1) Every ingredient that you listed for the Fox Farm soil is extremely fine. Since water retention is dependant primarily on particle size, you should expect a medium made of all fine particulates to be extremely water retentive, something I try very hard to avoid in containers. 2) You can read about soils and how durable soils that remain well-aerated long after peat/compost-based soils have collapsed can offer a greater margin for grower error and make things much simpler for the grower if you follow this link. 3) Not necessarily, but if you think about it, what will you do if your pH falls outside the favorable range? Start adding acids and bases to change it? In commercial situations, pH is usually tested frequently and adjusted by injecting a wide variety of chemicals that have elements plants need into the irrigation water. Since pH is affected by temperature, fertility, plant material, moisture level, even time of day (Plants help to control the pH in the rhizosphere to make it easier for them to uptake nutrients. This effect is reduced when plants are undergoing periods of reduced transpiration, which in turn has an effect on pH.) I'm not saying that because I ignore trying to control pH that you should, but I've never found it necessary to fret about it in any container planting. I might consider the plant prefers acidic conditions and forgo the use of lime and maybe use a urea-based fertilizer to take advantage of the acid reaction, but other than that, I don't worry. Remember that Media pH is far less important in container media than in mineral soils, and if you're supplying nutrients in soluble form, unless the pH is WAY outside favorable limits, your plant will be able to assimilate the nutrients. You can find considerable discussion about this in Dr C Whitcomb's work, "Plant Production in Containers II". 4) On average, plants use about 6-10x more N than P. Since the P in NPK is not a true measure of P supplied (P is reportted as the % of P2O5 [phosphorous pentaoxide]) you need to use a multiplier of .43 to tell the actual amount of P. In 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers, there is 7x as much N as P, so you actually have a considerable cush in 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers. Plants use roughly the same amount of nutrients throughout the growth cycle in relation to N, so I'm not sure where the idea they need larger doses of P during flowering/fruiting comes from. Tissue analysis of fruits and blooms show roughly the same levels of P as other plant organs, which meshes nicely with the idea that consistent P levels at approximately 1/6 that of N are entirely adequate throughout the growth cycle. I actually don't boost K by adding the ProTeKt, I reduce the amount of N, which also must reduce the levels of P and K. Since I can see by my plants that what I said above about P is true (also confirmed in the text cited above, which is essentially the Bible on container production) and P levels remain adequate at reduced application rates of 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers, I only need to be sure plants are getting adequate K. I can do this by incorporating some potash in the soil when I make it in anticipation of the reduced N applications for tomatoes, or simply forgo the increase in TDC by supplying it later as needed by using the ProTeKt. Al

When comparing soil analysis results across labs there is another issue that needs to be considered, and that is the nature of the analytical method employed, even when extractions solutions (e.g., Mehlcih, Bray-1, etc) are the same. In the recent past the method widely used in soil analysis was a colorimetric method. A soil extraction solution, after filtration, would be reacted with a series of standard reagent solution, a color would develop based upon the amount of orthophosphate in the extraction solution, and based upon the color the amount of P would be determined. In recent years many labs have converted from the colorimetric method to the use of inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP). In this method the filtered extraction solution (same as the one used for colorimetric determination) is analyzed directly. ICP shows the not only the orthophosphate that colorimetery shows, but also any other form of extraction soluble P, such as some of the organic-based P (e.g., phytin, phospholipids, etc.) that may be present in a soil. Hence ICP methods typically report higher levels of soil P than does colorimtery. In soils with high amounts of organic matter the difference can be substantial (more than 50% difference). What that leads to is different levels of what constitutes high or low levels of P in a soil is based upon the method. This leads to different crop response calibration curves for different methods. I just looked this morning and found out, to my surprise, than MN still uses the colorimetric method for determination of P in soils. Hence MN's levels of P that correspond to low vs. high will be noticeably lower than those used in TX, for example, that uses ICP. Converting from colorimetery to ICP, and developing new crops response curves is not a trivial matter as explained in the paper linked below. While challenging, many soil labs have made the change. MN has not. Here is a link that might be useful: SERA-17 P in Soils by ICP vs. Colorimetry This post was edited by TXEB on Sat, Sep 14, 13 at 12:55

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) is a measurement of how certain nutrients (Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, etc.( are held onto by the soil particles and/or organic matter in the soil. Clay soils and soils with high levels of organic matter tend to have higher CECs then do sandy soils. At 0.32 percent your HM, soil humus level, is quite low and I would suspect your soil is compacted which hinders plant root development. I would concentrate, right now, on putting down materials, compost and other forms of organic matter, that will help bring that up to open up the pore spaces between the soil particles so the plants roots can move around and thicken the turf grass easier. Blood Mea is tricky to use since the Nitrogen is so readily available it can easily burn and plant. Here is a link that might be useful: About CEC

