|
A&M’s 1-0-0 Recommendation – the 2nd time around!
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 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.
Guess what has 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 aggie 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. Yes, they will stamp your report with red ink from a rubber stamp if you specifically request organic levels to be included. 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. Never use more than 5 lbs per 1000sq. ft or 200 lbs per acre.
Furthermore, if a 1-0-0 fertilizer is a good idea, which it never would be long term, why is corn gluten meal never recommended? Its analysis is 9-0-0. Actually there is about ˝% of P and K in the product, which of course makes the product much better. Which reminds me – why did potassium get picked on in this new recommendation? The explanation must be really bad!
| 
