* This on-line document replaces the publication "Wisconsin Procedures for Soil Testing, Plant Analysis and Feed & Forage Analysis", No. 6, Soil Fertility Series; last revised 1987 by E.E. Schulte, J.B. Peters and P.R. Hodgson. The work of these individuals as well as many other current and former laboratory staff members is gratefully acknowledged.
** This page requires a Javascript enabled web browser.
The procedures outlined herein are employed in the University of Wisconsin Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory, Marshfield, and the Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory, Madison. Several private soil testing laboratories also follow these procedures, including all Wisconsin DATCP Certified Soil Testing Laboratories.
A laboratory test is only as good as the research upon which it is based. These procedures have been modified from the research efforts of a great many individuals, at the University of Wisconsin and elsewhere, and adapted for routine analysis. This is a continuing process. As new information is uncovered through research, soil, plant, and forage tests must be updated to include the latest findings. Consequently, the procedures found herein are revised from time-to-time as needed to keep them current.
Soil test correlation: The first step in developing a soil test is to find a suitable extracting solution. This is the objective of a correlation study. A large number of the more important agricultural soils are collected. These soils are then cropped in the greenhouse, where most of the variables can be controlled. After a specified period, the assay crop is harvested; the amount of the element to be tested that is taken up by the crop is measured.
From knowledge of the chemistry of the element in the soil, several different possible extracting solutions are used to extract the element from the soil. An ideal extractant would remove the same amount of the element as is taken up by the plant. This is rarely achieved in practice, but a close correlation between plant uptake and the amount of the element extracted chemically is sought. In some cases, a regression equation that considers other soil properties may improve the prediction of plant availability of the element in question. Once a suitable extractant has been found, the effects of shaking time, solution-to-soil ratio, reagent concentration, etc. must be studied before the test can be run on a routine basis.
Soil test calibration: After a soil test procedure has been developed through greenhouse and laboratory experimentation, it is necessary to calibrate the test on a large number of sites under field conditions. The objective of soil calibration is to determine the amount of nutrient that must be added to the soil at different soil test levels of that nutrient to obtain maximum yield.
Because variables such as climate, insects, disease, drainage, etc. cannot be controlled as closely in the field as in the greenhouse, it is necessary to repeat field calibration studies three to five years before definite conclusions can be drawn.
Correct usage of soil, plant, and forage results depends on 1) a sample representative of the area or batch from which it was taken, 2) an accurate laboratory analysis, and 3) the correct interpretation of lab results. The laboratory analysis should be the most accurate step unless gross analytical errors go undetected or poor laboratory technique is allowed. Built –in checks can minimize these possibilities. The interpretation of the lab results depends on knowledge of the relationship between the test value and plant, soil, and animal response.
The greatest source of error is usually the sample itself. Since physical samples may be extremely heterogeneous, it is important that the sample tested be truly representative. Procedures for taking representative samples may be found in the following articles:
The interpretation of soil test results and the procedure for making lime and fertilizer recommendations are covered in detail in 'Nutrient Application Rate Guidelines for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin' (A2809).
| 1. | Sample Preparation | |
| 2. | Internal Check System
To insure reliability of laboratory results, an internal check system is essential. This is in addition to any external sample exchange between laboratories. The first sample in every tray should be a standard sample of known composition. This standard should be prepared by drying, grinding, and homogenizing a 25 to 50 lb sample. Homogenize the ground sample thoroughly and store the bulk sample in a heavy plastic bag inside a 5-gal closed container away from lab fumes. After this standard soil has been analyzed 50 times, calculate the mean and standard deviation for each analysis. On graph paper, prepare a chart with the mean and ± one standard deviation on the vertical axis and date of analysis on the horizontal axis. The graph over time should be a sequence of points forming a near-horizontal line within the one standard deviation, above and