# Soil test



## JDgreen18 (Jun 14, 2018)

So I sent in my soil test of my frontyard and my back yard. Backyard is my kbg reno.
Anyway this time around my ph is quite low compared to when ai tested a couple months ago. Was 6.2 I think) This was also before I brought in dirt. Any on the the test I see my ph is low but my c & m or high. What would I use to raise the ph then? Also I find it wierd that even tho I added new dirt my c and m tested exactly the same but my ph is a lot lower.

Previous test


----------



## slomo (Jun 22, 2017)

Your sheet says limestone. They recommend 158lbs on 30,000SF??? Wow must be some stout limestone. It also has calcium which you have plenty. Go to your local nursery and see what they say.

slomo


----------



## JDgreen18 (Jun 14, 2018)

slomo said:


> Your sheet says limestone. They recommend 158lbs on 30,000SF??? Wow must be some stout limestone. It also has calcium which you have plenty. Go to your local nursery and see what they say.
> 
> slomo


I think thats 90 pounds per 1000sf on the back and 68 pounds per 1000 sf on the front


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life (Mar 1, 2018)

JDgreen18 said:


> slomo said:
> 
> 
> > Your sheet says limestone. They recommend 158lbs on 30,000SF??? Wow must be some stout limestone. It also has calcium which you have plenty. Go to your local nursery and see what they say.
> ...


Yup. Says it right above PH adjustment. "SUGGESTED TREATMENTS (pounds per 1000 square feet)"


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

JDgreen, my recommendation is to do nothing with the pH this year. Wait after the winter for things to settle a little bit.

That's a pretty big swing on pH from 6.3 to 5.0. It is better to do nothing than over correct. How much dirt you got in inches? Did you apply peat moss? What was your sample depth?

I also noticed something that makes me a little skeptical about the lab. Look at the calcium and magnesium results, 1600ppm and 125ppm on all test. They are using the Morgan Extract method, maybe Ridgerunner has more knowledge about the method that can explain the perfect numbers.


----------



## JDgreen18 (Jun 14, 2018)

g-man said:


> JDgreen, my recommendation is to do nothing with the pH this year. Wait after the winter for things to settle a little bit.
> 
> That's a pretty big swing on pH from 6.3 to 5.0. It is better to do nothing than over correct. How much dirt you got in inches? Did you apply peat moss? What was your sample depth?
> 
> I also noticed something that makes me a little skeptical about the lab. Look at the calcium and magnesium results, 1600ppm and 125ppm on all test. They are using the Morgan Extract method, maybe Ridgerunner has more knowledge about the method that can explain the perfect numbers.


Yes the morgan method. I thought the same thing about the cal and mag why would they be identical but the ph so different. 
I did use peat as a top dressing. 
I used 45 yards of topsoil some areas are thicker than others but no more than 2 inches. When I took soil samples tho I used a soil probe so some of the soil is the native and some the new


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life (Mar 1, 2018)

Maybe try waypoint in the spring before you apply anything and not worry about it for now.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

> I also noticed something that makes me a little skeptical about the lab. Look at the calcium and magnesium results, 1600ppm and 125ppm on all test. They are using the Morgan Extract method, maybe Ridgerunner has more knowledge about the method that can explain the perfect numbers.


1600 ppm for Ca and 125 ppm for Mg are their top reported values for those nutrients. If the test results are at or above those levels, they get reported as 1600/125 respectively. I believe the same hold true for the nutrient levels: e.g. top value reported for Nitrate is 25 ppm and top for K is 250 ppm even if actual tested values exceed that. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station developed the Morgan test (and they are going to stick with it come [email protected] or high water). They have over 50 years of research data based on it and their recommended nutrient values are strongly correlated specifically to CT soils. They are not members of NAPT and the most recent test protocols published by them appear to be from 1950. Their test protocols vary slightly from those cited by NAPT. The effect of these protocol differences, if any, in test results and the incorporation of their research for test calibration makes comparison to other established recommended values hard to ascertain.
See beginning at page 60 for clarification of their "maximum" reported values. http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/bulletins/b541.pdf


----------

