Got a soil test done

[Rico Swazi]

new soil, makes sense


Would be interesting to see how the numbers change over time if you could spring for another soil test. Whats the cost these days?




Years ago the small farm program at OSU did soil tests for wannabe market growers like myself for free. The spring and fall tests were vastly different but not unexpected due to the changing conditions and crops grown. Curious to see if your soil reacts the same



Maybe we will get lucky and KIS , slownickle growingcrazy or one of the others familiar with soil tests will show up and give their take on the matter

 

[slownickel]

Don't use this lab. They are terrible! They will constantly report Boron below 1 ppm regardless of what is there. All of their numbers are way underestimated. We have run side by side samples at this lab and a real lab and the difference is ridiculous.

 

[Rico Swazi]

thanks slownickle, same collection protocol or sample? What lab would you suggest?
What assurance is there the real lab has the correct numbers?
In this world of corruption, be easy for a testing facility to give the current certifying gov't agency the reach around (pay to play)

Don't mind me, I'm just a cynical old man having a difficult time trusting anyone anymore

thanks again slow, appreciate the help




Good luck GOT BUD?
hope you get it figured out to your liking

 

[GOT_BUD?]

I used Logan Labs because they come highly recommended by experts in soil - Jeffery Lowenfels, Dr. Laura Ingham, Steve Solomon, Tad Hussey of KIS, etc.

That's the lab that they use. And since they are who I'm listening to regarding soil biology, I figured that was a safe bet.

If you have a problem with them, I'm sorry for your troubles.

But I'll listen to well recognized experts before some random, anonymous dude on the internet tells me different.

 

[f-e]

The field tests I had done, were for fields only, not compost. I chose them from a list compiled by the department of agriculture. It came down to three labs really, and each did soil testing. Specifically soil.

I did the same 6" sample, pulled with a 2" wet tube, I emptied with the plunger from a sealant gun. I needed quite a tough tube, I chopped a few teeth into, and a hole through the top for a T handle (see: large screwdriver)

I felt great with all my core samples laid out in the kitchen.

A lab may ask for a different volume, but field sampling with tubes is a typical approach.

 

[slownickel]

I used Logan Labs because they come highly recommended by experts in soil - Jeffery Lowenfels, Dr. Laura Ingham, Steve Solomon, Tad Hussey of KIS, etc.

That's the lab that they use. And since they are who I'm listening to regarding soil biology, I figured that was a safe bet.

If you have a problem with them, I'm sorry for your troubles.

But I'll listen to well recognized experts before some random, anonymous dude on the internet tells me different.

Write to Steve Solomon and ask him what lab he uses and what procedures he recommends. Let me know if you don't have his email.

With all that said, Logan lab consistently underestimates Boron and will show you toxic levels of boron in the leaves at the same time. Oh, I am in Solomon's in several places and a couple of other books as well.

 

[slownickel]

thanks slownickle, same collection protocol or sample? What lab would you suggest?
What assurance is there the real lab has the correct numbers?
In this world of corruption, be easy for a testing facility to give the current certifying gov't agency the reach around (pay to play)

Don't mind me, I'm just a cynical old man having a difficult time trusting anyone anymore

thanks again slow, appreciate the help




Good luck GOT BUD?
hope you get it figured out to your liking

The lab that does the procedures for heavily amended mixes such as we see in this industry is Spectrum Analytic in Ohio. If you want real details send me a pm.

I am an old, cynical agronomist that farms for a living. Just hate seeing folks wasting good money on analysis that gives dangerous results.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

The lab that does the procedures for heavily amended mixes such as we see in this industry is Spectrum Analytic in Ohio. If you want real details send me a pm.

I am an old, cynical agronomist that farms for a living. Just hate seeing folks wasting good money on analysis that gives dangerous results.

Never heard of them.

But that means absolutely nothing.

Do they have a price list anywhere? I saw one reviewer say they were inexpensive, so that's a plus.

Fuck it. I'll send them a sample and post up the results and we can all compare the two.

 

[slownickel]

Never heard of them.

But that means absolutely nothing.

Do they have a price list anywhere? I saw one reviewer say they were inexpensive, so that's a plus.

Fuck it. I'll send them a sample and post up the results and we can all compare the two.

Ask for the K-3 process, it is a bit more expensive, but takes into consideration if you have free lime or any added carbonates.

Is this a soil from outdoors, artificial medium, etc., and what have you mixed into it?

There is a correct procedure for taking soil samples and for preparing the sample for the lab.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

It's a peat based mix that is an updated version of Coots mix with a KIS "ingredient" pack 4 x 4 soil bed in a tent ~ 12-14" deep.

I put the soil together earlier this year and ran a set of plants through it. 2 sets of them looked pretty good for a first run in new soil. But the one set got to week four and just went south in a hurry.

I wanted to get a soil test done to see where I fell short in my amendments package so I could top dress more effectively and not add stuff the soil didn't need.



ETA - And now that I have visited your profile, you have my attention.

 

[slownickel]

Gotcha,

Most definitely do a light sift with a kitchen sifter. Do not grind the sample.

