Re: the excessive boron levels, the attached link may be helpful. At least to understand the possible reasons and ways to mitigate. FWIW, the author is associated with the leading soil testing lab in this area.

I can't offer much help with the zinc but I might want to investigate the irrigation water available. Both boron and zinc can be found in high levels in water depending on source and runoff. Have you tested your water supply?

Here is a link that might be useful: Boron

It's important to know where you are. If you live in Boron, California, then the culprit might be God.

When you say you're going to add gypsum to balance out the potassium and magnesium, do you know how much to add? Did your soil test include a salt balance test?

gardengal48: thanks for the water idea; I shall check it out. I water from a well; I didn't water this year, but used lots in prior years.
dchall: 1. I live in southeast Michigan; what does this say to you? 1. The lab recommended 750#s, which I translate to 1 3/4 #s per 100 sq.ft bed. But if they hadn't, I might just have had to work it out from the base saturation percentages. 3. No salt balance test -- it's unusual here. Now I think about it, I need a little more salt because this year's tomatoes tasted a little bland. I hope these answers give you a clue on the boron and, especially, the zinc. Regards, Peter.

What is the level of organic matter in your soil?

kimmsr: 7.8%. Does this suggest an approach to the problem? Regards, Peter.

I used to live in a town with excessive boron in the well water, which was brutal for some plants. Nothing helped except not planting certain plants. OM levels made not one iota of difference.

Dan

There are some studies out there that indicate adequate levels of Organic Matter in soils help keep plant from uptaking some nutrients that are too high. I'm thinking there might be something about that in "Building Soils for Better Crops" but at 241 pages that may take some time. I'm also aware the there are studies the appear to dispute that contention but those I have seen did not have adequate levels of orgnaic matter in the soil.

Here is a link that might be useful: BSBC

Davis, CA may have one of the highest ratios of LArch/horticulture:laypeople in the U.S. Boron is a big problem in that town.

The diligent efforts of the hippies in the domes, the successful gardeners in their homes, and the findings in the tomes find no relief from boron by adding OM to the soil. Unless there is something very new that I missed.

Dan

Adequate levels of organic matter in soils is known to tie up, bind up, excess Aluminum, buffer your soils pH, and do other amazing things so while I've not seen anything specific about Boron there is no reason to doubt that asequate levels of OM would not also tie up that micronutrient.

there is no reason to doubt that asequate levels of OM would not also tie up that micronutrient.

Sure there is. I explained a specific case above. To reitierate: despite the wish of some, excess boron in the soil is not ameliorated by the efforts of a legion of talented, knowledgeable gardeners addiing OM in a place with high boron in the water.

One must also define "adequate", as the OP's soil cannot be considered as having an inadequate OM %age, yet there is a B problem.

Dan

When researching this question initially, I seem to recall reading about a relationship between boron and OM. Interestingly, it was included in the link I provided earlier :-)

In mineral soils, release of boron is usually quite slow. Much of the available soil boron is held rather tightly by soil organic material. As organic matter decomposition occurs, boron is released with a portion being absorbed by plants, leached below the root zone area (especially in high rainfall/acid soil areas) or tied up (unavailable) under alkaline soil conditions.

So if I am interpreting this correctly, boron IS bound by OM but as that OM decomposes, the boron is released. It still does not indicate that adding OM will ameliorate the problem of excessive boron concentration, only perhaps delay its release and uptake.

Interestingly, between 2005 and 2009, soil organic matter increased, while boron ppm was unchanged. Does anyone know anything about zinc, which worries me more? Regards, Peter.

That is because OM does not really buffer B, as it is an ~easily exchangeable anion. Again, I used to live in a place that had high B in the water and many plants suffered, and adding OM never helped in that place.

You won't like your plants responding to B toxicity, but you are correct that Zn could be a bigger problem. What is your pH there?

Dan

Check out this Rutgers link. The excesses do have bearing for those plant sensitive to the toxicity effects. Phosphorus levels, pH and use of leaf compost have potential to aid in adjusting. If good drainage exists then a period of heavy watering may leach excesses; a strong likihood that a lot of other nutrients would leach in the process. Certainly no easy solution.
Good luck.

Here is a link that might be useful: Micronutrients

Okay, stupid question from a newbie who wants to learn:
Why would excess levels of zinc and boron be bad?
What would the effect be on plants?
What are natural sources of these two minerals?
TIA!

