DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Test Methods from the Southeastern United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Test Methods from the Southeastern United States Soil Test Methods From the Southeastern United States Puerto Rico/Virgin Is. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 419 ISBN# 1­58161­419­5 January, 2014 Southern Extension and Research Activity Information Exchange Group - 6 (SERA-IEG-6) Edited by: F.J. Sikora Division of Regulatory Services University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40546 K.P. Moore Agricultural Service Laboratory Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634 Authors: Editorial Committee: K.K. Crouse F.J. Sikora D.H. Hardy K.P. Moore S. Heckendorn G. Huluka G. Huluka D.E. Kissel D.K. Joines R.Miller D.E. Kissel R. Mylavarapu R. Miller J.L. Oldham C.C. Mitchell K.P. Moore R. Mylavarapu J.L. Oldham T. Provin H.J. Savoy F.J. Sikora L. Sonon J.J. Wang D.D. Warncke H. Zhang A current list of the members, participants, and administrative advisors of SERA-IEG-6 may be found at www.clemson.edu/sera6 This publication in the Southern Cooperative Series is considered a separate publication by each of the cooperating agencies of the Southern Cooperative Region. This publication may be mailed under the frank and indicia of each agency. This publication may also be printed from the web site. Commercial companies are mentioned in this publication solely for the purpose of providing specific information. Mention of a company does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of its products by the Agricultural Experimental Stations or an endorsement over products of other companies not mentioned. The Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status in provision of educational programs and services or employment opportunities and benefits. Tis policy extends to both employment by and admission to the Universities. The Universities do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or disability in the education programs and activities pursuant to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. ii Author Contact Information Crouse, Keith K. Soil Testing Laboratory, Box 9610, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Phone: 662-325-3313. Email: [email protected] Hardy, David H. NCDA & CS Agronomic Division, Soil Testing Section, 4300 Reedy Creek Road, 1040 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. Phone: 919-733-2837. Email: [email protected] Heckendorn, Steve. Virginia Tech Soil Testing Lab, 145 Smyth Hall (0465), Blacksburg, VA 24061. Phone: 540-231-9807. Email: [email protected] Huluka, Gobi. Department of Agronomy & Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849. Phone: 334-844-3926. Email: [email protected] Joines, Debbie K. University of Tennessee, Soil, Plant, and Pest Center, 5201 Marchant Drive, Nashville, TN 37211. Phone: 615-832-4936. Email: [email protected] Kissel, David E. Ag and Environmental Services Lab, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Rd, Athens, GA 30602. Phone: 706-542-5350. Email: [email protected] Miller, Robert . ALP & MAP Programs, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. Phone: 970-686-5782. Email: [email protected] Mitchell, Charles C. Department of Agronomy and Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849. Phone: 334-844-5489. Email: [email protected] Moore, Kathy P. Agricultural Service Laboratory, Clemson University, 171 Old Cherry Road, Clemson, SC 29634. Phone: 864-656-2300. Email: [email protected] Mylavarapu, Rao. Soil & Water Science Department, University of Florida, 171 McCarty Hall, P. O. Box 110290, Gainesville, FL 32611. Phone: 352-294-3113. Email: [email protected] Oldham, J. Larry. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Phone: 662-325-2760. Email: [email protected] Provin, Tony. 2478 Texas A&M University, Texas Agri Life Extension Service, Soil & Crop Science Department, College Station, TX 77843. Phone: 979-862-4955. Email: [email protected] Savoy, Hugh J. University of Tennessee, Room 212 Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Building, 2506 E. J. Chapman Drive, Knoxville, TN 37796. Phone: 865- 974-8840. Email: [email protected] iii Sikora, Frank J. University of Kentucky, Soil Testing Lab, 103 Regulatory Service Building, Lexington, KY 40546. Phone: 859-218-2452. Email: [email protected] Sonon, Leticia. Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602. Phone: 706-542-5350. Email: [email protected] Wang, Jim J. Louisiana State University, School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences, 313 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Phone: 225-578-1360. Email: [email protected] Warncke, Darryl D. Michigan State University, Crop and Soil Sciences Dept., East Lansing, MI. Zhang, Hailin. Oklahoma State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, 368 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078. Phone: 405-744-9566. Email: [email protected] iv Foreword The Southern Extension and Research Activity Information Exchange Group (SERA-IEG-6) was formed in 1954 under the name of Southern Region Soil-Testing Work Group. The justification for forming the Group was to reconcile differences in fertilizer recommendations across state lines. Before reconciling differences in recommendations, differences in soil test methods amongst the states had to be assessed. The Group published their first methods publication in 1965 (Page, 1965). The publication documents 13 different soil extractants for phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium used amongst University laboratories in the Southeastern states. An objective of the publication was to present detailed methodology so methods can be exchanged and studied to determine the best ones to use. In 1983, the Group published an updated methods publication with 9 standard reference procedures (Donohue and Isaac, 1983). Progress was made on encouraging standardization and uniformity in soil test methods with only 3 soil extractants for phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium presented in the 1983 publication compared to 13 extractants in the 1965 publication. The 3 extractants included Mehlich 1 for P, Bray for P, and ammonium acetate for K, Ca, and Mg. The 1983 publication was limited as it only presented methods for the plant nutrients phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. More soil test methods were published by the Group in 1992 which included Mehlich-3 and methods for sulfate-sulfur, nitrate-nitrogen, and micronutrients (Donohue, 1992). The publication also included additional methods to assess soil acidity and organic matter and to test strip mined soil, potting media, and waste amended soil. Several advancements in instrument technology and methods have occurred since the 1992 methods publication. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) is now commonly used for the determination of a wide range of plant nutrients in soil extracts, including phosphorus which was formerly determined via spectrophotometric analysis. Robotic pH instruments have become widely available for determining soil and buffer pH for determining lime requirement. Several methods have been developed to quantify soil acidity using nonhazardous reagents. Combustion instruments are now commonplace for measurement of C and N in soil. These advancements necessitated an update to the 1992 methods publication. The objectives of the current publication were to document the methods accepted and used at University laboratories in the Southern Region (Savoy, 2013), document the progress the Southern Region has made in advancing soil test methodology, help laboratories readily adopt methods, and provide information for further research and development. References Donohue, S.J. 1992. Reference soil and media diagnostic procedures for the Southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 374. (Available on-line at http://www.clemson.edu/sera6/.) (Verified 19 Nov. 2013.) Donohue, S.J. and R.A. Isaac. 1983. Reference soil test methods for the Southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 289. (Available on-line at http://www.clemson.edu/sera6/.) (Verified 19 Nov. 2013.) v Page, N.R. 1965. Procedures used by the state soil testing laboratories in the Southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 102. (Available on-line at http://www.clemson.edu/sera6/.) (Verified 19 Nov. 2013.) Savoy, H.J. 2013. Procedures used by state soil testing laboratories in the Southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 409. June, 2013 revision. (Available on-line at http://www.clemson.edu/sera6/.) (Verified 20 Aug. 2013.) Acknowledgements The editors wish to express appreciation to the authors who provided their time and expertise in contributing chapters for this publication. Appreciation is also extended to the editorial committee who provided guidance on the content of the publication and to reviewers who gave their time to critique the chapters. vi Table of Contents Unit 1 Soils Page # Chapter 1.1 Soils of the Southeastern US………………………………………......... 2 R. Mylavarapu, C.C. Mitchell, and H.J. Savoy Chapter 1.2 Soil Test Correlation and Calibration for Recommendations……….…. 11 C.C. Mitchell and R. Mylavarapu Unit 2 Laboratory Operation Chapter 2.1 Soil Preparation, Measurement, and Storage……..…………………..…. 20 R. Mylavarapu and R. Miller Chapter 2.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control in a Soil Test Laboratory…….. 23 D.H. Hardy, R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment
    Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment Guemes Channel Trail Extension Anacortes, Washington for Herrigstad Engineering, PS May 16, 2014 Earth Science + Technology Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment Guemes Channel Trail Extension Anacortes, Washington for Herrigstad Engineering, PS May 16, 2014 600 Dupont Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 360.647.1510 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 1 DESIGNATION OF GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS AT THE SITE ..................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Explorations ........................................................................................................................ 4 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 4 Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Soil Tests for On-Site Evaluation of Soil Health in Orchards
    sustainability Article Simple Soil Tests for On-Site Evaluation of Soil Health in Orchards Esther O. Thomsen 1, Jennifer R. Reeve 1,*, Catherine M. Culumber 2, Diane G. Alston 3, Robert Newhall 1 and Grant Cardon 1 1 Dept. Plant Soils and Climate, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; [email protected] (E.O.T.); [email protected] (R.N.); [email protected] (G.C.) 2 UC Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA 93710, USA; [email protected] 3 Dept. Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 26 October 2019; Published: 29 October 2019 Abstract: Standard commercial soil tests typically quantify nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, pH, and salinity. These factors alone are not sufficient to predict the long-term effects of management on soil health. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness and use of simple physical, biological, and chemical soil health indicator tests that can be completed on-site. Analyses were conducted on soil samples collected from three experimental peach orchards located on the Utah State Horticultural Research Farm in Kaysville, Utah. All simple tests were correlated to comparable lab analyses using Pearson’s correlation. The highest positive correlations were found between Solvita®respiration, and microbial biomass (R = 0.88), followed by our modified slake test and microbial biomass (R = 0.83). Both Berlese funnel and pit count methods of estimating soil macro-organism diversity were fairly predictive of soil health. Overall, simple commercially available chemical tests were weak indicators of soil nutrient concentrations compared to laboratory tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrometer and Viscosity Cup Guide
    Hydrometers Do Work What Is Specific Gravity? Specific gravity of any solid or liquid substance is its weight compared with the weight of an equal bulk of pure water at 62 degrees F at sea level. Gases use an equal volume of pure air at 32 degrees F. There are three methods of determining the specific gravity of liquids: Hydrometer In which the specific gravity of the liquid tested is read as the scale division marking the liquid level on the stem. Bottle Method In which the specific gravity is the weight of liquid (slip) in a full bottle divided by the weight of water in a full bottle. Displacement Method In which specific gravity is the weight of liquid displaced by a body divided by the weight of an equal volume of water displaced by the same body. The first two methods are practical. The faster, easier method uses a hydrometer designed specifically for slip (see right). There are many different hydrometers. Slip should range between 1.78 to 1.75, the latter being the maximum amount of water in the body and the former the lesser amount. How To Get An Accurate Reading 1. Store hydrometer in water. This keeps slip from drying on the surface. A cut off two liter soft drink bottle is ideal. Remove and gently “squeegee” off excess water. 2. Immerse in freshly agitated slip to the stem readings. 3. Lift up, “squeegee” off excess slip. Hydrometer is now “wet coated” with slip, not with water, which would give a false reading. 4. Immerse bulb half way into slip before releasing.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Testing Can Help Nutrient Deficiencies Or Imbalances
    Do You Have Problems With: • Nutrient deficiencies in crops • Poor plant growth and response from applied fertilizers • Hard to manage weeds • Low crop yields • Poor quality forages • Irregular plant growth in your fields • Managing manure or compost applications Soil tests help to identify production problems related to Soil Testing Can Help nutrient deficiencies or imbalances. Above: Nitrogen defi- ciency in corn (photo: Ryan Stoffregen, Illinois). Below: Phosphorus deficiency in corn. Source: www.ipni.net Benefits of Soil Testing: • Determines nutrient levels in the soil • Determines pH levels (lime needs) • Provides a decision making tool to determine what nutrients to apply and how much • Potential for higher yielding crops • Potential for higher quality crops • More efficient fertilizer use Costs: Generally soil tests cost $7 to $10.00 per sample. The costs of soil tests vary depending on: 1. Your state (some states offer free soil testing) 2. The lab that is used. 3. The items being tested for (the cost increases as more