A couple of basics of soil test interpretation:

Soil test labs commonly report results in ranges: "low, medium, high" or "below optimal, optimal or above optimal" or "deficient, sufficient, and excessive." They all state the same thing and the deficient, sufficient and excessive is probably the easiest terminology to wrap one's head around.

Over years of testing, soil scientists have determined a range of soil nutrient amounts that will result in the "best" plant growth. They classify this range as sufficient (or optimal or medium), meaning the addition of nutrients may improve plant quality/harvest, but it is not likely. Levels are classified as deficient (low or below optimal) when the addition of nutrients is very likely to improve quality/harvest and classify as excessive (or high or above optimal) when additions are very unlikely to result in improved plant quality/harvest.

In most cases excessive nutrient levels do no harm to the plant. It just means your soil has plenty and, in most cases, additions will serve no purpose or may be environmentally damaging. There are, of course, exceptions. For example: Excessive Al. in low pH soil (<4.5), Boron amounts >5, or Zinc levels in excess of 100 ppm can be toxic to plants. Also, some nutrients cause the plant to increase demand for other nutrients. So if a soil has a very excessive amount of one nutrient and a very low amount of a related nutrient, it can be detrimental to the plant or drastically reduce harvest. EDIT: I should also mention that excessive levels of some nutrients can also have the effect of reducing the availability of some other related nutrients.

Your test indicates that you have nothing to be concerned about, other than you do not need to add any nutrients other than N (although your high volume of OM should be able to supply sufficient amounts in the short term.

So much for nutrients and fertility in regards to plant needs.

Moving on to soil structure. Some nutrients (Ca., Mg. and to a lesser extent K and Na (and OM, of course)) play a major roll in soil structure/tilth. A CEC of 20 would normally indicate anything from a sandy silt loam to a clay soil texture, but because of the high percentage of OM (and OM's high cation capacity), it is hard to guess texture from the CEC value. If you are experiencing surface crusting or the soil is tight (hard to dig), it is likely due to your soil's Mg levels (>300ppm or amounts > 15%). This can be alleviated by increasing Ca. levels. Gypsum can be used to raise Ca, and reduce Mg without changing pH and will do no harm to the plant's fertility needs.

Hope this is some help to you.

I forgot:

Having too high a level of most of these elements would explain why
nothing did very well in my garden this past season. So now what do I
do? Not add any amendments for the next several seasons?

Anything is possible (and a lot would depend on the crop planted), however, as I mentioned above, it is very, very unlikely that your nutrient levels are creating plant performance problems.

I leave it to people with more hands on experience to give you their thoughts on your OM levels as I haven't dealt with anything higher than 6%, but it would seem that at some point OM could cause problems. OM has a great water holding capacity and too much water in the soil can create anaerobic conditions. A lack of gas exchange and oxygen levels in the soil is detrimental. Did you have any indication of stunted root growth or root rot?

The physical action of cover crop roots will improve soil structure and tilth, but as Kimmsr advised, I'd remove it rather than till it in to avoid adding additional OM.

Thank you all for your input on this.

>...but yes, add no more chemicals to your soil, unless you want to add some table salt to raise that sodium.<

Glib, any suggestions on just how much table salt to add? I've got three 4'x8' raised beds.

>Balance is probably more important than just high levels, however. Phosphorus (P) and Potash (K) are unbalanced which will create problems<

Kimmq, do you think I should amend the soil with something that will boost the P and K so that they too will be in the same upper range as the other elements? If so, what would you recommend to boost their levels?

>If you've been adding compost for years, it's not too surprising to have high nutrient levels.<

Toxcrusadr, yes, I had it drilled into me years ago to add compost at every opportunity. Apparently I was a bit overzealous in that regard. :/

> They classify this range as sufficient (or optimal or medium), meaning the addition of nutrients may improve plant quality/harvest, but it is not likely. <

Yardtractor1, thank you for explaining this concept in terms my puny brain can grasp. Your explanation helped me to relax. When I saw all my high levels, I thought I must be torturing my plants. But, if I understand your post, it's simply that my garden has more nutrients than it could possibly use. Like having too many socks in my sock drawer -- it ain't gonna kill me, and it's much better than having none at all, but having just enough so I can shut my dang drawer would be best.

>Did you have any indication of stunted root growth or root rot?<

None that I have noticed. I'll dig up some corn plants and see what they have to say.

