Assuming P is a total P analysis, adjusting the pH will not create P where there is none. High pH does tie up P, but you need to add more P using bone meal or higher P fertilizer. If you use fertilizer at all, check the middle number. If it's low, switch to something with a higher middle number.

Actually the lab that did the test should (usually) offer advice on what to add and a lb/1000 sq ft application rate. Call them back and ask them if they offer that.

I assume you're not adding lime, if you are, stop because your pH is already high. The lab may have some suggestions for reducing pH, and you can also search this forum for "Lowering pH".

I believe tox gave you the right advice. If you are strickly organic, the rock phosphate will be very slow acting even when mixed well into the soil right away. If you utilize some not "organic" inputs, superphosphate would get you up to speed this year.

Yes, the soil test recommends the following:

18-24-6 starter fertilizer 2.2 lbs per 100 sq ft
10-18-6 starter fertilizer 4.0 lbs per 100 sq ft

I do strictly organic if I can help it. Actually, I thought of using some phosphate rock. Bone meal is organic right? Thought about changing the PH of the soil but that means adding sulfa, turning stuff into acid sounds like a bad idea.

No, I am not adding lime, I didn't want to add anything until I get a test. A good clue not to add lime, the blue hydrangea turned pink.

Paul

Do they say "either this fertilizer or that one"? Because both of them together would give you the equivalent of about 8 lbs of actual nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. That's way over kill. In fact, either would give you 4 lbs. and I would find that heavy handed. I would shoot for more in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.5 lbs. of actual N. I would also do about 3 lbs. of P and maybe a pound of two of K.
Figure out what kind of fertilizer you are going to use and go with it.
At this point, I think I'll bust out this dusty old thing. You can use it to calculate a fertilizer rate. It has a few different calculators and a 'help' file so you can poke around until you figure out what works best for you.

As far as the pH goes, making the soil acidic is indeed a good idea. Most plants perform best in a slightly acidic soil with a pH somewhere in the 6's. You can do that with soil sulfur. I would incorporate somewhere around 5 to 10 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. to a depth of 6 or 8 inches. I would also avoid adding organic amendments for a while. 7.9% is pretty dang high.

Optimal soil pH levels are in the 6.2 to 6.8 range since that is the range most soil nutrients are most readily available to plants. your soil pH of 7.5 is slightly alkaline, as is any reading over neutral 7.0. Soil organic levels of 7.4 is in the 6 to 8 percent optimal range although most of the labs do consider anything over 5 percent as high.
Few soil testing labs test for soil Nitrogen because the availability of N is very dependant on soil temperature. Note that your Mg/Ca are not in balance, which may explain why your soils pH is where it is. You could add some Rock Phosphate and by next year your P may be in balance, which would be true for any organic source of P.

Your Ca to Mg ratio has absolutely, positively, totally and completely nothing to do with soil pH. We've been through this a million times complete with excruciatingly detailed explanations. Adjusting your Ca/Mg ratio will have precisely no effect whatsoever on your pH unless you use a source of lime to provide one, the other, or both. If you did use lime of any sort, you would be pushing your pH up and further away from the range that plants prefer.

Your Ca to Mg ratio has absolutely, positively, totally and completely nothing to do with soil pH.

Garg - isn't it true that pH is affected by more than "lime?" That, Ca, Mg, K and the other base cations will all influence pH?

I'll just copy-paste this from this thread.

...."I think what you may be referring to is the fact that calcium and magnesium (along with potassium and sodium) are sometimes referred to as the "base cations".
Although it can be a handy phrase when used correctly, it can a bit misleading when it isn't. It can give the impression that these cations will act as a base in solution, which simply isn't the case.
Another phrase that's a little better, but can still be a bit confusing, is "base forming cations".
That is, these cations (Ca, Mg, K and Na) will react readily with hydroxide (the OH- I was talking about up there) to form a strong base:
Ca(OH) - calcium hydroxide
KOH - potassium hydroxide
etc.
The cations are no more a base than a set of tires is a car.
Remember, it's the balance of OH- to H+ that dictates the acidity or alkalinity of the solution.
If you have (and I am really reeeeeally simplifying things here):
10 OH- and 10 H+, your solution will be neutral. If you throw in some calcium, you will still have 10 OH- and 10 H+ in solution and it will still be neutral. Of course, the chemistry is very dynamic and the calcium atoms will be spontaneously hooking up with, and then disassociating from, the OH- constantlty, just like the H+ will be spontaneously hooking up with and disassociating from water to form the hydronium I was talking about up there. In a solution, nothing sits still but that won't change the balance of 10 OH- to 10 H+ in the solution and it will remain neutral."