Sure headmotty, NP. I'll give it a shot here. Feel free to ask for any clarification. Before we start, fight the urge it get adjustments done ASAP and in one shot. Keep in mind that it is best to make changes slowly. This avoids imbalances in the soil and stresses to the turf and gives the amendments time to work their way into the profile. Especially true when changing pH. Also keep in mind that there are maximum yearly/per app amounts that should be made for the various amendments, however this is not an issue for you. The method: 1. Determine the amount of phosphorous in P2O5 needed to reach your goal. In your case you selected 200 lbs/acre of P2O5 as your goal. Your test reports a current value of 106 lbs/acre. Your soil is 94 lbs/acre of P2O5 short of your goal. 2. Calculate the amount of P2O5 needed for 1000 sq feet by dividing the needed/shortage acre amount by 43.5. 94 lbs/acre shortage divided by 43.5 = 2.16 lbs/k of P2O5 is needed to reach our goal of 200 lbs/acre. 3. Determine the amount of potassium needed to reach your goal. You've selected a goal of 300 lbs/acre of potassium. Your test reports a current value of 198 lbs/acre of potassium (K). Your soil is short 102lbs/acre of K and 102lbs/acre of K is needed to reach your goal. 4. Calculate the amount of K needed for 1000 sq feet by dividing by 43.5. 102 divided by 43.5 = 2.34 lbs/k of K (potassium) is needed to reach your goal of 300 lbs./acre of potassium. Caveat: What follows is only true for NPK fertilizers. It is not necessarily useful for the use of SOP, MOP or TSP (sources of pure potassium or phosphorous fertilizers). 5. Make the numbers match: The test reports P as P2O5. NPK fertilizers report P as P2O5. We're good with the numbers matching up. The test reports K as K, but NPK fertilizers report it as K2O. Need to convert. To convert K to K2O, we need to divide K by .83. So, 2.34 lbs/k of K divided by .83 = 2.81 of K2O. 6. Determine the total amount of N to be applied and the number of application of fertilizer to be made this year. This will depend on the type of grass and, as NPK fertilizer contain N (nitrogen), the recommended N schedules for the grass in the lawn. (e.g KBG: 4-5 apps Memorial Day, Labor Day etc.) However, as a one time off situation, we can digress a bit. We could add an extra 1/2 N app on May 1 or add the 1/2 app for July 1 or August 1 or both, etc. We want to avoid applying when the ground is frozen or within 6 weeks before the ground freeze or at the peak of summer or we cpuld cram 5 N apps into 4 by applying 1.25 lbs in each of 4 apps. Just to make this more complicated, it is best to spoon feed by applying an app every 2 weeks rather than all at once. 7. Once you determine the total annual N amount you wish to apply, divide the P and K amounts by that total N amount to find your ideal NPK ratio. Example: Assume 5lbs/k of N is your desired annual N amount. Divide 2.16 lbs of P2O5 by 5= .432 Divide 2.81 lbs of K by 5 = ..563 So your ideal ratio is 1:.432:.563 Round off as fertilizer only comes in whole numers, I suggest rounding down, as you can always add more and it's impossible to take it out of the soil. So, 1:.4:.5 (1 nitrogen, .4 P and .5 K), 10-4-5, about 15,-6-8, 20-8-10, about 25-10-12, 30-12-15, etc. Shop around. For 10-10-10: For every 1 lb of N, you'll apply 10 lbs of product. 10lbs of product times 10% = 1 lb of P2O5 will be applied. You only need 2.16 lbs of P2O5, so 1.16 lbs of P2O5 left to apply to reach the target. One more app and you should quit or you will go over. For K, 10 lbs time 10% = 1 lbs of K2O has been applied. Target is 2.81 lbs of K2O, so 1.81 lbs K2O left to go. Still need two more apps to slightly exceed our goal. For 10-20-15: For every 1 lb of N, you'll apply 10 lbs of product. 10lbs of product times 20% = 2 lb of P2O5 will be applied. You only need .16 lbs of P2O5 left to apply to reach the target. Slightly under. No more apps needed. For K, 10 lbs times 15% = 1.5 lbs of K2O has been applied. Target is 2.81 lbs of K2O, so 1.31 lbs K2O left to go. Another App will moderately exceed your K goal, but immensely exceed your P goal. Remember, these are ranges. Trying to be exact if somewhat futile, but we need something to guide us. It's up to you to decide how much over or under your target is acceptable, but do stay within the guidelines and try to accommodate spoon feeding. If you get P within around 200 + or - 20 to 30 (an addition of 1.6 lbs of P2O5) and K anywhere over 220 (that would take only an addition of .6 lbs of K2O), you're in great shape. The wild card, unfortunately, is that lime. Look for something with a lower P (second number). That way you can make up any P shortage with a starter fertilizer. (kind of a mix and match approach.) The lower the overall numbers, the more you can spread it out with spoon feeding. Does that make sense? If not, ask away.