# My Soil Test Is... Whaaaat???



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

OK, I was not expecting this. I guess this is precisely why you guys push soil tests.

I was expecting acidic soil, adequate N (based on late fall apps) and low micros.

I was not expecting this roller coaster. I guess no dolomitic lime for me :lol: What would your plan be with this?


----------



## SumBeach35 (Jul 11, 2019)

My plan for this would be the garbage can and to get a proper soil test using known and scientifically proven test methods.


----------



## desirous (Dec 15, 2017)

What @SumBeach35 said. The guys here push for soil tests from labs with proven track record.


----------



## Lawn Whisperer (Feb 15, 2021)

Recommend reading the "Selecting A Soil Test Laboratory" topic.
https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=122306#p1223
The reason that no one can recommend any application plan is that they are not able to interpret your soil report, since they don't have the required information and the lab's method of determining the soil's condition.


----------



## Phids (Sep 24, 2020)

AndyS said:


> I was expecting acidic soil, adequate N (based on late fall apps) and low micros.


Nitrogen levels are highly sporadic to the point that some (many?) soil test reports don't even bother reporting it. In other words, don't read too much into that.


----------



## Lawn Noob (Jul 26, 2020)

Why were you expecting something different?


----------



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

Sorry - disappointed by some of these comments given the usual caliber of advice and help here.

Why is it a bad lab? Why can't it be trusted? What's a good lab? How do you know a lab's track record? Why is it so bad that it needs to go in the garbage?

@Phids - I agree, N is the one macro I was not interested in since it doesn't hang around in the soil... I was mildly interested if the soil retained any N from late apps

@Lawn Noob I was. I was expecting acidic soil based on where I live. I wasn't expecting P and K to be so low since I did a reno and was using starter. I expected micros to be low, and wasn't expecting to see something specific like mag being high.

The raw numbers:


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

AndyS said:


> Why is it a bad lab? Why can't it be trusted? What's a good lab? How do you know a lab's track record? Why is it so bad that it needs to go in the garbage?


Lawn whisper highlighted the post that explains it. There is a thread about the soilsavvy/mysoil methods. Read them.


----------



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

g-man said:


> AndyS said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it a bad lab? Why can't it be trusted? What's a good lab? How do you know a lab's track record? Why is it so bad that it needs to go in the garbage?
> ...


I read that and other posts related to 'MySoil' tests. What I gleaned is that they are not part of a voluntary accreditation process.

I talked to one of those labs that participates. Their analysis is broader, but it doesn't include any recommendations on levels or corrective actions. Also their site has no process stated or embedded workflow to kick off the process, so they're not set up to be homeowner-friendly.

I talked to another lab that is not accredited that had what appeared to be a more optimal process for homeowners to collect samples.

I also watched the Lawns Across America video that came out two days ago.

Overall I saw nothing to suggest garbage.

@Lawn Whisperer - thanks for the link.


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

If you are happy with MySoil, then follow their recommendations. They list you what products to buy.


----------



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

g-man said:


> If you are happy with MySoil, then follow their recommendations. They list you what products to buy.


Thanks. I'll take action on the analysis based on products I guess I'll work out for myself. Not a problem.

Spoke to three labs now. Three different recommendations on providing samples, so identical testing could produce different results. I'll be doing some sampling there for kicks. I have the time.


----------



## SumBeach35 (Jul 11, 2019)

AndyS said:


> Sorry - disappointed by some of these comments given the usual caliber of advice and help here.
> 
> Why is it a bad lab? Why can't it be trusted? What's a good lab? How do you know a lab's track record? Why is it so bad that it needs to go in the garbage?
> 
> The raw numbers:


They are using a test method that has yet to be correlated to turf, and when questioned about their methods and how they source their reference ranges, they go mum. There has also been questions about the consistency from within the same test sample.

A good lab uses known testing methods (M1, M3, Olsen, Bray..etc) and university backed test methods. Options are local university extension office, spectrum analytics, waypoint, midwest labs. Pick a location close to you and stick with it.

If you choose to stay with MySoil, that's your choice but i would stick with whatever lab you decide to go with.


----------



## ionicatoms (Mar 8, 2020)

I don't trust any lab report until I'm satisfied that the results are repeatable.


----------



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

SumBeach35 said:


> They are using a test method that has yet to be correlated to turf, and when questioned about their methods and how they source their reference ranges, they go mum. There has also been questions about the consistency from within the same test sample.
> 
> A good lab uses known testing methods (M1, M3, Olsen, Bray..etc) and university backed test methods. Options are local university extension office, spectrum analytics, waypoint, midwest labs. Pick a location close to you and stick with it.
> 
> If you choose to stay with MySoil, that's your choice but i would stick with whatever lab you decide to go with.


Thanks @SumBeach35 - this is helpful. It's good learning.

I was traveling yesterday and it gave me a lot of time to think about the 'results'.

What the results did do was give me a research avenue on heavy clay soil combined with high mag. That led me to investigate gypsum more closely and learn new terms like flocculation.

In turn everything I read and listened to described my soil, completely setting aside other micros and macros. It's heavy clay, water sits on top, the soil cracks in the Summer... It's almost impenetrable when dry. It all adds up.

That led me to find that my local Erie shore soils are apparently known for high mag issues based on the specific geology.

Macros and micros are relatively easy and I'll do that, but finding an optimal route to soil amendment (whether the high sulfur levels and optimal salt levels are considered accurate or not) will be my area of focus. It's all going to be about the soil.

Whether it was a blond squirrel thing or good data, I've somehow ended up on a good track.


----------



## SumBeach35 (Jul 11, 2019)

For shiz and giggles, i would get another soil test, just to compare using a traditional lab. Ive seen the pH be off as much as 1 full point with MySoil or SoilSavvy tests.