I read a lot about Albrecht's cation balancing ideas. One of his truisms was: balance the soil and the pH will self-adjust to the "ideal" range. Garg, I know you're not in the Albrecht camp, but he was a smart guy and I've seen this philosophy play out many, many times with my own tests. Whenever I've been very close with my base saturation percentages, my pH has been in the 6.3-6.5 range. Whenever I've had a significant excess (or excesses) my pH has been high. I've had "good" Ca levels and excess Mg - high pH. I've had "good" Ca and Mg and very high K - high pH.

So, how does one square the Albrecht philosophy with the notion that Ca, Mg and the other base cations have no bearing on pH?

gangwarb! I just read that in the other thread I can't stop laughing. But, if lime stone is the calcium that you are adding, then it it will change your ph. What about a neutral calicum? If I add something like tums (with out the colors) such as the plain calcium carbonate they sell in pills for thinning bones, is the different then adding calcium lime stone?
Moreover the bagged browns I have been using since I can't find plain woods that are small enough is KELLOGG AMEND I just noticed it contains gypsum. I want to buy plain wood. I went to osh, they sold me something, did a bait and switch. I got home with a mulch that was one too big and two dyed black. I am pretty upset. I have to go to east bay nursery to get a better wood mulch to use in my bins. It is a long way over the bay bridge and the tolls is huge. So, I just keep wimping out and buying with one with gypsum. I only hope it does not too much damage. I hope the coffee and the Aluminium sulfate is counter acting it. My research showed the balance between calcium and magnesium is not important, if your soil is healthy otherwise. I don't know how much gypsum I am adding either, since the bag does not say how much gypsum it contains. I just compost a lot and hope for the best.

Other factors are affecting the pH but are mistaken for cation balances/imbalances.

A perfect example is part of the discussion in the linked thread. There was a mistaken idea that additional calcium or an improvement in Ca/Mg balance shifts soil pH upwards because calcium carbonate lime is often recommended to make a soil more alkaline. To paraphrase: "Calcium carbonate is added, pH goes up, and there's your proof that calcium raises the pH". However, that's not the case. It's the carbonate that does all the work. See the thread for details. If someone gets the idea into their head that they need to add calcium to the soil to "balance the cations" in their acidic soil, they're going to have a really tough time raising their pH with gypsum. And the issue isn't just limited to lime and pH. That's just one example. Acid base chemistry is very straight forward and the cation balance does not affect the pH in the way that some folks think. When you look at the basic chemistry of it, it's like saying 2+2 = 5.

I'm not saying that Albrecht wasn't bright. I'm saying that A) I think he misinterpreted some of the things that he observed and B) a lot of work has been done by a lot of smart people since he introduced his theories and that repeatable work by countless others does not bare out what Albrecht theorized in a good many cases.

tropical: tums are probably made from limestone. Calcium carbonate is calcium carbonate. Either one will raise your pH.

If you want to raise Ca without changing pH, use gypsum. I'm not sure why your mulch has gypsum in it, but unless you have too much Ca, it will not hurt anything.

Finally, there is nothing in gypsum for aluminum sulfate to counteract since it is not alkaline.

Thanks toxic, the mulch has gypsum it says for clay soils.
"Rich in composted organic materials, including enriched plant food & gypsum to soften clay soils" I have to call them and talk to them and ask them how much if they will talk to me. I hope too much gypsum won't cause an over load. Since I don't know if I need to raise calcium or not at this point, I need to find a lab that will do a soil test.

But all calcium must be some kind either carbonate or maybe from bones or egg shells. If one could buy pure calcium? That won't raise the ph? But, if can't get any pure calcium without the carbonate part, then what? I am just trying to figure it out. If all sources calcium has something to raise ph, then adding calcium will raise the ph.

