TOPIC: Soil Amendment Help ... Please

Fellow Growers,

As mentioned in my first (introduction) post, I am new to growing 'sang. (I do have a small patch of seedlings from my first effort last year.)

Anyway, this year I'm gonna put out at least 1 lb. of seeds, and most of that will be 'wild simulated'.

The good news:

I do have a really nice small patch (1/2 acre) of woods on my cabin property, and I have cleared all understory (mostly all saplings) this summer. This is a mountain area, and the elevation iis roughly 3400'. The shade is excellent at 80% or more, and the aspect is NNW. I also cleared lower branches on the smaller trees up to about 8' or so, and ventilation should be very good. The timber is at least a 40 year stand, with mostly Sugar Maple and Beech, with a smaller amount of Birch and Cherry The slope is 20% - 30%, and the soil stays nice and moist. I plan on planting this area as 'woods grown', and probably Hankins method, per Scott Persons book. I will lay it out in several small raked beds, so that experimenting could easily be done with note keeping. Being right outside my door, I can be very attentive to the planned plots.

The bad news:

It wasn't till about 3 weeks ago that I sent soil samples in for testing, and when I got the 2 reports back .... Well, it wasn't good.

Both reports were nearly identical, so here are the numbers: Ph is 3.9. The following chemicals are in lbs./acre. Phosphorus = 7, Potassium = 50, Calcium = 169, and Magnesium = 31.

These elements are in ppm: Zinc = 5.3, Manganese = 10.4, Copper = .4, Iron = 81.1, Boron = .1, and Soluble Salts = 243.

Needless to say, I was disappointed, and it might be all for naught, but I would still like to go ahead with some seed planting there anyway. I can find the target numbers in Scott's book, and just guessing, I imagine I could at least double Scott's recommendation on calcium? On the other chemicals I could surely use some help.

One other thing I just thought of: The mulch I had planned on using, would be rotted sawdust, and shredded Maple leaves. Sound ok?

Please know that I don't wish for anyone to over extend theirself, but a suggestion here and there would be most helpful.

I do appreciate any and all help, and I will be following along.

Bill

Bill,

Only 139 PPA on Calcium ? Wow - think that is the lowest report I have seen so far. One of my hollows tested around 800 last year and I decided not to plant it.

I think you very well may be in trouble with that location.

I think Scotts book says that if your soil test comes back less than 1000 you should try to find another location.

If you are determined to give this place a try here are some suggestions.

PH 3.9 is quite low.
Calcium and Phosphorous also quite low.

If you use Gypsum it will increase calcium but will not affect PH or Phosphorous.

Bone Meal on the other hand will increase all 3 of those.

Bone Meal (is not all that expensive) and has a ph of around 12, and is a good source of calcium and phosphorous.

It is organic and slow release.

If the numbrers you quoted are actually in PPA then I would suggest you put the bone meal on fairly thick (perhaps 20 lbs per 250 sf bed) and also apply 10 lbs of gypsum.

Something like that might work.

Other organic fertilizers you might consider, rock phosphate and epson salt (for phos and mag). I hear it is important to get the rock phosphate down into the soil so you really need to work that in a bit.

Check your soil again after a year, and see how all of that affected the PH, Cal, Phos.

When the PH rises into the 5.5 range, stop putting down bone meal and use only gypsum.

Good Luck !

TNhunter

TN Good morning,
As an old peach farmer, help me to understand why you would not try to use lime to bring this soil PH condition back into the proper levels. I;m still a little bit confused as to why to use Gypsum and not lime. I do understand that Gypsum softens the soil.I;ve been reading as much as I can on the subject, but I'm still a little confused.
Hugh

Gypsum is normally used for ginseng as it raises calcium without raising the pH. Lime on the other hand raises pH and calcium.

Based on the Beyfuss study, I don't know if I would be willing to drop lime at that point, but I would certainly top dress with calcium after planting and maybe every year or so.

Brad,
I do understand that the Gypsum will do as you have stated, but would he not want to raise the PH levels under the circumstances? I seem to have a big gap in learning about ferilization of ginseng as compared to growing other crops. Thanks for any help.
Hugh

Hey Hugh,

It depends. The Beyfuss study (NY) (and one other one which escapes me at the moment from NC) suggest that high calcium (over 2000 lbs per acre) and low pH in the 4s, was typically found where monster ginseng plants were growing.

