John Breker

AGVISE Demonstration Project: Lowering Soil pH with Elemental Sulfur

in , , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2025 Newsletter.

There may not be silly questions, but there are silly answers. Every so often, we get questions about unusual solutions to manage calcareous soils in the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies. The most frequent oddball “solutions” involve lowering soil pH with elemental sulfur on calcareous soils. Such suggestions might work on acidic soils; however, the dominant calcareous soils in the region have high pH (>7.3) and tons of natural calcium carbonate that make such attempts impractical and expensive. To put the nail in the coffin, AGVISE Laboratories started some long-term demonstration projects to show plainly why such ideas do not work or may cost way too much!

If possible, we’d like an easy and cheap solution to lower soil pH, like applying only 100 to 200 lb/acre elemental sulfur (S). In soil, elemental S oxidizes to sulfuric acid, which can lower soil pH. However, the large amount of calcium carbonate (free lime) keeps our soils buffered at high pH. To lower soil pH permanently, you must first react and neutralize the carbonate with elemental S before the soil pH can budge. With 100 lb/acre elemental S applied each year, that does not sound too difficult, right?

Elemental sulfur project with rates ranging from 0 to 40,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur. Can you identify the 20 ton/acre rate?

Not so fast. A soil with only 1% calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) takes 3.2 ton/acre elemental S (6,400 lb/acre) to neutralize the carbonate alone in the 0-6 inch soil depth. In 2020, we started an elemental S project at Northwood, ND on soil containing 4.5% CCE, which would require literal tons of elemental S to lower soil pH. A previous project started in 2005 had used 10,000 lb/acre elemental S, but it was not enough to lower soil pH beyond pH 7.8 after 15 years. This time, we decided to get serious and use elemental S rates from 0 to 40,000 lb/acre (Figure 1). The elemental S rates were intended to hit above and below the target 30,000 lb/acre elemental S rate required to react and neutralize 4.5% CCE.

For the first three years of the project, we saw little to no change in soil pH, regardless of elemental S rate. The oxidation process that converts elemental S to sulfuric acid is a slow, biological process that can take a long time. In Fall 2024, we finally saw real changes in soil pH following elemental S application. The 16,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur rate reached pH 7.5. The 24,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur rate reached pH 7.0. The 40,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur rate reached pH 6.0, a dramatic change! The lowest 8,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur rate, however, was no different than the control.

There is still some unoxidized elemental sulfur and unreacted calcium carbonate in the soil, and we will continue to monitor these long-term demonstration plots in future years. The project demonstrates that elemental sulfur can lower soil pH, but it also shows that the very high amounts of elemental sulfur required are both impractical and expensive. A few hundred pounds of elemental sulfur applied each year will get you nowhere. In contrast, the very high elemental sulfur rates will break the bank. This is why we consider such “solutions” as either ineffective attempts or downright silly wastes.

Jodi Boe

Lime Works: The Results Are In

in , , /by

This article was originally published in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2023 Newsletter.

In the fall of 2022, I hired a custom applicator to haul and spread lime across 238 acres of my family’s farm in western North Dakota. The reason? To increase soil pH on five fields with very low soil pH. One field even had a soil pH of 4.7, so these were good candidate fields for a practical case study for liming on a real farm operation.

I wrote more about the soil sampling process and lime application in the AGVISE Winter 2022 newsletter (https://www.agvise.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AGVISE-Newsletter-2022-Winter.pdf). Each field received approximately 2 ton/acre sugar beet lime (1.4 ton ENP/acre) from Sidney Sugar in Sidney, MT, and the lime was disced to 3 inches for incorporation. After one year, the soil pH had already increased by 0.36 pH-units in the 0-6 inch soil depth. The 2023 growing season was relatively wet in southwest North Dakota, and the additional soil water certainly helped the lime react and neutralize soil acidity quickly. The incorporation with a disc also helped distribute the lime more evenly and deeply, allowing the lime to react faster. One negative side effect of tillage was a flush of annual weeds, particularly green and yellow foxtail. This was the first tillage event on these fields in 12 years, so I expect the annual weed community to diminish as we return to no-till after the one-time tillage pass.

