Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Annual Report of NCERA 013 Committee, 2008  Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Officers: Past Chair: Achim Doberman Chair Darryl Warncke 2006-2008 Chair Elect Sylvie Brouder 2006-2008 (Chair beginning Oct.1, 2008 - 2010) Secretary John Peters 2006-2008 (to be Chair-Elect in 2008  2010) Secretary Elect. No decision was made on the new secretary Administrative Advisor: Ken Grafton The annual meeting of the NCERA 13 group was held June 25, 2008 in conjunction with the joint meeting of the SERA-IEG 6, NEC-17 and NCERA 13 work groups held in Nashville, TN. SERA-IEG 6 and the University of Tennessee hosted the meeting. A joint meeting of these groups is held every four years. A reception for the groups was held on Sunday evening. On Monday John Wilkerson, Interim Dean for Agriculture Research at the University of Tennessee welcomed the groups and gave some opening remarks. The program started with a presentation by Mervalin Morant about activities and programs of the USDA-CSREES. Technical reports during the day included; an Update of NAPT programs and activities, an N management update from Arkansas, Biofuels initiatives in Tennessee, New York research with the Illinois soil N test, Influence of salts on soil pH measurements, Long term P and K trends in relation to nutrient removal, and Switch grass fertility management. On Tuesday the groups toured the Highland Rim Research and Education Center with presentation about ongoing research studies, and the Soil, Plant and Pest Center at the Ellington Agricultural Center near Nashville. On Wednesday the regional groups held their individual business meetings. Minutes of the NCERA 13 meeting are attached. Representatives of four North Central states and the province of Ontario were in attendance. Reports from the various states indicate that soil sample numbers have been stable to increasing through the spring of 2008. Soil test results serve as the basis for nutrient management plans in the various states. The buffer pH sub-Committee reported the results of a survey among University soil testing in the region on which buffers are being used to determine lime need of soils. University of Wisconsin has switched to the new Sikora buffer and two are considering it. Interest in the Mehlich buffer has waned due to self-live issues. The Education sub-Committee is planning a Soil-Plant Analysts Workshop to be held next February in conjunction with the next annual meeting. Chapters in NCR Publication 221 were review to determine which ones are in need of revision. Five of the fifteen chapters are in need of revision: pH and Lime Requirement, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Micronutrients, and Lab QA/QC. Once the website is in place individual chapters and other materials can be placed on there as they are completed. A new sub-Committee on Sensing will be looking at field level remote sensing and on-the-go soil sensing. Work is continuing on a draft version of a white paper on Planning, Conducting and Evaluating On-farm Trials.

1. The pH Buffer subCommittee evaluated the new Sikora buffer for determining lime requirement against the Mehlich, SMP and Woodruff buffers. Results with the Sikora buffer compared favorably with the SMP and Woodruff buffers. Lime requirement equations developed with using the Sikora buffer were most highly correlated with the actual lime needs. Since the Sikora buffer contains no chemicals of environmental concern and disposal, and has good self-life several labs are considering switching. The Mehlich buffer works well, but has a short self-life. 2. NCERA 13 representatives are cooperating with the NAPT Coordinator (Janice Kotuby-Amacher) to collect and provide soils for use in the NAPT soil sample exchange program. 3. A draft of a white paper on "Planning, Conducting and Evaluating On-farm Trials" has been completed by Keith Ried and George Rehm. 4. A new sub-Committee on "Sensing" was created to gather information about field level remote sensing and on-the-go soil sensors" and establish the state of the art. 5. A. Mallarino, Iowa State University, has shown that moist soil testing gives K test results that better relate to K responses in the field. Although this test may be superior, it is more time intensive than dry soil methods used in most soil testing labs.