I'm just now looking at soil tests, myself. The wife and I retired and relocated to Oklahoma within the last year. The lot at our 'new' home has clay...and nothin' but clay. A few trees still need to be removed, but otherwise, it was a blank slate...and a very desperate landscape. I spent most of the summer working on a landscape design and working amendments into the soil - by hand - to a depth of ten to twelve inches. Although I'm far from finished with this stage of the operation, the most recent compost amendment has turned the soil a dark, rich, crumbly brown - almost black. (Yes, I added lots and lots of sand.) Now that I've managed to get it all loosened up, a visit to the county extension office for a soil test is on the calendar for the first of next month. I have some experience at this sort of thing, though. Several years of landscaping with over fourten years of buildings and grounds maintenance and management help me to avoid some of the worst mistakes that people often make. The difference is, this time, I'm working on an edible landscape, with over 2,400 sq ft of beds... Working on your own landscape, the trick is to not become impatient. Add one type of amendment at a time - and wait a week - or more - before adding another. Once or twice a month, turn it all over and ...wait... Let it compost 'in situ' and allow nature to take its course. At one point, I waited almost two months before I added anything else. Emotionally, I really, *really* wanted to start installing my major plants last spring and this fall...but I've waited until the soil told me when it was just about ready. We all know what the 'before' pic would look like (it's not soil, it's brick that hasn't been fired, yet), so a pic of 'after' is linked below. I've let it sit for about a week and a half, now. I'm going to start adding some cotton burr mulch to all of it, next...after I see what the soil tests tell me ...before I do too much else. Here is a link that might be useful:

Hi Lyn: I'm glad to hear from you (I miss you, honestly). I posted it in Robert's English rose forum, see the link below. The advantage of red cabbage juice test, which toxcrusadr (a chemist) in the soil forum thinks its a good idea, is: It's more accurate since you can put a large amount of soil, rather than 1 teaspoon like those test-kit sold for $12 at the stores. As the soil soaks in the red cabbage juice for more than 20 minutes, it allows time for elements in the soil to be released. For $1.50 cents (99 cents of distilled water and 50 cents of red cabbage), I can test 10 different samples from various places in my garden, or different bagged soil products, to see which one most alkaline. I used those small plastic applesauce cups to hold samples. When I first tested coffee grounds from my Hubby in red cabbage juice, it was pinkish like acidic potting soil. After 1 hour, the solution was clear at the top, not a single pink trace left. Coffee is a buffer, it neutralizes the soil, as Michaelg informed. I topdressed roses with coffee ground with no problems. Espresso ground from Starbucks is different: it stayed pink and gave my rhododrendrons pink stripes. One pot has MiracleGro Organic potting soil, neutral pH. At first Sonia Rykiel was dark green, but after 3 months of akaline tap water at pH of 8, she became very yellow. I tested her soil again in red cabbage juice, same color as my soil (pH 7.7), bluish green. The fish-tank litmus strips sold at Walmart for $5 is a fast way to test one's water. It's more accurate in the alkaline range, and NOT so in the acidic rain. I would NOT use it to test the pH of rain water, reported at 5.7, which explains why the roses in my alkaline soil are dark green in the spring. Here is a link that might be useful: Test soil pH for $1.50 using red cabbage

So yesterday buddy comes over to look over things with the a/c system and I think we've got things nailed down properly now. The superheat for the given ambient temperature and heat loading from the indoor coil was way off (5F) vs. the 14-15F that it was supposed to be so he had to remove some of the refrigerant (I was quite surprised how little he had to remove to get the superheat up) and we even went as far as measuring the furnace's CFM flow rating using a differential manometer. I'm pushing roughly 1000CFM across a 2 ton coil so which is a tad bit on the high side but my colleauge says it's a margin of safety for the a/c to not freeze over as we have relatively little humidity in the air would means that on the cooler days we wouldn't be heat loading the coil enough which could lead to freeze up. I personally would like to try running my furnace on the lowest speed to get the 855 CFM but I'm not sure how that will affect the superheat. Presumably I would imagine that if a system is charged properly using the superheat method for fixed orifice systems that blower speed shouldn't dramatically impact the superheat values to the point where they're completely out of whack. I would guess that superheat would rise but isn't that sort of a given? I mean hotter days for example would increase loading so therefore superheat should rise no? For the record the pressure reading on the manometer with the furnace on medium low with a 3M 1500 series filter installed has a -0.44 in wg static pressure difference. With no filter the static pressure diff changes to -0.55. Humidity was still somewhat of an issue yesterday night when it was raining but it was quite cool outside. I had to drop the tstat to 21C to force start the a/c on but after just 20 minutes the house was nice and dry and less stuffy. Just for the sake of my understanding does TXV technically do any better or worse job of temperature/humidity control over a fixed orifice system IF both systems were installed properly and charged to near perfection? I have a friend that is looking to install a/c and his contractor insists on having TXV and says that fixed orifice is evil and should never be used. I find that rather extreme to make a claim like that. I've tried to do my own research online and although it's a given that TXV is the way to go I think it has a lot to do with the fact that it will better protect the compressor from liquid flooding + it's more forgiving for techs that do an incorrect charge on the system - critical charge isn't nearly as important on a TXV system vs. fixed orifice. Thanks,

Wavering on replying, trying to be polite and stay on topic. I think a lot of regulars here have already read about NPK and know what a soil test is. You don't really have to reinvent the wheel, there's a balance between writing your own content and simply reading/sharing what has already been explained. Regarding the 'chemical push,' in short everything is case by case devil in the details in my view. It would depend on what soil test, what is measures, who does it, what they are recommending, have they demonstrated examples of their work, are they benefiting financially from what is happening, and so on. It's not that there is a chemical side and an anti-vaxxer side, it just actually depends on what it is. The science and scientific process is extremely important, but if you are getting so mired in the details and big words that you don't even understand what all the terms numbers and graphs mean, and it's blocking your view of just looking at the dirt, crumple the paper and bin it IMO.