A little too much Boron in the soil can cause plants to die, that is why some people mistakenly suggested spraying some "weeds" with Borax without understanding that the excess Boron would poison the soil those "weeds" were growing in.
Too much Zinc in the soil can cause plants to not be able to uptake, or properly utilize, Iron and Magnesium.

Excess levels of any of the plant macro and micronutrients can be bad - nutrients in excessively high levels affect the plant's ability to access and assimilate other nutrients, so the plant suffers in health and vigor. Often, too high levels of one nutrient will bind or make unavailable other nutrients. Excessive levels of some may also encourage insect and disease problems. That's why you will often see cautions that over- or improper fertilizing can create more problems for plants than under-fertilizing. There is an optimum range of nutrient concentrations that plants require to grow well and produce fruit or flowers - too little will affect growth as will too much. That's why it is a good idea to have at least a base soil test done to see what those current nutrient levels are and how you may need to adjust them. Different plants will react to lower/higher levels of specific nutrients differently and again, results of soil tests will recommend appropriate levels depending on the types of plants you intend to grow.

This is a bit of an over-simplification......nutrient management is a rather complex subject and there are many other factors that can come into play as well - soil type, soil pH, irrigation water quality, etc. - but generally home gardeners do not need to over worry this issue. Peter's situation is somewhat unusual :-)

I've included a link to an extension service tutorial that explains nutrient deficiencies and toxicity rather well. Keep in mind that it may be addressing very regional soil conditions as a variable and recommendations may be swayed accordingly but the basic info is sound.

FWIW, both boron and zinc are naturally occurring minerals found in all soils, usually in some sort of chemical compounds or ore. Boron tends to be a rather uncommon element and is typically present in very low levels.

Here is a link that might be useful: nutrient management

I didn't see the link above describing B toxicity. Our plants would have burned leaf edges and eventually abscission, poor flowering, stunted growth and low vigor overall. I've never seen Zn toxicity except where we made it in the lab.

I remember a tupelo outside one building that was stunted and never turned a good fall color, and several perennial spp. that always looked ratty and rarely flowered.

Dan

I've seen zinc toxicity a few times, but only in nursery containers. Although I've never seen it happen with zinc at less than 150 ppm or a pH of greater than 5.2.
Boron toxicity can be tricky. Some of the common symptoms you're describing Dan, are right on the money but the tricky part is where they show up. Boron is immobile in many plants and in those cases, toxicity symptoms will show up on older growth. But it's mobile in other plants and will show up on new growth.
It's also funny because it can cause copy-cat symptoms like small spots of necrosis that drop right out of stone fruit leaves and looks a whole heck of a lot like "shot hole".
I don't really have a point so I'll stop typing now.

Some of the common symptoms you're describing Dan, are right on the money but the tricky part....

You are kind enough to write about my excess boron, not excess moron. ;o)

Dan

The information you gave was 100% right. I just felt like tacking a little moron.....uh... more on.

Sorry buddy, you bumped and set so I had to spike. It's the law of the internet. ;P

Sorry buddy, you bumped and set so I had to spike.

Had I known an emoticon for bump & set, I'd have typed it.

Dan

Dan: you asked about pH: it's 7.3 on the basic test and 6.8 on the available test. Does this suggest anything to you? (By the way, I never understood why there would be more hydrogen on the available test than on the basic test. Why on earth [sorry about that] would this be?) Regards, Peter.

Interesting excess, and likely a result of your geology. Had a quick look at a hydrology map and note the prominent presence of clay and silt.

The OM% appears within the suggested range for clay soils. What was reported for your CEC (cation exchange capacity) and specifics under Base Saturation?

Were there any specific nutrients rated as high or low?

It is interesting to compare soil test reports and the influences of regional soil differences, rainfall, etc. It is also noted that differing testing methods provide diverse results. You really need a vast knowledge of soil sciences to make heads or tails of some tests; and the lab methods.

Generally boron one of the leached trace elements. An excess would suggest that a subsoil drainage block. It is unlikely that any simple remedy will answer.

More details of the total analysis report may guide my thoughts and research.

