# How to interpret a Logan Labs Soil Report



## Mightyquinn

Hello all!! I have put together a VERY BASIC tutorial on what numbers you want on your soil test from Logan Labs. This is by no means a way to read your own test as there are a lot of variables that go into everything, but at least you will have an idea of how far off your soil really is. I will go into greater detail down below.










*Sample Depth:* You want to take the soil sample just from the 1" of soil between the 3-4" depth. As this is where most of the roots are for the grass.

*Total Exchange Capacity (TEC):* This number basically states how much nutrients you soil can hold. A low number basically means you have a Sandy soil (Anything below 7) and as the numbers rise you will get into better soil holding capacity. A TEC of 12 is optimal but if you have any kind of crazy high number or live around TX, you may need an AA(Ammonium Acetate) test as you will usually have a high content of Calcium which throws the numbers off.

*pH of Soil Sample:* This lets you know the pH of your soil. Depending on what type of grass you are trying to grow, you will want to have an optimal pH of 6.5-6.8. Now, if you Centipede, you will want that number down in the 5's as it prefers an acidic soil and bermuda will do just fine at about any pH. The closer you are to the optimal pH though, the more nutrients will be available to the grass except Iron, it becomes less available as the pH goes up.

*Organic Matter Percent:* The more OM you have the better your soil will hold nutrients. 4% is a good base to have but 6-10% is optimal. One caveat to this is that if you are mowing with a reel mower and mowing under .50" it may become an issue as the soil will be soft and your mower will sink into the turf more which may cause some scalping. If you are mowing high (above 1") it shouldn't really become an issue.

*Mehlick III Phosphorus:* You want this number around 200-250 with an optimal pH but if it's a little off there really isn't a lot to worry about here as Phosphorus doesn't move in the soil really fast regardless of your TEC.

*Calcium:* This is one of the nutrients at can raise your pH and the test alone will let you know whether you are deficient or not. You do want to have a Ca:Mg ratio of 7-10:1. This is where a good Calcitic Lime(fast acting) is usually recommended depending on your pH and/or Ca:Mg.

*Magnesium:* As stated above, this is the other nutrient in your Ca:Mg ratio and you would want to add Epsom Salt to the lawn if this number is low or the ratios are out of balance.

*Potassium:* This too will tell you if you are deficient or not and Potassium(K) does leach from the soil but not as fast as Nitrogen does but it is still not a bad idea to buy some fertilizer with a little bit in it just to keep the numbers from falling depending on your TEC number. This helps harden the grass and also helps to fight of diseases.

*Calcium %:* You obviously want this number in the range given on the test and it should correlate to the 7-10:1 ratio of the Magnesium %

*Magnesium %:* In the Range given and within the 7-10:1 ratio with Calcium

*Potassium %:* In the Range given

*Boron (ppm):* You want this number in the 1-2 ppm range. Borax is what you would want to add to bring this number up but a bit of *WARNING* putting too much Boron(Borax) can do extensive damage to your lawn, so you REALLY want to tread lightly here if you are wanting to tackle this deficiency.

*Iron(ppm):* You want this number as high as possible since it is what gives your lawn that nice dark green color. A number of 400 ppm is optimal. You can spray a foliar app of Iron(Fe) every 2-3 weeks to keep your lawn a dark green but you may also want to watch the temperature as it "can" burn some grasses at higher temps.

*Manganese(ppm):* You want this between 10-20 ppm

*Copper(ppm):* You want this between 1-2 ppm

*Zinc(ppm):* You want this between 5-10 ppm

Anything in the test I did not cover is because I don't have any info on those subjects at this time. This if for INFORMATION purposes ONLY. I just wanted to put this info out there so if you do get a soil test done YOU can understand it better and maybe know more of what is going on with your soil. I don't believe you NEED a soil test done unless you are just curious to see where your soil is at or you have some issues that just can't be explained or fixed but most grasses will do just fine in "less than optimal" soil. Also note that when you start adding things to the soil it can throw other numbers off so please take that into account if you choose to go it alone. Please let me know what you think and I would be happy to discuss any questions you might have.


----------



## Redtenchu

Great, I might send off a soil test this year! I'm a DIY kinda guy, maybe I'll learn something!


----------



## GrassDaddy

I sent mine off this morning. I've got a video going out on Saturday about how to do this, I'm gonna link here for the how to interpret part!


----------



## Virginiagal

I have a few quibbles and other considerations regarding Mighty Quinn's explanation of the Logan test. First, a quibble. Most labs instruct you to take a sample from 0 down to whatever level you're testing. For turfgrass 0-4 inches is a good depth to test. Using only the inch between 3-4 means you are deliberately blinding yourself to 0-3 inches. There's a lot going on there, as phosphorus and lime move slowly and past amendments may well be in 0-3. You have better information if you use 0-4. Soil test calibrations assume the soil is sampled from the top to the bottom. That said, if you have been using the inch 3-4 in past years, you will have a better comparison to past years' tests if you keep using the same depth as you did in the past.

The TEC number, like Mighty Quinn said, shows how well your soil holds nutrients. I will add that there is nothing much you can do about it. It is useful information, though, especially if your TEC is low. If your soil doesn't hold nutrients well, you should do more frequent applications at lower rates.

Mighty Quinn's target for P2O5 (200-250 lb/ac) works out to 66-83 ppm of P when 4" soil depth is reported. That is above the Sufficiency Level of Available Nutrients (SLAN) target for a Mehlich 3 tested soil, which is 50. Alkaline soils tend to be low on phosphorus because it gets bound up quickly with calcium and is then unavailable so going a bit above 50 may be good for alkaline soil. However, mycorrhizae are inhibited in high phosphorus soils and they are so beneficial, it's worthwhile to keep phosphorus levels from getting too high. 50 ppm of P is 114 ppm of P2O5. 114 ppm of P2O5 is 114 lb/ac at 3", 152 lb/ac at 4", 190 lb/ac at 5", 228 lb/ac at 6".

SLAN recommends 15-40 ppm sulfur. Sulfur, like nitrogen, will vary a lot week to week.

The Logan deficits for calcium, magnesium, and potassium are for lb/ac for whatever depth you reported. You can't use the standard "ppm x 2 = lb/ac" formula. If you report 4 inches, that is your deficit for 4 inches. To apply an amendment to meet the deficit over a 6 inch depth, you must multiply by 1.5. Furthermore, you must then find the amount of CaCO3 or K20 or MgCO3 or whatever to supply the deficit of that element. Then you must find the amount of CaCO3 or K2O or MgCO3 or whatever in whatever product you're using. Then you must convert lb/ac to lb/k.