>The physical action of cover crop roots will improve soil structure and tilth, but as Kimmsr advised, I'd remove it rather than till it in to avoid adding additional OM.<

So if I planned on removing the cover crop and not working it into the soil next spring, should I still avoid hairy vetch? The reason I ask is that I've already ordered some and hate the thought of good seed going to waste. (I see-sawed between hairy vetch and winter rye, and the vetch won out, dagnabbit!)

>>Toxcrusadr, yes, I had it drilled into me years ago to add compost at every opportunity. Apparently I was a bit overzealous in that regard. :/

Me too. Either no one told me, or it went in one ear and out the other.

Good explanation earlier about 'optimal' and 'excessive.' These soil tests were developed for and are used mostly by farmers. If nutrients get excessive in row crop fields it usually means they are adding too much, and that costs $$ because they generally can't use free homemade compost. So 'excessive' means 'excessive effects on wallet' just as much if not more so as 'will harm your plants'.

But, if I
understand your post, it's simply that my garden has more nutrients than
it could possibly use.

Well, that might be overstating a little bit. Let's say "has more nutrients than
is very likely to be needed for the foreseeable future." :) As you harvest your crops (corn or whatever) you will slowly deplete the nutrients. Some faster than others depending on the crop grown. So always good to do a soil test periodically.

Like having too many socks in my sock drawer --
it ain't gonna kill me, and it's much better than having none at all,
but having just enough so I can shut my dang drawer would be best.

That's a pretty good analogy. :)

>Did you have any indication of stunted root growth or root rot?<

None that I have noticed. I'll dig up some corn plants and see what they have to say.

That's not necessary. More importantly, does your soil stay wet, waterlogged or does it not drain well? Is it mucky or gummy. It's just a guess on my part that your OM levels might be inhibiting crop performance. I'm a grass guy with a little flower bed experience. The vegetable gardeners here may have better input regarding any issues with OM levels.

So if I planned on removing the cover crop and not working it into
the soil next spring, should I still avoid hairy vetch? The reason I ask
is that I've already ordered some and hate the thought of good seed
going to waste. (I see-sawed between hairy vetch and winter rye, and
the vetch won out, dagnabbit!)

Any cover crop is going to contribute to OM. As per above, I'm wondering if your OM levels might be detrimental to the plants. I was suggesting removal of any cover crop to avoid increasing those OM levels--but once again that advice is based on my hunch about your OM levels.

I believe vetch is a legume. Other than adding more N to the soil than most other cover crops, the amount of OM contributed by legumes should roughly be no greater or less. Kimmsr may have other reasons.

I'm not sure why sodium is being recommended. Na is not a plant nutrient (although, I have read that the plant may possibly employ very, very trace amounts for osmosis) and high amounts can be very detrimental to soil structure and plant health-inhibit the ability of the plant to take up water.

I see no recommendation here to add Na, and the salinity level given is average. Low Na levels in the soil is not information that needs to be acted on either way.

I see no recommendation here to add Na...

I was referring to this recommendation/suggestion, not to any recommendation by the Soil Test Lab:

Thank you all for your input on this.

>...but yes, add no more chemicals to your soil, unless you want to add some table salt to raise that sodium.<

Glib, any suggestions on just how much table salt to add? I've got three 4'x8' raised beds.

BTW Raymondo17, which lab did this test?

Yes, the table salt thing was clearly a joke, but that may not have been clear to everybody.

I briefly raised an eyebrow but did not get the joke either. Limitations of the printed word. It probably needed a :-D

Yes, the table salt thing was clearly a joke, but that may not have been clear to everybody.

In that case, you're going to find my Twenty Mule Team Borax application jokes hilarious. You folks have a strange sense of humor on this forum.

yes it was a joke. did you see that sodium was the lone mineral below optimum in that report? at any rate, a biologically rich soil covers many sins. Compost is not biologically rich, in fact in some cases it has been nearly sterilized by high temps. and a biologically rich soil will cover for too high nutrients too, likely by binding some. so get on with those cover crops.

I concur with Tox, the nitrogen typically disappears in two years (percolates at rates of order two feet per year in midwestern clay soils). but if you seed cover crops thickly, and with deep roots, they will pump up to the surface a good 50-80% of it, so with CC you may be fine for a couple of years or more.

stop the compost already, for a decade at least, that must be clear to all in this thread.

More importantly, does your soil stay wet, waterlogged or does it not drain well? Is it mucky or gummy. It's just a guess on my part that your OM levels might be inhibiting crop performance.

