i look to section one.. and focus on the below optimum ...

i would ignore the farmers CROP info ... i dont see you in your 50,000 pound john deere tilling 1000 acres ....

and fert has nothing to do with ph ... adjust that otherwise ...

i think.. my grain/farmer store.. offers a 6/12/12 ....

and i THINK.. that is what i would go for ...

but that is gut reaction.. i am sure some science type peeps will come along with a better analysis ... i just know whats commonly available..

btw ... whats erc?? ... in my burn pile post ...

and also.. what failure are you seeing in your garden ??? those facts might help ... or i missed them ...

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: link

Most of the universities are still operating under twentieth-century paradigms. They left the cec section blank, so that tells me right there that they are set up for low organic crop soil, trying to push yield. But those ferts talked about bring on disease pressures. It's like shock treating a pool. They suddenly alter the milieu in the soil, and a recovery time is necessary. I never spank my dirt, I know that if I keep the milieu fairly stable, and slowly work it as an ongoing project, it performs in a superior fasion. Fine screened compost is the go to procedure in my book, and get a test again next year and don't worry about it with that kind of soil of yours. Observe the plants, forget about the data for a minute and look with your own eyes. Data gives the wrong information when it is not interpreted right. I've been hard core organic for about five years, my motto is "at first, do no harm"...and.. "pay attention to the plants first, the university, later". On big areas, simple alfalfa meal, maybe a tiny bit of seweed or rock powders but your soil can improve itself without drastic procedures...just gotta have the zen thing goin' fer ya...

Mackel

What I meant to say, is they never mention carbon, or what range your cec is in, or even pretend to advise on how to influence the microflora which heavily influnece uptake of npk and do the work fer ya...

Mackel

Hey John,
EC=Electrical Conductivity
ECEC=Estimated Cation Exchange Capacity

Really not anything you need to worry about, and those numbers are affected by your nutrient numbers anyway.

Glad I checked in this morning. For #4 at the bottom, they are doing the calculations for you, and have already adjusted down for the fact that many people do not have acres. they just use crop, because most of the samples they process in Marianna (where you test was done)are for crops. S.O. says they are gear toward general garden, and not anything specific. Says you are pretty low in Phosphorus and you really need potassium. The problem is that you are probable going to have a hard time getting just potassium (muriate of potash) today. But the 13-13-13 will help, just not complete the job. And in case you don't know, or someone reading this doesn't know, the 13-13-13 means the fertilizer is by weight 13% nitrogen, 13% phosphorus, and 13% potassium. Also note that the pounds of each fertilizer they give you is for 1000 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet per acre. S if you have 2.5 acres you are going to treat, you will need:
(43560 X 2.5)= 108,900 square feet
108,900/1000=108.9 * 8 pounds = 871.9 lbs of 13-13-13 fertilizer.

Looks like you got a chunk of work ahead of you today. Basically, do what you can today. If you just use 13-13-13, you will help everything, but the potassium will still be low, but much better than what it has been. When the next weather system comes around, finish the job. Your trees will appreciate the improvement, and you will be mowing more as well.

Arktrees

Well, I guess we don't all agree. But this is a forum about trees... And I'm from the camp, if you got to fertilize a tree, ya planted the wrong one. Life should be good, and life should be easy. Especially in the garden. The usda states that excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur kills mycohrriza. The tortoise beats out the hare in the long run and the data is just becoming overwhelming that this is the case. I have no real motive to change anyone's mind, but if I had more energy, we could get into a hundred post thread on the subject and everything I'd offer ya'll would be peer reviewed.

Mackel

Ain't gonna do it, nope, gonna head out to the bamboo grove and see I cain't round me up some frog legs fer breakfast, and Gday to Everybody.

Mackel

mackel.. i really want to know what this means: I never spank my dirt

ok and good for you.. lol ...

i can not fathom why ANY tree would ever need any nitrogen ... especially if you mulch your lawn clippings ...

and that is why i suggested the mix with less nitro ... otherwise.. its just a version of 12-cubed .. which is insignificant when compared to 13-cubed ...

but lets be very clear... IMHO ... no tree ever needs to be fed ... if so .. you planted the wrong tree ... as noted ... and at that point.. its not really FOOD issue ... its soil management.. which would not really be about fertilizer.. it would be soil amendments ... as in the requisite needs of a rhodie .. etc ...

ken

"Below optimum" simply means that for imaginary crop plant A, more of that nutrient could be utilized by the plant. It doesn't necessarily mean the plant is having any real difficulty. And nitrogen is nearly always sub-optimum in any system. But that again does not mean more N needs to be applied. Plants have evolved to operate across a continuum of nutrient availability. Were it not so, they wouldn't be covering the planet.

Additionally, the middle number on a bag of fertilizer is for phosphate, not phosphorus. So for the stickler, it is a certain percentage of that amount which is actual phosphorus. Also, the type of nitrogen source in a fertilizer can indeed affect soil pH. Ferts. containing ammonium and/or urea as their primary N sources tend to drive pH downward while the nitrate form does the opposite.

I reiterate-from another thread-that such information is next to useless in such cases. What are the nutrient needs of the black walnut tree in your hypothetical yard? Who the heck knows? Or the Japanese yew? Or the willow tree? Or the magnolia?

In the end, you're probably better off with an approach similar to Mackel's. Increase your organic matter content and you will nearly always see an improvement in plant performance. Isn't that the goal?