There is another way to calculate Ca, Mg, and K deficits. The SLAN recommendations for soils (other than sands) tested with Mehlich 3 are:
Calcium > 750 ppm
Magnesium > 140 ppm
Potassium > 110 ppm
To use this method, you have to convert the Logan lb/ac numbers to ppm. If you report 4 inches, multiply by 0.75. if you report 6 inches, multiply by 0.5. if you report 3 inches, ppm is the same as lb/ac. Then, as with phosphorus, subtract your ppm number from the target. Then to get lb/ac for doing an application to amend 6 inches, multiply by two. You then have to find the amount of CaCO3 or whatever to supply that amount of Ca or whatever and the amount of product to supply that amount of CaCO3 or whatever. Then convert lb/ac to lb/k.

If all these calculations are worrisome, then why not use a lab that sends recommendations back along with the test? They will tell you if you need lime and how much you need. They will tell you the lb/k of P2O5 and K20. Then you just have to figure out the products to supply it. If you need lime and magnesium is low, dolomitic lime will supply calcium and magnesium. If magnesium is sufficient, use calcitic lime.

Fast acting calcitic lime does bring up a pH quickly (weeks instead of months). However, it is short lived. If the lime requirement is 100 lb/k, you really do need all 100 lb/k. Using fast acting lime does not mean you can get away with using less. It does mean you can only do a little bit at a time. Application rates for the fast acting lime are limited to around 9 lb/k. With ordinary lime, you can use up to 50 lb/k per application. It is slower but it sticks around for years. I would suggest combining them, using some fast acting lime and some slow lime. When at another site you may have been given a recommendation for 2-3 applications of fast acting lime, it was only to raise the pH for that year only. It was not fulfilling calcium deficits. Those were not normally calculated.

Epsom salt does not raise pH. If your pH is low and you need magnesium, dolomitic lime will raise pH and supply magnesium. If your pH is high and you need magnesium, Epsom salt will supply magnesium without raising pH. Gypsum does not raise pH. If your pH is low and you need calcium, calcitic lime will raise pH and supply calcium. If your pH is high and you need calcium, gypsum will supply calcium without raising pH. Potassium sulfate and potassium chloride do not raise pH. It is the carbonate action of lime that raises pH.

A good calcium to magnesium ratio helps with soil flocculation. The ratio can vary, though. For a sandy soil, 3:1 would tighten up the soil. Logan's "ideal" of 68% Ca to 12% Mg is 5.7:1. For a clay soil, a higher amount of calcium to magnesium might be better. In general, if you make amendments to meet soil test recommendations, you will have an acceptable ratio. Note that the SLAN targets of 750 ppm Ca and 140 ppm Mg are a 5.4:1 ratio. I have never seen a 10:1 ratio recommended.

Micronutrients are rarely needed for turfgrass. However, in alkaline soil, iron, manganese, copper, and zinc are less available. Molybdenum is less available in acidic soil. Boron is less available in moderately alkaline soil. Robert Carrow in Turfgrass Soil Chemical Problems and Fertility gave these sufficiency ppm numbers for micronutrients tested with Mehlich 3:
Fe > 100
Mn > 6.0 (pH 6.0) 
Mn > 12 (pH 7.0)
Zn > 2.0
Cu > 2.5
He did not give a number for boron or molybdenum. Boron toxicity is more of a problem than deficiency. This article gives information and suggests tissue testing if you are concerned about boron:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2002marT11.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiLmNuE8eXUAhVGcT4KHfldBx8QFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNEoIcpe7N7RQij1jeD5DD1NgFAiUw
Note that the ppm discussed there is ppm of the tissue, not of the soil. Many fertilizers say they "contain micronutrients" and that is one way to get some.

Logan does not send recommendations or do a buffer pH test without additional charge. There are many private labs and state college labs that include both recommendations and the buffer test for about the same cost or even less. And you won't have to puzzle through all the math just to know what your deficits are. All you will have to do is figure out which products will supply the deficits and when to apply them and how much at a time. There are plenty of people who can help with that.


----------



## dfw_pilot

Virginiagal said:


> If all these calculations are worrisome, then why not use a lab that sends recommendations back along with the test?


Ding ding ding! No wizard or third party required.


----------



## Mightyquinn

Virginiagal said:


> I have a few quibbles and other considerations regarding Mighty Quinn's explanation of the Logan test. First, a quibble. Most labs instruct you to take a sample from 0 down to whatever level you're testing. For turfgrass 0-4 inches is a good depth to test. Using only the inch between 3-4 means you are deliberately blinding yourself to 0-3 inches. There's a lot going on there, as phosphorus and lime move slowly and past amendments may well be in 0-3. You have better information if you use 0-4. Soil test calibrations assume the soil is sampled from the top to the bottom. That said, if you have been using the inch 3-4 in past years, you will have a better comparison to past years' tests if you keep using the same depth as you did in the past.
> 
> The TEC number, like Mighty Quinn said, shows how well your soil holds nutrients. I will add that there is nothing much you can do about it. It is useful information, though, especially if your TEC is low. If your soil doesn't hold nutrients well, you should do more frequent applications at lower rates.
> 
> Mighty Quinn's target for P2O5 (200-250) works out to 88-110 ppm of P. That is well above the Sufficiency Level of Available Nutrients (SLAN) target for a Mehlich 3 tested soil, which is 50. Alkaline soils tend to be low on phosphorus because it gets bound up quickly with calcium and is then unavailable so going a bit above 50 may be good for alkaline soil. However, mycorrhizae are inhibited in high phosphorus soils and they are so beneficial, it's worthwhile to keep phosphorus levels from getting too high. 50 ppm of P is 114 ppm of P2O5. If you want to know your deficit, subtract your number from the target. To get lb/ac, multiply ppm by 2. To get lb/k, divide the lb/ac number by 43.56. If your number is above 114 ppm of P2O5, you have sufficient phosphorus.
> 
> SLAN recommends 15-40 ppm sulfur. Sulfur, like nitrogen, will vary a lot week to week.
> 
> The Logan deficits for calcium, magnesium, and potassium are for lb/ac for whatever depth you reported. You can't use the standard "ppm x 2 = lb/ac" formula. If you report 4 inches, that is your deficit for 4 inches. To apply an amendment to meet the deficit over a 6 inch depth, you must multiply by 1.5. Furthermore, you must then find the amount of CaCO3 or K20 or MgCO3 or whatever to supply the deficit of that element. Then you must find the amount of CaCO3 or K2O or MgCO3 or whatever in whatever product you're using. Then you must convert lb/ac to lb/k.
> 
> There is another way to calculate Ca, Mg, and K deficits. The SLAN recommendations for soils (other than sands) tested with Mehlich 3 are:
> Calcium > 750 ppm
> Magnesium > 140 ppm
> Potassium > 110 ppm
> To use this method, you have to convert the Logan lb/ac numbers to ppm. If you report 4 inches, multiply by 0.75. if you report 6 inches, multiply by 0.5. if you report 3 inches, ppm is the same as lb/ac. Then, as with phosphorus, subtract your ppm number from the target. Then to get lb/ac for doing an application to amend 6 inches, multiply by two. You then have to find the amount of CaCO3 or whatever to supply that amount of Ca or whatever and the amount of product to supply that amount of CaCO3 or whatever. Then convert lb/ac to lb/k.
> 
> If all these calculations are worrisome, then why not use a lab that sends recommendations back along with the test? They will tell you if you need lime and how much you need. They will tell you the lb/k of P2O5 and K20. Then you just have to figure out the products to supply it. If you need lime and magnesium is low, dolomitic lime will supply calcium and magnesium. If magnesium is sufficient, use calcitic lime.
> 
> Fast acting calcitic lime does bring up a pH quickly (weeks instead of months). However, it is short lived. If the lime requirement is 100 lb/k, you really do need all 100 lb/k. Using fast acting lime does not mean you can get away with using less. It does mean you can only do a little bit at a time. Application rates for the fast acting lime are limited to around 9 lb/k. With ordinary lime, you can use up to 50 lb/k per application. It is slower but it sticks around for years. I would suggest combining them, using some fast acting lime and some slow lime. When at another site you may have been given a recommendation for 2-3 applications of fast acting lime, it was only to raise the pH for that year only. It was not fulfilling calcium deficits. Those were not normally calculated.
> 
> Epsom salt does not raise pH. If your pH is low and you need magnesium, dolomitic lime will raise pH and supply magnesium. If your pH is high and you need magnesium, Epsom salt will supply magnesium without raising pH. Gypsum does not raise pH. If your pH is low and you need calcium, calcitic lime will raise pH and supply calcium. If your pH is high and you need calcium, gypsum will supply calcium without raising pH. Potassium sulfate and potassium chloride do not raise pH. It is the carbonate action of lime that raises pH.
> 
> A good calcium to magnesium ratio helps with soil flocculation. The ratio can vary, though. For a sandy soil, 3:1 would tighten up the soil. Logan's "ideal" of 68% Ca to 12% Mg is 5.7:1. For a clay soil, a higher amount of calcium to magnesium might be better. In general, if you make amendments to meet soil test recommendations, you will have an acceptable ratio. Note that the SLAN targets of 750 ppm Ca and 140 ppm Mg are a 5.4:1 ratio. I have never seen a 10:1 ratio recommended.
> 
> Micronutrients are rarely needed for turfgrass. However, in alkaline soil, iron, manganese, copper, and zinc are less available. Molybdenum is less available in acidic soil. Boron is less available in moderately alkaline soil. Robert Carrow in Turfgrass Soil Chemical Problems and Fertility gave these sufficiency ppm numbers for micronutrients tested with Mehlich 3:
> Fe > 100
> Mn > 6.0 (pH 6.0)
> Mn > 12 (pH 7.0)
> Zn > 2.0
> Cu > 2.5
> He did not give a number for boron or molybdenum. Boron toxicity is more of a problem than deficiency. This article gives information and suggests tissue testing if you are concerned about boron:
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2002marT11.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiLmNuE8eXUAhVGcT4KHfldBx8QFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNEoIcpe7N7RQij1jeD5DD1NgFAiUw
> Note that the ppm discussed there is ppm of the tissue, not of the soil. Many fertilizers say they "contain micronutrients" and that is one way to get some.
> 
> Logan does not send recommendations or do a buffer pH test without additional charge. There are many private labs and state college labs that include both recommendations and the buffer test for about the same cost or even less. And you won't have to puzzle through all the math just to know what your deficits are. All you will have to do is figure out which products will supply the deficits and when to apply them and how much at a time. There are plenty of people who can help with that.


Great addition Virginiagal!! I only posted the above info for a general rule of thumb so people could get a basic idea of what to look for and it had been over a year since I had done any soil test reading so I was a little rusty to say the least  . You've really been doing your homework on the subject and it shows :thumbup: Thank you for filling in a lot of the blanks.


----------



## Virginiagal

One thing I may not have made clear: the best way to know how much lime is needed is to have a buffer pH test, which is a pretty normal thing in soil tests. You have to pay extra at Logan to get one. The lab uses that result to make a lime recommendation to bring your pH up to a target, most likely 6.5. And if you use the SLAN approach, use the "values reported," not the deficit.


----------



## BXMurphy

Gosh! I'm glad I stumbled here!

I bought a 3/4" soil sample tube and it's taking FOREVER to get two cups of soil between the 3-4" level. If I read this right, just grab the whole core and have it tested?

Also, Logan Labs has been the Holy Grail. I live in Massachusetts and understand UMass' tests are pretty good. Has anybody used them? Have you called them for recommendations and that sort of thing?

As an aside... I've always thought that the guys and gals at the extension would be enthusiasts like me and only too happy to spend time discussing tests.


----------



## dfw_pilot

BXMurphy said:


> Also, Logan Labs has been the Holy Grail.


That's probably debatable. $25 without shipping with no interpretation marks it off my list of "Grail" candidates. UMass or your local extension is probably just fine.


----------



## Ware

+1, my tests are free here in Arkansas.


----------



## g-man

Another option for only $9 per sample. They do the pH buffer test and recommendations. They don't do the micros.

Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Lab

Form

Sampling instructions (sample from 2-3 depth)


----------



## Ridgerunner

There is a soil test being promoted (on youtube, The Grass Nut?) and marketed as Soil Savvy. As Soil Savvy/Unibest is not particularly forthcoming on their site with any details regarding the chemistry, lab procedures or results of any studies performed, it is impossible to make any assessment of the accuracy and validity of this product and none is intended in making this post. However, the point of caution: Even if this is an accurate and valid test for determining soil nutrients, Soil Savvy (when contacted) has stated that the recommendations are for one application only and that a new test should be performed prior to making each of any future applications. That would require performing at a minimum, two tests, and possibly many more before nutrients reach desired levels.