Not at all. The soil drains well and is nice and crumbly, like what I picture ideal loam to be. So after all this discussion, I'm still not sure why my plants did so poorly. My newfound understanding is that I have too much of everything, but that it shouldn't be negatively affecting the harvest. So the question remains: Why was it such a miserable growing season?

I will add that I see very little worm activity in these beds, if that's any indication of a problem.

Low Na levels in the soil is not information that needs to be acted on either way.

Thanks, Parsley. Apparently the salt recommendation was merely a joke which went right over my head. It's ok, my wife doesn't laugh at my jokes either.

Stop the compost already, for a decade at least, that must be clear to all in this thread.

Wow, a decade? Really? My wife always feels guilty when we don't compost our kitchen scraps. I guess we could continue to compost and use it on the lawn or something.

Thanks everybody!

your problem is far from rare. Tox has too many nutrients, I have too many nutrients. We overcomposted in the past. But to give you an idea, K will diffuse away 8 times more slowly than nitrogen, and P will diffuse 50 times more slowly. so you have a long time ahead before you leach those nutrients.

If you want to use your scraps to help the biology, bury them, but as you say, they can help the lawn too. I stopped applying compost about four years ago, now all I do is add some ground leaves for the worms, add some urea in spring, but mostly I cover crop and cycle the nutrients.

I think you said they were raised beds? When were they built and filled? What did you fill them with? It seems possible that whatever soil mix was initially used could have been too high in composted materials, and too low in the mineral component, perhaps.

You could be a little more specific about what kinds of problems you had with the plants. Which vegetables, exactly, had problems and when did the problems become apparent? Did you rule out disease, pests, water shortage or excess, temperature extremes, tree roots growing into the beds, other specific known issues with the specific vegetables you were growing? Not all plant growth problems are the result of soil nutrient deficiency or excess.

I think you said they were raised beds? When were they built and filled? What did you fill them with?

I built them over a decade ago and filled them with what the vendor called "Planting Mix," which was topsoil with a a high percentage of compost added.

You could be a little more specific about what kinds of problems you had with the plants.

Nearly everything I planted this season grew poorly: The sweet corn only grew to about three or four feet tall, and the resulting ears were about as thick as my thumb; the cantaloupe vines were very small and resulted in about two plumb-sized fruits very late in the season (which the squirrels stole anyway); the tomatoes weren't nearly the robust bush beasts they usually are, only growing to about six feet, putting out few, smallish tomatoes; even the marigolds I plant in the corners of the beds to deter pests were anemic.

The one thing that did ok was a couple of early, volunteer pumpkin plants. I managed to get one decent soccer ball-sized pumpkin and about a half-dozen mini variety pumpkins.

Last season, I planted a very late planting of sweet corn in all three beds. First time I ever grew sweet corn, and it did amazingly well. You could almost watch it grow, and the plants grew to about seven feet tall. I know that corn is a heavy feeder, so after harvest I amended the beds well with compost, steer and chicken manure, and blood and bone meal. According to my soil test, I guess I could have skipped that last step.

Unless you loaded on tons of that stuff (which you probably didn't) It's hard to imagine how it could have made such a dramatic difference in the garden.

How was your weather this year? Cool, hot, presumably dry (it's CA after all)?

A fairly typical Sacramento summer -- hot and dry, temperatures in the upper 90s to low 100s. We never get rainfall in the summer, it's all drip irrigated.

I will add that I initially posted in this soil forum that I was considering replacing the soil entirely in these three raised beds and starting over, but most of the advice I received recommended working with the existing soil instead of replacing it. After reading the input above, I wonder if replacing the soil and starting over might not be a bad idea after all?

How much steer and chicken manure are we talking about? What source did it come from - bagged from the garden center, off the farm? Was it at all manure-y smelling when you applied it? Any ammonia smell?

Was the compost you used home-made or bought in? Is it possible that the compost you used was also manure based?

I think many people here have been assuming that your high soil nutrient levels are the result of only over-applying compost, but it would be hard work to get such an excess of phosphorous and potassium just with home-made plant-based compost, whereas manures can easily crank the P and K to very high levels and you may have been triple-dipping on the manure (ick) if your compost was also manure-based. Under-composted manure can also cause problems, as can unleached chicken manure, or manures contaminated with various bad things (herbicides, etc)

High phosphorous in the soil can cause deficiencies of other elements (that is, the plants will not be able to properly utilize iron, zinc, and manganese in the soil even if they are present) and can kill off beneficial soil organisms including mychorrizae.