Dan: the report is a bit long to relay in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
c.e.c: 21.1; K: 4.1%, Mg: 17.6%, Ca: 78.3%.
Nitrate: 80, Ammonia: 4, available phosphorus: 460 lbs.
S: 24, Zn: 20, Mn: 37, Fe: 66, Cu: 2.5, B: 4 ppm.
Three points: 1. this isn't a clay soil; we are on the border between clay and sand, so we have a nice loam. 2. Re. your geology point: what concerns me is that zinc has increased, from 15 four years ago. 3. Although the base saturation numbers look fine, remember the high c.e.c., which means the potash (818 lbs.) is really in excess.
Do you supose that the increased zinc more likely came fron granite dust, rock phosphate, kelp meal, or city compost -- all of wich have been appled from time to time, but certainly not every year. Regards, Peter.

Peter, I really find this a challenge and intrigued in most soil science investigations. The revealing of zinc increase and boron excess are surprising since most often in reduced supply as trace elements. I fear that there may be local influences beyond control. Likely a deposit or input source feeds into the ground water; natural soil solution percolation brings it to surface waters. It may be something your local extension services can give answer to.

A potential remedy is negated by your provided data. An agronomy library article "Calcium in Soil" in the 'interaction' section indicates that high soil calcium inhibits boron uptake and utilization. Your CEC calcium is above suggested percentage range range and likely (unidentified in analysis) also high. The input source increases seem less at fault unless applied in high excess or applied too often. Ground source seems most likely.

It is noted that you did not indicate toxicity symptoms in you opening post. Could it be that the analysis alone has pointed out the high zinc and boron? Perhaps the high OM% and calcium are working at limiting the B uptake.

The high CEC (21.1) is tied to higher clay component and K+ cation prominence in the available potassium level.

You may be better served in understanding the total nutrient picture by speaking with a local expert.

Thanks for broadening my appreciation of soil analysis results in different regions.

One thing to find out regarding the Zinc is has there ever been any lead mining in your area. I seem to remember a small part of Michigan had mines. If you are in that area then zinc occurs naturally with lead.

I have no clue what is meant by "basic" pH vs. "available" pH. I've never heard of pH reported that way. Are you sure it's not active and buffer?
Either way, zinc at 20 ppm is nothin' I tells ya, nothin'. Even if your active acidity is 6.8, zinc could be at least 5 times that and you would be fine.
The boron level may or may not be a problem, depending on where that number came from.
4.0 ppm measured in saturation extract = bad.
4.0 ppm extracted via Mehlich 3 or DTPA = may not be a big deal.
It's the soluble boron that will give you problems, which gets picked up in saturation extract. Boron that you measure after pulling it off the exchange sites of the colloids with a more aggressive extraction, but does not go into solution readily won't result in toxicity problems for plants. However, both soluble and insoluble boron will show up in the Mehlich 3 and DTPA extract. Hence the "may not" be a problem rather than "It's for sure not a problem".

And just a side note: I'm betting that your active pH is the alkaline number because your base forming cations add up to 100%. If the soil was even slightly acidic, then at least some of the exchange would be occupied by hydrogen and, naturally, the base forming cations would add up to less than 100%.
Also, you can get a rather high CEC in a loam or sandy loam with lots of organic matter. I'm not saying that's the case here. Without actual particle distribution data, It's impossible to know the clay content. I'm just sayin' is all.
On a side - side note: granite dust, kelp meal and city compost are all potential sources of zinc. It's impossible to say the zinc addition of any one of those without an analysis since zinc content can vary in all of those sources.
You also mentioned zinc increased over the years. By how much and was zinc extracted the same way in both tests? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges (see above).
I only ask because it might be worth finding out where the zinc is coming from if there really is a big increase happening. But allow me to reiterate, based on your current chemistry, you don't have a zinc problem.
Okay, I'm done now.

I say again, this isn't clay soil: indirect evidence, c.e.c was 10.8 1n 2000, and is now 21.1 -- the increase can only have come from added organic material. The zinc readings are from the same tester: A&L Great Lakes. And there wasn't lead mining -- this is Bloomfield Township, for those familiar with the area. Thanks for all the suggestions though. Regards, Peter.

Hi All, but wouldn't a folliar test prove out any zinc-boron excess? A&L probably does that test too. Proof's in the pudding they say. My 2 cents. Best regards to all.

c.e.c was 10.8 1n 2000, and is now 21.1 -- the increase can only have come from added organic material.
Okay, I'll buy that.