nutrients are being analyzed). NOTE: Some state agencies and land grant universities provide free soil testing for the basic soil test items (pH, available phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, and organic matter). Additional costs may be charged for testing for micronutrients. In other states, all soil testing is done by private labs and generally charge $7-$10 for the basic test. One soil test should be taken for each field, or for each 20 acres within a field. See example on page 3. Soil Testing How Often Should I Soil Test? Generally, you should soil test every 3-5 years or more often if manure is applied or you are trying to make large nutrient or pH changes in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Read a Hydrometer
    Triple Scale Beer & Wine Hydrometer • Please Note: Always handle your hydrometer with care and DO NOT BOIL Why Use a Hydrometer – A Hydrometer is an instrument used Example formula: 1.073 was the Original Gravity reading and 1.012 How to Read to measure the progress of fermentation and determine alcohol per- is the Final Gravity reading.: 1.073-1.012=.06 x 131 = 7.99% Alc. By Vol centage. How to Determine Alcohol Percentage for Wine – For A Hydrometer Hydrometer Theory – A Hydrometer measures the density of a Wine, your final reading is often below zero. In wine, nearly all the liquid in relation to water. In beer or wine making we are measuring sugar is converted to alcohol – because alcohol is lighter than wa- how much sugar is in solution. The more sugar that is in solution, ter, your reading at the end of a wine fermentation is often negative. the higher the hydrometer will float. As sugar is turned into alcohol When the reading is negative, you have to add this back to your first during the fermentation, the hydrometer will slowly sink lower in the reading. Here is an example for these situations: .990 solution. When fermentation is finished, the hydrometer will stop Example Using Potential Alcohol Scale for Wine: sinking. Original Reading: 12.5 Potential alcohol 1.000 Three Scales – What are they used for? – Each of our Fer- Final Reading: -.7 Potential alcohol mentap hydrometers comes with three scales. The Specific Gravity - - - - - - - - - scale is most often used in brewing. The Brix scale is most often used 1.010 (12.5+.7)=13.2 % alcohol by volume in winemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancement of Shaft Capacity of Cast-In- Place Piles Using a Hook System
    Enhancement of Shaft Capacity of Cast-in- Place Piles using a Hook System by Ghazi Abou El Hosn A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario ©2015 Ghazi Abou El Hosn * Abstract This research investigates an innovative approach to improve the shaft bearing capacity of cast- in-place pile foundations by utilizing passive inclusions (Hooks) that will be mobilized if movement occurs in pile system. An extensive experimental program was developed to study the shaft bearing capacity of cast-in-place piles with and without hook system in soft clay and sand. First phase of the experiment was developed to investigate the effect of passive inclusion on pile- soil interface shear strength behaviour, employing a modified direct shear test apparatus. The interface strength obtained for pile-soil specimens was found to significantly increase when passive inclusions were implemented. Apparent residual friction angle for concrete-sand interface increased from 22 to 29.5 when two hook elements were used at the pile-soil interface. The pile-clay apparent adhesion was also increased from 19 kPa to 34 kPa. A series of pile-load testing at field were performed on cast-in-place in soft clay to investigate the effect of passive inclusions on pile bearing capacity. The pile-load tests were conducted at Gloucester test site. Four model piles were cast with steel cages along with hooks (P1- no hook, P2-7 hooks, P3- 5 hooks and P4- 5 hooks) installed on the exterior side of the steel cages prior to filling the hole with concrete.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Improvement/ Land Reclamation
    Unearthing Sustainable www.nwbiosolids.org Solutions SOIL IMPROVEMENT/ Fact Sheet LAND RECLAMATION Biosolids provide nutrients and organic matter to damaged soils, enabling renewed plant growth. SEEKING SOLUTIONS Our collective footprint as humans has disturbed native landscapes and underlying soils. Heavy equipment used in construction can compact soils. Mining can result in loss of topsoil. Overgrazing disturbs native vegetation and wind and water erosion occurs when ecosystems are disturbed. Following this damage, soils are often unable to support plant life due to lack of nutrients and organic matter, compaction, altered pH and other ecosystem changes. BENEFITS OF BIOSOLIDS Disturbed soils can be restored and revitalized Before and after a reclamation with biosolids through the addition of organic matter. Nutrient-rich, organic biosolids replace lost can access over