Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

ISSN: 0010-3624 (Print) 1532-2416 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Soil testing and plant analysis activities‐The United

States and Canada

J. Benton Jones Jr. & Yash P. Kalra

To cite this article: J. Benton Jones Jr. & Yash P. Kalra (1992) Soil testing and plant analysis
activities‐The United States and Canada, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
23:17-20, 2015-2027, DOI: 10.1080/00103629209368722

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103629209368722

Published online: 11 Nov 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lcss20

Download by: [Universite Laval] Date: 04 November 2015, At: 05:57

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

AND
ORAL

POSTER PRESENTATIONS
 COMMUN. SOIL SCI. PLANT ANAL., 23(17-20), 2015-2027 (1992)

SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES-THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA
J. Benton Jones, Jr.
Micro-Macro International, Inc., 183 Paradise Blvd., Suite 108, Athens, GA
30607
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Yash P. Kalra
Forestry Canada, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 - 122 Street, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5

ABSTRACT: A survey was conducted among the public and private soil
testing and plant analysis laboratories in the United States and Canada. There
were 114 replies from the United States and 83 from Canada. The results of the
survey indicated that a majority of these laboratories provided a wide range of
analytical services as well as routine soil tests and plant analyses with sources of
samples from fanners, fertilizer dealers, researchers, and home owners. The
number and educational background of the laboratory staffs varied greatly with a
number of laboratories having large staffs of highly trained and educated
personnel. Many laboratories are well equipped, some with high-speed
multielement analyzers. This summary provides detailed information on the status
of many soil testing and plant analysis laboratories located in the United States and
Canada.

INTRODUCTION
Soil testing became a significant factor in crop production decision making in
the United States in the late 1940s. Various state Agricultural Cooperative
Extension Services established the laboratories needed to provide soil testing
services were established. These laboratories were located primarily at Land-
Grant colleges and universities. In the 1950s, a number of fertilizer industry
laboratories were established to support fertilizer sales efforts. From 1955 to

2015

Copyright © 1992 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.

 2016 JONES AND KALRA

1966, the numbers of soil samples tested and fertilizer used was highly correlated
(Jones, 1973), although this high correlation may have been a coincidence rather
than the result of a cause and effect relationship. In 1968,3.8 million soil samples
were tested for U.S. farmers, a number that has not been exceeded since.
In 1950, a survey was conducted by the National Soil and Fertilizer Research
Commitee (Nelson et al., 1951), which described the various soil testing
procedures used in the state-operated soil testing laboratories. During the 1960s,
there were considerable efforts made, mainly by the fertilizer industry, to
encourage uniformity in test methods. By 1973, Jones (1973) found that con-
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

siderable uniformity in methods of analysis had been achieved among the

state-operated soil testing laboratories as compared to what was in use as revealed
by the previous 1950 study (Nelson et al., 1951).
The need for more uniformity in soil testing procedures as well as fertilizer
recommendations spurred interest in establishing a group that would serve as a
focal point for these issues. As a result, the Council on Soil Testing and Plant
Analysis was formed in 1969. Its major objectives were:
(1) to promote uniform soil test and plant analysis methods, use,
interpretation and terminolgy.
(2) to stimulate research on the calibration and use of soil testing and
plant analysis.
(3) to provide a forum and information clearing house for those
interested in soil testing and plant analysis
(4) to bring individuals and groups from industry, public institutions,
and independent laboratories together to share information.

