That Phosphorus is almost catastrophically low!

High magnesium has been known to make hard crusty soils. With that much area, plan twice & seed once

Like I said, np. :)

P: FIV 5= 10lbs.-5ppm, a FIV of 100=200lbs./acre

K: FIV 118= 429lbs./acre-214.5ppm, a FIV of 100= 364lbs./acre

Mg: FIV 82= 214.8lbs/acre-107ppm, a FIV of 100= 131lbs/acre

Ca: FIV 70= 1400lbs./acre-700ppm, a FIV of 100= 2000lbs/acre

I did a mason jar test to try to get a handle on the texture.

After 8 hours:

The water is still cloudy, but so far it looks like about a 3-1 ratio of silt to sand and just a tiny bit of clay. Even at 10% clay, which is far more than what has settled, that is silt loam.

This test is very inconsistent internally; there's no way optimal calcium, optimal magnesium, and high potassium are producing a pH of 4.8 (which indicates an extreme lack of alkaline cations). We have the same problem, but not quite so extreme, on the other soil sample.

I won't give a read here because something is very, very wrong, and I can't tell if it's the pH test or the cation tests. Plus the fact that this passed their quality assurance indicates that no other reading can be called trustworthy!

So it'd be unsafe (and extremely irresponsible) to offer much advice based on this test as we can't trust it too much.

I'd have this re-done using Logan Labs or UMass (Logan preferable but UMass is perfectly fine).

It's not totally inconsistent with the area for the pH to be in the high 4's to mid 5's.

Here is the mason jar sample in the meantime.

>>It's not totally inconsistent with the area for the pH to be in the high 4's to mid 5's.

Correct, that's quite common through the region.

However, it's inconsistent for that to happen when the calcium, magnesium, and potassium levels are showing as optimal. In fact, that's impossible.

Without seeing the 2 minute photo it's tougher to determine the consistency, but I'd say that this is definitely a silt loam. It's a nice soil, reminiscent of my own, actually.

Here’s a question:

As far as lime, how far does it “travel?” If we accept at the moment that my soil is indeed a silt loam, how much lime do I need, and, how far away from the rootzone of acid-lovers like azaleas, blueberries, even red maple or pin oak, etc do I need to stay to where the lime won’t “runoff”, especially if they’re downhill from a limed area?

I was also thinking my pH goals staying on the lower side, maybe upper 5’s, so I don’t accidentally go too high for other things I’m growing, but if I have a planting of azaleas that’s a bit downhill, how far away do I need to stay from them with the lime?

Lime's a very slow and limited traveler. I grow rhododendrons two feet away from common annuals that require a much higher pH. I also grow azaleas in my gardens, at a pH of 6.3 (the argument that they absolutely require a lower pH is actually a myth).

Grasses, on the other hand, won't be entirely thrilled with a pH of 5.7, but they're not going to be as unhappy as they will be a point lower. I'd say stay five feet away from the root zones (which are a bit wider than the greenery) and there's absolutely no risk. Or just lime the whole thing and apply ferrous sulfate to counter that.

The jar is conclusive.

You have been so consistent, almost adamant, that you had a silt clay soil that Once I realized you were in Maryland, I was second guessing my earlier opinion that it was a sandy silt. To eliminate the possibility that it could be a heavily weathered clay, I checked Md.'s soil survey. To my surprise, nearly 75% of Maryland's soil is classified as Utisol.

A sandy silt loam will be easier for you to adjust.

On its face, there is nothing impossible, wrong, inconsistent or inaccurate with this soil test. Making such statements based on a lack of understanding of FIV (SLAN) is, to put it kindly, nonsense.

Due to sampling errors, innate differences that can exist between soil just a few feet away from one another and the limitations of the test methods, test results can and will very by as much as 10-20%, even with the very same soil sample sent twice to the same test lab. Even with the "best" labs.