& gypsum to soften clay soils"

I have heard that too high a magnesium content in relation to calcium in clayey soils causes soil tightness [cloddy, wet, and stiff]. Perhaps the compounds matter?

Gypsum only helps sodic soils that are clay. I far as I know sodic soils are high in salt. If you google the words "Gypsum the myth" you will find a bunch of sites, but if google Gypsum, there are some positive sites. I had a whole list of cons of Gypsum, and I just noticed one of them is short acting, a matter of months. So if you were adding Gypsum you would have to keep adding it in small amounts forever to keep any benefits.

a lot of work has been done by a lot of smart people since he introduced his theories and that repeatable work by countless others does not bare out what Albrecht theorized in a good many cases.

I wish I could argue the point with you, Garg. Suffice to say, for every expert who swears Albrecht's theories don't hold water, there's a successful practitioner on the other side of the fence who swears by them.

OK,

I am unfamiliar with the various theory of PH and CA balancing. I have avoided growing anything that can't take a 7.5 PH. Even with this limitation, there appears to be plenty of plants I can still grow.

I talked with my wife. She indicated that the area the house is in used to be a swamp. This may explain the somewhat high organic material. They must have amended it over the years, since the soil doesn't really drain that poorly.

I will see if I can locate some rock phosphate and add it. I am patient. Is rock phosphate better or is bone meal better?

On another note, someone once suggested Sphagnum Peat Moss as an amendment that may reduce PH and amend the soil at the same time. I have also been told that Sphagnum Peat Moss isn't renewable and should avoid using it.

Thank you everyone for your help so far.

Paul

Is rock phosphate better or is bone meal better
If you really want to use an organic source of P, I'd use bone meal or bone char, if you can find it. Hard rock phosphate has practically no availability in soils with a pH over 7. I'm not sure that applies to colloidal phosphate as well. All of these are significant sources of calcium as well.

someone once suggested Sphagnum Peat Moss as an amendment that may reduce PH and amend the soil at the same time.

I like peat moss and have no philosophical problem with it, but you have plenty of organic matter already. I'd just use the sulfur at the rate garg recommended.

According to Wikipedia Albrecht did not state that adding calcium did not change the PH of soil. He only stated the improvement from liming was not from the change of PH, but instead from calcium in the lime. He wanted people to stop focusing on PH and start adding organic matter. Therefore he would argue that PH is not important. He wrote a lot of book and papers that are listed at the end of the article. He was one of early pioneers in the organic foods movement. If one is growing hydroponically they need to be very concerned with PH. One consideration is cost. If you have a barren field and you want to grow a crop, it would be very expensive to add a lot of organic matter and improve that soil. The farmers wanted to take short cuts and just put down some lime instead of really amending the soil properly. But, if everyone in the US composted uneaten food and there was some effort made to collect all of it and compost it on a large scale there would be enough composted organic matter. Most of it ends up down the garbage disposal or in the trash. Most fast food places are in a hurry and don't take time to save the left over foods. So, basically I believe this was his point. I see no reason to obsess over the calcium ratios then one is using organic matter. The organic matter will cause the calcium to be taken in better by the plants.

Here is a link that might be useful: Wikipedia link William Albrecht

I'd never looked at the Wikipedia page for Albrecht before (As a rule, I don't put much stock in what that site has to offer) but I went ahead and clicked the link.
This right here is a real gem:

"he discounted soil pH, stating that "plants are not sensitive to, or limited by, a particular pH value of the soil." Instead, he believed that the benefits of liming soil stem from the additional calcium available to the plant, not the increase in pH. "

Of course, in that regard he was woefully mistaken and that's a great example of the thought process that tainted a lot of the ideas that he proposed. You can take an action and see a response but completely miss the point if you misinterpret what you observe. Yes, you can follow his advice and often have good results but there are a number of potential problems when you have a skewed understanding of what is going on.