Figure 1. Zone soil pH map of a field receiving 2 ton/acre sugar beet lime in fall 2022. Each zone increased roughly 0.36 pH-units from 2022 to 2023. (Maps created in ADMS 32, GK Technology, Inc.)

Lime also works without incorporation, just at a slower pace. In 2021, we established a no-till lime trial to investigate lime rates without incorporation. Lime was applied in May 2021, and the fall 2023 soil pH results are shown in Figure 2. The highest lime rate at 2.5 ton ENP/acre increased soil pH in the upper 0-3 inch soil depth by 0.71 pH-units over 2.5 years. So far, no effect on soil pH in the lower 3-6 inch soil depth has been observed. In most no-till systems, the most acidic part of the soil profile is located at the soil surface, and a lime application correcting soil pH in the upper 0-3 inch soil depth is still effective. This is where seedlings and roots are most vulnerable to soil acidity, so correcting soil pH at the soil surface is critical and can be accomplished with a surface application of lime in no-till systems.

Surface Soil pH (0-3 inch) in No-till Lime Trial, October 2023

Figure 2. Soil pH following surface application of lime after 2.5 years in a no-till cropping system in southwestern North Dakota.

Brent Jaenisch

Controlling Soybean Cyst Nematode: Do you have a resistance problem?

in , , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2022 Newsletter

This is the third year of our soybean cyst nematode (SCN) resistance project. Each year, we have flagged spots in soybean fields and collected paired SCN soil samples in June and September. If the SCN egg count increases through summer and into fall, we can quickly learn if the soybean SCN-resistance source, either PI88788 or Peking, is working or failing. University SCN surveys have found that the PI88788 resistance source has begun to lose its effectiveness at controlling SCN populations in much of Minnesota. This is a particular problem because 95% of SCN-resistant soybean varieties still use the PI88788 resistance source.

SCN egg count and soybean yield data from the 2021 AGVISE SCN resistance project. Bars of the graph represent SCN egg count, lines of the graph represent soybean yield. Click on the graph for a higher resolution version.

In 2021, paired soybean variety comparisons with SCN soil samples and soybean yield data really helped us see the difference in these SCN resistance sources. Among the sites, the Peking resistance source always had a lower SCN egg count than the PI88788 comparison, indicating that the Peking soybean varieties had better control of the SCN population at 4 of 5 sites. The Alberta site had similar SCN population control with both PI88788 and Peking resistance sources, so the soybean yield was similar at the site. However, the other sites demonstrated SCN resistance to PI88788, and the resulting soybean yield with the Peking resistance source was better with 7-bu/acre soybean yield increase on average.

For 4 of 5 sites, it is apparent that a Peking-traited soybean variety is the better choice. To learn if you have SCN resistance problems in your field, the simple early-late SCN soil sampling exercise, like we did in this project, is a quick way to learn if your current soybean variety is still controlling SCN and delivering the best soybean yield.

 

 

John Lee

Adjusting high soil pH and salinity with sugar beet-processing spent lime

in , , , /by

The sugar beet processing industry uses large quantities of fine-ground, high-grade calcium carbonate (lime) to purify sucrose in the sugar extraction process. The by-product spent lime retains high reactivity and purity, making it an attractive liming material for acidic soils. Application of spent lime is a common practice through the sugar beet producing areas of the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains, where its primary function is the suppression of the soil-borne disease Aphanomyces root rot of sugar beet. The spent lime also contains about 20 lb P2O5 per ton, mostly as organic phosphorus impurities gained from sugar refining.

We often get questions about correcting high soil pH and salinity with spent lime. Salt-affected soils, saline and sodic, are a common problem across the northern Great Plains. These soils have high soil pH and present numerous agronomic and soil management problems. The soil amendment gypsum (calcium sulfate) is often applied to sodic soils (those with high sodium) to combat soil swelling and dispersion. The spent lime (calcium carbonate) also contains calcium, but it is very insoluble at high soil pH.

Each year, we get many questions about applying spent lime on soils with high pH and salinity. To answer these questions, AGVISE Laboratories installed a long-term demonstration project in 2008 to evaluate adjusting high soil pH and salinity with spent lime. We applied multiple spent lime rates and tracked soil test levels over seven years. There were no significant changes or trends in soil pH (Table 1) or salinity (Table 2). This is no surprise because the initial soil pH was high and buffered around 7.8-8.2, indicating the presence of natural calcium carbonate. If the soil already contains naturally occurring lime, what is the good of adding more lime? Moreover, calcium carbonate is very insoluble, so there is no expectation that more lime will decrease or increase salinity.