Since the formation of the Council in 1969, there have been significant
changes in terms of who is doing the testing, and what testing procedures are
being used. Today, only a few fertilizer-industry soil testing labor- atories
remain. About two-thirds of the soil tests are being done in commercial- private
laboratories, the remaining third are done by state-operated laboratories. Several
states (California, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, and Washington, for
example) do not have a state-operated soil testing laboratory. In some states, such
as North and South Carolina, and Kentucky, the soil testing laboratory is part of
the state's Department of Agriculture system, rather than being under the control
of the state's Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service. There are some who
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2017

Samples X 1000
600

500 -

400 -
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

NUMBER OF PLANT TISSUE SAMPLES ANALYZED

BETWEEN 1968 TO 1987 BY COMMERCIAL AND
GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES
IN THE UNITED STATES

FIGURE 1. The Number of Soil Samples Analyzed between 1949 to 1987 by

Commercial and Government Laboratories in the United States.

predict that many of the current state-operated soil testing laboratories will close by
the end of this decade. In a number of states, there are no private soil testing
laboratories. California has the largest number of private soil testing laboratories
(~300), while some 60 laboratories are located in Illinois. There are some very
large private laboratories, which provide a wide range of analytical services for
farmers from every part of the United States. On the other hand, there are some
private laboratories that operate within a very small market area, providing limited
analytical services for a very specific crop/soil region. The number of private soil
testing laboratories is estimated to be about 400.
The second major change that has occurred since the early 1970s has been the
standardization of methods. In 1974, the Council on Soil Testing and Plant
 2018 IONES AND KALRA

Samples X 1000
4000

3000 I-

2000 h
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

1000 h

1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

NUMBER OF SOIL SAMPLES SAMPLES ANALYZED

BETWEEN 1949 TO 1987 BY COMMERCIAL AND
GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES
IN THE UNITED STATES

FIGURE 2. The Number of Plant Tissue Samples Analyzed between 1968 to

1987 by Commercial and Government Laboratories in the United
States.

Analysis published the Handbook on Reference Methods for Soil Test-

ing, which was revised in 1980. This Handbook is currently undergoing
revision, and the new version will be published in late 1992. The 1974 issue of
the handbook stimulated interest among two regional soil testing working groups,
who issued their own reference methods bulletins (Dahnke, 1980; Issac, 1983).
Beginning in 1949, an annual survey of the number of soil samples assayed
by laboratories in the United States was conducted by the United States
Department of Agriculture-Extension Service, and a similar survey for plant tissue
samples assayed began in 1968. Laboratories in both the public (government) and
private (commercial) sectors were sent a report form to obtain the numbers of
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2019

samples assayed. Although participation among the private laboratories has varied
con- siderably, the survey numbers have been very useful. A graphic presentation
of the number data are shown in Figure 1 for soil samples covering the years 1949
to 1987, and in Figure 2 for plant tissue samples covering the years 1968 to 1987.
As was stated earlier, the peak of activity based on the number of samples assayed
occurred in the early 1970s for both soil and plant testing. The relative ratio of
numbers of samples assayed by government and commençai laboratories as
shown in Figures 1 and 2 is about equal. The relative number of samples assayed
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

between commercial and government laboratories is probably in error as the

quantity is unknown because there is a far greater number of commercial than
government laboratories (about 6:1), and fewer commercial laboratories report
their number data.. Based on estimates of known activity in the last several years,
the commercial laboratories are analyzing an ever increasing number of samples,
while many public laboratories are analyzing less than in the past.
In order to determine the characteristics and types of activities performed
among the various laboratories in the United States and Canada, a survey form
was sent in May 1991 to all the known laboratories providing soil testing and plant
analysis analytical services. This paper discusses the results obtained from the
survey forms returned.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were 114 returned survey forms from the Unites States laboratories,
and 83 from Canada. The objective is not to compare between laboratories in the
two countries, but to primarily focus on the characteristics that exist among the
laboratories within each country. The comparison factors are based on the replies
received and not on the total number of survey forms mailed (450 to U.S. and 201
to the Canadian laboratories).
Laboratory Ownership: In the United States, there is an equal distribution
among three of the four categories of ownership among the replying laboratories,
while in Canada, about half of the replying laboratories are state operated (Table
1). This difference in ownership, particularly for the Canadian laboratories,
probably has an effect on the response to the questions contained in the
questionnaire, and therefore should be considered in the remaining observations
made in the following discussion.
 2020 JONES AND KALRA

TABLE 1. Type of Laboratory Ownership (% of

Laboratories).

