my soil test results.

[wazzappenning]

i think the p is phosphorus? i know n is nitrogen but not too much about the rest. what are your recommendations?

 

[deluxestogie]

At the bottom of your report, it says to call for crop specific recommendations. I would do that. It looks like you need to add Nitrogen, but no Phosphorus or Potassium. The Sulfur is low, which makes it easy to adjust the pH downward by adding sulfur.

The pounds per acre recommended, minus the measured pounds per acre are how much to add generically. Since it is stated in nitrate, rather than nitrogen, you may want to speak with them about specific suggestions. You'll have to convert your plot into square feet (call it X), then multiply the pounds required per acre by X/43560 .

Bob

 

[LeftyRighty]

definitely need some nitrogen fertilizer, 30-0-0 or similar, .
Ph of 7.3 is OK, but if you're adding organic matter it wouldn't hurt to add a little lime.

 

[deluxestogie]

The recommendations for soil pH in tobacco growing is a bit confused, and also varies with the variety of tobacco. In general, I believe that aiming for an initial soil pH of greater than 5.5, and below 6.6 is a workable range.

Soil pH should be about 5.8 for best growth of tobacco. If lime is needed to raise the pH, use dolomite to get the magnesium nutrient that is important for plant growth. Poor growth and some growth disorders may occur if the soil pH is about 6.5 or more.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/aa260

Soil pH of 5.0-5.5 is the critical pH range for manganese availability. When the soil pH is 5.5 or higher, available manganese is oxidized to unavailable forms and toxicity seldom occurs. At pH 5.0 or lower, soil manganese is solubilized and toxicity in tobacco is likely. Between pH 5.0 and 5.5, toxicity may or may not occur in any given year.

...growers need to lime tobacco soils to pH 6.4 to 6.6 so that soil pH will remain above 5.5 throughout the growing season.

When soils become neutral, or basic (pH 7.0 and higher), phosphorus will revert to insoluble forms and some minor elements will be less available for plant growth.

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/agr/agr109/agr109.htm

Bob

EDIT: In case it slipped by unnoticed, the first quote mentions Magnesium (Mg), whereas the second quote is discussing Manganese (Mn).

 

[Jitterbugdude]

You really need to add some Nitrogen ASAP. A quick acting fertilizer like Calcium Nitrate would give your plants a quick shot of Nitrogen. You are most likely deficient in a lot of minerals due to your high -ish pH. You could also add Ammonium Sulfate, that way you will get Nitrogen and the Sulfate present will lower you soil pH. I would also look for a different lab, one that reports on various minerals too. International Ag Labs give a pretty good report for $25.00 (U.S.).

 

[wazzappenning]

thanks for the info guys.

bob, the last sentence in your quote i like. i dont want polonium laden tobacco, so keeping it above 7 makes it insoluble, however i guess that keeps other minerals insoluble as well. any other way to get rid of the phosphate?

6 years ago, i dug up that patch of lawn to make garden, and have only ever added kitchen/lawn scraps (partially composted) so how come my phosphate is so high?

i could have asked that lab for numerous other tests, but my funds are quite limited so i figured a basic was a good starting point.

 

[wazzappenning]

here i found this. looks like washing the leaves helps the polonium issue. also the source of phosphate seems to play an important role. so unless someone used phosphate rock in my yard, mine shouldnt be too bad.

http://www.briannarego.com/RegoSciAm2011.pdf

 

[deluxestogie]

Your phosphate levels are ideal. Without phosphates, your plants will grow poorly.

Bob

 

[wazzappenning]

ok thank you. i thought the idea was to try to have as little as possible so not to have radioactive baccy

 

[Chicken]

here i found this. looks like washing the leaves helps the polonium issue. also the source of phosphate seems to play an important role. so unless someone used phosphate rock in my yard, mine shouldnt be too bad.

http://www.briannarego.com/RegoSciAm2011.pdf

that link is one wild read,,,,

i guess it isnt good to use bagged fertilizer, made from phosphate,,,

oh im so glad im a organic grower,

 

[deluxestogie]

That is, indeed, an interesting article. Apparently, if you purchase commercial fertilizer that is manufactured from "uranium-rich phosphate rock," and put it on your soil, then low level radioactivity from a polonium isotope will get into the tobacco smoke. This poses a low cancer risk, if you inhale the smoke.