Try to get soil from the top to the bottom, in equal quantities.

Drying the sample in the oven will help.

Realize the lab dries and then grinds up what ever you send in. So no perlite, roots, etc., should be in the sample.

Sift the soil without pressure to push through, shaking the sample to cause it to fall through only, versus grinding it through.

Send the lab 200 grams of dry soil/medium.

Please send in the same soil you sent to Logan so as to see the issue of Boron.

Ideally you would send in a leaf sample to Logan (they seem to do okay with those) to see the levels of nutrients especially Boron. Spectrum will not receive Cannabis foliar samples, Logan doesn't seem to care. We gently dry the third adult leaf counting from the top down, dried to a crisp at a low temp, we pull out the major stem and larger veins if possible by crumbling the leaf sample. We call the sample "comfrey".

 

[GOT_BUD?]

Gotcha,

Most definitely do a light sift with a kitchen sifter. Do not grind the sample.

Try to get soil from the top to the bottom, in equal quantities.

Drying the sample in the oven will help.

Realize the lab dries and then grinds up what ever you send in. So no perlite, roots, etc., should be in the sample.

Sift the soil without pressure to push through, shaking the sample to cause it to fall through only, versus grinding it through.

Send the lab 200 grams of dry soil/medium.

Please send in the same soil you sent to Logan so as to see the issue of Boron.

Ideally you would send in a leaf sample to Logan (they seem to do okay with those) to see the levels of nutrients especially Boron. Spectrum will not receive Cannabis foliar samples, Logan doesn't seem to care. We gently dry the third adult leaf counting from the top down, dried to a crisp at a low temp, we pull out the major stem and larger veins if possible by crumbling the leaf sample. We call the sample "comfrey".

Have any tips on pulling a good soil sample? Would a simple PVC pipe with some teeth added to an end work? Or could it contaminate the sample? Though I suppose $50 for the correct tool isn't too much of an expense in the grand scheme of things.

And there is that A-HA! moment. Grind up a dried leaf and label it something else. So simple a solution it's very easy to overlook.

I hate living in a restricted state.

 

[Rico Swazi]

The lab that does the procedures for heavily amended mixes such as we see in this industry is Spectrum Analytic in Ohio. If you want real details send me a pm.

I am an old, cynical agronomist that farms for a living. Just hate seeing folks wasting good money on analysis that gives dangerous results.

I too hate to see people throw good money away, especially from the start with improper collection methods. I wanted to bring attention to what could skew the results. Your expert advise on the collection and sifting of the samples was exactly what was needed to help the OP get the best bang.


I grew for market after work and weekends years ago but nothing to your caliber. Nowadays self sufficient minimal input growing is a passion of mine. Have you done much hugelkultur/permaculture/natural growing?

Much respect for the helpful info you pass on.

 

[slownickel]

I too hate to see people throw good money away, especially from the start with improper collection methods. I wanted to bring attention to what could skew the results. Your expert advise on the collection and sifting of the samples was exactly what was needed to help the OP get the best bang.


I grew for market after work and weekends years ago but nothing to your caliber. Nowadays self sufficient minimal input growing is a passion of mine. Have you done much hugelkultur/permaculture/natural growing?

Much respect for the helpful info you pass on.

My farm is organic. Which to be honest, is a terrible way to grow. Using synthetic chemicals that do not screw up micro biology work much better than organics.

A good example. When you use nitrates, you can maximize uptake of Calcium. When one uses nitrates, the plant can pick up 4 Ca for every 2 K.

When one uses ammonia or ANY ORGANIC NITROGEN SOURCE (yes any) the plant can only pick up 2 Ca for ever 2 K.

Unfortunately, that is the signal to the plant to mature and flower. Which means in organics, we really have no chance of hitting gang buster yields.

The hype behind organics is really about not eating nasty chemicals. Nutritionally I would argue, most Organic grown crops aren't that healthy to eat.

Why you say? Simple. The premise from the beginning is wrong.

If you take all the organic material from your farm, your neighbors farm, and from all around you. Feed it to a cow, compost the manure, then make worm castings out of it.

What will the chemical profile look like of the ending worm compost compared to the soil?

Unfortunately, the same or worse! If you have high Fe and no Mn in your area, you can expect them same in the worm castings, in fact, probably several times worse!

If you have no P in the soil, guess what will be in those worm castings? Very little P.

It is impossible to have a successful system this way.

There is no free ride folks. Your job as a farmer is to create balance, not lopsided nutrition for a plant.

I know this is not a popular stance amongst many of my farming friends, but reality is reality. Science is science.

So why do I grow Organically? I get a 30% premium, that's it.

Now in this industry, the premium is so much higher and has NOTHING to do with Organics.

There are $200 pounds out there and there are $4K pounds, why? QUALITY. Unlike any other industry or commodity in the world, folks will pay good money for good smoke. PERIOD.

(My Masters work was in Ag Economics so please excuse the economic twist).

 

[Rico Swazi]

My farm is organic. Which to be honest, is a terrible way to grow. Using synthetic chemicals that do not screw up micro biology work much better than organics.

