Are you wondering why the raised bed pH is higher than the native now? Likely because compost tends toward neutral, so it has balanced your acidic soil a little bit (5.7 to 6.2 is not that much but certainly helps).

What are you growing in the 'native soil'? Lawn, trees, shrubs, or more vegetable or flower gardens? Clearly it's low in organic matter, and you can see what the amendments have done to your raised bed soil. What you can do and how much kind of depends on what you are planning for the rest of the yard.

Any reasonably balanced fertilizer will work, it does not have to be 10-10-10 because things are not that precise. The 3-2-2 would work fine, or 12-12-12 or 13-13-13, both of which I have seen.

Note that your P and K are high and very high in the amended soil, so you can slack off on the P and K additions. You may find that with regular compost additions (1/2"-1" per year), you don't need much fertilizer at all. P and K are less mobile than N and will stick around and build up more than N. If things grow well, no need to worry about it.

Even the native soil is high in P already so I'm not sure why they are recommending balanced fertilizer in the first place. The main thing I would concentrate on is improving organic matter content in the native soil in other areas of the yard. 4% is good, above 10% is more than you really need, 1% is very low. Compost would provide some of that NPK as well as organic matter.

Who did the soil test?
That "recommendation" to add 2 pounds per 100 square feet is quite common for most every soil test I have seen in the last 50 plus years and can easily be ignored.
The amount of organic matter in the raised bed is a bit low, that could be closer to 6 to 8 percent. The amount of organic matter in the "native" soil is typical of what I have seen and is quite low. Better would be something closer to 6 to 8 percent organic matter.

terrible, no? the P and K are already high, but they suggest to add more. A soil like this is perfect for dried leaves in Fall and urea during the growing season, and nothing else. Bury or till the leaves to improve tilth.

The first thing you want to do is - understand the soil test in an E Z format as most explanations are of an academic nature and complicated. Taking it on a line by line you note that there is no reading for nitrogen - reason - it's a gas and is most of the air that we breath. It is unstable, volitizes and leaches with rain. Second is phosphorus - it is totally imobile and MUST be tilled in. The third is Potash/Potassium which leaches, but it's slow. Calcium is really a major, but is listed as a micro/minor. The others, from manganese to boron are all micros and the word "suff" usually applies. It does not appear that you requested the soluble salt test (an extra cost) and therefore there is no reading. S.S. will only be high (usually home gardens) where there has been excessive fertilizer application/an indication of very poor drainage in larger fields.

Of all the indicators on a soil test the Ph is the most important. The value needed for growing the majority of veggie crops is between 6.8-7.2 as it is in that range the most of soil nutients become available to the plant roots. (an exceptions is potatoes which like a 5.2.-5.5 range and should be grown separately).

The organic matter is the result of organic material that decays and eventually becomes humus, becoming free fertilizer late in growing season (depending on locale) from around April to Sept. A reading of 1-3% in native or untouched soil is normal and the figure can go as high a 10 in home gradens due to augmentation. To simplify what it means in value you take the SOM figure X 10 = lbs of Nitrogen per acre becoming available late season. Remember - fertilizer is based on 100lb weight and a 50lb bag of 10-10-10 is really 5-5-5. Divide you SOM result by % of your garden sq.ft against 44,000 sq.ft. to get exact amount.

The rest - CEC, base saturation,Acidity, Buffer index is hardly understood because it gets explained in "rocket science" term. This is the E Z version.
Think of it more as a car battery - The acidity is the electrolyte. The CEC the charge ability. The buffer index how many amps. The figure that you get for CEC means how MUCH nitrogen the soil will HOLD - again this is over 1 acre and must be converted. If you have a figure of 5 - it's 5 X 10 = 50, and if you put more on - it does NOTHING but cost you money. The buffer index relates to how fast the soil's Ph can be changed, i.e. 6.6 is the high end and a lime/sulfate application to move the Ph will take the most time. 6.0 means a lot less. Base Saturation does not have to add up to 100% and the ideal range of Calcium is 65-85, Mg. 6-12 and the K you want up to 5+ if growing corn. It's an indicator of plant strength to resist wind. The calcium/mg relationship becomes important with tomatoes as if in given ranges you will not get blossom end rot.

Do test as it saves money and gets better production - and always remember that PHOSPHORUS DOES NOT LEACH AND MUST BE TILLED IN - This little detail is one of our greatest water polluters as the stuff runs off in the first heavy rain. While here - for those using organics - make sure your fertilizer is composted at least 4 months to allow for any pathogens to die.