You never said how much the zinc increased or how it was extracted (again, this is just for giggles because I guarantee you don't have a zinc toxicity problem). I'm also still wondering how boron was extracted. It should say on the data sheet what method was used or the lab can answer that question. It makes a big difference in how the data is interpreted.
Pagardner - yes, if there are symptoms showing, tissue analysis is a good way to confirm whether or not those or other elements are an issue. However, the OP hasn't mentioned any problems with plants. Without any symptoms, I wouldn't spend the money testing healthy tissue collected from plants that perform well. It's also pretty easy to get tripped up with tissue analysis. All of the reference data is based on particular tissue collected at a particle point in development. If you get the wrong tissue and compare it to the reference data, it can look like you have excesses and deficiencies that aren't really there.

gargwarb: zinc inceased to 20 ppm from 15 four years ago. I should comment that all my mineral levels are high (does anyone else have 6600 lbs of calcium?); I don't plan to add anything except gypsum (does that contain zinc?) for a while; and I shall compost all weeds and crop residues as normal, but not use the compost myself. Regards, Peter.

wow. reading these posts i just got a lesson in chemistry that made my head spin. thanks guys, as I did understand and learn a few things though!

I wouldn't worry about an increase from 15 to 20 ppm. In fact, remember that you are testing a handful of soil to represent tons of soil and there is variability throughout. You could collect two samples from the same planter on the same day, send them in, and get 5 ppm worth of variability in zinc between the two, just because no soil is uniform.
As far a calcium goes, I'm assuming that 6600 lbs. is "per acre", which would be 3300 ppm. That's really not unusually high. However, you don't need any more. I mean, heck, it's taking up 78% of the exchange. Also consider the fact that you just added a bunch of calcium with your lime applications. Lime isn't super soluble and will dissolve very slowly, acting as a slow release calcium source for quite some time.
Which brings me to gypsum. The primary benefit you get from gypsum is more calcium. If I were you, I'd save my money and effort and not add it until there's a need.

gargwarb: about calcium, sorry I didn't make myself clear; I certainly don't need any more calcium, but I do want to reduce potassium and magnesium, so I push more calcium onto the colloid to knock off those two. This is based on a notion (possibly mistaken) that "base saturation" means that the colloidal soil particles are always fully occupied -- with something. Regards, Peter.

You're actually correct about all the exchange sites being occupied. Your idea of knocking cations off with other cations is also a good one.
However you already have a total calcium to total potassium ratio of 8 to 1.
A lot of people get very worked up and say that the nutrients always have to be "in balance". Others get very worked up saying that the balance never matters as long as everything is present at sufficient levels. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. But, by anyone's standards, you have plenty of calcium for nutritional purposes and to balance potassium. What is your total magnesium value?

Peter, what has been the outcome of all this since a full growing season?

I just had several plots tested at umass (saturation) and getting some more done at a different lab (mehlich 3). Boron is very low around here, as makes sense with well-drained soils. One field tested zero. My home garden has very high P, Ca and Mg. K is a little low. Zinc is 7.3.

A soil workshop I am attending says that B should be a lot higher than generally recommended, in fact most of the traces tend to be too low they say, especially manganese which should be 80-90 ppm. Sulfur should be higher than the land-grants recommend, really everything except N which tends too be far too much applied.

Just to drive one quick point home, lot's of people think about what they are or not adding to their soils with very good intentions and forethought, that's great. However, based on what I have read in many posts since first joining GW, few people give any thought to their irrigation water, big mistake, have your irrigation water tested or, if it is a municipal source, get a free copy of your water's analysis from your municipality. Water quality can even differ vastly from wells a matter of feet away, make no assumptions.

And lastly, be grateful you don't have my soil/water/arid climate combination, it can be a real pain in the hind end. I spent part of this afternoon shoveling snow from the area outside the orchard to the tree's drip lines, it really is that bad!

pnbrown: no observable difference in results, but I do think I have gone overboard on traces. Regards, Petr.

pnbrown, I do not know anything about high boron levels, so no post on what is or what should be.
I have learned more then I will every need to know about high level of boron, hopefully.
One mor..on question.
Did raised beds with OUT surface soil mixed in, help the problem?