----------



## BXMurphy

dfw_pilot said:


> That's probably debatable. $25 without shipping with no interpretation marks it off my list of "Grail" candidates. UMass or your local extension is probably just fine.


Yep! It's county extension for me. They know the soil around here in Massachusetts, do the required tests for my area, and provide recommendations.

The only reason why I would have gone Logan would have been to get some help from people who have experience with a test. Logan is known around the country and I figured I could find help if I needed it.

My county guys and the good folks at The Lawn Forum are all I will need. Thank you so very much!


----------



## GrassDaddy

I'm going to keep using Logan because that's what I started with. I've got 4 years of tests and now I can see the changes between each year it's kinda interesting. I did think it was odd that I needed a secretive team to interpret it for me, but as I learn more about what all the numbers mean I realize that is not the case. I also like that it's a nice PDF format =P


----------



## BXMurphy

GrassDaddy said:


> I'm going to keep using Logan because that's what I started with. I've got 4 years of tests and now I can see the changes between each year it's kinda interesting. I did think it was odd that I needed a secretive team to interpret it for me...


I'm hip! I figure I can handle the numbers, too. I'll probably be looking for source material to make adjustments. Like, if something "nerdy" like zinc is low, how to move the dial on it.

From what I've read, it's mostly NPK, pH, calcium and magnesium that I should zero in on. I'm glad I learned about the different kinds of lime. I will need help on that one.

My eye-opener for lawn care was the difference gypsum made to the edges of my lawn near the salty sidewalk. Wow! Talk about an "a-hah!" moment! Once I saw crabgrass coming up there, I knew it wasn't long before I could get real grass to grow there! :lol:


----------



## massgrass

BXMurphy said:


> Gosh! I'm glad I stumbled here!
> 
> I bought a 3/4" soil sample tube and it's taking FOREVER to get two cups of soil between the 3-4" level. If I read this right, just grab the whole core and have it tested?
> 
> Also, Logan Labs has been the Holy Grail. I live in Massachusetts and understand UMass' tests are pretty good. Has anybody used them? Have you called them for recommendations and that sort of thing?
> 
> As an aside... I've always thought that the guys and gals at the extension would be enthusiasts like me and only too happy to spend time discussing tests.


FWIW, in July I used the same soil sample to send to Logan Labs and Umass for testing. There was definitely some variation between the two and the Umass test did come with some very rudimentary recommendations. I did ask Umass a few questions via email (to [email protected]) and they were answered within a couple of days, although not what I would call at the "enthusiast" level. I was considering starting a thread and showing both reports and comparing the "lawn nut" approach I've seen with similar Logan Labs reports online to the Umass "ho hum" recommendations, but I've been doing things like spending the better part of my afternoon dethatching my front yard. 

FWIW, the lab reports are cheap enough where I'll probably send soil samples to both labs next spring too.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Indexed common fertilizer acidifying effects:

Sulfur coated Urea (38-0-0): 1.18
Ammonium Sulfate (21-0-0): 1.10
Urea (46-0-0): 0.81
Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0): 0.60

Higher numbers indicate greater acidifying effect. For reference, the index of Elemental Sulfur is: 3.12. One pound of sulfur will neutralize 3.12# of 100 CCE limestone; therefor, 1# of Ammonium Sulfate (21-0-0) will neutralize 1.10 pounds of 100 CCE limestone and 5# of 21-0-0 (equal to an application of 1.05 lbs/k of N) would neutralize 5.5 lbs of 100 CCE of limestone. Theoretically, of course.


----------



## BXMurphy

BXMurphy said:


> FWIW, in July I used the same soil sample to send to Logan Labs and Umass for testing.


Thank you for jumping in, massgrass.

I think there will always be variations. It's just like the guy with two watches... he never knows what time it is. The guy with one watch? He always knows the time!

I figure I am Leap Years ahead of the neighbors with a soil test and "close enough" apps of the proper enhancers at the right time but... I would LOVE to see a thread on two soil samples. Do you think they would be so far off as to make a serious impact?

BTW... next year I'm driving to Quincy for Bay State Fertilizer. It's an hour and a half but at about $3.50 for 40 pounds... yeah, I'll drive.

Thank you again.


----------



## BXMurphy

Ridgerunner said:


> Indexed common fertilizer acidifying effects:


Very interesting chemical analysis. I will be starting the fall nitrogen blitz for the first time with some urea. I'm waiting on soil tests but anticipate acidic soil. Nice to know that urea has a lower affect on acidity.

I am so glad to be free of the hardware store bags of whatever is on sale. I am happy to know what I am actually doing for a change!


----------



## BXMurphy

GrassDaddy said:


> I'm going to keep using Logan because that's what I started with.


Granddaddy, you're not the guy with the kids, the vids, and the lawn, are you?


----------



## massgrass

BXMurphy said:


> I figure I am Leap Years ahead of the neighbors with a soil test and "close enough" apps of the proper enhancers at the right time but... I would LOVE to see a thread on two soil samples. Do you think they would be so far off as to make a serious impact?
> 
> BTW... next year I'm driving to Quincy for Bay State Fertilizer. It's an hour and a half but at about $3.50 for 40 pounds... yeah, I'll drive.
> 
> Thank you again.


They weren't that far off, but there always seemed to be a variation between the two (for example LL pH=6.8, Umass pH=6.5). I 'm no expert, but I assume some of that is due to the Mehlich-III (LL) vs Morgan (Umass) soil tests.

I'm interested in the Bay State fertilizer too, but getting up there on a weekday isn't very practical for me. I did find out that Kennedy's Country Gardens in Scituate, MA sells Bay State for $9.99 per bag though. It's cheaper than Milorganite, but that's still quite a markup compared to $3.50.


----------



## GrassDaddy

BXMurphy said:


> GrassDaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep using Logan because that's what I started with.
> 
> 
> 
> Granddaddy, you're not the guy with the kids, the vids, and the lawn, are you?
Click to expand...

Yes but its GrassDaddy not GrandDaddy. My kids are too little to have kids =P


----------



## BXMurphy

GrassDaddy said:


> BXMurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Granddaddy, you're not the guy with the kids, the vids, and the lawn, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but its GrassDaddy not GrandDaddy. My kids are too little to have kids =P
Click to expand...