All good but I have one question about your last paragraph: If P does not leach, why does it run off in the first rain? I assume you are referring to soluble fertilizer and that is probably the case. I doubt P derived from bone meal or compost would be as quick to leach away or run off, correct?

Excellent question. P - period - will run off. I appologize for length but there is no short layman version to the answer.

Let me start with the soil itself - it has 3 parts - sand (not beach), silt & clay. the 1st is comprised mostly of quartz crystals, the second what geology calls the feldspars (salts,sufides,oxides) which are minerals in decay form. clay is formed by the decay of the formers. Quartz is magnetic and so are the oxides of lodestone (iron) for starters. To keep this simple the soil has magnetic properties.

The soil test varies between 70-90% accuracy depending how YOU take it and all results (when paid for) contain a designation of "CEC" for cation exchange capacity. Within the CEC are cations and anions which are +/-, like a car battery or the magnets on your fridge. When you bang jumper cables together - you get spartks. When you try to put opposing ends of the fridge magnets together - they repell. What is shown in chemistry models of all those neat round balls hanging off each other is for visual display and what is shown in Nano Tech machine models is more like the real thing. Everything is not round. The phosphous ion aligns itself in an opposing mode to that of the soil well above 90%, and although water soluble, it remains in opposing mode. As such, most will run off given a heavy rain. Some will make the correct polar attraction and leach, but its a minor amount and will take years. Runoff will be worse on slopes.

Reference that this happens can be found at Chesapeake Bay pollution, Denmark & fertilzler and the Army Corps of Engineers fiasco on the river that ran into Okeechobee where the spent 100 mil to straighten only to pollute the lake & everglades. Took 300 mil to put it all back.

Best I can do and hope it answers - can't do anything about the earth's magnetic field.

P.S. if you did try to look this one up, I am near positive you coundn't figure it out. Don't wonder why there is a problem.

There is research that finds that Phosphorus in soil leaches and contributes to the algae blooms in lakes as much as the P that is in runoff or from manure piles. That is one of the reasons many states pro9hibit adding P to soils without a soil test report that shows a need for P.

kimmq is kimmsr

I would like to point out that I am doing "generalzations" based on consensus of present soil science - and trying for a manner that E Z to understand. There is research that claims P can leach down as far as foot in 18 days. There are claims that GMO's are harmful, yet 30+ years of evaluation by both pro and con have found nothing factual. Stevia was kept off the U.S. market for over 10 years because of "causes cancer" that were purely over money. Sweet & low did not want any more competition.

In short - we live in both the information and mis-information age. If you wish correct information - go CHECK. " That is one of the reasons many states pro9hibit adding P to soils without a soil test report that shows a need for P."

I was not aware of any pertaining to agriculture and if YOU go LOOK you will find that it applies to TURF - AKA LAWNS. Since the 1970's fertilizer has been sold as LAWN FERTILIZER and all sold has a middle # of 0 or 2 at most. This was a "quiet" Federal EPA move made to reduce water pollution in a deal with the fert.makers. I'm quite old and N.J gave away soil tests in that era (free) in an effort to get people to stop putting a 50# bag of 30-20-10 on a 3-400 sq.ft. lawn twich a year. Yup, most P pollution has been from lawns.

While here I would like to help on the orginal post - Allyn - get out the phone book, look under county government for "extension office". Sounds like your in Va and every county has one. Call them, tell problems and they will likely set you up with the extension agent or a vol.master gardener (like myself). Every one also has a large info rack on near everything.

Other good tool are the NRCS Cornell soil health site (key in first 4 words in search) and the NRCS soil survey (open and hit green button) (that site also should have a NRCS sign up/whatever your interest survey provision that allows you free government info on preferred subject. You can also get on the instructional webinar list out of U. of N.C.

First, a few clarifications. Phosphorus will, indeed move, but only when soil levels are VERY high. More commonly, phosphorus bound to soil clay particles moves when clay particles move due to erosion. When soil is washed into streams and lakes, phosphorus goes with it. In general, phosphorus compounds are not very soluble and they stay put in the soil. The phosphorus levels in your bed and native soil are high enough that you probably won't get a benefit from adding more, unless you are growing in cold soils (P is taken up more effectively in warm soils). The potassium level in the native soil is low, and you should add more. Everything else looks good. ph is not an issue. The buffer index is only used to calculate lime requirement and since you don't need lime, this is not of much interest to you. Depending where you are, the 1% organic matter in the native soil may be low or it may be normal (this would be low for Wisconsin, high for Arizona).