Since soil test levels did not change over seven years, we terminated the project in 2014. The research question was a conclusive dud. While spent lime is useful to amend acidic soils and suppress Aphanomyces root rot of sugar beet, it does not help on soils with high pH or salinity.

 

 

Table 1. Soil pH (1:1) following sugar beet-processing spent lime application on high pH soil.
Spent Lime Year Average
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ton/acre
1 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.8 7.7 8.0 8.0 7.80
2 7.9 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.94
3 7.9 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1 7.95
4 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.85
5 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.90
6 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.00
Spent lime applied and incorporated September 2008. Soil sampled in fall.

 

Table 2. Soil salinity (electrical conductivity, EC 1:1) following sugar beet-processing spent lime application on moderately saline soil.
Spent Lime Year
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ton/acre ——————— dS/m ———————
1 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.8
2 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.0
3 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.9
4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.9
5 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.7
6 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.9
Spent lime applied and incorporated September 2008. Soil sampled in fall.
John Lee

Adjusting low soil pH with sugar beet-processing spent lime

in , , /by

The sugar beet processing industry uses large quantities of fine-ground, high-grade calcium carbonate (lime) to purify sucrose in the sugar extraction process. The by-product spent lime retains high reactivity and purity, making an attractive liming material for acidic soils. Application of spent lime is a common practice through the sugar beet producing areas of the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains, where its primary function is the suppression of the soil-borne disease Aphanomyces root rot of sugar beet. The spent lime also contains about 20 lb P2O5 per ton, mostly as organic phosphorus impurities gained from sugar refining.

AGVISE Laboratories installed a long-term demonstration project in 2014 to evaluate adjusting low soil pH with spent lime. The project site was located near our Northwood Laboratory. Northwood lies along the beachline of glacial Lake Agassiz, where well-drained coarse-textured soils with low pH are common. We located a very acidic soil with soil pH 4.7 (0-6 inch), which was the perfect site to evaluate lime application. In May 2014, spent lime was applied and incorporated with rototiller. The spent lime quality was very high at 1,500 lb ENP/ton. In Minnesota, lime quality is measured as effective neutralizing power (ENP), which measures lime purity and fineness. Soil pH was tracked over three years (Table 1).

The lowest spent lime rate (2,500 lb ENP/acre) increased soil pH above 5.5. This soil pH reduced aluminum toxicity risk, but it did not reach the target pH 6.0, appropriate for corn-soybean rotation. The highest spent lime rate (10,000 lb ENP/acre) increased soil pH above 7.0 and maintained soil pH for several years. Spent lime is a fine-ground material with high reactivity, so its full effects were seen in the first application year. The project showed that spent lime is an effective liming material for low pH soils.

Table 1. Soil pH (1:1) following sugar beet-processing spent lime application on low pH soil.
Spent Lime Year
May 2014 Sept 2014 July 2015 June 2016
lb ENP/acre
0 4.8 4.8 4.7 5.1
2,500 4.8 5.5 5.2 5.4
5,000 4.8 5.6 5.7 5.5
10,000 4.8 7.4 7.0 7.4
Spent lime applied and incorporated September 2008. Soil sampled in fall.
John Breker

High soil pH and calcium carbonate inflate base cation saturation and cation exchange capacity (CEC)

in , , , /by

Soil pH is a soil chemical property that measures soil acidity or alkalinity, and it affects many soil chemical and biological activities. Soils of the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies often have high soil pH (>7.3) and contain calcium carbonate (free lime) at or near the soil surface. It is the calcium carbonate in soil that maintains high soil pH and keeps it buffered around pH 8.0. The calcium carbonate originates from soil formation processes since the latest glacial period.

Soils with high pH and calcium carbonate create analytical challenges in determining cation exchange capacity (CEC) and subsequent base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) calculations. Cation exchange capacity is the amount of positive-charged cations (e.g. ammonium, calcium, hydrogen, magnesium, potassium, sodium) held on negative-charged soil particles, like clay and organic matter. Fine-textured soils (high clay content) and organic soils (high organic matter content) have high CEC, while coarse-textured soils (low clay content) have low CEC. The BSCR is the relative proportion of base cations in soil.