All these problems can correct themselves over time through natural depletion; a cover crop could also help, but not the vetch, since you don't need the extra nitrogen. In fact not the typical sort of cover crop at all - since those are usually planted to increase fertility - instead, I'd consider planting something that is a "heavy feeder" and then take it OFF the soil at next season's start instead of terminating it and adding it to the soil!

Raymondo, I went back and read your other thread:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/4132628/starting-fresh-with-the-soil?n=27

and noticed that you answered some of my questions above - that the manure was bagged from Home Depot, for instance. Sorry, I did not recognize you as the previous poster - I was just thinking 'Haven't we lately had a rash of people wanting to replace their raised bed soil??"

I also noticed you posted this:

>>>After every growing season, I would amend each bed's soil, double-digging composted steer manure, compost, bone meal, blood meal, and occasionally some peat moss into the existing soil. I'd mulch any fallow beds in the winter with shredded Chinese Hackberry leaves, then dig them into the soil in the spring.

...

About two years ago, I submitted soil samples to the University of Connecticut. They came back with a report that told me not to add anything to the soil for several years except maybe some nitrogen fertilizer, as I was off the scale on all my nutrients. So the only amendment I added was some steer manure for nitrogen. The results that season were worse then ever -- nothing flourished at all.<<<<

So your nutrients were already "off the scale" two years ago, and then you added steer manure that year to bring up the nitrogen - well, that brings up P and K too, at the same time. AND you added bone meal in the past, and although you skipped that year, you just said you added compost, steer and chicken manure, AND bone meal as well as blood meal, again this year.

200 ppm of phosphorous is twice the highest recommended limit that I could find in any reference materials. Most sources say anything over 30 ppm is too high. I think you've gone from "off the charts" to "even further off the charts."

two main hypotheses for the current unsatisfactory production: either some nutrient is inhibiting something else (say, P is inducing iron chlorosis), or the original manure/compost contained pesticides. The first would be improved, and possibly solved, by cover crops, there is a huge difference between compost and actual, current metabolism of plant matter. the second may be improved, same reason, specially if the soil has not been turned and there are fungi in it. however, some herbicides are degraded mainly by sunlight and persist for years. a good parameter to know would be earthworm density. it is not the end all, but it easily measurable.

instead, I'd consider planting something that is a "heavy feeder" and then take it OFF the soil at next season's start instead of terminating it and adding it to the soil!

Thanks Parsley. Any recommendations for a heavy feeding cover crop?

I think you've gone from "off the charts" to "even further off the charts."

Allow me to go on the record here and say that it appears that the University of Connecticut's lab was right on the money with my first soil test. Kudos to them and my apologies for ever doubting them. :}

two main hypotheses for the current unsatisfactory production: either some nutrient is inhibiting something else (say, P is inducing iron chlorosis), or the original manure/compost contained pesticides.

Glib, after reading Parsley's comments on my overabundance of phosphorous, I'm leaning toward the possibility of too much phosphorous being the problem. (I guess too much of a good thing can be detrimental!) I would think that pesticide in the compost would yield even worse results than I got this season, but nutrients being inaccessible to the plants sounds about right to me. Is there anything I could do to hasten the reduction of phosphorous in the soil?

a good parameter to know would be earthworm density.

Earthworms are surprisingly rare in my raised beds. Digging in the soil, I may come across one or two in several spadefuls of soil. Meanwhile, in the compost bin which is to the immediate right of one of the beds, there are times when zillions of worms can be found in there. So it ain't like they're not in the vicinity.

I wonder if glib is confusing "pesticide" with "herbicide". I think the hypothesis of herbicides in the manure (as may happen if animals have been grazing on pasture that has been treated with herbicides) is less likely given that you have been using bagged, commercially available manure products. As I suggested in the other thread, you could maybe do a germination test of some sort if you were really concerned about herbicides - but I just don't think that's a likely explanation. You would not just have had poor growth, but lots of dead plants if it were a herbicide problem.

If you're not seeing worms in the raised bed soil, it *may* be that there's something they don't like about the excess nutrient load. But another thing that struck me about your soil management is how much digging-over is involved, which is a thing that impacts worm populations. Burrowing earthworms actually use the same burrows for a long time, even years; and if an early bird gets the worm, then another worm might move into an unoccupied burrow. So lots of digging and tilling is something that disrupts their life cycle. I also didn't catch whether you keep a mulch on top of the soil, which would be a thing they would like. It sort of seemed like you dig everything in instead.