The major nutrient you need to manage is nitrogen, and soil tests for nitrogen aren't very useful . Figure that you need roughly 1/2 lb N per 1000 square feet each year. That's AVAILABLE nitrogen, not TOTAL nitrogen. For fertilizers, they're the same thing. For organics, particularly aged organics like compost, only a few percent of the total nitrogen may be available each year. It will be higher for fresh manure, perhaps 50% available in the first year.

Az - very good, except you are not talking to me - my soil test is near on the money. There are exceptions to near everything and all I am doing is providing generalized aka "ballpark" information. Although it can, the % factor for P moving around from means other than run off is low. Like Arthur C. Clarke said "further research is required" to make a different argument. I prefer to try to make this as simple as possible with the best answers in that vein. To hit everyone with soil science and try to convey that it runs with magnetisim, bacterial and mycorrhizal functions and the clay nodules that you mention just keeps all running with Mr. Murhpy's "too many facts confuse the issue" in the difficulty to comprehend. I have no intent in getting too far into environmental issues either.

Things change in time - 40 years ago in geology hot spots were considered fantasy land - today accepted. Perhaps there will be changes in how we look at P - but they are not here yet.

I agree with your assessment of P loss, but it's not that complicated (no magnetism involved) and I think it's easier to learn things if you understand what's going on.

OK - I'll buy that. I have put up at least 3 other posts dealing with soil and in one I give the base saturation amount of 65-85 for Calcium and 6-12 on Mg. as ideal ranges. I did not explain why?

Would you care to tell me your version? Must be in E Z format. (I can, but did'nt bother as I did not feel that's all important to know)

I disagree with you on no magnetisim - the entire soil system uses - why would they test for CEC - they are cations and anions just like the cathode and anode of batteries and the entire system works in a similar fashion with the planet being the battery. Trying to explain anything that involves electric usually gets viewed as akin to voodoo, yet we can't do without it.

First CEC: CEC has nothing to do with magnetism, but with electrical charge (two completely different things). As you suggest, like the cathode and anodes of a battery, NOT like the north and south poles of a magnet. Most clay minerals carry a negative electrical charge due to their crystal structure. This charge is balanced by positively charged soil ions, or cations. CEC is a measure of the amount of negative electrical charge of a soil.

Back to base saturation. Exchangeable cations are sometimes divided into two groups - acidic (aluminum, hydrogen, iron) and non-acidic (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium) which are sometime erroneously called basic cations. The percentage of the CEC filled with acidic or non-acidic cations is closely related to soil pH. Other than that, it has little meaning. There was a theory called the base-cation saturation ratio theory (or BCSR) that claimed the ratio of cations important to plant roots and that soil tests should be interpreted based on BCSR. This was long promoted by William Albrecht and was popular 50 years ago. It has since been clearly demonstrated that plants do not react so much to cation ratios, but to actual concentrations. Some test labs still cling to this approach, but it has been thoroughly debunked in numerous studies. There's actually a pretty good explanation on wikipedia that might be of interest.

That being said, some nutrients do interact with one another. A well-known example is potassium and magnesium, which compete for the same root uptake sites. If one of these nutrients is very low, excessive levels of the other can exacerbate the problem. If both are in adequate supply, however, the ratio between the two has little impact.

Very interesting discussion. I was simply asking wildbill to explain the apparent contradiction in the post about runoff. As a PhD environmental chemist, I already knew some of the chemistry.

In short, P is generally less mobile than other major nutrients because of the incredibly low solubility of its salts such as calcium phosphate that form, and the strong adsorption of (negatively charged) phosphate to (positively charged) clay surfaces (if you have clay). I did find an interesting writeup on P behavior in soil, if anyone is interested:

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/156/3/997.full

It's kinda heavy on chemistry though.

I still think it's incorrect to say that P 'does not leach and must be tilled in'. Much of the granular fertilizer P is potassium phosphate which is rather soluble. I've actually put bone meal on the surface around fruit trees that weren't blooming, and the next spring, I had flowers and fruit. And it does after all end up in waterways as kimmsr is fond of saying.

Good lord!! Those are not simple answers -

Taking one at a time -

Az - you did not answer the elemental question of whether a ratio of 65-85 Ca to 6-12 mg is ideal,ballpark or anything else? You seem to infer that it's a worthless piece of information period. Ok, my explanation - if I put you in a room that is 7' high and 4X4 ft - fill room with basketballs to over your head.

Can you breath? you should be able to. If I fill the same room with sand? The Ca ion is a lot bigger and the Mg ion a whole lot smaller. If the mix is screwed up too far the soil gets COPD. Your plants roots do not breath well and your crop suffer. I do note that you say this is out of date and this "theory" has been debunked for over 50 years. Hmm! why does all labs keep doing such a waste of time?