The routine laboratory method to determine CEC is the summation method, where all extractable cations on soil particles are added together. The assumption is that all positive-charged cations extracted are held on negative-charged exchange sites on soil particles. The assumption falls apart in soils with pH > 7.3 because the soil test method also extracts calcium from the naturally occurring soil mineral calcium carbonate, which is not held on cation exchange sites. The resulting amount of extractable calcium is inflated. The summation procedure still sums together the inflated calcium result, producing an inaccurate and inflated CEC result. Any subsequent base cation saturation calculations are similarly flawed.

To illustrate the inflated CEC problem, AGVISE Laboratories conducted a laboratory experiment. The experiment showed that more calcium carbonate in soil increased the amount of extractable calcium (Table 1). Furthermore, the inflated amount of extracted calcium also inflated the CEC because all the extractable cations are summed together. The correct CEC is 24 cmolc/kg, yet the inflated CEC could be 150 to 200% higher with increasing calcium carbonate content. Adding calcium carbonate to soil did not increase the inherent CEC sources, i.e. clay and organic matter, yet the laboratory CEC result increased. In reality, the ability to hold more cations did not change. This highlights the analytical challenge in determining CEC via summation method on soils with high pH and calcium carbonate.

Table 1. Effect of calcium carbonate addition on extractable cations and cation exchange capacity.
Calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) pH EC Ca Mg K Na CEC
% dS/m —————– ppm —————– cmolc/kg
0 7.5 0.43 3350 730 220 45 24
1 7.6 0.51 6150 730 220 50 37
5 7.7 0.52 7480 720 215 45 44
10 7.8 0.50 7240 650 180 40 42
Abbrev.: pH (1:1); EC, electrical conductivity (1:1); Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium; Na, sodium; CEC, cation exchange capacity via summation of cations.

The subsequent base cation saturation calculations were also affected, showing much lower percent potassium saturation as calcium carbonate content increased (Table 2). This presents a major challenge in using the base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept to guide soil fertility and plant nutrition on soils with high pH and calcium carbonate. Without an accurate analytical method, the BCSR concept loses its grounding and any practical application.

Table 2. Effect of calcium carbonate addition on base cation saturation ratio and cation exchange capacity.
Calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) Ca sat. Mg sat. K sat. Na sat. CEC
% ————————– % ————————– cmolc/kg
0 71 26 2.4 0.8 24
1 82 16 1.5 0.6 37
5 85 14 1.2 0.4 44
10 86 13 1.1 0.4 42
Abbrev.: Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium; Na, sodium; CEC, cation exchange capacity via summation of cations.

In general, the routine CEC method via summation of cations is quite accurate on soils with pH less than 7.3 and no calcium carbonate. However, the routine method has clear challenges on soils with pH greater than 7.3. The resulting CEC and subsequent base cation saturation calculations are inflated and/or flawed. This is why the BCSR concept is extremely misleading on soils with high pH.

John Lee

Adjusting high soil pH with elemental sulfur

in , , , /by

Soil pH is a soil chemical property that measures soil acidity or alkalinity, and it affects many soil chemical and biological activities. Soils with high pH can reduce the availability of certain nutrients, such as phosphorus and zinc. Soils of the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies often have high soil pH (>7.3) and contain calcium carbonate (free lime) at or near the soil surface. It is the calcium carbonate in soil that maintains high soil pH and keeps it buffered around pH 8.0. The calcium carbonate originates from soil formation processes since the latest glacial period.

An unfounded soil management suggestion is that soil pH can be successfully reduced by applying moderate rates of elemental sulfur (about 100 to 200 lb/acre elemental S). Elemental sulfur must go through a transformation process called oxidation, converting elemental sulfur (S0) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), a strong acid. Sulfuric acid does lower soil pH, but the problem is the amount of carbonate in the northern region, which commonly ranges from 1 to 5% CCE and sometimes over 10% CCE. Soils containing carbonate (pH >7.3) will require A LOT of elemental sulfur to neutralize carbonate before it can reduce soil pH.