I have to admit I'm stumped about what kind of cover crop would help deplete your soil of nutrients; it's kind of the opposite of what people usually aim for in cover crop. The heaviest users of nutrients, including phosphorous, are vegetables. Is there any kind of vegetable you can grow over the winter season in your zone and harvest before putting in a new crop? The more vegetables you grow and the more you can fill your soil up with their roots, the more those nutrients will get used up. P doesn't move through the soil readily with soil water, so you'd really need to have roots in there to suck it up.

My feeling is that you should just go on growing vegetables in the soil, year-round if you can, and add NOTHING for a year or more: do no tilling, making minimal planting holes only; and do keep a mulch on top, but perhaps go for something coarse that won't break down too quickly, since you're overloaded on organic matter. This would mean that you kind of have to resign yourself to a slightly sucky crop for the next year and maybe more, but if you add nothing for the next growing season I think it will at least be better than this one has been. With so much organic matter in the soil, it may be a while until you even start needing nitrogen, which would normally be petering out long before P and K do.

Hmm. According to this:

http://ucanr.edu/sites/sacmg/files/117117.pdf

you could maybe plant onions and garlic, broccoli rabe, mustard greens, some other greeny things as a winter crop. How much of a winter freeze do you get?

You could also try some deep-rooted radishes, which are often used as a winter cover crop - but instead of leaving them in the ground, as you normally would with cover cropping, you would want to harvest them instead. How much do you like radishes?

Parsley, my wife would be thrilled by the idea of planting garlic and onions this winter. I told her we'd be taking the winter off, no gardening this winter beyond a cover crop. She was disappointed, to say the least. But if some garlic, onions, maybe some broccoli would actually be therapeutic for the beds... I think you just made my day.

The temps here dip below freezing only a handful of times a winter. Mid to upper 30s is more the norm for low temperatures in the deepest part of winter.

Oh, and to answer your question -- radishes. Not so much. :/

Try frying them in butter, you may change your mind :-)

roasted radishes are shockingly good. I roast them with olive oil and herbs. I plant daikon after potatoes or garlic and this year I have easily 80 lbs of the stuff. so the low earthworm population points you in the proper direction. It is a soil that is biologically poor. Plant those cover crops, perhaps a mixture of real cover crops (which perform a biological and/or physical function) and edibles, so you are sure you will not harvest them all. find a way to terminate them properly of course, if you need to plant from seed.

"Cover crop" is not the answer to absolutely every problem. There is no rationale for a "cover crop" when there is no need to enhance the nutrient load in the soil, but rather a (temporary) need to deplete the nutrient load in the soil. Harvesting vegetables from the soil is a way to take those excess nutrients out of the soil, where they are causing problems, and make them into people food - a win-win. Harvestable vegetables still do benefit the soil biology and structure in all the other ways a "cover crop" would - the roots still make exudate and feed the soil microbiome and the mychorrizae - if you also take care to lay off the over-tilling to let the soil aggregate into a more functional structure, let the mycorrhizae grow and the worms tunnel in peace, etc.

btw if you harvest and eat the produce, it's not exactly a "cover crop." "Crop" will do as an accurate and economical description. :-) Raymondo is fortunate enough to live in a climate where a winter crop is possible - and to have a wife with good taste who likes garlic.

Ok, ok, you guys talked me into it. I'll grow a coupla radishes and try grilling them on the Traeger. :)

How's this for a compromise: I'll grow winter veggies in my beds, and any beds left unused, I'll grow a cover crop. Just not hairy vetch, but winter rye, is that the gist?

Harvestable vegetables still do benefit the soil biology and structure in all the other ways a "cover crop" would - the roots still make exudate and feed the soil microbiome and the mychorrizae - if you also take care to lay off the over-tilling to let the soil aggregate into a more functional structure, let the mycorrhizae grow and the worms tunnel in peace, etc.

I should probably save this for a separate posting, as my threads somehow tend to get rather long-winded, but do you guys practice the no-till method? All those amendments I piled into my beds were double-dug in, meaning I turned the soil at least twice a year. Should I lay off that too, and just crack open a beer any time I'm itching to grab a compost-laden shovel?

On tilling: whatever one's opinions on no-till, it seems pretty clear that you've been both over-doing it with organic matter additions, fertilizing (organic fertilizers like blood meal), and tilling. The relative absence of earthworms points to that, and so the over-tilling is likely part of the problem (soil biology is complicated but various organisms, fungi, etc., impact how the nutrients are tied up / utilised / available or 'parked' in different forms). So yes, at least toning it down with tilling is likley a good idea; what the right long-term balance of tilling and adding stuff to your plots may be different.