below the mean from the 50 analyses. Post this chart (a separate chart for each element) next to the instrument used to measure that element. The analyst records the value of the standard sample on the chart at the start of the tray and can see at a glance if the analysis is within tolerable limits. If not, the problem should be resolved before proceeding. The mean and standard deviation of the standard sample should be recalculated after every 50 trays to determine whether the instruments are drifting or the sample itself is changing. Scrupulous adherence to this internal check program will help insure reliable data. For matching colorimeter tubes dilute 1 mL of 3 N Na2Cr2O7 in 10 N H2SO4 to 1 L and mix thoroughly. Place this solution into the colorimeter tubes to be matched and read. | |
| 3. | pH & Sikora Lime Requirement | |
| 4. | Available P | |
| 5. | Available K (this is the official WI method for soil K) | |
| 6. | Organic Matter (Weight loss-on-ignition) | |
| 7. | Available Zinc | |
| 8. | Available Boron | |
| 9. | Available Manganese | |
| 10. | Exchangeable Cations (Ca++, Mg++, K+, Na+) | |
| 11. | Calculated Cation Exchange Capacity | |
| 12. | Sulfate-Sulfur | |
| 13. | Soluble Salts (Electrical Conductivity) | |
| 14. | Particle Size Analysis (Physical Analysis) | |
| 15. | Inorganic Nitrogen | |
| A. | Nitrate-N (Colorimetric Method) | |
| B. | Nitrate and Nitrite by Flow Injection Analysis | |
| C. | Ammonium-N by Flow Injection Analysis (see above) | |
| 16. | Total Nitrogen | |
| 17. | Organic Carbon | |
| 18. | Total Elemental Analysis with ICP-OES and ICP-MS | |
| 19. | Heavy Metals | |
| 20. | Chloride | |
| 21. | Lead | |
| 22. | Ash | |
| 23. | Phosphorus for Forest Soil | |
| 24. | Mound Sand | |
| 1. | Total Elemental Analysis with ICP-OES and ICP-MS | |
| A. | Digestion with Perchloric Acid | |
| B. | Alternate Digestion Using Dry Ash Method | |
| 2. | Total Nitrogen by Flow Injection Analysis | |
| 3. | Nitrogen - Inorganic Forms (Includes Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite) | |
| 4. | Chloride | |
| 5. | Organic Carbon | |
| 6. | Heavy Metals | |
| 7. | Potato Petiole Nitrate | |
| 8. | Ash | |
| A. Wet Chemical Analysis | ||
| 1. | Sample Preparation & Lab Dry Matter | |
| 2. | Total Dry Matter | |
| 3. | Crude Protein (CP) | |
| 4. | NDF (Neutral Detergent Fiber) | |
| 5. | ADF (Acid Detergent Fiber) | |
| 6. | Lignin | |
| 7. | ADFCP | |
| 8. | NDFCP | |
| 9. | Ash | |
| 10. | Fat | |
| 11. | In Vitro Digestibility | |
| 12. | Total Starch | |
| 13. | Starch Digestibility; Degree of Starch Access | |
| 14. | Major Mineral Analysis (P, K, Ca, Mg) | |
| 15. | Sulfur Determination in Manure and Forage | |
| 16. | Total Elemental Analysis with ICP-OES and ICP-MS | |
| 17. | Nitrate Nitrogen | |
| 18. | Heavy Metals | |
| 19. | Selenium | |
| 20. | Chloride | |
| 21. | Ash | |
| B. NIRS Analysis | ||
| 1. | Sample Collection | |
| 2. | Subsampling | |
| 3. | Drying | |
| 4. | Grinding | |
| 5. | Mixing Dried and Ground Sample | |
| 6. | Packing and Scanning | |
| 7. | Equation Use | |
| A. | References for Calibrations Used | |
| i. Alfalfa Hay: NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 alfalfa hay calibration, file name: ah50-3. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, NDF, dNDF48, Ca, P, K, Mg, ash, lignin, fat, RUP. | ||
| ii. Grass Hay: NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 grass hay calibration, file name: gh50-2. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, dNDF48, NDF, Ca, P, K, Mg, Ash. | ||
| iii. Mixed Hay: NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 mixed hay calibration, file name: mh50-3. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, dNDF48, NDF, Ca, P, K, Mg, ash, fat, lignin, RUP. | ||
| iv. Mixed Haylage: NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 mixed haylage calibration, file name: hg50-3. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, dNDF48, NDF, Ca, P, K, Mg, ash, fat, lignin, ADP, RUP. | ||
| v. Fermented Corn Silage: NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 fermented corn silage calibration, file name: cs50-2. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, dNDF48, IVTDMD, NDF, Ca, P, K, Mg, ash, fat, lignin. | ||
| 8. | Sample Storage | |
| 1. | Manure | |
| A. | Sample Preparation & Lab Dry Matter | |
| B. | All Other Methods | |
| 2. | Sediment Analysis | |
| A. | Carbon | |
| i. Total Carbon | ||
| ii. Organic Carbon | ||
| B. | Total Elemental Analysis with ICP-OES and ICP-MS | |
| C. | Heavy Metals | |
| 3. | Water and Wastewater | |
| A. | Total Nitrogen | |
| B. | Inorganic Nitrogen | |
| C. | Chloride | |
| D. | Soluble Salts | |
| E. | Total Solids | |
| F. | Alkalinity | |
| G. | Hardness | |
| H. | Organic Carbon/Total N | |
| I. | Total Elemental Analysis with ICP-OES and ICP-MS | |
| J. | Heavy Metals | |
| 1. | Greenhouse Media | |
| 2. | Lime | |
| 1. | Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry | |
| 2. | Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry | |