than is being applied, or suffer increasing problems
>>from P in the long run.
>
>So how do you propose dealing with the fact that the P in the soil is not
>available for plants to use? Acidify the soil? That ain't gonna work.

Anything that produces hydrogen will temporarily acidify the
*immediate* soil microclimate. But sulfur, etc. aren't the answer
imho.

It's a tough deal for west Austin. We all wish there were win-win
answers, but there aren't. At this point the best recommendation is
to use low P, slow release organic fertilizers like those already
mentioned in this thread.

>>Perhaps an effective treatment for high P would involve removal of
>>grass clippings and leaves followed application of a low-P organic
>>fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizers and compost (which tends to be
>>poorly analyzed but in general relatively high in P) would be avoided.
>
>I fail to see how that would make existing P available for the plants. Am
>I missing something?

It's well established that even low level of P fertilizer reduce or
eliminate mycorrhizal activity. One of the most dramatic effects of
mycorrhizal colonization is increased P uptake, which they take from
the large pool of "unavailable" P.

animaux

10-03-2003, 10:57 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:00:26 GMT, (Terry Horton) wrote:

>But there's a sustainable gardening wing at aggieland universities
>too. Remember that our Texas Master Gardener and Texas Master
>Naturalist programs are out of TAMU. Benny Simpson, Skip Richter,
>Jill Nokes to name a few... all Aggies products. The fellow that held
>the lecture on high P soils was recommending Sustane (this was
>pre-Ladybug :-).

I didn't know that about Jill Nokes. I do know the Grow Green program and it is
getting there, slowly.

>Whether or not this applies to you in Round Rock you'll have to
>determine. Organic gardeners (like me) who live on high-moderate P
>soils (>100ppm or so) can not turn away from the devastating effect on
>soil mycorrhizae referred to earlier. Mycorrhizal association is an
>_integral part_ of the physiology of most of the plants we grow.

I have a mixture on our land. Some is very calciferous and caliche, some is
black, but friable, then there's what I call "the goo!" I garden accordingly.
We are on the same page regarding mycorrhiza. I've been using it for several
years now. On plants which benefit, I use some on the roots at planting time.
I mixed the soil once, when we first bought the house. I'm very gentle on it
now so I don't disturb the fungal mat I've created. Have you ever watched the
series with David Attenborough "Private life of Plants?" I bought the
collection on VHS some years ago. I've yet to see anything remotely close to
showing the world how plants work and how phenology represents when.

>Reducing nutrient input to help grow soil organisms that will extract
>those nutrients for you.... organic gardening doesn't get any more
>cool than that.

Agreed.