BTW, the worms in your compost pile are probably not earthworms, but compost worms. Both play their role, and you might typically find compost worms in some mulch layers, but earthworms will dig further down (doing their own tilling). But you'll probably not see the concentration of earthworms you'd see (of compost worms) in a compost pile. They have different habitats and roles.

Cover crops are meant to be grown so soils are not left exposed to the ravages of the wind, rain, and snow. Soils should never be left bare, there should be something growing in soils all the time. When I wrote above to knock down the cover crop rather than till it in I did not mean to imply the over crops should be removed, rather that crop should be left in place as a mulch.

kimmq is kimmsr

he will still get no earthworms with a crop. you have to give them something to eat. no earthworms, no aeration, no micro-tilling, and no castings. I assure you that castings will bypass have their own chemistry and will bypass the bad chemistry of the surrounding soil. a cover crop is a misnomer, used in the 1980s to obscure what was really research in soil biology and get funding that would otherwise have been denied. a cover crop does little chemically, but does a lot physically, specially underground, and/or biologically.

The good news is that soil doesn't understand the separation between our academic disciplines, and that the right management measures will improve the soil health in multiple ways without heroic efforts. That is why it would be a win-win in this situation to simply keep the soil planted with crops that can be harvested and eaten.

Of course, as I mentioned, he ought to be mulching as well, to protect soil structure and moisture as well as encouraging worms and other soil engineers to settle in, but perhaps he should use a mulch that doesn't break down too rapidly, since organic matter in the soil is already very high and doesn't need to be replenished on a fast schedule. Using a cover crop to terminate, knock down and leave on the soil as mulch would not help meet the goal of depleting the excess nutrient load and organic matter load in the soil. But I think Roberto has grasped that point by now and doesn't need it repeated.

In the long run, it will be beneficial to have earthworms return, but also notice that the things we need earthworms to do in the soil - incorporate organic matter into the soil, make nutrients more plant-available, improve drainage and soil structure - are not the things Roberto needs most urgently right now, since he already has a too-high nutrient load, very high organic matter percentage, no notable drainage problem. The soil biology will rebuild to a healthy diversity on its own schedule, and as that happens it will reduce his workload and need for inputs in the future - another win-win.

yes, a cover crop does not deplete nutrients, and a mulch increases nutrients. this is why a cover crop is better right now than mulch. but you miss my point, which is that earthworm castings have active biological components which make nutrients (blocked by excess P) available. The disappointing crops are due to plant malnutrition, not excess plant nutrition, a condition that does not exist.

I think if you read my posts more carefully, you will see that I am not claiming "excess plant nutrition." There is, as confirmed by the soil test, an excess nutrient load in the soil, which is known to create various problems including malabsorption of key nutrients by the plants. And now there's supposedly some kind of anti-worm straw man argument that nobody is actually making. Worms are great, I love worms, I have pet worms in my basement, but soil management doesn't begin and end with worms either. I suspect an attempt is being made to draw me into one of those pointless gardenweb bickers, but fortunately I have better hobbies than that. Cheers! :-)

All very interesting. Anything is possible of course, but it's very unlikely that it's nutrient related because the observations given just don't match the symptoms associated with the nutrient excesses or attendant deficiencies and the OP, at least not yet, hasn't mentioned observing any of the symtoms that would be so associated (e.g. chlorisis, etc.).

He reports small tomatoes and corn ears.

Either water deficiency or excess N will result in small fruit or grain size (small tomatoes/small cobs). It's pretty common. Between April through September, Sacramento gets 2.2" of average rainfall, but the ET rates for that same period is 45". That's a 43" difference/shortfall. In addition, with all that manure, the soil levels of N are extremely high even this late in the growing season. Excess N availability will commonly cause shoot/leaf growth at the expense of fruit/seed production.

Raymondo, how much water do you calculate that your irrigation system is putting out? Also what lab did that test?

Raised beds? How deep are they? 6, 8, 12 inches or 4 feet?

How much organic matter is in the soil?

How well do those beds drain?

How well do those beds retain moisture?

What kind of life do you find in the soil?

What does the soil smell like?

kimmq is kimmsr

What is the address of this Lab? I am dissatisfied with my testing lab and seek another.

Greg

Either you're just bragging, or you just sent them a sample of Miracle-Gro potting mix. ;)

Sorry for the delayed response, just getting back after a few days away. But let me say how much I appreciate the thorough and thoughtful responses I've received. I hope no one truly feels the conversation has devolved into bickering. Despite differing opinions, I feel I'm gaining valuable insight and am humbled by both Parsley's and Glib's vast knowledge.