Very cool. Great job with the kids (and the vids). I enjoy watching you do what you do. Spell check got me on your moniker.

When you did your seed and peat, it was seed first and peat over seed, right? (I can't imagine the other way around but I have to ask...)

Thank you for being here.


----------



## BXMurphy

massgrass said:


> They weren't that far off, but there always seemed to be a variation between the two (for example LL pH=6.8, Umass pH=6.5). I 'm no expert, but I assume some of that is due to the Mehlich-III (LL) vs Morgan (Umass) soil tests.


I've decided that I'm not going to stress out over it that much. I'm going to let consistency be my guide.

It's like weighing yourself for a diet... with or without clothes... before or after using the bathroom... that sort of thing. Get a number, use it as a guide, and let your eyes judge the results.

There was one site that recommended sampling the inch between 3" and 4". When you did that and had it tested by Logan Labs, they would help with recommendations. Those poor buggers... I think they are overrun by requests for help as they seem to have stopped granting new accounts!

Ah, well... I'm still going to have the lawn of my dreams and... no stress! I can hardly wait for spring!


----------



## g-man

A word of caution. Some YouTube channels and other online resources recommend the soil test from unibest soil savvy. The second page results from this test tend to cause concern. The fine print reads like a disclaimer about their recommendations are wrong. It also has an MSRP of $42. PSU charges $9 for a good test.

I personally don't feel comfortable using the results or providing guidance.

https://unibestinc.com/files/media/316/sampleforwebsitepage2081116.png


----------



## ryeguy

So this post goes over interpretation, but how does that translate into a treatment plan? Is this worth learning to read into myself (a guide somewhere?) or is it just safer to get a test with recommendations?


----------



## Virginiagal

It's easier just to use a lab that will make recommendations. For that matter, Logan will make recommendations. You just have to pay extra. Most labs include the recommendation as part of the cost of the test. Sometimes a lab will tell you your shortage and then you have to figure out how to supply the need. Other times they will tell you particular kinds of amendments to use and when to use them.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

There's a lot more to amending soil than looking at what you don't have and what you do need in a cup of dirt to make it the ideal balance of nutrients for grass to grow in.

Context is everything, so know what their context is before you come up with a plan based on those contextualized recommendations. Most labs won't take the time to consult with you via an internet forum, nor review past tests for results year after year, or take into account your context / budget / willingness to work at something in order to craft an executable plan. They're going to tell you what it lacks from a chemistry perspective. Well, heck - the test told me that! How much can you safely apply of any one item? When? What's the best product?

The translation into a remediation plan with specific recommendations is of tremendous value. That's why golf course supers have jobs. A little Nitrogen at a time is great. A years' worth at once will nuke your turf  A years' worth at once in winter does nothing. And we can all think of a million ways to qualify those statements. See how the devil is in the details?

If I may be so bold - just because you don't like the way a message is delivered, doesn't make the message wrong. Be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater and rethinking fundamental concepts and general guidelineslearned elsewhere from a root of bitterness or disdain for those who championed them.

No harm in revisiting older concepts, but do know there's a reason they've been around a long time. (GREAT article in sports turf magazine this spring, looking again at the 1/3 mowing and D&I watering mantras we all know so well, for instance!)

Maybe at some point I'll take some time to chime in on several things I don't agree with here, but I don't have the time right now. It's very difficult to respond to and correct the gazillion questions that inevitably arise from a complicated topic, which is why you've seen the model elsewhere of educating a small group of knowledgeable, motivated individuals to help make recommendations.


----------



## Ridgerunner

> Maybe at some point I'll take some time to chime in on several things I don't agree with here, but I don't have the time right now. It's very difficult to respond to and correct the gazillion questions that inevitably arise from a complicated topic, which is why you've seen the model elsewhere of educating a small group of knowledgeable, motivated individuals to help make recommendations.


I, for one, look forward to your insights. 
I think you'll find TLF a place where sharing is encouraged. A place where information is made available to all, not just the few, and DIY is nurtured.


----------



## Virginiagal

HLG, good to have you here! I think it's best for people to find out what they need via a soil test that tells them what their shortages are. Then they can come to a forum or other knowledgeable people, like their local extension service, to ask questions on how best to meet the need. Local people know the climate, know the needs for the particular turfgrass growing there, know local soil information, know local suppliers and what they carry. My main objections to the ATY model are the 3-4 inch sample (ignoring 0-3 and all the amendments that may be there) and the fast lime. You are never told what your total shortage is. It's "throw as much fast lime as possible on this year and we'll see where you are next year." For people who really do need a lot of lime (and you can't really know how much without a buffer test), using slow lime or a combination of fast and slow is better. It's the carbonic action, not the calcium, that raises pH and it takes a certain amount of carbonic action on a soil with thus and so buffering to do it. The fast lime works faster but it doesn't have any more carbonic action than the same amount of slow lime. I think it's helpful to have soil discussions online but people should be using local knowledge and should have full information on what their shortages are, which is what they get back with most soil tests.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

Ridgerunner said:


> Maybe at some point I'll take some time to chime in on several things I don't agree with here, but I don't have the time right now. It's very difficult to respond to and correct the gazillion questions that inevitably arise from a complicated topic, which is why you've seen the model elsewhere of educating a small group of knowledgeable, motivated individuals to help make recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, look forward to your insights.
> I think you'll find TLF a place where sharing is encouraged. A place where information is made available to all, not just the few, and DIY is nurtured.
Click to expand...

I know there is a lot of animus on this site towards others, but I don't believe information was ever purposefully withheld as some sort of secret control plot to limit or provide a monopoly on knowledge, rather quite the opposite. The motivation there is to make information broadcast on the site far more qualified than it would be if everyone read a small post, ran off partially informed, started repeating stuff, and then propagated poor advice (which is FAR too common!!!!) Particularly when you have limited time - one expert can't tutor 8,000 lawn nuts with questions, be a site admin, and help with other topics. Just for your own sanity you must focus.

There's another risk, too, of the internet. Anyone can say anything. My wife was a professor for health information and dedicated a whole lecture to this by allowing students to use the internet for sources, and then only peer-reviewed, peer-certified sources like JAMA etc on another paper of the same topic. The results were always astounding, and gave students great insight into the perils of knowing where and what support your information sources have. Papers with internet sources often recommended fatal information, distinctly discouraged by the filtered sources.