Here is one problem. It may not work every time. Let's say that there are two people who follow Albrecht and they both have soils in which calcium does not "balance" magnesium. Further more, let's say one has strongly acidic soil and one has strongly alkaline. If you believe Albrecht, then adding lime will improve plant performance. In the acid soil, you will see that improvement and think that it's because you added calcium and ignore the fact that you brought the pH into a more favorable range. Now you have someone who swears by Albrecht and his ideas. In the alkaline soil you will end up with a train wreck because you locked up nutrients and trashed your soil microbes' environment. Then that person is left chasing their tail trying to figure out what could have possibly gone wrong because their Ca and Mg are now quite balanced indeed.

Here is another potential issue. Let's say that you have a soil with calcium that is below a sufficient level for your plants but magnesium is fully sufficient for your soil type. Now let's also assume that you have a Ca to Mg ratio of 2 to 1. All you have to do is add a little calcium to get that nutrient up to full sufficiency....maybe 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. But, if you're chasing a "balance" you may have to add 25 or 50 lbs. to get the ratio that you are looking for. In both cases, the plants respond favorably but you end up spending 5 or 10 times the money and effort.

Or how about this? Again calcium is deficient but in this instance magnesium is also deficient. There physically is not enough of either nutrient in the soil to satisfy plant requirements for those elements. But they're at a Ca/Mg ratio of 8 to 1 so you don't add anything. Your plants will starve.

That's the issue I have with Albrecht's ideas regarding plant nutrition in the soil. Often times you can follow the Albrecht ideas and have good results. However, a skewed understanding of plant nutrition has a significant potential to either cause a problem, result in an "over kill" solution, or leave the true root of poor plant performance unaddressed. The virtually accidental successes only mask a flawed theory.

I mean, if it is working for you, go for it. But, I would recommended if someone is at the point where they need to choose either base case saturation ratios or sufficiency as a standard for their own fertility program, be informed about it. Also, if you do follow BCSR methods and end up with mysterious problems, consider re-thinking your understanding of soil fertility.

garg, I think that if both calcium and magnesium were deficient per your example, I would add both of those elements in proportion.

I think I would likely take a middle course in the 2 to 1 case...like add 15 pounds rather than 5 or 50.

In the hypothetical example of two soils, one acid one alkaline, did Albrecht say to always add lime? I don't know if he said to add lime or not in any case. I would think he would prefer the person add organic matter. I have never gardened in acid soil, so I don't know what it would take. What if I had an acid soil garden and instead of adding lime, I added organic matter. I would not need to add lime because the soil would become better to help those plants get calcium. Someone would need to buy the books on Amazon and figure out what he said exactly. I don't think he would want some to add lime to an alkaline soil.

Below is a link to an Albrecht book. On the library where the book is listed is more Albrecht writing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Albrecht

Garg- I think you are considering Albrecht's theories only superficially. Obviously, the good Doctor has his share of detractors. But, keep in mind that the main body of his work was accomplished more than 60 years ago. That many of his theories are still in practice and that we're still arguing over their relevance is a credit to his legacy.

Albrecht considered Calcium's primarily important as a mineral nutrient. But, that doesn't mean he discounted the significance of pH. He just approached it from the standpoint of: if your base saturation %s are in line, your pH will be in it's "sweet" spot. pH is dictated by the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.). So, by recommending his "ideal" %s, Albrecht was simply saying, if you're hydrogen % is right, your pH will be right. I don't see this as a radical idea; it's just a different way of considering the same thing.

In the alkaline soil you will end up with a train wreck because you locked up nutrients and trashed your soil microbes' environment.

The idea of balancing the cations would lead one to balance what is excessive with what is deficient. What's driving the high pH? If you have an excess of both calcium and magnesium, no one (certainly not Albrecht) is suggesting that you add more lime just to attain a "balance."

Here is another potential issue. Let's say that you have a soil with calcium that is below a sufficient level for your plants but magnesium is fully sufficient for your soil type. Now let's also assume that you have a Ca to Mg ratio of 2 to 1. All you have to do is add a little calcium to get that nutrient up to full sufficiency....maybe 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. But, if you're chasing a "balance" you may have to add 25 or 50 lbs. to get the ratio that you are looking for. In both cases, the plants respond favorably but you end up spending 5 or 10 times the money and effort.

There's more to the equation than simply the Ca/Mg ratio. From what I understand, the "ideal" ratio is going to maximize efficiency. For example, maybe you obtain the same yield per acre on your corn crop (with a sub-optimal Ca/Mg ratio), but it's going to require significantly more nitrogen.

Or how about this? Again calcium is deficient but in this instance magnesium is also deficient. There physically is not enough of either nutrient in the soil to satisfy plant requirements for those elements. But they're at a Ca/Mg ratio of 8 to 1 so you don't add anything. Your plants will starve.

The ratio has to be considered within the context of the proper base saturation. Albrecht recommended a 4.3:1 Ca/Mg ratio (base saturation %s). BUT, if both Ca/Mg are deficient--even if the ratio is correct--you would add lime. However, I suppose if you're working with a low CEC soil, you could achieve the recommended base saturation %s and ratios and and still have a deficit according to the sufficiency school. In this case Albrecht would be advocating the more conservative approach.

Also, Albrecht was focused on the balance between Ca, Mg, and K. He was especially focussed on the Ca to K ratio, with his belief in that ratio's control over the nutritional value of the plant matter. Too much K to Ca (common in high rainfall areas) creates rank plant growth that is "carbonaceous", a diet based upon which leads to degenerative diseases. The correct Ca to K ratio results in less total plant growth that is "proteinaceous" a diet which promotes excellent health.

That perfect ratio according to Albrecht is found on the high plains where buffalo roamed. That is why they roamed there, in fact. Presumably, though, one could achieve that balance between Ca, Mg and K as well as bringing up deficient traces even in a high-rainfall region without too much difficulty by using the various rock dusts.

Garg, are you maintaining that Ca is not a plant nutrient?

But, keep in mind that the main body of his work was accomplished more than 60 years ago. That many of his theories are still in practice and that we're still arguing over their relevance is a credit to his legacy.
And the "Model T" was an amazing machine for its time and you can still get from point A to point B with one today. However, there have been real and significant improvements and advances since then.

Albrecht considered Calcium's primarily important as a mineral nutrient. But, that doesn't mean he discounted the significance of pH. He just approached it from the standpoint of: if your base saturation %s are in line, your pH will be in it's "sweet" spot.
This is simply not true.

pH is dictated by the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.).
Actually no. pH is dictated not by what is on the exchange but what is in solution. It is also not a function of hydrogen in relationship to other cations. It is a direct, measurable and easily calculated relationship between hydrogen (or more correctly, hydronium) to the hydroxyl anion (OH-). If he really believed it was a relationship of hydrogen to other cations, he was flat-out wrong.

So, by recommending his "ideal" %s, Albrecht was simply saying, if you're hydrogen % is right, your pH will be right. I don't see this as a radical idea; it's just a different way of considering the same thing.
No, it really isn't the same thing. If that were true, you could increase your pH by adding calcium to "overwhelm" the amount of hydrogen, in which case you would still have the same amount of hydrogen but it would be a smaller portion of the over all cations, resulting in hydrogen making up a smaller percent of the total cations. But you can't change pH by fiddling with the amounts of those other cations. That's why you can add gypsum (calcium sulfate) all the live long day and it won't budge your pH one way or the other because you're just adding caclium (and sulfate). You're not increasing H+ or decreasing the OH-. The relationship of H+ to OH- in solution is quite literally the definition of pH.
('pH' being a mathematical expression meaning "find the antilog of hydronium in a solution. The inverse of the equation is pOH and will determine the OH in solution, giving you a scale that is a mirror image of pH). It really is that simple and it really isn't a function of any of the other cations in any other way.

If you have an excess of both calcium and magnesium, no one (certainly not Albrecht) is suggesting that you add more lime just to attain a "balance."
Two things: If someone focuses on BSCR without a good understanding of soil chemistry, they certainly might. Hence my "be informed" statement. As to whether or not Albrecht would actually say to lime an alkaline soil or not, I honestly don't know. I would assume he held that view based on the Wikipedia quote but if you say that's not right, I'd definitely believe you over Wikipedia.

There's more to the equation than simply the Ca/Mg ratio. From what I understand, the "ideal" ratio is going to maximize efficiency. For example, maybe you obtain the same yield per acre on your corn crop (with a sub-optimal Ca/Mg ratio), but it's going to require significantly more nitrogen.
There we just have to disagree, I suppose. All day long I look at data and plant response. I just haven't seen it play out that way.

The ratio has to be considered within the context of the proper base saturation. Albrecht recommended a 4.3:1 Ca/Mg ratio (base saturation %s). BUT, if both Ca/Mg are deficient--even if the ratio is correct--you would add lime.
Even in an alkaline soil? Of course I know that's not what you mean but that's how quickly someone can get tripped up and make things worse if they are too focused on cation ratios. Besides, I'm still not sure one way or the other if Albrecht would have recommended lime in such an instance.

However, I suppose if you're working with a low CEC soil, you could achieve the recommended base saturation %s and ratios and and still have a deficit according to the sufficiency school. In this case Albrecht would be advocating the more conservative approach.
....and it would starve the plants. You can eat a perfectly balanced diet but if it's only giving you 200 calories a day, you won't be all that healthy.

Garg, are you maintaining that Ca is not a plant nutrient?
Oh goodness, no. It's a huge player.

I have heard ph described as the "tail on the dog". Idea being if your minerals are balanced one does not really have to think about ph.

Another view of Albrecht:

http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Albrecht%20Lecture%20-%20Healthy%20Soils%20Healthy%20People.htm

IMO, the prevailing "sufficiency" model of soil science has to take responsibility for livestock and human health, since nearly every calorie in the food supply traces back to a conventional production system (by which I include large-scale "organic" operations). When the majority of the populations of countries with modern science-dominated growing systems are unhealthy and/or obese, I have to reject the prevailing soil science.

The sufficiency model is very clearly insufficient, to put it mildly, if we are willing to open our eyes a little wider and place blame where it belongs.

I've heard that too. It's lunacy.

My "lunacy" comment was in regards to the pH statement.

As far as human and animal nutrition go, I'm not an expert in that regard and can't speak too much to that. However, I would hesitate to place so much blame on a single factor when discussing such a complex issue.

For what it's worth, I'm all for something better than a sufficiency model if it's better. I just don't see BCSR as that model.

One could argue that it is far from a single factor when health depends on proper uptake of so many minerals and we are we eat, as they say.

Perhaps apropos to the discussion is the question of how to know the value of one's produce without having to become unhealthy as a metric. I just ran a little home-cooked refractometer test: I took a highly-refined cane sugar (confectioner's sugar) mixed in a little water and put in the meter. It happened to come out a 15 on the brix scale and with an absolutely flat and clear dividing line in the background. I then took molasses and mixed in water until I got to 15 brix, and the background was very hazy, with the two colors bleeding into each other significantly. This seems to support the idea that the haziness of the field gives an approximate measure of how many different minerals are in the solution, since we know for sure that confectioner's sugar has virtually nothing but sugar whereas molasses is famous as a mineralizing tonic.

So when you have a 6-brix tomato clearly-divided field vs a 6-brix hazy field you can throw the first one in the compost pile.

I don't know what's really in tomato juice or molasses as far as suspended solids, but as a chemist, I think that theory might be too simplistic. Extrapolating from turbidity to nutrition may or may not work, but I would only trust it with some data to back it up. JMHO.

While we were debating Aluminium sulfate pro and cons. Cotton seed meal is used to make the soil more acid and it is organic, however, I just read on wikipedia that is toxic to cattle. So, I don't know. I have never used it, but maybe some people who find Aluminium problematic (thinking it causes Alzheimer's) would find cotton seed meal more acceptable? I discovered it when I was reading on the rose forum that someone amended the soil on a planted rose with cotton seed meal and rose was dying. It was probably too rich for the rose or she used too much or it or she was only supposed to use it on acid lovers ie azaleas and not roses.

Cotton seed meal is used to make the soil more acid and it is organic...

Most cotton seed meal is GMO and wouldn't be considered organic by OMRI standards. Since it's not a food crop, it is also subject to relentless pesticide use. I understand there IS organic CSM, but it is hard to find and relatively expensive.

My "lunacy" comment was in regards to the pH statement.

Why do you consider Albrecht's pH axiom to be lunacy? I'm sure there may be technical examples of soils that don't follow the axiom, but I think one could safely qualify Albrecht's statement to read: "practically speaking, with regard to most agricultural soils..." balance the cations and the pH will be right.

pH is dictated not by what is on the exchange but what is in solution.