I am up in Western NY and i used the Waypoint S3M test at the location in PA. I believe it costs me $16.50 and uses a Mehlich 3 extraction. This will give you a good starting not knowing exactly where soil pH is at. IMO, this would give you a better starting point for soil amendment. The MySoil test states they test what's "plant available" which doesnt give the true picture of soil levels.

@AndyS


----------



## AndyS (Jun 13, 2020)

SumBeach35 said:


> For shiz and giggles, i would get another soil test, just to compare using a traditional lab. Ive seen the pH be off as much as 1 full point with MySoil or SoilSavvy tests.


I agree. I have one other on the way and possibly more. I'd expect the ph to be different based on the difference in methodology.

I'll be interested to see how sulfur and sodium compares too.

My greatest issue is my soil composition, with water (and thus air) infiltration being a challenge. The challenge will be to amend it without throwing other things out of wack.

Cheers,

Andy


----------



## tam (Jun 27, 2020)

A few years ago, I dipped my toe in the water with a Soil Savvy test. Mine also came back with a much higher pH than I expected, to the point I wondered if I'd pulled my samples incorrectly. I followed their recommendations that season and then moved on to something else once I'd learned a little more.


----------



## DocV (Mar 1, 2020)

[/quote]

They are using a test method that has yet to be correlated to turf, and when questioned about their methods and how they source their reference ranges, they go mum. There has also been questions about the consistency from within the same test sample.

A good lab uses known testing methods (M1, M3, Olsen, Bray..etc) and university backed test methods. Options are local university extension office, spectrum analytics, waypoint, midwest labs. Pick a location close to you and stick with it.

If you choose to stay with MySoil, that's your choice but i would stick with whatever lab you decide to go with.
[/quote]

@SumBeach35 I have some experience with ion exchange resins but am by no means an expert. There is no traditional extraction step in the same sense as that with other soil test methods (Melich 3, Bray, Olsen...) in that the resin system uses deionized water to facilitate ion exchange as the "extraction mechanism" for ions from the soil instead of other reagents (acids or bases). In their sample jar the soil is mixed with deionized water, to make a soil slurry, and the resin capsule. In the jar the ions diffuse from the soil and bind to the resin via ion exchange. The ions on the resin exchange/release hydrogen (H+)and hydroxide ions (-OH), much like roots do, for the ions (N, P, K, Mg, Ca, etc.) in the soil slurry. After a 5 day incubation the resin capsule is removed from the soil slurry, rinsed with deionized water and the bound ions are released from resin with an acid (HCl or KCl) for analysis. The use of ion exchange resins for soil analysis is based on the work of Dr. Earl Skogley at Montana State University. Part of the thinking is that it more closely resembles the nutrients available to the roots because roots react with the soil to release the necessary ions. Given that biological systems are extremely complex and dynamic, I am not sure a static release profile like an ion exchange resin is more accurate than the current soil extraction methods. It does allows the lab to only run 1 type of test method verses multiple (Melich 3, Bray Olsen...). Additionally deionized water would not occur in the lawn and may cause more or less ions to exchange than is naturally occurring. With this in mind I would rather know the total amount of nutrients available to the grass, ensure there are adequate amounts for growth and let the grass determine utilization of those nutrients as needed which is essentially what you are doing with traditional soil tests.

The real key is the one you raised in that tests like Melich 3 have been highly correlated to turf grass nutrient needs and growth responses. This allows for fertilization predictions based on the results. The ion exchange method may have been correlated to turf needs but it is not publicly known or published data.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

DocV said:


> @SumBeach35 I have some experience with ion exchange resins but am by no means an expert. There is no traditional extraction step in the same sense as that with other soil test methods (Melich 3, Bray, Olsen...) in that the resin system uses deionized water to facilitate ion exchange as the "extraction mechanism" for ions from the soil instead of other reagents (acids or bases). In their sample jar the soil is mixed with deionized water, to make a soil slurry, and the resin capsule. In the jar the ions diffuse from the soil and bind to the resin via ion exchange. The ions on the resin exchange/release hydrogen (H+)and hydroxide ions (-OH), much like roots do, for the ions (N, P, K, Mg, Ca, etc.) in the soil slurry. After a 5 day incubation the resin capsule is removed from the soil slurry, rinsed with deionized water and the bound ions are released from resin with an acid (HCl or KCl) for analysis. The use of ion exchange resins for soil analysis is based on the work of Dr. Earl Skogley at Montana State University. Part of the thinking is that it more closely resembles the nutrients available to the roots because roots react with the soil to release the necessary ions. Given that biological systems are extremely complex and dynamic, I am not sure a static release profile like an ion exchange resin is more accurate than the current soil extraction methods. It does allows the lab to only run 1 type of test method verses multiple (Melich 3, Bray Olsen...). Additionally deionized water would not occur in the lawn and may cause more or less ions to exchange than is naturally occurring. With this in mind I would rather know the total amount of nutrients available to the grass, ensure there are adequate amounts for growth and let the grass determine utilization of those nutrients as needed which is essentially what you are doing with traditional soil tests.
> 
> The real key is the one you raised in that tests like Melich 3 have been highly correlated to turf grass nutrient needs and growth responses. This allows for fertilization predictions based on the results. The ion exchange method may have been correlated to turf needs but it is not publicly known or published data.


 :thumbup:

To add to this:

In the face of the ongoing war over phosphorus and over/misapplication of fertilizers, taking advantage of what the root can see over a period of time (M3, etc) vs. what the root can see in a given snapshot of time (MS, SS) is a valuable tool to manage inputs & strategy.

During critical times of crop production - v1, v2 in corn or something similar, the ion exchange resin could be a valuable tool to predict/manage yield/input availability. But... turf isn't an annual and isn't managed for harvestable ROI.


----------