+oM

FWIW, I agree with working on the soil biology as well as the nutrient levels. And not using fertilizer if possible is desirable when possible. The problem is that the soils we are working with are rarely "natural". They are horrible abused during construction and the topsoil is almost always stripped away and sold. Therefore there are many things that must be fixed, and the biology and nutrients are only two of them. In these cases adding fertilizer is no different than adding mulch, or anything else. That is as long as you are not using excess. I use nothing I don't have to, and those I do use I am very careful about. So under natural conditions the trees planted are complete suitable, but due to the construction, they would fail to thrive. In my particular case, the soil was sooooo poor, that almost nothing would have grown and that includes any grasses. Therefore there would be nothing to mulch, no clippings to put back, and nothing for the biology, and no nutrients added back to the soil. After 5 years, my soil is loaded with insects, earthworms, drains much better, holds much more water, much more organic matter, and the mulch breaks down in weeks, and our plants are very well. All of which says I have done very well with the biology and the nutrients.

Ultimately what I advocate is a "balanced" approach. I advocate using organics (Milorganite, mulch, etc) combined with chemical where necessary. Along with limiting the use of pesticides as much as possible. Those that are used, are not persistent. Just my $0.02.

Arktrees

Thanks for all the input so quick everyone.

Mackel, I do appreciate your info. When I collected our samples, I made sure to get some dirt from very good black soil and I also got some samples from areas that the topsoil was removed during construction to get a sample of the subsoil. That is were the limiting soil nutrients made a large impact on the results I think. The black soil must be deficient, too of course.

I am getting decent growth out of most things planted. Some oaks doing 2-3+' a year, red maples doing around 2'. But some of the trees I have planted in the poor looking soil are not flourishing the same and I think it is nutrient deficiency. I do mulch the grass clippings back into the lawn but 3 years since I started doing that (this was formerly pasture land) the soil doesn't look much different at all. I think adding screened compost to the soil is a great idea and I will consider doing that in the fall to the rest of the yard either with a little fert or by itself. Today, I am just fertilizing around the trees and a little beyond the dripline.

Ken, ERC is Eastern Red Cedar from your bonfire topic.

Ark, I forgot you had the soil chemistry hook up! Tell your SO thanks for me =)

Don't want to start a debate on everyone's day off! Enjoy the hotdogs and hamburgers everyone!!!

John

Also I want to be clear. What I have stated is my opinion. Other approaches certainly have merit. I like allot of what Mackel says, and his statements would certainly help the soil biology, which would do nothing but good. I also like that Ken does not use anything he doesn't have to for whatever reason's he chooses. I have no doubt that both approaches have worked well in their respective cases. As with all of our discussions here, there is no one simple answer, and you have to keep your head in what your doing. You have to understand the what, the why, the likely results, and the desired results. There is no ONE way.

Arktrees

Ok, a couple more replies were added while I was typing. Perhaps pictures would help. I took these about 5 minutes ago. The soil that had been exposed after bulldozing looks like this 4 years after it was dozed. And yes, part of the sample came out of the middle of this part of the yard.

{{gwi:355015}}
By jp_42_82 at 2012-05-28

Now this little triflorum needs a little better soil to root into wouldn't you agree? I would say this of just about any tree some insane homeowner wanted to put there.

{{gwi:355016}}
By jp_42_82 at 2012-05-28

And here is a nuttall oak I planted spring of '11 and still grew 3+' and is currently around 2' or so and extending up and out. The soil here was not touched by the dozer and looks real nice when dug up and exposed even almost a foot down.

{{gwi:355017}}
By jp_42_82 at 2012-05-28

And yes, there are large mature trees out back there you see that probably were not fertilized their whole lives and are doing just fine. I just want everything to establish in well with good watering, some mulch, and all soil biology needs met.

John

Also just for clarity's sake, I am by no means advocating a purist approach of any sort. I use fertilizers when I deem them useful for a given situation, and I find that doing what I can to increase the biological health of the soil is always good.

The problem of stripped soils in modern day construction is a bugger: Everything needed for healthy plant growth has been removed. Fertilizer can be a part of the solution in these cases. Like Ark has shown us, in time, even very poor soils can improve, just by reason of the plants that are growing there shed biomass into the system which in turn boosts the prevalence of microorganisms. For an example, just consider some go-to-hell section of one of your local parks. Very likely, any inputs into that stand of turf are extremely minimal, yet the grass is green and growing quite well. This is because the roots of that turf have been shedding parts into the soil and dead or cut leaves have been recycling into the soil for years. Just doing nothing, the site will improve over time.......if there is at least something able to grow there!

+oM

mushroom compost, if you can get it. Start composting your veggies, leaves, and such, especially coffee grounds. I read this lately--take your veg, blend them w/ water and use that as a regular fertilizer. Soil looks really compacted. Can you till it up, then dress in the compost?

I would get even more opinions by going on the compost and mulch forum. No disrespect to anyones answers here. I know less than anyone who has given info, but there are people with lots of info specifically about soil health and fertility. They push the Organic Ammendments on there too.

Ummm..... Never mind, I see you've tried that already.

While we often admonish against amending the backfill soil for new transplants, or any program for that matter which modifies the tiny zone of soil right around some plant or group of plants, if you can amend the entire area-basically, the whole yard-with good quality compost, whatever its source, you are doing a good thing. Organic matter is virtually always in short supply in most modern, stripped soils.'

+oM