I am reminded of one of my favorite funny stories related by a well known comedian. He said he was arrested for being drunk in public. He was read his rights. He had the right to remain silent, he said, and continued...but I did not have the ability to do so! I'm not drunk - in public.
By now all ya' all know I have certain unbending thoughts about soils and their productivity and the need to amend and why we do that. Production ag is one universe and food plots are something entirely different. I am never sure which one we are discussing. It matters immensely in production and not so much for food plots.
The information a soil sampling and it's test results provides is sketchy without more information. Geographic location, soil type and how big an area sampled are important - or not. Without knowing how the sample was acquired - how many samples, how deep, over what area - just amending soil on a random basis is probably as effective as acting on a badly acquired sample. I guess we all understand the range of results of an entire field varies widely and wildly. I have seen research where a pH in a single 20 (+/-) acre field can go from the upper 4's to nearly 7. So, what we end up with is an average. Remember, an acre of soil in the "plow layer," for discussion, is 2 million pounds. The sample we send the lab might be a pound. Even a good test collection only provides some rope to hang on to.
Eventually we act based on the information we have, good, bad, more or less. Recommendations are given by the lab and are based on a set of assumptions few of us take the time to read and understand. Most are for production and are meant to replace the nutrients harvested and carried out off the field. There might be some consideration for nutrients leached and lost because of normal weathering, but, mostly we don't know.
The macro nutrients, N, P & K are critical and whatever the outcome of the crop intended will depend on the availability of those nutrients. We rarely consider the micro nutrients. But, my thought is your plant health and related yields will depend on the quality of the soil and your climate. There ae poor soils, OK soils and great soils. In my estimation you can improve a naturally poor soil but it always be a poor soil compared to its brothers and sisters. If it makes you feel good to make the effort at improvement it's money and time well spent, maybe.
There's a place for gypsum and SD has convinced me to look to it for certain fringe situations...but I am not a disciple for its use. It can improve soil structure and chemistry. Used in excessive amounts it can also unbalance soil chemistry. To me the biggest benefit of it is the sulfur it supplies. If you could add one test for a micronutrient I would suggest it be for sulfur, at least once in your life.
To the question - what to do given the test results provided above. Food plots, right? It might be OK to do nothing. The pH's are reasonable. Phosphate and potassium are a little low but having oodles of nutrients available at all times is important if growing conditions - like cold, wet weather and soils are present at planting. In production ag we don't wait for the ideal. In food plots I suspect planting conditions are probably less limiting because we have luxury and leisure.
If it were me I would want the phosphorus in the 20-30 ppm (40-60 lb / acre) and potassium 90-150 ppm (180-300 lbs /acre). I actually think potassium levels are critically important if you want good plant structure - corn that stands and soybeans that hold pods and pods that hold seeds on the plant late into the season.
Now, what you do with this, if anything, depends on how confident you are about the quality of the soil sample tested!
I know, I had the right to remain silent but I did not have the ability to do so!