To lower pH in soils containing carbonate, the naturally-occurring carbonate must first be neutralized by sulfuric acid generated from elemental sulfur. You can visualize the fizz that takes place when you pour acid on a soil with carbonate. That fizz is the acid reacting with calcium carbonate to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. Once all calcium carbonate in soil has been neutralized by sulfuric acid, only then can the soil pH be lowered permanently. It is important to note that sulfate-sulfur sources, such as gypsum (calcium sulfate, CaSO4), do not create sulfuric acid when they react with soil, so they cannot neutralize calcium carbonate or change soil pH (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Soil pH following gypsum application on soil with high pH and calcium carbonate.

In 2005, AGVISE Laboratories installed a long-term demonstration project evaluating elemental sulfur and gypsum on a soil with pH 8.0 and 2.5% calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE). The highest elemental sulfur rate was 10,000 lb/acre (yes, 5 ton/acre)! We chose such a high rate because the soil would require a lot of elemental sulfur to neutralize all calcium carbonate. Good science tells us that 10,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur should decrease soil pH temporarily, but it is still not enough to lower soil pH permanently. In fact, this is exactly what we saw (Figure 2). Soil pH declined in the first year, but it returned to the initial pH over subsequent years because the amount of elemental sulfur was not enough to neutralize all calcium carbonate.

Figure 2. Soil pH following elemental sulfur application on soil with high pH and calcium carbonate.

A quick calculation showed that the soil with 2.5% CCE would require about 16,000 lb/acre elemental sulfur to neutralize all calcium carbonate in the topsoil. Such high rates of elemental sulfur are both impractical and expensive on soils in the northern Great Plains. The only thing to gained is a large bill for elemental sulfur. While high soil pH does lower availability of phosphorus and zinc, you can overcome these limitations with banded phosphorus fertilizer and chelated zinc on sensitive crops. All in all, high soil pH is manageable with the appropriate strategy. That strategy does not involve elemental sulfur.

John Breker

Soil Salinity Analysis: Which method to choose?

in , , /by

This submission is courtesy of Dr. Heather Matthees, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Morris, MN. It was originally published in the AGVISE Newsletter Fall 2017.

Salt-affected soils are a major problem for agricultural producers, resulting in $12 billion annual losses in crop production across the world. In the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies, soil salinity has always existed in some soils of the region, but the problem has become more widespread and severe since a hydrological wet period began in the 1990s.

Salinity is the overall abundance of soluble salts, which compete with plant water uptake and reduce crop productivity. The soluble salts pull soil water toward themselves in the soil solution, which leaves less soil water available for plant uptake. This causes an apparent drought stress, reducing crop productivity and sometimes may kill the plant. Soluble salts are naturally occurring and a product of regional geology in the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies. Since the 1990s, the hydrological wet period has raised the groundwater level and allowed saline groundwater to rise toward the soil surface, causing soil salinization. Saline soils are often called “salty,” “sour”, or “white alkali.”

The severity of soil salinity will control which plant species are suitable for crop or forage production. Some crop species like dry bean and soybean are very sensitive to salinity, whereas other crop species like barley and sunflower have good tolerance to salinity. For soils with very high salinity, the only practical forage option may be salt-tolerant perennial grasses. To assess soil salinity, there are two soil analysis methods: saturated paste extraction and routine 1:1 soil water methods.

Saturated Paste Extraction Method

The gold standard in soil salinity research is the saturated paste extraction method. The method requires a trained laboratory technician to mix soil and water into a paste, just reaching the saturation point, which is about the consistency of pudding. The saturated paste rests overnight to dissolve the soluble salts. It is then is placed under vacuum to draw the saturated paste extract. Soil salinity is then determined by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) of the saturated paste extract.

The saturated paste extraction method is fairly straightforward, but it requires a trained technician, specialized equipment, and over 24 hours to complete the procedure. The procedure is labor intensive and difficult to automate, so it is considered a special analysis service in commercial soil testing. Therefore, it is more expensive than routine soil testing methods. Among soil salinity determination methods, it is considered the most accurate because the soil:water ratio at saturation controls for differences in soil texture and water holding capacity.

Routine 1:1 Soil:Water Method

The routine method for soil salinity assessment is the 1:1 soil:water method, which mixes standard mass of soil (10 g) and volume of water (10 mL) in a soil-water slurry. Soil salinity is then determined by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil-water slurry. It is most commonly abbreviated EC1:1.