There seems to be some connection between lower pH and less disease too. The Ontario Production Recommendations for Ginseng suggest pH at 6.5 in normal practice. 3.9 is a long way from there. I guess what I'd suggest is that he leave the pH where it is right now, and add gypsum as a top dressing to make it readily available to the plants. Then, reevaluate next year, and if the growth is not what he likes, maybe test a section and add lime instead of gypsum and compare the results.

Alternately, he could do that now when he plants. Test both practices and stick with the one which works best.

TNhunter,

\"I think you very well may be in trouble with that location.\"

Yes TN, I wouldn't even try this spot for a potential cash crop. I do think I will give it a try tho, for experimenting, and having a little bit of 'sang to enjoy in the immediate area of my cabin. I will keep records, and in time, may have some meaningful information to contribute here. I guess the first information would be in the Spring of 2012, to see if I get germination, and then (if germination happens, and the seedlings make it thru the Summer) again in the Spring of 2013, to see if I get 2 year olds coming up. I will take other soil samples at times along the way.

The wild simulated I will be planting, will be in other areas, where I have found companion plants.

\"I think Scotts book says that if your soil test comes back less than 1000 you should try to find another location.\"

I hadn't read that part yet. I only recently got the book, and so far have just skimmed thru. It certainly does make sense tho, because from what I've read so far, calcium should be at a minimum of 2000, making 1000 amendable.

Yes, the Ca, P, K, & Mg. are in lbs./acre. The other elements are in parts per million.

A couple of questions: I gather that the bone meal could be applied to the top like gypsum. (Such as in your youtube video) Is that correct? ... Whereas, the rock phosphate should be raked down in prior to seeding. Correct? Would using bone meal or rock phosphate negate the need for epsom salts?

Thanks for your suggestions TN.

One thing I got a quick education on is that these mountain soils in my cabin area are generally poor for ginseng. It takes a lot of looking around and/or research to find favorable spots, and from what I've found so far, they are generally small areas. ... On the other hand, my permanant residence is in North Central WV, and from here, going Westerly towards the Ohio River, 'sang isn't hard to find where you can get permissions to hunt it. So those soils are pretty darn favorable. East of the mountains, I really don't know.

Hugh, From what I have read, What BCastle says here concerning gupsum is dead on. The 'Beyfuss Study' is good information, and it is summarized in Scott Persons book. I also read about this study somewhere on the internet, but I can't remember the site. I think a Google on Beyfuss Study might bring it up.

Sounds like your area is similar to mine. My understory was all rododendron, and left the soil deficit in the same areas that you indicate.

I would be clear that your soil test values are in PPM or PPA. the two delineations are are pretty different.

While TNHunter may be right, in his commentary... \"being in trouble, etc\"
---I would agree that an agressive approach to amending the soil is in order.

I'm using lime and gypsum, and after planting this fall, and before the snows, I'm applying an Agri-Gro nutrient. However, my area thsat I'm working with is the only big area [7 acres] readily available

\"Alternately, he could do that now when he plants. Test both practices and stick with the one which works best.\"

Yes Brad, I think that is what I will do (meaning this year) ... My seed is to arrive around the 12th or 13th of Oct., and I'll be planting immediately thereafter.

Whitjr,

Thanks for mentioning the seed or soil quandry, and thanks to the fact that there is a good thread on seeds going on here right now. After floating, I will definitely be looking at my seeds as shown in that thread, and hopefully remove that variable.

I will try to keep things posted as I go along, but my first soil re-test most likely won't be till around late March 2012.

All, One of the things that crossed my mind was that in clearing that woodlot (I worked all Summer on it) I must have taken out at least 350 - 500 little 2' saplings. They were dense in there. I chopped them out roots and all. Some of them were shooting up off of runner roots, so I chopped those runners off as far back as I could tug them. ... I wonder if those saplings didn't use up a lot of calcium, and thereby contributed to my already terribly low calcium? ... Anyone?

That's an interesting thought. I think it was Scott Persons in his latest book who talked about the trees (especially maple if memory serves) that store calcium in their leaves.