kwoody51 soil test

[kwoody51]

My 1st proper soil test. Some make sense to me but some doesn't. Planning on putting down KH and BSLC, tell me what else I need to be doing.

Thanks!

[kwoody51]

I should add my primary questions....
- Soil pH at 7.5 - should I try to lower this? If so what's best way to do so?
- Low K - seems pretty clear how to do this, via a fert with higher K. Let me know if missing something.
- Sulfur - any recommendation on what products specifically to add to address this? Feel like I read sulfur can also lower pH so perhaps if I work to
lower pH, with Sulfur, I'll address this one.

Anything jumping out not mentioned above that I should address?

Lawn is ~11,000 sq ft.
I have irrigation, a spreader and a battery sprayer.

Lawn was grown from seed makeup below
o 30% Boreal Creeping Red Fescue
o 20% Park Kentucky Bluegrass
o 20% VNS* Perennial Ryegrass
o 10% Arc Kentucky Bluegrass
o 10% Culumbra II Chewings Fescue
o 10% Double Time Perennial Ryegrass

[MorpheusPA]

We only read Logan Labs soil tests for a number of reasons--they're reliable, and we don't have to go chasing ten million different soil tests' rubrics in our not-very-copious spare time. Which lately, for the two soil readers (of which I am one) has been even less not-very-copious than usual.

The three second glance I took at this makes me uncomfortable. Definitely redo the testing through Logan for a decent read.

[kwoody51]

We only read Logan Labs soil tests for a number of reasons--they're reliable, and we don't have to go chasing ten million different soil tests' rubrics in our not-very-copious spare time. Which lately, for the two soil readers (of which I am one) has been even less not-very-copious than usual.

The three second glance I took at this makes me uncomfortable. Definitely redo the testing through Logan for a decent read.

Ok… I missed that. Another forum I’m on seems to prefer waypoint due to its reliability but respect your viewpoint.

Will check out Logan labs for a soil test.

[kwoody51]

We only read Logan Labs soil tests for a number of reasons--they're reliable, and we don't have to go chasing ten million different soil tests' rubrics in our not-very-copious spare time. Which lately, for the two soil readers (of which I am one) has been even less not-very-copious than usual.

The three second glance I took at this makes me uncomfortable. Definitely redo the testing through Logan for a decent read.

not trying to game the system... if I take these results and put into Logan Labs format would that help?

Looking at logan's test methods vs waypoint they look the same. I respect there could be some instrument bias but would suspect resulting numbers will be very close.

Again I'm not trying to violate any rules or waste anyone's time, including my own. But time to do this conversion of data will likely be less than collecting more samples and sending off.

Thanks!

[MorpheusPA]

No can do, sorry. If it were that simple, I'd just do that in my head and run with it (long-story-short, part of my days get spent reviewing medical documentation version by version, I'm used to remapping documents, one page of chemical numbers is no trick at all).

The point rather being, the resultant numbers may very well not be that close--and the reliability unknowns are what make us uncomfortable. We simply don't read anything but Logan Labs.

[kwoody51]

No can do, sorry. If it were that simple, I'd just do that in my head and run with it (long-story-short, part of my days get spent reviewing medical documentation version by version, I'm used to remapping documents, one page of chemical numbers is no trick at all).

The point rather being, the resultant numbers may very well not be that close--and the reliability unknowns are what make us uncomfortable. We simply don't read anything but Logan Labs.

Ok, thanks! Had to ask

Will look to grab some more cores and send out samples to Logan.