If you decide to re-test, consider using one of these accredited labs (they all meet minimum standards for accuracy and precision as required by the NRCS for soil analysis laboratories analyzing soils for
federal government programs involved with the development of nutrient
management plans) to help ensure "valid" results, if that is a concern:

My choices would be either A&L Western (first on list) or Brookside.

A&L Western Agricultural Labs
1311 Woodland Ave. Ste. 1
Modesto, CA 95351
209-529-4080
http://www.al-labs-west.com

AgroLab, Inc.
101 Cluckey Dr
Harrington, DE 19952
302-566-6094
http://www.agrolab.us

AgSource - Bonduel
106 N. Cecil St., PO Box 7
Bonduel, WI 54107
715-758-2178
http://www.agsource.com

AgSource - Harris
300 Speedway Circle Ste 2
Lincoln, NE 68502
402-476-0300
http://www.agsource.com

AgSource Laboratories - Umatilla
323 6th Street, PO Box 1350
Umatilla, OR 97882
541-922-4894
http://www.agsource.com

AGVISE Laboratories - Benson
902 13th St N
PO Box 187
Benson, MN 56215
320-843-4109
http://www.agvise.com

AGVISE Laboratories - Northwood
604 Hwy 15
PO Box 510
Northwood, ND 58267
701-587-6010
http://www.agvise.com

American Agricultural Lab - Olsen's Agricultural Lab
210 East First St
PO Box 370
McCook, NE 69001-0370
308-345-3670
http://www.amaglab.com

Brookside Labs Inc.
200 White Mountain Dr
New Bremen, OH 45869
419-977-2766
http://www.blinc.com

Cascade Analytical
3019 GS Center Rd
Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-662-1888
http://www.cascadeanalytical.com

CSU Soil Water & Plant Testing Laboratory
200 W Lake St
Campus Delivery 1120, NESB A-319
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1120
970-491-5061
http://www.soiltestinglab.colostate.edu

Dairy One Soil Testing Laboratory
730 Warren Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-257-1272
http://www.dairyone.com

Dellavalle Laboratory Inc.
1910 W McKinley #110
Fresno, CA 93728-1221
559-233-6129
http://www.dellavallelab.com

Metro Wastewater Lab

6450 York St.
Denver, CO 80229-7499
303-286-3223
http://www.metrowastewater.com

Midwest Laboratories
13611 B St
Omaha, NE 68144-3617
402-334-7770
http://www.midwestlabs.com

Northwest Agricultural Consultants
2545 W Falls Ave
Kennewick, WA 99336
509-783-7450
http://www.nwag.com

SoilTest Farm Consultants
2925 Driggs Dr
Moses Lake, WA 98837
509-765-1622
http://www.soiltestlab.com

Stukenholtz Laboratory, Inc.
2924 Addison Ave E
PO Box 353
Twin Falls, ID 83301
208-734-3050
http://stukenholtz.com

The Farm Clinic, Inc.
2574 S State Rd 39
Frankfort, IN 46041
765-659-1783
http://thefarmclinic.com

Twiss Analytical Lab
26276 Twelve Trees Lane C
Poulsbo, WA 98370
360-779-5141
http://www.twisslabs.com

University of Idaho Analytical Sciences Laboratory
Holm Research Center
2222 West Sixth Street
Moscow, ID 83844-2201
208-885-7900
http://www.uidaho.edu/asl

USU Analytical Lab
1541 N 800 E
9400 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-9400
435-797-2217
http://www.usual.usu.edu

Ward Laboratories, Inc.
4007 Cherry Ave
PO Box 788
Kearney, NE 68847
308-234-2418
http://www.wardlab.com

West Virginina Dept of Ag
60B Industrial Park Road
Moorefield, WV 26836
304-538-2397
http://www.agriculture.wv.gov

>>On its face, there is nothing impossible, wrong, inconsistent or inaccurate with this soil test. Making such statements based on a lack of understanding of FIV (SLAN) is, to put it kindly, nonsense.

