{"id":353212,"date":"2026-07-07T12:58:33","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T12:58:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/agriculture\/new-soil-tests-same-goal-better-agronomic-decisions\/"},"modified":"2026-07-07T12:58:33","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T12:58:33","slug":"new-soil-tests-same-goal-better-agronomic-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=353212","title":{"rendered":"New Soil Tests, Same Goal: Better Agronomic Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

With high cost and potentially limited supplies of fertilizer, we need to measure nutrient levels closely, applying crop requirements without limiting yield potential. This is a very fine line to walk.<\/p>\n

So, back to the basics. Soil testing. And, yes, we all know soil testing matters. It\u2019s the basis for most of our crop recommendations. But instead of revisiting the long-standing debates \u2014 grid vs. zone sampling, point vs. composite \u2014 we\u2019re going to shift the conversation.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the twist: We\u2019re talking about extraction methods.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not a soil scientist. I don\u2019t know every nuance of the extraction process. I\u2019m looking at this from a practical standpoint \u2014 one that helps retailers better serve their customers and bottom lines.<\/p>\n

Before choosing any test, we need to ask two simple questions: What are we trying to learn and what decisions will this influence?<\/p>\n

Traditionally, the objective was straightforward: Nutrient availability to the plant. Standard extraction methods answered that question well, and for many scenarios, they still do.<\/p>\n

Now we\u2019re seeing newer extractions tied to the buzzwords of soil health, and with them come new insights into both soil and crop needs. That means new objectives and new questions.<\/p>\n

To make sense of those, let\u2019s quickly define the extraction methods and what they tell us.<\/p>\n

The first is the Haney Test<\/a>. This looks at soil biology activity and nutrient cycling \u2014 fertility, microbial activity, microbial energy, and mineralization. It gives you a picture of how the soil functions physically, chemically, and biologically. The key caveat on the biological side is this: You see the activity, but not which specific microbes are driving it.<\/p>\n

Think of the Haney Test like getting a blood test. You get the initial results, identify what needs to improve, work on those improvements, and continue testing to track your progress.<\/p>\n

The second method, the Soil DNA\/Metagenomics Test,<\/a> goes deeper. This test doesn\u2019t just look at nutrients; you get the microorganism species, general population levels, overall biodiversity, and how it all connects to soil health. The Soil DNA\/Metagenomics Test can also identify fertilizers used in the past and flag any restrictions on nutrient availability to the crop.<\/p>\n

I see the Soil DNA\/Metagenomics Test like one of those ancestry tests \u2014 it helps you understand underlying characteristics, risks, and tendencies.<\/p>\n

Now, there are people far smarter than me who can go much deeper on these descriptions, and there\u2019s a lot more to unpack when comparing the two. But that\u2019s not the point here. The point is sampling objectives \u2014 what do you actually need to identify and measure?<\/p>\n

These tests give us information that conventional sampling never could, and the approaches are genuinely complementary. But you can\u2019t jump into a new sampling method just because everyone else is doing it or because it makes for a good marketing piece. The ag economy is too tight right now to adopt something new without a clear purpose, a strategy, and a plan.<\/p>\n

Before adding any new soil testing method, ask:<\/p>\n