I cringe every time I go to one of my favorite specialty garden shops and the 'expert' on hand recommends lime to somebody to 'sweeten the soil' in central IN. What the @#[email protected]# does that mean??? No test, and no doubt, in Indiana where 90% of lawns have Ca aplenty. They've never posted a picture of their lawn, nor studied soil, or managed turf to demonstrate their recommendations yield results.

Thus the model of having qualified, more educated, supported sources of information disseminating information, trained in a way that a limited resource pool can handle. Not perfect, sure - but better than a free for all - particularly since we don't really know who each other are in real life on the internet many times.

Need I remind others of TW? 

We are so easily deceived. Nonetheless, the internet is far less anonymous than it was even 2-3 years ago.

Neither model is morally "right" or "wrong", unless you care to assume evil intentions - which is not the case. The issue is far more 'What is the best model to achieve the goal we have in mind?'

Please - think the best of people.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

If you all question my motives for being on this forum based on the above post, please do it here where all can see - not via PM.

Thank you


----------



## Ware

All we're asking is that you check the superiority complex at the door. If you can't do that, please go back to where you came from. :thumbup:


----------



## Virginiagal

I am very happy HLG is here. He does know a lot, can offer good advice to people. As for misinformation, it unfortunately will be found everywhere. As lawn hobbyists, we should read and expand our own knowledge so we can sniff out and question erroneous information. Errors can be unintentional, can be miscommunication. I myself have an error to correct in my earlier explanation of interpreting P in Logan tests. SLAN recommends 50 ppm of P. 50 ppm of P translates to 114 ppm of P2O5, which translates to 114 lb/ac of P2O5 for 3 inches of soil, 152 lb/ac for 4 inches of soil, 228 lb/ac for 6 inches of soil. In that paragraph I failed to specify that 114 was sufficient only when 3 inches of soil is reported. When I am figuring a deficit, I find the deficit for 3 inches worth of soil (where ppm is the same as lb/ac) and then multiply by two to find the deficit in lb/ac for 6 inches worth of soil. Logan reports in lb/ac for whatever depth of soil you report.


----------



## Ware

Virginiagal said:


> I am very happy HLG is here...


Absolutely, same here, but this thread is about interpreting soil tests, not defending why other sites do the things they do. Let's try to stay on topic. :thumbup:


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

Ware said:


> All we're asking is that you check the superiority complex at the door. If you can't do that, please go back where you came from. :thumbup:


If my posts above were perceived as arrogant or condescending, i do apologize.

 My lawn is a C- right now and I have much to learn re:soil!

If anyone questions my motives or thoughts, I welcome an open question on them! PM is inappropriate for such, in my opinion. (My opinion!) It's good for the site to shed light on that - divisive PMs tear sites apart and separate friends!

Let me sum up my thoughts here, differently:

I don't agree with everything previously posted. So what? That doesn't make me better or anyone right or wrong - these are opinions.

I hate quibbling over minutia, I'll let others do that. I think it's largely a splitting hairs discussion for most occasions. I care more about HOW.

I do understand WHY another site uses the model they do (and I actively participate in it and enjoy it), but that doesn't mean it is the best or only way to do things, does it? I'm not advocating that here. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect or the only way! So many strengths and weaknesses to different approaches.

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself!

If something I post strikes a cord with you, just ask me 'why' in that thread.

There are lots of assumptions that go into why someone makes the recommendations they do, and people don't always have the time to engage in a long back and forth over it.


----------



## Ware

Thank you for clarifying. My apologies. :thumbup:

I'm just very thankful I have a grass type that will grow in asphalt. :lol:


----------



## g-man

Ware said:


> I'm just very thankful I have a grass *weed*type that will grow in asphalt. :lol:


Ware, you had a typo, I fixed it.  (it is easy to pick on the Bermuda warm season guys)

Let's get back to soils. Question around using sand for leveling, any long term issues with nutrient retention?


----------



## monty

g-man said:


> Let's get back to soils. Question around using sand for leveling, any long term issues with nutrient retention?


This is a question I have as well. Next year I plan to do some serious leveling in my back yard, and from connorward's videos it looks like sand would be a lot easier than top soil. But if I don't have sandy soil, will this negatively impact my soil?


----------



## Ware

g-man, I am a cool season farmer! I'm raising it to show at the fair, then I will slaughter it in the spring. 

I think it would take A LOT of sand to make much difference at root depth.


----------



## Mightyquinn

Ware said:


> I think it would take A LOT of sand to make much difference at root depth.


+1 Most of the sand will be in the top portion of the soil so it shouldn't really effect the nutrient holding capacity of the soil in the root zone.


----------



## dfw_pilot

I think everyone at TLF will agree that users on other sites are free to interpret soil analysis any way they choose.

If a TLF member wishes to start a thread about how they analyze soil, we are here to help support that. Even if it isn't perfect to a "T", that's okay, we are all here to learn, improve together, and have fun while doing so.

I'm grateful for MQ, RR, the Gal from VA, and others who have stepped up to help share knowledge about soil analysis. Even if the info needs tweaking around the edges, no big deal. TLF is a new site, we'll get there (together), and we'll all be better because of it.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

One thing I definitely advocate when appropriate is the patented, fast acting limes I've seen work on literally dozens of soil test recommendations

The main reasons I think it is a good idea for most situations is:
- less work to apply. Fewer lbs applied means a less sore back 
- less cost in the long run - less material to purchase - a $ per result metric vs $ per lb material if you will
- measurable results - in a year I've consistently seen results even when only sampling the 3 to 4 inch zone. That lime moves!
- there's a reason the fast acting lime patent had to be defended in court

I've seen positive results with other limes, so I'm not saying it should never be done or that it isn't helpful by any means.

It's a bit more complicated than "what's the best lime?"

What if you lived in southern in next to a rock quarry and had free lime? Probably a better option for you (but you probably don't need it anyways if you live that close to a huge line quarry lol)

So subjective!


----------



## J_nick

Ware said:


> Thank you for clarifying. My apologies. :thumbup:
> 
> I'm just very thankful I have a grass type that will grow in asphalt. :lol:


It also doesn't have a problem growing in polymeric sand on top of brick.










I was going to use this as my sprig farm but I ended up not really needing it but left it growing anyways.