Classification United States Canada

Individually Owned 30 20
University 30 11
Corporation 39 18
State Operated <1 51
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

General Laboratory Description: In the United States, three of the four

categories identified accounted for almost all the types of services provided, with
41 % offering a wide range of analytical services-other than just soil testing and/or
plant analysis. In Canada, the largest majority (66%) of laboratories provide a
wide range of analytical services (Table 2).
Level of Analytical Activity. The numbers of soil, plant tissue, water, and
other substances analyzed in the past three years by the replying laboratories are
summarized in Table 3. In the United States as well as Canada, the majority of
laboratories are yearly assaying less than 10,000 soil samples, and 1,000 plant
tissue, water, and other substances. These numbers suggest for those laboratories
in the United States, that a majority of the 114 respondents were primarily the
smaller regional laboratories that provide analytical services within a state or
similar soil/crop region. For soil testing, however, there are a number of
laboratories assaying sample numbers in excess of 50,000. In Canada, a higher
percentage of replying laboratories are assaying water and other type samples in
larger numbers than laboratories in the United States.
The laboratories were also asked to predict what levels of future analytical
activity they anticipated (Table 4). In general, a majority of laboratories, in both
the United States and Canada, anticipated an increase in analytical activity in all
four sample-type categories, except for plant tissue among the Canadian
laboratories.
Method of Result Reporting: Analytical service is frequently not the primary
goal for testing; consequently, laboratories were asked what method of analysis
result reporting was employed (Table 5). For soil testing in the United States,
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2021

TABLE 2. General Laboratory Description in Terms of Primary Analytical

Service (% of Laboratories).

Laboratory Description United States Canada

Primarily Soil Testing 26 12

Primarily Plant Analysis 1 0
Both Soil Testing and Plant Analysis 32 22
Wide Range of Analytical Services including
Soil Tests and Plant Analysis 41 66
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

TABLE 3. Number of Samples Analyzed Yearly.

Number COO0) of Samples

Soils <10 10-20 20-50 50-100 >100

United States 44 18 21 13 4
Canada 74 16 8 1 1
Plant Tissue <1 1-5 5-10 10-25 >25
United States 43 23 21 7 1
Canada 47 37 8 7 1
Water <1 '1-5 5-10 10-20 >20
United States 59 29 6 3 3
Canada 47 22 12 9 10
Other <1 1-5 5-10 10-20 >20
OOLO

United States 52 25 15 6
Canada 47 17 17 11

TABLE 4. Anticipated Change in Number of Samples over that Received in the Last
Three Years (% of Laboratories).

Type of United States Canada

Sample No Change Decrease Increase No Change Decrease Increase
Soil 29 24 47 30 20 50
Plant Tissue 38 13 49 39 19 42
Water 29 10 61 33 11 56
Others 30 8 62 29 11 60
 2022 JONES AND KALRA

TABLE 5. Primary Method of Soil and Plant Analysis Reporting (%

of Laboratories).

Soil Tests Results Only Results & Recommendations

United States 17 83
Canada 64 36
Plant Analyses Results Only Results & Recommendations
United States 45 55
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Canada 70 30

83% of the replying laboratories report analytical results plus a recommendation,

while in Canada, only 36% provide recomendations. This high precentage in
United States laboratories reflects the primary use of soil testing as a means of
making a lime and fertilizer recommendation. For plant analysis, results and
recommendations are given by 55% of the laboratories in the United States and
30% for the Canadian laboratories.
Soil Tests Conducted: Laboratories were asked to identify those test pro-
cedures that are either done routinely, only upon result, or are not determined.
(Table 6). In general, soil pH, lime buffer pH, organic matter content, CEC, and
extractable P, K, Ca, Mg, and Zn are routinely assayed as part of a soil analysis.
Salt pH, salinity, extractable Al, and chloride are among those determinations
most frequently not determined. Surprisingly, a fairly large number of deter-
minations are done upon request only.
Soil Extradants Used: Laboratories were asked what type of extradants they
are using, the results are given in Table 7. Neutral normal ammonium acetate was
the most frequently used extradant, followed by Bray PI, DTPA, hot water
extractable B, and then saturated paste. Surprisingly, relatively few of the replying
laboratories are using either the Mehlich No. 1 or No. 3 extradant. The use of
either Olsen P and AB-DTPA would reflect the number of alkaline soils being
assayed, and to some degree the use of the DTPA extradant. In the survey, no
attempt was made to determine what soil types were most frequently assayed by
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2023