Alas, making such statements indicates a lack of understanding of chemistry and is, not kindly and not intended to be (just as your statement wasn't intended to be kind) nonsense.

You should enjoy doing all future soil test reads, I won't be back. I don't need the bullshit. The hours of work and all the delicious, delicious, continuous thanks are all yours.

Er, no Morpheus. You just can't up and leave us because of yardtractor - that is nonsense. You can't leave us here with that guy in control, it just will not end well.

I don't take sides in these things, but nobody wants to see morpheus go--So much great knowledge has been shared over the years! Maybe this will cheer you up, thanks to J4 creativity.

I and many others would be upset to see Morph go. Please reconsider Morph!

Unfortunately I find the need to defend my position.

First, this is an open forum, to my knowledge, no poster has the right or power to be in control.

Second, I have no desire to regularly do soil test interpretation, but I will continue to do reads when and if I have the urge.

Third, I have made an effort over the last few months to bite my tongue and not be confrontational with morpheuspa. However, some things are so inaccurate, that I feel compelled to not allow misinformation to stand. This is a case in point.

For the second time, morpheuspa has dismissed and denigrated a respected testing service based on completely defective assumptions. He is entitled to his personal opinions, but he isn't entitled to his own facts. His argument is that to raise pH, base cations must increase. True. In fact the only way to "permanently" raise pH is by adding carbonate and our available sources for carbonate is lime and that will necessarily raise calcium or both calcium and magnesium. On that basis, he argues that calcium, mg. etc CANNOT be classified as optimal when increases in those base cations are needed to raise pH. Therefore, on that basis alone, he concludes the values of those base cations CANNOT possibly be properly classified optimal and any test that does classify them as such can ONLY be assessed as "wrong", "not worth the paper it's written on", totally INACCURATE! There is no other conclusion possible!!!

What he misses is the classification of "optimal" is used for the sole purpose of indexing fertility/SLAN values. Optimal means that years and thousands of tests have shown that amounts above optimal result in very little to no increase in soil fertility. That's what it means. Get used to it, SLAN is here and more and more testing services are reporting FIV/SLAN indexes. More and more State's are passing laws limiting nutrient applications based on SLAN values. But, the mere reporting of FIV (even if one cant convert them) and labeling them as low, medium or optimal does not make a test report or the raw values invalid. Sorry. I don't know why he doesn't understand this. It would be much more understandable if he had just said "I only do reads for Logan tests." He didn't, he chose this route of false logic and deflection.

That he considers Umass tests to be valid and will read them, defies logic as they should be just as "internally inaccurate" as the test at hand under the very same "rational" he has given for denigrating the Delaware test.

See here and take note of the Ca., Mg. P values on the bar graph and note the pH. Then take note of the lab.

Fourth, morpheuspa can leave or stay, that's his choice. I couldn't care less either way.

the point you miss is morph is a person most would want to invite for a beer and a steak. That counts for a lot in this world.......even on an open forum

Darin,

No offense intended, but you miss two important points:

1. This is not a dating forum. If the OP follows morpheuspa's advice he is going to spend the price of a beer and a steak unnecessarily (other than to get morph to give him a read) for a new test.

2. People come here looking for useful, accurate information.

I'd really like to thank the people who sent me notes today, they're much appreciated and I'm very grateful that you enjoy my advice (and rather sarcastic personality!) that much.

But no, the time has come to take my leave. The level of irresponsible soil test advice has gotten too extreme, to the point where deeply sub-normal pH levels are considered fine and poundage calculations as supplied by the claimant literally do not support the soil pH to begin with. Yet somehow this set of errors receives vehement defense because the methodology is somehow not to be questioned.

I can't--and won't--be a party to that level of incompetence and stupidity.

This says nothing of the manner in which this supposed advice is delivered and "defended." I'm not in the habit of tolerating temper tantrums from whining children and I'm not going to start now.