I know you will reply - answer tommorow. (you won't like it and it will prove difficult toyour position)

Tox - would like to know who employs you as what you say does not match up well with mainstream thinking. Believe what you want but there are only two ways something broadcast can move - either electrical impluse or gravity, and as we THINK gravity has an electrical relationship, we go back to square one? Using the magnetic thinking I am sure there are rare instances when the poles are right between soil and P and it DOES move, however it's not the normal and surely not often. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but suggesting this to be a normal/usual situation is likely bad information to most.

Hey guy's - I don't have any credentials, just the normal hoomin so I must be all wet.

Since it appears that we have stopped this banter over the movement of P and any other readers now have 3 different approaches to look over, I would like to go back to my original thought - provide info to others.

Two items that sometimes come up lacking in soil tests are Mg. and Boron and you can buy these at commercial ag. stores in the form of micro's (bagged) OR - you can go to Walmart or your grocer/CVS/Walgreens. Epsom salts will do the Mg. @ about 2lbs to 2,000 sq.ft. Twenty mule team borax will do the boron. Best to mix into a bag of compost/top soil and toss it over ground by hand. Don't try to mix either/both with fertilizer as it just sinks to bottom of spreader. Both leach.

For the sake of clarification - I don't believe there was a general agreement on Ph in the 6.8-72 range and the K portion does leach - although slowly. Nitrogen remains tacky but if you want to try for an idea - buy one of the cheap rapid test soil test kits and follow instructions (put lid on sample container when you add water as it will keep results a tad better). I don't think results are any better than 70%+ side, but it's a starting point. I use these and find the other parts to be consistently close to that of lab.

Of course the original poster here had a Mg result as VERY HIGH and Boron as SUFFICIENT. Since boron in particular is toxic to plants if the concentration is too high, it would not be something the OP should be adding. Just to be clear.

As to my 'unusual' thinking, it is basic soil chemistry and has little to do with my employer (a state environmental agency). I learned it in grad school. Solubility of a single salt in water alone is related to the Ksp of the salt. A mixture of many cations and anions, interacting with ion exchange sites on the surface of soil particles as well as solid precipitate forms of numerous possible salts, is an extremely complex system that would require computer models to predict (for example, dissolved concentrations) with much accuracy. And yet we can still make some basic statements, such as that *most phosphorus salts found in soil are *relatively immobile. Electricity and gravity are involved, but the way you are describing these systems comes across as rather bizarre and confusing and is certainly not 'mainstream'. I mean no offense but I don't see how it is helping the OP interpret soil test results.

Like I said --doing generalizations - I mean no offense either but what you are running by me is similar to is Cornells "simplified" version of CEC,et.al. We little people on the other end have big trouble with it. For the sake of it the 65-85 basketballs and sand is not mine but that of the Hefty Bros of AgPhd website & both are Dr.in agronomy.(with near a Mil$ fertilizer bill they better know what their doing)

Yes, boron will become toxic to plants but it takes a LOT, like a few pounds in 3 sq.ft. It will also burn plant leaves if thrown around when plants are growing. I know this from experience as it's U.Mich's ground ivy killer and I feel it's less work to dig&pull as their sprayer idea needs constant shaking and jams left & right.

I have given some thought to bone meal and since I know this is an "oldie" like wood ash and out of wide use since the 1920's I plan on getting some and see if it indeed will leach the P factor in. Intend to select a plant, dig 4" conical hole and take soil sample from bottom and use the home rapid test on P level. Write down result. Thereafter take bone meal and apply to same area, cover with mulch and re-test 6-8 months later. Seeing is believing & you might even be able to confirm if you have similar soil near where you made application?

WildBill

65-85 Ca to 6-12 mg is a huge range - big enough to be essentially meaningless. Yes, it's in the ballpark but, again, the plant cares more about the actual amounts than the ratios. Yes, some test labs use it, but just because some people believe dinosaurs and people lived at the same time doesn't make it true. You (and the test labs) can easily look up numerous studies that show this approach doesn't work. It's 50 years out of date. I can give you references if you so desire.

By the way, in a liquid environment (as in soil), ions like Ca and Mg are hydrated, meaning they are surrounded by water molecules. The size of hydrated Mg is GREATER than that of hydrated Ca. So, no - in soil Mg is not a whole lot smaller - it is BIGGER. This is why Mg is more easily leached from soil than Ca.

High levels of Mg in soil DO NOT inhibit root respiration. There is no evidence of this in the scientific literature.

"boron will become toxic to plants but it takes a LOT, like a few pounds in 3 sq.ft." This is almost 30,000 lbs per acre. It will fry everything. Be careful with boron. The difference between deficiency and toxicity is small. A few lbs/ac can kill sensitive plants. NEVER apply boron unless it is needed.