I agree. Maybe a better word would be "correlate," e.g. "pH correlates to the number of hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex in relation to the basic ions (Ca, Mg, K, etc.)." A very quick Google search turned up others from the "conventional" camp who seem to agree:

"The concentration of hydrogen ions in the soil solution is directly proportionate to and in equilibrium with the hydrogen ions retained on the soil's cation exchange complex. Thus, the hydrogen ions retained by clay particles replenish, or buffer, the hydrogen ions in soil water."(University of Hawaii http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_acidity.aspx)

"The more hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex of a soil in relation to the basic ions held, the greater the acidity of the soil" (Dr. Cliff Synder for the Mosaic Corporation, "Efficient Fertilizer Use Manual")

"The proportion of CEC satisfied by basic cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) is termed percentage base saturation (BS%). This property is inversely related to soil acidity. As the BS% increases, the pH increases." (Washington State University, http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/04CEC.htm)

"Soils tend to become acidic as a result of: (1) rainwater leaching away basic ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium)." (State University of New York, http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm)

Don't these statements suggest there IS a relationship between the basic (or base forming) cations and soil pH?

These two fall into the first Category:
The concentration of hydrogen ions in the soil solution is directly proportionate to and in equilibrium with the hydrogen ions retained on the soil's cation exchange complex. Thus, the hydrogen ions retained by clay particles replenish, or buffer, the hydrogen ions in soil water."(University of Hawaii http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_acidity.aspx)
Yes, there is a correlation. However, the more acidic you make the solution, the more hydrogen well end up on the exchange. You can not increase the amount of hydrogen on the exchange by replacing it with calcium. So yes, they correlate but the causation only goes one way.

"The more hydrogen ions held by the exchange complex of a soil in relation to the basic ions held, the greater the acidity of the soil" (Dr. Cliff Synder for the Mosaic Corporation, "Efficient Fertilizer Use Manual")

This is the same correlation as discussed in the above quote. The higher the H+% you see on the exchange the more acidic your soil will be. However, adding or removing calcium (or potassium or sodium) will not change the amount of hydrogen on the exchange.

these two fall into a second category:

"The proportion of CEC satisfied by basic cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) is termed percentage base saturation (BS%). This property is inversely related to soil acidity. As the BS% increases, the pH increases." (Washington State University, http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/04CEC.htm)

and

"Soils tend to become acidic as a result of: (1) rainwater leaching away basic ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium)." (State University of New York, http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm)

The one from U or New York was written by an "instructional support specialist" and the Washington one looks like it was written by an extension agent. I'm not knocking either one, but that fact is, nobody is an expert in everything. Those folks are in "catch all" positions and write a lot of information on a lot of topics, and not everything they write can be in their area expertise. As such, they sometimes misinterpret information that is outside their area of focus. It's a somewhat complicated thing and there is some pretty unfortunate terminology used. This is a concept that confuses a lot of people, including professionals and academics in hort and ag.

And again, I'm not knocking them. That's just the way it is. As I noted above, I am not an expert in animal or human nutrition even though it is related to what I do. If I was asked to write a paper on nutrition I could do some research and throw together something that sounds really good and is mostly correct but I may make a mistake or two on some of the more nuanced facets of the topic.

I'm starting to feel at a bit of a dead end here. I'm sorry, but I just can't break down the chemistry any more simply than I have. I wish I was a better teacher. I think at this point all I can say is, I've done my best and I'm just going to leave out there for people to take or leave.

Tox, are you saying the refractometer measures the turbidity of a water solution even if the suspended particles are not short or long chain sugars or carbohydrates?

I'm starting to feel at a bit of a dead end here. I'm sorry, but I just can't break down the chemistry any more simply than I have. I wish I was a better teacher. I think at this point all I can say is, I've done my best and I'm just going to leave out there for people to take or leave.

Garg - thanks for your time and sorry to beat the proverbial dead horse. I'm having a hard time understanding because: 1) as you pointed out, there's conflicting information out there; and, 2) once I've learned something, it's doubly hard to unlearn it.