Armoured, I had no idea that the worms in my compost pile and the worms in my garden beds were different.

Yardtractor, I've got 1-gallon-per-hour drip line running through my beds running for 200 minutes twice a week. So by my calculations (carry the nine, subtract the 7...) that's roughly six and a half gallons of water delivered per week. Which sounds like a lot to me, but my beds never seem overwatered or swampy. If anything, they seem like they're a bit on the thirsty side. By the way, what are "ET rates"?

Kimmq, the beds are 10-12" deep, lots of organic matter, they drain well, retain moisture pretty well, smell like good dirt (not quite as rich as compost, but not unpleasant at all), yet has very little earthworm activity.

Gregory, the lab that did the testing was A&L Western Agricultural Laboratories, 1311 Woodland Ave. #1, Modesto, CA, 95351, (209) 529-4080. Let me also put in a plug for the University of Connecticut's Soil Nutrient Analysis Lab, 6 Sherman Place, Box U-102, Storrs, CT 06269-5102, (860) 486-4274.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me post a few photos of the garden. The first shot is my Peaches and Cream sweet corn. The front half of the bed was planted about a month after the back half. The chair is shown for scale. Note that late last summer, I grew corn in these beds and had excellent results.

Next up, the cantaloupe vines, which although look like they were planted a month or two ago, were planted last spring.

And lastly, my tomato plants. On a good year, these plants would be enormous bushes vastly outgrowing their cages.

And that concludes our virtual tour of the sad garden.

@kimmq: The sample results in the very first post indicate the OM content (15.6%). Quite a bit of the thread is about worms, or rather absence of, so I think we have a pretty good idea of soil life.

ET = EvapoTranspiratione. A combination of the terms Evaporation and Transpiration where evaporation relates to soil moisture less and transpiration relates to moisture lost through the plant ("plant "breathing/respiration" so to speak.) It's determined through a complicated calculation (based on studies) using a number of daily readings (solar radiation, wind speed, humidity etc) to give a pretty accurate measurement of water loss. It's provided for most locals in the U.S. (and other countries). to aid farmers in making irrigation decisions.

As I said previously, Sacramento's average ET rate of loss (total amount of water loss - ET, less the average rainfall) for the period from April through September is about 43 inches of water. If you are applying 6.5 gallons of water per bed,, that is a total of just under 9" of water you are adding during that same period of time. You are running a deficit of 34". That's a considerable shortfall. The difference in last years crop, if it is indeed due to water, may be because of more rainfall or reduced ET rates last year. But it's not just that simple. The effect on fruit seed development can depend on the timing of the water shortage or adequacy in relation to the plants' growth cycle.

If the problem is a nutrient deficiency, it will usually show up in observation of the leaves first. As to the likely nutrients that may be deficient per Parsley, you can google Iron or Zinc etc deficiencies in corn, tomatoes. Many of the links that come up will show pictures of how the deficiency affects the leaf or the fruit. Compare to what you have observed in your garden. To my eye, your pictures show brown and light green leaves. Indicating water shortage and possibly iron shortage.

Hey Tractor, thanks for the explanation of ET.

If you are applying 6.5 gallons of water per bed,, that is a total of just under 9" of water you are adding during that same period of time. You are running a deficit of 34".

To be honest, I'm not sure I'm doing my math correctly. The drip lines I'm using have a rating of 1 gallon per hour, but I believe that's *per emitter.* So when you talk about the amount of water *per bed,* would I have to count up the number of emitters in each bed and multiply that by 1 gallon per hour to come up with the correct number?

To my eye, your pictures show brown and light green leaves. Indicating water shortage and possibly iron shortage.

I didn't mean to imply with my photos that the corn and/or tomatoes always looked brown and haggard. I simply haven't bothered to remove these plants from my beds yet, and fall has arrived, so they're in their declining stage. At the height of the season, they were plenty green, just not very big. My photos are more to show size than vitality.

Regarding color, in another thread I posted some photos of my stunted corn during the growing season, and some folks' opinions were that the leaves were yellower than normal possibly due to a nitrogen deficiency. The color of the tomato foliage looked pretty typical to me this season, and I didn't get a huge amount of foliage growth at the expense of fruiting, which is what I might expect if I had an overabundance of nitrogen, no?