time. Soil, following biosolids topsoil and improve soil fertility and stability, application is better aerated and lighter. Water thus decreasing erosion and aiding in revegetation. enters into the soil rather than eroding off the soil Biosolids have been used successfully to reclaim surface. Unlike nutrients in commercial fertilizers, large construction sites, surface mines, parks nutrients added in the biosolids will stay in the and road cuts. Biosolids composts are an topsoil over time and the restored ecosystem excellent organic soil for building or renewing will prosper over time. wetlands. Wildlife habitat and rangelands have been restored using biosolids products. WHAT’S HAPPENING Here are some of the ways biosolids have HOW IT WORKS reclaimed damaged soils: Soil improvement and land reclamation projects use onetime or infrequent applications of large · Wildlife habitat enhancement - Invasive plants quantities of biosolids to increase the amount like Scotch broom and blackberry vines can of nutrients and organic matter in the poor or take over natural wildlife habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • AML Pilot Program) for FY 2016 – FY 2017
    Report on Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Economic Development Pilot Program (AML Pilot Program) for FY 2016 – FY 2017 Prepared by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) Prepared by the OSMRE Program Support Directorate March 28, 2017 Page 1 of 18 I. Introduction and Background The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Economic Development Pilot Program (AML Pilot) for FY 2016 was authorized by Congress under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) and enacted on December 18, 2015. Administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), the AML Pilot provided $30 million of US Treasury Funds to each of the three Appalachian state AML Programs (Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) which have the highest amount of unfunded coal-related problems that are classified as Priority 1 and Priority 2 abandoned mine lands sites and inventoried in the Enhanced Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (e-AMLIS). The AML Pilot funds are to be used “for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands in conjunction with economic and community development and reuse goals”. This report describes implementation actions for the AML Pilot. II. Implementation of the AML Pilot Program OSMRE facilitated a meeting on February 24, 2016, in West Virginia with state AML Program staff from Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to obtain input on the implementation on the AML Pilot Program. A second meeting was held on March 16, 2016, in Lexington, Kentucky to solicit input from additional stakeholders on the AML Pilot. OSMRE also participated in workshops with economic development organizations convened by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) in the three states to provide information about the AML Pilot Program and to encourage state and local economic developers to identify opportunities to align and leverage their efforts with AML reclamation projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Test Handbook for Georgia
    SOIL TEST HANDBOOK FOR GEORGIA Georgia Cooperative Extension College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602-9105 EDITORS: David E. Kissel Director, Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories & Leticia Sonon Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, & Water Laboratory The University of Georgia and Ft. Valley State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension, the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Organization Committed to a Diverse Work Force Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Dr. Scott Angle, Dean and Director Special Bulletin 62 September 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................2 SOIL TESTING...........................................................................................................................................................4 SOIL SAMPLING .......................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Fehmarnbelt: a New Green Link Between Germany and Denmark