TABLE 6. Soil Tests Conducted as Routine, Upon Request, or Not Determined (% of

Laboratories).

United States Canada

Soil Test Routine Upon Request NDa Routine Upon Request ND a
Water pH 94 5 1 80 20 0
SaltpH 18 38 44 36 43 21
Lime Buffer 62 21 17 32 30 38
Organic Matter 64 33 3 64 33 3
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Conductivity 49 46 5 65 33 2
CEC 50 37 13 42 47 11
Salinity 35 40 25 28 50 22
Extractable P 94 6 0 74 25 1
Extractable K 94 6 0 80 19 1
Extractable Ca 76 21 3 70 29 1
Extractable Mg 77 20 3 70 29 1
Extractable Na 48 43 9 51 45 4
Extractable Al 17 40 43 28 58 14
Extractable B 40 48 12 34 56 10
Extractable Cu 46 46 8 37 60 3
Extractable Fe 44 44 12 39 60 1
Extractable Mn 48 46 6 40 57 3
Extractable Zn 52 42 6 40 56 4
Nitrate 45 48 7 49 44 7
Sulfate 43 44 13 42 41 17
Chloride 25 47 28 32 44 24
a
ND = not determined.

the reporting laboratories. The relative relationship among the various extractants
between the Canadian and United States laboratories were essentially the same.
Plant Analysis Determinations: The elements determined in a plant analysis
as a part of the routine, upon request, or not determined were surveyed (Table 8).
Nitrogen, P, K, Ca, Mg Na, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn were the most frequently
included elements in a plant analysis. Aluminum, Mo, and the anions phosphate
and sulfate were the most cited "not determined" elements. There were some
interesting differences between Canadian and United States laboratories for
determinations of the heavy metals, Al, and Mo (greater in Canada), and nitrate
 2024 JONES AND KALRA

TABLE 7. Soil Extradants Used for Conducting the Soil

Test (number of laboratories).

Extractant United States Canada

Mehlich No. 1 8 7
MehUch No. 2 3 1
MehUch No. 3 18 13
Bray PI 46 31
Bray P2 18 17
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Olsen P 36 26
DTPA 46 43
Morgan 10 7
Morgan-Wolf 3 0
Neutral normal NH4OAc 60 50
AB-DTPA 10 43
Hot water extractable B 49 41
Water 33 49
Saturated paste 45 49

(greater in the U.S.). The number and frequency of elements determined "upon
request only" was quite substantial, particularly among the Canadian laboratories.
The laboratories were also asked to identify their method of plant tissue
organic matter destruction technique; the results are given in Table 9. Sixteen per
cent of the Canadian laboratories use microwave digestion techniques compared to
only 5% of the U.S. laboratories.
Laboratory Equipment and Instrumentation: From the list of items of
equipment and instrumentation given in Table 10, it is evident that the responding
laboratories are well equipped. The Canadian laboratories had greater numbers of
specialized instrumentration, such as ICPs and AutoAnalyzers, than those in the
United States. There are several other significant differences among items of
specialized equipment and instrumentation.
Laboratory Accreditation: The majority of the responding laboratories
indicated that they had some type of accreditation from either a regulatory agency,
or from the state or federal government (Table 11). In the United States, most soil
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2025

TABLE 8. Elements Determined for a Plant Analysis (% of laboratories).