That depends. The university of Wisconsin finds Boron deficiency to be quite common in Wisconsin, but the difference between a deficiency and a toxic level is quite small.

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/B_Basics.htm

kimmq is kimmsr

I would like to thank all for your input as it has helped me fine tune what I need to explain. To Az - if you did not read 1 st reply on the 65-85. If this is 50 years out of date than the Hefty bros are doing quite a nice job of turning this bad info into money. They run 28,000 acres, various smart phone apps, a tv show, a radio show, teach across the U.S. and foreign and have a large following that also makes money in ag. They do 200bu.corn and 60+ soy and both are Phd agronomists. Their fert.bill is close to 1 mil. The figures on the ratios are theirs. Whatever way you like it's a fact that you do not get lodging (corn/sunflower) with K# above 5.

Yes they are. Bernie Madoff made lots of money too. And no, neither one has a PhD in anything.

Been doing some extensive reading & stand corrected. It looks more like our understanding of gravity than anything else which means that about the only thing stable when it comes to soil/test is the Ph value. This is as bad as organic/conventional - lots of claims, but beyond that? On the Hefty's - would not put with Bernie as there are way too many independents using methods & getting + results. Maybe they know something and I do know they do a lot of trial/error? As you have said - Albrect? This looks more like take one's best guess and if it works - stick with it. Thanx.

START with your best guess, but be willing to change your mind when the data don't support your first guess.

Soil tests vary in their reliability. Soil pH, EC, organic matter, exchangeable cations, nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorus are all pretty reliable. Interpretations are more challenging and must be based on field research, not dogma.

Thanx, but aware of all that. Quite old, been at it for years and also adept at all areas of preservation and many old methods of avoiding pests. Use best methods I can find. What amazes me in this discussion is that an item that has been researched for over 100 years does not have definitive answer and the prevailing one sure does not look apoltical. We hold these truths to be self-evident has meaning as one has to DIY and check results to believe. Getting as bad as our politics where it's choose the lie that suits you best.

Again, Thanx - eye opener.

wildbill - if you want to learn about soil test recommendation philosophies, and objectively evaluate the efficacy of base cation saturation ratios, here is some reading material. There may be a definitive answer if you're willing to look for it.

Soil cation ratios for crop production, http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/soil-and-plant-sampling/soil-cation-ratios/

Base Saturation and Basic Cation Saturation Ratios—
How Do They Fit in Northern Great Plains Soil Analysis?, http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/ppinews.nsf/0/7e7ab207f19b210a8525702a0067dc63/$FILE/Soil%20Analysis.pdf

Nutrient Ratios, Sufficiency Levels, or Both?, http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/ag/nutrientdigest/2013-spring.pdf

THE ADVISABILITY OF USING CATION BALANCE AS A BASIS
FOR FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS, http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wcmc/2004proceedings/Kelling1.pdf

Effect of varying Ca: Mg ratios on yield and composition of corn (zea mays) and alfalfa (medicago sativa), http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00103627909366885#.VPyPqPnF9Xs

Soil Calcium: Magnesium Ratios and Lime Recommendations for Cotton, https://www.cotton.org/journal/2005-09/2/upload/jcs09-065.pdf

Az-very interesting, but I think I have this quite well figured out. For the home gardener with a mixed bag of crop - it's all worthless

The item that caught my attention was your reaction to the figures I put up from Brian & Darren and the comparison to Bernie. When compared to the ref. for Wiki, and the information that it contained, the figures varied.

What I see - the base sat. MAY be of value, but only to specific crop. All the research was on a singular and certainly did not take into account all the possible variables but all came up with a 60-80Ca./0-20mg. Where did the Hefty's come up with 65-85 and 6-12? I am guessing that it may be the figures for corn & soy as it's fairly far off the academic consensus and if so, it had to be obtained by trial & error. Maybe they know something? Whatever the case as I grow corn,lettuce,cukes,tomatos,sweetpotato,chives,peppers,onions,tobacco,& on occasion, others - it's useless on my part.

In June I am 24 years retired and my only goals these days are to TRY to get some of the local small part time farmers and hay field people to stop tossing money. These people do not do any kind of testing and do as "been doing". Yup, the guys doing hayfields & pasture use 19-19-19 and the other bcast AFTER they till. I use the heading " you are tossing money" and nothing else.

It does get some attention - skeptics abound.

Again, thanx for the followup but it's been my results in my backyard that has gotten the initial attention. Garden is 3,000 sq.ft.