----------



## Virginiagal

The fast acting limes do work faster. However if a buffer test determines that you need, say, 100 lb/k of lime, you really need 100 lb/k of lime, whether it's fast or slow. The fast limes are limited to a small amount that can be applied at a time (read the bag, but it's probably around 10 lb/k). For ordinary lime, you can apply up to 50 lb/k in one application as a topdressing. Some of it will begin working soon but some of it will react over a period of months and years. You may want to consider using an application of fast lime to get a quick pH change but use slow lime in the next application to keep the pH up. If you have low pH, you need the buffer test to find it how much lime you need altogether. For lime decisions, you also should consider whether you want to include or avoid magnesium.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

My observations are that the field is very different from the lab.

The test result showing calcium levels is not interpretive in the sense of how to change it, IF it should be changed. The recommendation to apply a specific thing in a certain way and timing to adjust that level is highly interpretive, a d the results are not controllable completely, so it's easy to overanalyze things when it won't matter much in the end.

And that is the jump from lab test to field. A tremendous amount changes in the field. You only really know what you tested and can't control the environment. Temperatures, human interventions, precipitation, errors etc.

Given the very complex, uncontrolled nature of a home lawn, you need to know enough, and test more when you need to know more. 9 out of 10 times a solid baseline test like the LL will work.

Honestly it's easy for the mathematically minded to over think it. I get caught up in it at times and have to remind myself to look at the big picture.

Is it really low on ca and the pH is low? Add a good lime in amounts the soil can process. Retest before continuing. When you test next year you can bet it wont mathematically align with a labs formula for what should have happened. Look at the trend and overall effect rather than individual number. Change when needed.

Adjust when you see what this particular soil does. Slow down and do the math when you're close, if it even matters at that point if the ratio is that perfect.

Said another way, it's more beneficial to see the big picture and work towards precision as it is needed.

It's soil. A living breathing thing. Takes more of a green thumb than chemistry degree. You can do every available test and get the best picture possible but that isn't necessarily going to mean the additional information was necessary to arrive at a final plan.

By the time you're concerned with whether you should apply 4 lbs per k of lime on a soil 3 times a year, or 3.5 lbs per k 3 times a year there will probably be more important things. Besides you'll probably just apply 3 and retest the next year. 

Overshooting is good to avoid. Once the pH goes up it's hard to get down.

But again a higher ph may be ok too. There is no perfect soil!


----------



## Virginiagal

Turfgrasses tolerate a wide range of pH. However, nutrients are most available when pH in the range of 6.0-7.0. Soil microorganisms work best in a neutral pH soil. If your soil is alkaline, it is not usually practical to try to lower pH. If your soil is acidic, lime will raise the pH. Soil with pH under 5.5 can suffer from aluminium or manganese toxicity. So it's good to know your pH. And if it's acidic, you need to know not only the pH but also the buffer index so that you know the appropriate amount of lime to use. Soils vary a lot in how much lime it takes to change the pH and the only way to get a good lime recommendation is the buffer test. Logan will do one; you just have to order it and pay extra. Most labs include the buffer test and lime recommendation as part of the regular test.

Seriously acidic soil can require a lot of lime (5.0 pH is 10 times more acidic than 6.0, 100 times more acidic than 7.0). Just using a little bit of fast acting lime and retesting next year doesn't cut it. The tests to know your lime requirement are out there. Get a lime recommendation from a lab. Find out the calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) that the lab assumes in making its recommendation. You can then adjust the amounts if the product you buy has more or less CCE than what the lab assumes in its recommendation. Divide the CCE assumed by the lab by the CCE of the product and multiply by the lab recommended rate.

Lime that is ground finely reacts faster. The higher the fineness number, the faster it will change the soil pH. Particles passing through a 100 mesh sieve will react within weeks, those passing through a 60 mesh will react in 1-2 years, those passing through a 20 mesh will react in 2-3 years. While it is good to have a quick pH change, it is also good for lime to keep working over the course of time. Slow and steady is a good thing.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

Yeah i generally agree with your technical comments there, virginiagal. I differ in how that gets translated into results, and whether the additional info is needed from the buffer test to make good recommendations on most soils. But I certainly wouldn't turn down more info!

Hey, this isn't directed at you, virginiagal, so dont take it personally  Had a chance to sleep on it. 
I was hoping to offer insights on something i enjoy and have done a good bit of but it's been poorly received by others, so I think I'll bow out of this topic for now. Maybe I'll try to contribute again in the future if and when it doesnt trigger such reactions. 

Good luck and HAVE FUN! It's a hobby for me 

Addendum: As, I didn't explain WHY I don't think buffer tests are ALWAYS necessary very well 

A good, quality, standard test like the LL test will usually give you a clear enough picture about what's going on that you can make lime recommendations without further accuracy / detail. WHY? Well, if the test shows you are fairly short of Ca / Mg etc or more, it's often not possible to apply more than that shortfall in a single season, safely, before you retest in a year. So, if you're 100 miles away, it's doesn't make sense to see if you are really 104.23 miles away if you can only get 25% of the way there this year anyways. Ergo, you can apply the max amount for the season, knowing you will retest in a year before continuing. Save the money and put it towards a bag of urea 

You also really never know how these applications are going to affect a soil until you execute a whole program and retest. AFter all, you aren't keeping everything the exact same in one year and ONLY applying lime - you are likely doing a whole lot of other things too which can chemically interact. The weather, other things you apply, poor sampling, who knows what, will affect the efficacy of an application.

Again, that's field conditions - not the lab environment. We're working with a highly variable, complex soil with living things in it - not a chemistry lab.

Things are getting more scientific, yes - but I hold there is the X factor, the "gardner's insight" or in vernacular a "green thumb" that play into what works for home lawns.

Professional fields have more control. They often replace the top 6 inches+ of soil and have much more control over things (but still not 100% like a lab!). So, in the context of making home lawn recommendations, it's a different animal - if that makes sense.

It sure is easy to make it over-complicated, though.

If you're super short on Ca and your pH is acidic, then it generally makes sense to apply as much good lime to remedy it as quickly as you can, because you're not going to get there in one season, and it's really hard to chart the perfect trajectory to land a 747 on an airfield 2,000 miles away  Dial it in when you get closer. By then you will know how this soil responds to previous treatment programs and can adjust based on those observations rather than what would happen in a sterile lab.


----------



## Mightyquinn

Just watched this video by The Grass Factor and thought it had some good information.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9CmZIpRgA[/media]


----------



## Ridgerunner

That ended rather abruptly.


----------



## Mightyquinn

Ridgerunner said:


> That ended rather abruptly.


I agree, I am hoping there is a part 2 to the video!