United States Canada

Element Routine Upon Request NDa Routine Upon Request NDa
Nitrogen 80 14 5 71 20 9
Sulfur 54 34 12 46 37 17
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Phosphorus 86 12 2 71 25 4
Potassium 84 14 2 70 26 4
Calcium 84 13 3 70 26 4
Magnesium 83 14 3 70 26 4
Sodium 61 28 11 45 43 12
Aluminum 33 36 31 ' 30 54 16
Boron 65 27 8 47 43 10
Copper 70 26 4 54 40 6
Iron 69 27 4 51 43 6
Manganese 73 23 4 53 41 6
Molybdenum 23 41 36 20 61 19
Zinc 72 .24 4 54 40 6
Heavy metals 20 50 30 27 59 14
Extractable:
Nitrate 47 43 10 37 36 27
Sulfate 35 32 33 23 38 39
Phosphate 45 24 31 23 36 41
Chloride 33 43 24 22 39 39
a
ND = not determined.

TABLE 9. Method of Plant Organic Matter Destruction (%

of Laboratories).
METHOD United States Canada
Wet acid digestion 40 44
Microwave digestion 5 16
Dry ashing 48 37
Other 7 3
 2026 JONES AND KALRA

TABLE 10. Type of Laboratory Equipment, Apparatus, and Analytical Instru-

ments (number of laboratories).

Item United States Canada

Power driven soil crusher 77 48
Udymill 21 10
Wiley mill 69 55
Time controlled stirrers 34 30
Time controlled shakers 53 82
Power driven dispensers 53 37
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

Top loading balance 82 88

Analytical balance 82 93
Muffle furnace 74 85
Microwave digestion apparatus 10 28
pH meter 97 94
Conductivity meter 87 87
Specific ion meter 53 62
Spectrophotometer 90 78
Atomic absorption spectrometer 84 85
ICP plasma spectrometer 35 59
DC plasma spectometer •2 7
AutoAnalyzer 28 70
Flow injection analyzer 12 20
Sulfur analyzer 15 21
Macro-Kjeldahl apparatus 35 27
Micro-Kjeldahl apparatus 32 32
Automated Kjeldahl apparatus 22 29
Block digestor 52 80
HACH Kjeldahl apparatus 5 8
Dumas N analyzer 6 7
Ion analyzer 22 32

TABLE 11. Laboratories Accreditated and by What Type of Agency (number

of laboratories).
Level of Accreditation United States Canada
By regulatory agency 47 33
State accreditated 68 26
Federal 11 47
Other 21 26
 SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES 2027

and plant analysis laboratories are not accreditated by a nationally recognized

accrediating agency, such as A2LA, but accreditation is based on acceptance of
analytical results by some agencies on the basis of application and/or performance
criteria. Since no identification or clarification was requested on the survey, it is
not possible to determine what the exact nature of the accreditation system
identified would constitute in terms of required criteria.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 05:57 04 November 2015

SUMMARY
In summary, the results of the conducted survey suggest that the responding
soil testing and plant analysis laboratories in the United States and Canada are
providing a wide range of analytical services. Most laboratories are anticipating
increased analytical activity in the future. Many laboratories are well equipped and
have automated analytical instruments. There were some distinct differences
between the United States and Canadian laboratories in terms of ownership,
analytical services provided, and the type of equipment and instruments in use.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all those who responded to the survey, providing
the information needed to prepare this report.

REFERENCES:

Dahnke, W.C. 1980. Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the
North Central Region. North Central Regional Publication No. 221 (revised).
North Dakota Agr. Exp. Stn., Fargo, ND.
Issac, R.A. 1983. Reference Soil Test Methods for the Southern Region of the
United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 289. The University of
Georgia College of Agriculture-Experiment Station, Athens, GA.
Jones, Jr., J. B. 1973. Soil testing in the United States. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 4:307-322.
Nelson, W.L., J.W. Fritts, L.T. Kardos, W.T. McGeorga, R.Q. Parks, and J.
Fielding Reed. 1951. Soil testing in the United States. National Soil and
Fertilizer Research Committee. U.S. Government Printing Office Publication
0-979953.