I did receive the nicest invitation from another site--which one should be obvious as I used to post there--to return. I'm considering that, so please look for me. If it's not clear, knock me a note and I'll tell you flat out.

But other than that, I cannot ethically remain here and certainly don't need the annoyance inherent in doing so.

Best of luck...because frankly, from the looks of things, you're going to need it.

Thanks for the kind words, and goodbye.

Yardtractor - really?

Hairmetal, sorry your request for info got lost here. FWIW, I (and many others here) used Logan Labs and was pleased.

If I really have silt loam with 4% OM, shouldn't I have better tilth?

@morpheuspa

Sorry to see you go, especially to Mordor. Thank you for the unselfish help you have provided to all of us for so long.

@yardtractor1

I see the same heated debate on SLAN happening over on the other site as well. I haven't studied the issue much but I think I understand what you're saying, the "optimum" values are determined based on what the plant needs and responds to, they're not necessarily "optimum" for achieving proper pH. So it's plant first vs. soil first. I do have a few questions since this is an interesting topic:

• Is there any situation where SLAN "optimum" values will result in a proper soil pH?
• Are these values specific for turf or are they generic agricultural?
• In relation to the above, when we talk about plant response, how is that measured, is it in yield (e.g. increasing past this point doesn't result in more corn per acre) or any visual difference?

When I'm attacked with ad hominen and vitriol I have the ugly habit of responding in kind with mustard. In retrospect, I'm not proud of that post and it has been deleted.

I'll post separately on other topics.

If I really have silt loam with 4% OM, shouldn't I have better tilth?

Hard to say. Think of it as a building site with all the necessary materials sitting on it. All the block, wood, windows, bricks, shingles, nails, siding, etc. It wont be a house until all the proper craftsman go to work and they never seem to finish when you want.

Is there any situation where SLAN "optimum" values will result in a proper soil pH?

Yes it is possible to have optimum index values for cations which would result in a "proper" pH soil. Using maximum optimum index values and 8% of base cations allocated to "other cations" and sodium can result in a soil with a pH of 6.4. but the CEC would be less than 7. By dropping down the index scale towards 50 (still in the optimal range) you could raise the pH, but the CEC would be incrementally lower. Not very practical :) and soil CEC that low aren't very common.

Are these values specific for turf or are they generic agricultural?

I believe soil test supplied index values are based on a crop studies. I'm unaware if any index has incorporated turf studies into the category of "crop". I doubt it. I'm not aware of any low medium optimum index that is solely based on turf values.

That's the reason I ignore them. For the most part, I employ the SLAN values developed for turf by PACE and apply that to the ppm lbs/ac values given in the soil test.

In relation to the above, when we talk about plant response, how is
that measured, is it in yield (e.g. increasing past this point doesn't
result in more corn per acre) or any visual difference?

SLAN is Sufficiency Level of Available Nutrients. It is defined as the level at which an addition of nutrient results in no further crop response. I know that yield is the primary determinant for crop response. I don't know if any other factors are considered.

SLAN is a tool. For farmers with a bottom line and high costs, it can be a very important tool. For us and our lawns, we don't really have a bottom line. For a few dollars we can apply nutrients to our heart's desire. For our purposes, SLAN is just another tool in the box. I don't use it as my guide in adjusting the soil cations like Ca. and Mg. as I strongly believe that that balancing is important to soil structure and I use BCSR. I use it as a "warning" light for two purposes: 1. if I'm having an issue and my soil test shows a nutrient below SLAN, I'm going to make a note to address it. If a soil test reveals no SLAN nutrient deficiency, I'm going to balance per BCSR. 2. Unless, when I'm balancing and I desire to raise K to 4 or 5% and I note that the Mg. is over 300ppm., I'm going to leave the K where it is at SLAN sufficiency and avoid any chance of soil structure issues.

Supposedly, PACE SLAN levels were adjusted by Carro for turf purposes.

Great info thank you.