Two implications of this come to mind:

1. use natural fertilizer, such as composted manure OR
2. don't inhale tobacco smoke

Bob

 

[Chicken]

that article is spooky indeed,,,

i read most of it, and it got my attention, then i read all of it,

 

[wazzappenning]

well the whole point of me growing my own was to get away from chemicals including radioactive ones. looks like you can get phosphates from natural sources including guano, bone ashes, and i think a few other sources. while looking it up i found this.

this ones mostly for chicken... scroll down to organic fertilizer/example of organic fertilizer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

 

[Chicken]

well the whole point of me growing my own was to get away from chemicals including radioactive ones. looks like you can get phosphates from natural sources including guano, bone ashes, and i think a few other sources. while looking it up i found this.

this ones mostly for chicken... scroll down to organic fertilizer/example of organic fertilizer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

i think they are out to get me

> the first thing they go to talking about, is CHICKEN MANURE,,,

my main ingrediant,

 

[wazzappenning]

looks like its a good choice

 

[Jitterbugdude]

Years ago "Acres, USA" published several articles on radioactive fertilizers and they specifically mentioned tobacco growers.They might have a website with archived articles if anyone is interested. I've since read that all commercial and natural rock dust fertilizers are radioactive and that you could prove it to yourself with a Geiger counter. Ever the experimenter, I borrowed a Geiger counter but the batteries were dead, life intervened and I eventually had to return the thing to its owner without being able to use it. I really need to borrow that again because the results I've gotten in the past from using rock dusts has been phenomenal. I haven't used any for about 5 years since reading those articles. Anyone have a Geiger counter?

Radioactive Randy

 

[Chicken]

lol

radioactive randy

 

[LeftyRighty]

I don’t know if I’d worry too much about this ‘polonium isotope’ or this radioactivity from limestone soils. Unless your garden is planted in a spoils pit from a uranium mining/processing operation, it’s highly unlikely that the amount of contamination will be detrimental – even in a life time of exposure.

Not much different than the radon gas seeping into basements in half the houses in the midwest. Yes, it’s there, but unless you spend all your days in that basement, without any fresh air ventilation, it’s not really a severe problem.

It’s like that big stink over arsenic in apples a few months ago. Arsenic is one of the more common elements on earth. You got to be one big idiot to think that trace amounts of it is not going to show up somewhere in the food chain.

And then there is the lead contamination. Anyone living in or near any volcanoes, active or extinct, probably has high lead content in their soils, along with other heavy metals. Here in KC area, we are 200 miles away from the ole lead mining areas of SW Missouri and NW Oklahoma, and the lead in soils here are many times what the EPA has determined to be acceptable. It’s a big joke around here whenever some newbie EPA specialist reviews soils tests on some government project, and then declares the site is unsuitable for construction.


Biggest problem today is that the sciences and technologies have advanced to the point that detection of even the slightest trace of contaminants can be easily and quickly determined. There is nowhere on this Earth that you can live where there isn’t trace amounts of some detrimental element or compound, in sufficient quantity above what the EPA has determined acceptable. Getting all bent about it is probably worse to your general health than the exposure.

 

[deluxestogie]

LR,
I agree that it's not healthy to worry. I also feel that it's wise to have a realistic understanding of environmental risks, rather than simply dismissing them.

radon

Read the case study.
The lung cancer risk for cigarette smokers may be up to 25 times greater than that of nonsmokers exposed to high residential radon levels (up to 10.8 pCi/L).

arsenic

Read the Arsenic Guide.
Long term oral exposure to low levels of inorganic arsenic may cause dermal effects (such as hyperpigmentation and hyperkeratosis, corns and warts) and peripheral neuropathy characterized by a numbness in the hands and feet that may progress to a painful “pins and needles” sensation. There may also be an increased risk of skin cancer, bladder cancer, and lung cancer.

Children who are exposed to high levels of arsenic exhibit symptoms similar to those seen in adults, including cardiovascular, dermal, and neurological effects, and vomiting following ingestion.

There is some evidence that metabolism of inorganic arsenic in children is less efficient than in adults.

lead

Read the Lead Guide.
Lead exposures either in utero, during infancy, or during childhood may result in delays or impairment of neurological development, neurobehavioral deficits including IQ deficits, low birth wand low gestational age, growth retardation, and delayed maturation in girls.

Bob

 

[LeftyRighty]

I'm just saying that unless you live in a bubble, it impossible to avoid hazardous exposure to something or other..
Nothing wrong with knowing the risks, but these need to be kept in perspective.