    PROJECT FEHMARNBELT: A NEW GREEN LINK BETWEEN GERMANY AND DENMARK An aerial view of the Fehmarnbelt's site on the island of Fehmarn in Germany, situated adjacent to the Puttgarden ferry harbour. Photo Jan Kofod Winther Femern AS 6 TERRA ET AQUA The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link is a joint Danish and To be built in northern Europe and connect German transport Scandinavia with Germany, the Fehmarnbelt infrastructure will be the world’s longest immersed tunnel. The infrastructure will close a major gap in the project across the European transport network, reduce the risk of Fehmarnbelt. shipping collisions, energy consumption and create a new region in Europe, while also fostering the development of new nature and recreational landscapes by Working with Nature concepts. Presentation of the project The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link – the proposed eastern route between Germany and Denmark – has been planned for a long time in an effort to create a rapid connection between the two countries with a faster and shorter link (see Figure 1). It will also close a major gap in the Scandinavian-Mediterranean corridor which is part of the European transport network. Once opened, the journey for freight trains between Hamburg and Scandinavia will reduce by 160 kilometres. The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link is a joint Danish and German transport infrastructure project across the Fehmarnbelt. Denmark is responsible for the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Fixed Link. To carry out this task, the government of Denmark has established the company Femern A/S which is 100% owned by the Danish State and represented by the Danish Ministry of Transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Testing in Missouri a Guide for Conducting Soil Tests in Missouri
    Soil Testing In Missouri A Guide for Conducting Soil Tests in Missouri University Extension Division of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources University of Missouri Revised 1/2012 EC923 Soil Testing In Missouri A Guide for Conducting Soil Tests in Missouri Manjula V. Nathan John A. Stecker Yichang Sun 2 Preface Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 734, An Explanation of Theory and Methods of Soil Testing by E. R. Graham (1) was published in 1959. It served for years as a guide. In 1977 Extension Circular 923, Soil Testing in Missouri, was published to replace Station Bulletin 734. Changes in soil testing methods that occurred since 1977 necessitated the first revision of EC923 in 1983. That revision replaced the procedures used in the county labs. This second revision adds several procedures for nutrient analyses not previously conducted by the laboratory. It also revises a couple of previously used analyses (soil organic matter and extractable zinc). Acknowledgement is extended to John Garrett and T. R. Fisher, co-authors of the 1977 edition of EC923 and to J. R. Brown and R.R. Rodriguez, co-authors of the 1983 edition. 3 Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………….….. 5 Sampling………………………………………………………………...……. 7 Sample Submission and Preparation…………….…………………..…..……… 7 Extraction and Measurement……………………………………………..……… 7 pH and Acidity Determination……………………...………………………..…. 8 Evaluation of Soil Tests…………………………………………………………. 9 Procedures………….……………………...……………………………....……. 10 Organic Matter Loss on Ignition……………...…...…...……………………… 11 Potassium Calcium, Magnesium and Sodium Ammonium Acetate Extraction…………………….….……………………………………….… 13 Phosphorus Bray I and Bray II Methods…………...…………………….…….... 16 Soil pH in Water (pHw) ……….………………………………………………. 20 Soil pH in a Dilute Salt Solution (pHs) ………………………….…………….... 22 Neutralizable Acidity (NA) New Woodruff Buffer Method………...…………… 24 Zinc, Iron, Manganese and Copper DPTA Extraction …….….…………….....
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Pasture Compaction
    Addressing Pasture Compaction Weighing the Pros and Cons of Two Options UVM Project team: Dr. Josef Gorres, Dr. Rachel Gilker, Jennifer Colby, Bridgett Jamison Hilshey Partners: Mark Krawczyk (Keyline Vermont) and farmers Brent & Regina Beidler, Guy & Beth Choiniere, John & Rocio Clark, Lyle & Kitty Edwards, and Julie Wolcott & Stephen McCausland Writing: Josef Gorres, Rachel Gilker and Jennifer Colby • Design and Layout: Jennifer Colby • Photos: Jennifer Colby and Rachel Gilker Additional editing by Cheryl Herrick and Bridgett Jamison Hilshey Th is is dedicated to our farmer partners; may our work help you farm more productively, profi tably, and ecologically. VT Natural Resources Conservation Service UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov http://www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture UVM Plant & Soil Science Department http://pss.uvm.edu Financial support for this project and publication was provided through a VT Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG). We thank VT-NRCS for their eff orts to build a 2 strong natural resource foundation for Vermont’s farming systems. Introduction A few years ago, some grass-based dairy farmers came to us with the question, “You know, what we really need is a way to fi x the compaction in pastures.” We started digging for answers. Th is simple request has led us on a lively journey. We began by adapting methods to alleviate compac- tion in other climates and cropping systems. We worked with fi ve Vermont dairy farmers to apply these practices to their pastures, where other farmers could come and observe them in action. We assessed the pros and cons of these approaches and we are sharing those results and observations here.
    [Show full text]