T.O.R.C. 
        Organic Research

        Organic Radio 
          Talk Show

So, your soil test says” Warning, Warning – too much phosphorous."  Don’t use a fertilizer that contains phosphorous or manure for 3-5 years.  Well, to that I say – manure!

Back in the early 90’s, a local extension agent called me about an upcoming change in A&M’s fertilizer recommendations.  Having finally acknowledged what the organic practitioners had known and been talking about for some time, the recently enlightened researcher’s new advice was to use less fertilizer in general, considerably less nitrogen, no phosphorous and no potassium.  Yes, it was the first 1-0-0 recommendation.  The reasoning was that the soil contained enough P & K.  My obvious question was what are the fertilizer manufacturers and others vested in the often pushed 3-2-2 and 4-1-2 ratio products going to say?  All I got was a smile and a shrug.  Well, it had to be good news.  A&M was admitting that the long used recommendations had been poor, the excess nutrients have contaminated the soil and because of the synthetic products solubility, the water tables, lakes and streams had been contaminated as well.  Without my knowledge, one of the Aggie wizards had contacted Malcolm Beck about the looming change and talked him into producing an organic version of the 1-0-0 idea. 

That was the birth of Garden-Ville 9-1-1.  My warning on being careful to not waste your time went on deaf ears at the time and then the expected happened.  The monumental change toward a more prudent fertilizer program died on the vine.  Apparently those status quo guys had more power than those trying to make change had bargained for. 

The recommendation resurfaced in 2003?  The 1-0-0 is again the rage, at least in the minds of those pushing the idea.  This time the proponents are lined up and in agreement.  Several companies have their versions of the “new” analysis recommendation.  Their reason is different this go around.  Now the cause of the change is the fact that the soil has too much phosphorous and none is needed in the fertilizer applications.  Potassium has been eliminated too.  Just collateral damage I suppose.

As had been briefly mentioned in the early 90’s, getting a soil test before you bought fertilizer was advised, but what you should expect to find from the soil test report is that a 1-0-0 ratio fertilizer is probably the product to use.  Gotta pay for that soil testing lab, you know.

In the meantime: It just so happens that a friend of mine has been in on this conversation longer than I have.  K. Chandler, owner of the Texas Plant and Soil Lab, was warning the educators, researchers and farmers that not only were the recommended solutions wrong, more importantly the premise was wrong.  K. had been trying to explain to those involved with the A&M soil test, that the new recommendation based on their test, was wrong.  The A&M soil test is a one of a kind.  No other testing lab in the country uses this particular harsh acid extraction procedure.  Its fault is that it breaks the soil down completely which shows the total nutrient content of the soil but gives no information at all about the availability of those nutrients to the plants.  K. discovered this problem while struggling with the accuracy of his own soil tests.  He also did plant tissue tests and could never get his soil tests and tissue tests to calibrate.  Then it dawned on him.  How do plant roots extract nutrients from the soil?  They use carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, a weak extraction acid as opposed to the harsh A&M choice.  Now his tests calibrated and since then his fertilizer recommendations have been far more helpful to growers.

How do the two stories relate?  Most of the soils showing high levels of phosphorous in the A&M test, show moderate to low levels of P being available to plants in the TP&SL report.  Another problem with the A & M Aggie lab test is that it reports not on organic matter.  As most of you already know, organic matter and carbon are essential to biological activity and nutrient availability.  They used to stamp your report with red ink from a rubber stamp if you specifically request organic levels to be included, now they don't even do that.  You get a mental image of dart boards being involved in this data.

Some soils do have high amounts of phosphorous, best the answer is not an unbalanced, carbon free, trace mineral lacking, harsh synthetic, nitrogen only product such as 24-0-0.  Fertilizers with only nitrogen will show some artificial results at first and then harm the soil and plant growth severely long term.  Even high phosphorous soils need some P in the feeding program.

On the other hand, the best way to release the tied-up P is to use aerated compost tea, molasses, humate and low application levels of sulphur. 

Corn gluten meal has been mentioned as a 1-0-0 analyzed organic fertilizer but it really isn't.  The true analysis of corn gluten meal is about 10 - 1 - 1 or slightly less.  Actually there is about ½% of P and K in the product, which makes it much better.  Which reminds me – why did potassium get picked on in this new recommendation?  The explanation must be really bad! 