The method is fast and inexpensive (only 5-10% of saturated paste extraction cost). The low cost per soil sample allows a person to collect more soil samples from various soil depths and multiple locations within a field (e.g. zone soil sampling), which can create a more comprehensive and detailed soil salinity map to evaluate soil salinity presence, severity, and variability. Since soil salinity is so intimately related to soil water movement across the landscape, the soil salinity map also provides information about soil water accumulation and leaching, soil nutrient movement (e.g. chloride, nitrate-nitrogen, sulfate-sulfur), and crop productivity potential.

A general caveat about the 1:1 soil:water method is that the reported values will be lower than the saturated paste extraction method. Fortunately, the two methods are highly correlated. AGVISE Laboratories worked with soil science researchers at North Dakota State University and South Dakota State University to validate the correlation between the two methods using over 2,300 soil samples from the northern Great Plains. You can convert the two methods by multiplying the 1:1 soil:water result by 2.26 to estimate the saturated paste extraction result (Figure 1).

The simple method conversion enables you to quickly and cheaply monitor soil salinity using the 1:1 soil:water method and still utilize the historical soil salinity interpretation criteria based on the saturated paste extraction method.

Figure 1. Soil salinity method conversion between saturated paste extraction and 1:1 soil:water methods.

References

Matthees, H. L., He, Y., Owen, R. K., Hopkins, D., Deutsch, B., Lee, J., Clay, D. E., Reese, C., Malo, D. D., & DeSutter, T. M. 2017. Predicting soil electrical conductivity of the saturation extract from a 1:1 soil to water ratio. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48(18), 2148–2154.

John Lee

AGVISE Laboratories: Trusted by University and Industry Researchers

in , /by

While you may know AGVISE Laboratories for the soil and plant analysis services we provide you and your producers, AGVISE also has a long history of supporting university and industry research. For the past 30 years, many university-operated soil testing laboratories have closed in the region. This has left a gap in the on- and off-campus research capacities at some institutions. To help bridge the gap, AGVISE partners with university and industry researchers to provide the laboratory analysis services they need to further research in soil fertility, plant nutrition, nutrient use efficiency, and many other areas. Researchers choose AGVISE for their research projects because of our reliability, consistence, and standard of excellence.

Each year, AGVISE analyzes thousands of soil and plant samples for researchers across the United States and Canada. You may have even heard of some recent research projects for which we provided the analysis services. A unique collaborative project was the Public–Industry Partnership for Enhancing Corn Nitrogen Research, which included eight land-grant universities and USDA-ARS. AGVISE analyzed thousands of soil and plant samples for researchers from the University of Illinois, Purdue University (Indiana), Iowa State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, North Dakota State University, and University of Wisconsin. We are proud of our small part in support of this research that provided critical information to corn producers and helping them improve nitrogen management. You can read more about the project in the links below.

Another research project that AGVISE is helping with is the Potato Soil Health Project, supported by USDA-NIFA Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) and spearheaded by the potato industry. The research project includes eight potato-growing states across a range of diverse soils. In addition to soil fertility analysis, AGVISE is also helping evaluate soil health using biological activity (24-h CO2 respiration), active carbon (POXC), bioavailable nitrogen (ACE), and soil aggregate stability. AGVISE Laboratories is a strong supporter of soil health research, and we are excited to have been chosen to provide soil health analyses for the research project.

In addition to these large research projects, AGVISE also provides analysis services for many research organizations and universities throughout the region, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, University of Manitoba, Montana State University, University of Saskatchewan, and South Dakota State University.

The next time you send your soil or plant samples to AGVISE Laboratories, you can be confident that you will be receiving the highest quality analyses and service, just like we provide to researchers across the United States and Canada.

Some open-access articles from AGVISE-supported university research projects

A Public-Industry Partnership for Enhancing Corn Nitrogen Research and Datasets: Project Description, Methodology, and Outcomes

When to Use a Single or Split Application of Nitrogen Fertilizer in Corn

Which Recommendation Tools Are Best for Achieving the Economically Optimal Nitrogen Rate?

The Potato Soil Health Project funded through USDA-NIFA SCRI