----------



## llO0DQLE

HoosierLawnGnome said:


> particularly since we don't really know who each other are in real life on the internet many times.
> 
> Need I remind others of TW?
> 
> We are so easily deceived. Nonetheless, the internet is far less anonymous than it was even 2-3 years ago.


This piques my interest. Can you please elaborate HLG? What of TW (Texasweed?)?


----------



## g-man

I dont think you will get an answer. HLG hasnt been active in this site since mid October.


----------



## HoosierLawnGnome

g-man said:


> I dont think you will get an answer. HLG hasnt been active in this site since mid October.


 :wave:



llO0DQLE said:


> HoosierLawnGnome said:
> 
> 
> 
> particularly since we don't really know who each other are in real life on the internet many times.
> 
> Need I remind others of TW?
> 
> We are so easily deceived. Nonetheless, the internet is far less anonymous than it was even 2-3 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> This piques my interest. Can you please elaborate HLG? What of TW (Texasweed?)?
Click to expand...

TexasWeed was an admin that was found out to be an imposter. He claimed to be a retired sod farmer that became a golf course superintendant, was a champion chili cookoff person, and even paid for a car with gold coins once. (As I recall - these were just some of the fantastic stories). After a while the fantastic stories built up, then someone started looking at his articles and found them to be rewordings of some professor's online postings. The Bermuda Guide there was taken down and rewritten as a result. He was taken out of the admin role and hasn't posted.

My point was that people think the internet is something where they can hide, and it really isn't very anonymous anymore. Unfortunately people can do pretty awful things when they think they can conceal it. That's just human nature.


----------



## Ware

HoosierLawnGnome said:


> ...was a champion chili cookoff person...


I forgot about the chili.


----------



## llO0DQLE

Oh wow! Thanks for the enlightenment HLG. Never knew and I thought he was legit. I'd have to think twice next time I read his posts on ATY.


----------



## J_nick

llO0DQLE said:


> Oh wow! Thanks for the enlightenment HLG. Never knew and I thought he was legit. I'd have to think twice next time I read his posts on ATY.


Here is a little more on the matter


----------



## g-man

So, getting this thread back on track.

Ground is not frozen anymore and it is nice and sunny for Indy. I'm thinking about doing my soil samples tomorrow, if I could get out of work early enough.


----------



## llO0DQLE

J_nick said:


> Here is a little more on the matter


Wow thanks for that. Explains some of the odd things I've noticed once in a while and wondered about. I don't read all the threads and mostly stick to the Cool Season forum.


----------



## llO0DQLE

g-man said:


> Ground is not frozen anymore and it is nice and sunny


I don't wanna hear about your nice weather. My lawn is covered in 3 feet of snow and it's -20 out..


----------



## g-man

@llO0DQLE 
It was nice today but I got home too late from work.

@HoosierLawnGnome did pulled his samples.


----------



## Ridgerunner

I'm hesitant to reveal how OCD I am, but...
I was going through some old postings on another site and came across this soil test that I had participated in. The OP has a 5 year old home/lawn. Said the builder had trucked in soil and sodded with KBG and the lawn did fine the first couple years but some areas particularly those that had the most added soil had not been doing as well the last coupe of years.
He had a soil test done:



Due to the large difference in pH between the side and back samples, he asked that they re-run the test:



I remember being puzzled at the time, but ended up forgetting about it without figuring it out. Seeing it again, it really has me stumped. Only three values changed between the two tests. The pH, the TEC, and the Calcium.
Does anyone have an explanation as to why/how that happened? Specifically, why the Ca would change?
Going to tag @Mightyquinn @osuturfman just because I know their backgrounds, but anyone is more than welcome to straighten me out.


----------



## osuturfman

Do we know the geographic location where that soil is from?


----------



## g-man

If they just retested from the same sample, then it must be an error in the lab.


----------



## Ridgerunner

osuturfman said:


> Do we know the geographic location where that soil is from?


Southeast Michigan/Detroit, Michigan area. I don't think he stated/knew the exact source of the trucked in soil. (e.g. if it was from the lot across the street or from the other side of the state). My understanding is that this was fill to adjust the existing terrain rather than a "manufactured" topsoil. 
He stated he removed the top three inches and then took plugs from the next 3" (i.e. submitted samples from the 3 to 6" depth), if that helps.
Also, to clarify, he didn't re-submit new samples. Just re-tested the original sample.


----------



## Ridgerunner

g-man said:


> If they just retested from the same sample, then it must be an error in the lab.


Errors can and do happen. There was obviously an error regarding pH. However, in this case where a test is being reviewed because there has already been a mistake, I'm inclined to believe extra care was exercised and assume that there is some valid reason for the change in Ca level. That is, I'd prefer to eliminate any valid reason before making judgment. Just because I can't figure it out as a layman, certainly doesn't preclude a valid reason for the change in Ca/TEC, or in the alternative, that a logical explanation (for another error) doesn't exist.


----------



## kds

I need to get more into the numbers this year. When I first moved into this house in 2016, I hired a lawn guy and he took soil samples and reported back that everything was "good." I haven't tested since, and that's a mistake on my part.

Now that Iowa State no longer accepts samples for testing, I need to find a vendor for this. The most important thing to me is that it provides recommendations on how to fix surpluses and deficits and/or is easy to read. I know LCN pitches the Soil Savvy kits and they're easy to read but the disclaimer is off-putting to those on this site (and I'm becoming a little more wary of consumer-level products that LCN gives a sales pitch on as it becomes more frequent with less substance on why the product is good). I know Logan is popular here now but what are the recommendations like?


----------



## Ridgerunner

Working from last to first.
Although I've used LL for testing in the past, I've got no experience with Logan Labs consulting services/recommendations.
I would strongly advise you not use Soil Savvy. First there is no evidence of the quality or accuracy of the test. Secondly, even if it's valid and accurate, it appears that it is more akin to a soil paste test, a snap shot, and to be useful, you would need to re-test 2 or more times a year.
It's been my experience that when a University program ceases soil testing, they will usually provide a list of recommended or "certified" labs for locals to use. I've got some time before Daytona, I'll see what I can locate.


----------



## Ridgerunner

That was easier than I expected.
See:
http://www.iowaagriculture.gov/feedAndFertilizer/pdfs/2017/Cert%20Labs%20after%20Q3docx.pdf
per:
http://soiltesting.agron.iastate.edu/


----------



## kds

Thanks!


----------



## Ware

:thumbup:


----------