A good example. When you use nitrates, you can maximize uptake of Calcium. When one uses nitrates, the plant can pick up 4 Ca for every 2 K.

When one uses ammonia or ANY ORGANIC NITROGEN SOURCE (yes any) the plant can only pick up 2 Ca for ever 2 K.

Unfortunately, that is the signal to the plant to mature and flower. Which means in organics, we really have no chance of hitting gang buster yields.

The hype behind organics is really about not eating nasty chemicals. Nutritionally I would argue, most Organic grown crops aren't that healthy to eat.

Why you say? Simple. The premise from the beginning is wrong.

If you take all the organic material from your farm, your neighbors farm, and from all around you. Feed it to a cow, compost the manure, then make worm castings out of it.

What will the chemical profile look like of the ending worm compost compared to the soil?

Unfortunately, the same or worse! If you have high Fe and no Mn in your area, you can expect them same in the worm castings, in fact, probably several times worse!

If you have no P in the soil, guess what will be in those worm castings? Very little P.

It is impossible to have a successful system this way.

There is no free ride folks. Your job as a farmer is to create balance, not lopsided nutrition for a plant.

I know this is not a popular stance amongst many of my farming friends, but reality is reality. Science is science.

So why do I grow Organically? I get a 30% premium, that's it.

Now in this industry, the premium is so much higher and has NOTHING to do with Organics.

There are $200 pounds out there and there are $4K pounds, why? QUALITY. Unlike any other industry or commodity in the world, folks will pay good money for good smoke. PERIOD.

(My Masters work was in Ag Economics so please excuse the economic twist).

It all makes sense now with the mention of economics. Thank you for reaffirming my cynicism .

Dissing Logan labs and suggesting people send their samples to spectrum gives cynics like myself the impression you have a financial interest or some 'premium' in exchange for the redirect. An easy fix would be to suggest people contact their local extension office to get help on taking a correct soil sample and interpreting the results. Heres a few testing labs on the west coast from Oregon State
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em8677/html

Chemical profile is only one part of soil health which is my main goal along with being a good steward of the land

Soil health is defined as — soil's capacity, as a biologically active entity, within natural and managed landscapes, to sustain multiple ecosystem services, including net primary productivity (NPP), food and nutritional security, biodiversity, water purification, and renewability, C sequestration, air quality, and atmospheric chemistry and elemental cycling for human well‐being and nature conservancy. This definition of soil health is in accord with that of the Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock 1979), which states that life creates environment suited to its well‐being.



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fes3.96

 

[GOT_BUD?]

What do you call a group of old school dope growers? Apparently it's called a cynic of growers.

Like a murder of crows or a bitter of stand up comedians.



Eh. It was funny to me.

 

[f-e]

The lab I use send out little card boxes for you to fill and return in pre-paid packaging. They dry them at 30c. Grind and test.

 

[slownickel]

It all makes sense now with the mention of economics. Thank you for reaffirming my cynicism .

Dissing Logan labs and suggesting people send their samples to spectrum gives cynics like myself the impression you have a financial interest or some 'premium' in exchange for the redirect. An easy fix would be to suggest people contact their local extension office to get help on taking a correct soil sample and interpreting the results. Heres a few testing labs on the west coast from Oregon State
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em8677/html

Chemical profile is only one part of soil health which is my main goal along with being a good steward of the land

Soil health is defined as — soil's capacity, as a biologically active entity, within natural and managed landscapes, to sustain multiple ecosystem services, including net primary productivity (NPP), food and nutritional security, biodiversity, water purification, and renewability, C sequestration, air quality, and atmospheric chemistry and elemental cycling for human well‐being and nature conservancy. This definition of soil health is in accord with that of the Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock 1979), which states that life creates environment suited to its well‐being.



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fes3.96

You can think what every you want pal. We are talking about an analysis that cost less than $60 I believe. Not sure how one can make money on that. I charge $200 per hour FYI. I chip in here to save folks from making stupid decisions or listening to idiots.

If you don't get soil chemistry right, which means the relationship between elements, all the other details don't mean squat. The silliness of thinking otherwise is pure folly.

 

[f-e]

The labs in the UK disagree. They produce reports like the one here. There is no relationship information. Just amounts of each, and an idea if that is good or bad. Tailored to the crop type and yield expected. As published by defra. With modifiers for soil types and past field use.

Now you can look at all the numbers, and talk about the relationship, and there certainly is one. But it's seen as folly. We just need to see there is enough there of everything. One thing at a time. Keeping to guidelines.

It's like two approaches to the same problem. Lets say we are reading feed bottles, which we all do. And lets just look at npk so we are all comfortable. We can talk about the ratio's, or the amounts. But the ratio information we must extract for ourselves and tells us nothing of feed strength. The information given is amounts. That is what we work with, and tells us what we actually want to know.

Tell me I'm silly

 

[h.h.]

All things are related.The ratios will vary per plant and it’s ability to adapt.
The tests are just snapshots and suggestions of what might work.
Best test is to put a plant in it.
If you have deficiencies, unless you have acreage, just use a little garden fertilizer. No point in playing chemist.