On the evidence, you weren't deficient in any nutrient, given the copious soil amendments you used and the soil test; the issue is whether the plants were unable to utilize some nutrients. I don't see how you could possibly have been deficient in nitrogen, and there are a lot of other reasons for yellowing leaves. One clue is whether the yellowing is showing up first in the oldest leaves.

the issue is whether the plants were unable to utilize some nutrients.

If Parsley means a copious amount of one soil nutrient can result in a plant deficiency of another nutrient, I totally agree. +1 to Parsley. As I said, Parsley identified some of the usual suspects. Look for pictures of iron or zinc etc. deficient plants.

Raymondo

Yes, if each emitter puts out 1 gal/hr then count up the number of emitters in one bed and multiply that by the total number of hours of watering over the 6 month period I gave for ET. Then multiply that by 231 (the number of cubic inches in a gallon). Then divide that by the the total square inches in the bed (8x4x144) to get the total inches of water per sq inch that was applied. See if it is greater or less than the 43" of water that was lost through ET.

>>If Parsley means a copious amount of one soil nutrient can result in a plant deficiency of another nutrient

Yes, I thought I had said that a number of times over!

Perhaps Raymondo could post those pictures of how the plants looked when they were actively growing. You said you didn't notice, for instance, yellowing leaves with green veins in them?

Some charts showing leaf discoloration from different nutrient deficiencies:

https://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2015/12/plant-nutrient-deficiency-leaf.html

I wonder if we've really ruled out water stress, root damage, tree root incursion etc. If the plants are done for the season you could uproot a few and check the roots.

Also: it occurs to me that lack of visible earthworms in the raised beds may be a red herring, since earthworms dive pretty deep in the summer, especially in the daytime, and I'm thinking especially in a place like Sacramento. You may or may not have different species of worms in your compost pile but they may also be more apparent if the material in the compost pile is moist (and not hot composting) at that moment. You can often get a different picture prowling around the garden at night with a flashlight. What, doesn't everyone do that??

Lifestyles of the wormy:

http://ecoserv.weebly.com/uploads/6/9/8/9/6989662/9977485_orig.png

I'm a little late here. First I agree that your Phosphorous levels are very high. 200 ppm of elemental P (not P2O5 as I think some posters may have been assuming that it was being reported as) is detrimentally high. You may need to remove the soil and start over as that is going to cause problems for a long time. Your Nitrogen levels are also very high, but those will drop fairly quickly as Nitrogen washes out of the soil. Avoid any Nitrogen sources for a while.

Someone sent me a link to this thread a couple weeks ago and I'm now just getting around to reading it... so I realize this response is coming really late as you may have already taken steps to deal with the issue.

As already noted earlier in the thread it would appear that Phosphorus is exceedingly high.... much higher than the others also graphed at "Very High".... however I believe the graphical representation can be very misleading here. Unless that graphic scale used is logarithmic, which I don't believe it is, then the bars have a max peak and once reached it stops regardless of any excess beyond that max graph limit (example: 100ppm and 300ppm would give the same graphical representation even though one is 3x the other)... this means if the bars were to continue to scale they would go off the end of the page and would show phosphorus by far higher than all the others... much higher. Its over 3X the limit where it will begin seriously binding up iron, zinc, and copper. I believe this is actually an odd case of Liebig's Law of Minimums. Which micronutrient is the minimum? hard to tell at this point since all three are being affected by the presence of that excessive phosphorus overload. How to tell which one or combination is the issue? Apply a foliar application of each (a different one each week) and note the plant growth response over the following week... an increase will point you to the micro that's at minimum in the soil. Chelated versions of these minerals could also be applied to the soil but foliar will show a quicker response. You can even use sulfates of these minerals in foliar applications if they are easier for you to obtain (they will certainly be a lot cheaper than chelated versions)... alternatively if you're not interested in tracking down the precise micronutrient minimums, you could just shot-gun it with a general liquid micronutrient foliar application. If that solves the problem then you'll either need to continue with micronutrient foliar applications every other week or so for the next several years or you'll have to dilute the soil in your beds to bring the phosphorus levels under control within a season. A suggestion would be to remove about half of the soil in the raised beds and spread that around your yard and trees or perhaps you could build more raised beds and add it there. Then fill the beds back up with more soil however one that's low on organic matter... and quit adding manure applications... and what compost you do add should be mostly browns and then use feather meal to beef up nitrogen as it will eventually be needed. You might also want to plant daikon radishes this winter to help suck up some phosphate. These are just some suggestions from a non-expert soil guy... whatever you choose to do, I hope you do solve the issue you are having and hopefully next year's crops will fare much better for you. Good luck there.