PHOSPHATE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
by Malcolm Beck 

When I started farming in the mid 50s, South East of San Antonio, The Texas A&M Ag and animal experts both recommended using super phosphate or bone meal. Test showed the soil low in phosphorus. Their recommendations proved beneficial to the plants and the grazing animals. In the late 60s, on my new farm North East of San Antonio the use of phosphorus again proved productive. By banding colloidal phosphate in the furrow at planting I could double production on my fruiting vegetables. The rate applied was two tons per acre. I never at any time noticed micro nutrient deficiency. The soil Ph on the vegetable farm is from 7.3 to 8.3, depending on where and when the testing was done.

Some time back in the 70s lawns, shrubs, trees, vegetables and flowers in San Antonio started yellowing from the lack of micronutrients. The problem was found to be iron, zinc and manganese being tied up by phosphate.   

The extension service was putting out bulletins telling everyone to stop using phosphate. I never experienced these problems. I ask one of the agricultural extension agents if the new 0-46-0 triple super phosphate could be causing all the problems. He thought for a moment then mentioned that the timing correlated perfectly but he could never find anyone in the fertilizer industry to agree.

On my own I did several test. I used plants highly susceptible to iron colorosus. I planted some in pure colloidal phosphate, some in pure rock phosphate and another bunch in soil that I applied the equivalent of 10,800 lbs per acre of the old stile 0-20-0 super phosphate. All of the plants were fertilized with 10-3-1 (N-P-K) bat guano, all grew normal, showing no deficiencies. I strongly believed the problem to be the new Triple Super Phosphate. But no one, either from A&M, USDA or the fertilizer industry would or could give me an answer.

 An elderly friend that had worked for large fertilizer companies was visiting me one day. I ask him for an honest answer to my suggestion that the new 0-46-0 could be causing all the yellowing? After a long pause he answered. You are absolutely right but you are not supposed to know that. He explained that the fertilizer manufactures made that discovery but they kept it a secret and all agreed to stop selling and making the 0-20-0, type of phosphate. This also prevented growers from discovering the problem by comparison.

Rock phosphate is treated with sulfuric acid to make calcium phosphate (0-20-0) and calcium sulphate (gypsum); these are two natural products that seldom caused any problems. To make 0-46-0 rock phosphate is treated with phosphoric acid. With this, much higher phosphate content, much higher N-P-K fertilizer formulas can be made. Less needs to be used. And it sells for a higher price with much better profits.       

My elderly friend explained that, when used, 0-46-0 is laying naked in the soil and looking for something to marry up with. It bonds up with zinc, iron and manganese then the plants can’t assimilate them. Evidently, this knowledge is well protected because to this day the agricultural agents are all telling gardeners and horticulturists to stop using phosphate fertilizers and manure for three to five years. Another problem, they say, the phosphate is causing lakes and streams to grow too much algae.

 I can’t understand their reasoning. Manure has been used for centuries without causing problems. The fertilizer industry has learned to beef up their high quality phosphate fertilizer products with extra zinc, iron and manganese to help over come the problems in the landscape. Also, phosphate is not known to leach from the soil, it only moves with the soil. It can’t get into lakes unless placed there or from soil erosion. Phosphate alone will not grow algae; nitrogen must also be present.

For answers I did some research. I got virgin soil from a location that has never been plowed or fertilized. I naturally dried and well homogenized this soil so I could get identical samples to send to numerous testing labs. I sent seven in all, two to Texas A&M soil test department and five to other labs around the U.S.

The two A&M test results show excessive soil phosphate with instructions to not add any phosphate fertilizer or manure for 3 to 4 years. The other five labs show soil phosphate low to medium and give recommended application rates.             

 Something is definitely wrong here.

    1. The algae in the lakes should be attacked by stopping erosion and the over use of highly  soluble forms of nitrogen fertilizer.  

    2. The fertilizer companies should be honest with their customers.

    3. Texas A&M soil testing department should get together with the private testing industry to   end mistrust and better serve gardeners and farmers.

    4. The fertilizer salesman should be honest and better educated.

    5. More and proper research needs to be done and shared with the farmers and gardeners.

    6. The agricultural agents should keep up with all, private and public, research. 

    7. All educational institutions need to teach more about Nature and how she operates.