So, what is your point of view, does calcium make ph higher or not? I don't think I am going to add any more stuff like calcium anyway. I think just composting is good enough. I got some ph paper and my soil tested 7, so I am still trying ways to lower the ph by composting. I still believe in Aluminum sulfate in small amounts. I use miracle in the acid lovers formula instead of just plain miracle grow. I try to do what I can here and there to make it more acid. I read in the link below you should not try to change the ph more than 1 level per year. No matter what I do the tap water and the soil is still very alkaline. It would have a higher ph if I was not constantly working on the problem. I would like to have 6.5 instead of 7, but I don't know if it's even possible.

Here is a link that might be useful: helpful ph link

No need at all to apologize. All of your questions are legitimate and well reasoned. I really appreciate our discussions. It forces me to go back over stuff that has gotten "foggy" over time, which is a good thing. Besides, it's just plain fun. But sadly, I've hit a wall with my ability to explain. The whole teaching thing simply isn't my strong suit.

I just lost the final take home point. It was not clear if you were talking about Albrecht's point of view or your own. But, I don't really need to know, since I won't be using any calcium anyway.

>>Tox, are you saying the refractometer measures the turbidity of a water solution even if the suspended particles are not short or long chain sugars or carbohydrates?

Not exactly. As you know the device measures *dissolved* solids (i.e. sugar), but what I heard you saying is that sometimes the solution was fuzzy and that this might have something to do with nutritional value of the juice. If the fuzziness is due to turbidity, i.e. fine suspended solids or colloidal material, I was simply saying that whatever it is, you can't assume that it has more nutrient value than clear juice just on that basis alone.

Great thread. Gargwarb is correct with the PH, he is spot on and an expert. So I have a question for any of you related to this conversation. I have a natural soil ph of about 7.8. I have some friends a few miles away whose soil tests at 8.2. This is the typical soil ph range for Utah soils. From what I have read, soil ph can be difficult and expensive to change, especially if you have calcarous soils (limestone) or have a water source that flows through calcarous soils. So at higher ph, iron, boron, manganese etc. might be less available in my soils even though they may be plentiful in content. Here is a quote from a Utah State University Extension published document that suggests that instead of spending a lot of money in trying to reduce soil ph, it may be better instead to add the less available micronutrients. Here is the quote: "Table 1 provides guidelines for interpreting soil pH. Due to the buffering power of lime, changing soil pH can be extremely costly and difficult. Before investing in amendments to lower soil pH consider whether pH is a problem (Table 1 and the cost of materials to alter pH. Periodically adding small amounts of micronutrients such as zinc or iron to control nutrient deficiencies may be more cost effective than attempting to lower pH."

The publication also suggests that most crop plants will still grow well in a ph range of 7.8 - 8.2.

So the question is, what are your thoughts on adding micro nutrients instead of trying to lower ph?

The link to the publication is posted below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Managing Soil PH in Utah

I don't garden in that kind of soil, but my family lives in Albuquerque and they have several gardens in alkaline soil derived from granite/pegmatite and lots of limestone. They add compost, as much as they can make, and supplement with a little fertilizer. The gardens grow fine.

If you're adding compost, you're adding micronutrients, generally speaking. I would only add specific ones if you have symptoms of a problem, like yellow leaves from lack of iron.

The fuzziness I was referring to is specifically in the background of the "field" in the eyepiece. Generally this correlates with visible difference in the fluid being tested as well. What I have noticed as a general rule is that sap that looks thick and cloudy tests higher on the scale and gives a hazy background sometimes to the point where it is very difficult to pinpoint the exact brix reading, while saps that look thin watery test low on the scale and have a crisp clear line on the scale, there is not the slightest doubt about the exact number.

What i have read is that this fuzziness correlates with the range of minerals in the sap, or perhaps more accurately with the complexity of the molecules which would themselves depend on range of minerals available to the plant. I would like to devise some empirical way to verify this for myself beyond much doubt, so I thought of the test with two different common sweeteners that are known to be nutritionally different.

OK. My response to the idea was based on the expected complexity of the stuff. There are going to be all kinds of sugars, starches, proteins, enzymes, you name it floating around in there. How do you measure the nutritional value of that juice so it can be correlated to the observable measurement? It is way beyond my area of expertise, but it seemed to be a complex problem.