CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that NEHA KAUSAL Student of B.Sc. Part III, Biotechnology Department,St. Columbas College, Hazaribag. Session 2008-2011. Roll- 902700007 has completed the project , on the entrepreneurship development program on MILK AND MILK PRODUCT.

(Dr. M. A. Mallick)

Co-ordinator Department Of biotechnology St. Columbas College, Hazaribagh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of the project and the successful drafting of its report has been supported by many people whose advice and suggestion were very important during the session ( 01.12.2010 Columbas college , Hazaibagh. I would like to thank Dr. M.A. Mallick , Co-ordinator, Department of Biotechnology, St. Columbas college , Hazaribagh for his helpful and encouraging attitude towards the completion of the project. I am also very thankful to Mr.Gautam kumar, our honourable teacher, without whom this project would not have been in its present shape. to 31.03.101 ) at St.

Submitted By NEHA KAUSAL ROLL: 902700007

B.Sc. Biotechnology DIII Session 2008-2011

CONCLUSION
It was an interesting experience for me in doing this project work at

St.Columbas College , Hazaribagh. I found it very beneficial and satisfactory. Finally, I can say that the training enriched my knowledge and was informative about the concerned topics. The knowledge I gained in the development of this project will surely help us in the betterment of our future.

INTRODUCTION
In agriculture, a soil test is the analysis of a soil sample to determine nutrient content, composition and other characteristics, including contaminants. Tests are usually performed to measure fertility band indicate deficiencies that need to be remedied. Sample depth is also an important factor. It is recommended that you take the samples from tillage depth, as this is where the majority of the nutrients and elements are placed mechanically. The presence of various nutrients and other soil components varies during the year, so sample timing may also be important. A good time to take a sample for testing is in the fall after harvesting is finished, but this isn't the only time it should be done. Sampling and testing in the fall is beneficial because the producer will get the results back in time to formulate the fertilizer plan for the following growing season. Another time sampling and testing can be done is spring. This is a good way to see what nutrients survive over winter when the soil freezes, as well as if any leaches away from melting of snow and thawing of the soil. This way the producer can know if more or less fertilizer needs to be purchased. Tests include, but aren't limited to, major nutrients - nitrogen(N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), secondary nutrients - sulphur, calcium, magnesium, minor nutrients - iron, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, molybdenum, aluminum

SOIL PROFILE
Soil typically consists of layers of material, called horizons, which differ in both texture and appearance. A soil profile is a cross section of these layers, and it measures the different characteristics of each layer. Although every soil from around the world has a different soil profile, most soils consist of three or more layers, including the topsoil, subsoil, and bedrock. The top layer is generally finer and contains less rocks than the deeper layers. Topsoil is the uppermost part of a soil profile, and it is the ground on which people and animals walk. Plants will also typically lay the majority of their roots in the topsoil. It can be as thin as two inches (5.1 cm) or as thick as 5 feet (1.5 m), and it is often a dark color, sometimes even black. In uncultivated areas, it may be littered with such organic matter as leaves, twigs, or dead animals that serve to help prevent erosion, hold moisture, and produce nutrient-rich soil. When organic matter decays, it is often referred to as humus, and it contains vital nutrients. It is this layer of the soil profile from which plants get most of their nutrients. The subsoil is the layer of the soil profile that lies directly beneath the topsoil. There is usually no litter or debris present in this soil layer, and it is often lighter in color. Subsoil often consists of clay, silt, pebbles, and sand, depending on the area, and it generally contains an abundance of minerals that have leached down from the upper layers of the soil. As a person digs deeper and deeper into the soil, he will find that it gets rockier and rockier. Some scientists consider the next layer of the soil profile, called the regolith, to be part of the subsoil, while others consider it to be a completely separate layer. This layer almost never contains plant roots or other organic matter, but is made up primarily of soil and small, weathered rocks. The bedrock layer is present in just about every different type of soil profile. This layer is made of hard, solid rock, which is eroded and weathered to produce most of the soil above it. Bedrock can be as little as 5 feet (1.5 m) below the surface, or it can even be exposed in some areas. In situations where much of the upper soil

has been deposited from somewhere else, however, the bedrock can lay hundreds of feet beneath the surface.

PAPERS PUBLISHED ON SOIL TESTS

RESEARCH PROJECT: -AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS FOR FAMILY FARMS PRACTICES AND

Location: Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, Arkansas Title: EFFECTS OF A WASTE PAPER PRODUCT ON SOIL PHOSPHORUS, CARBON AND BULK DENSITY Authors Brauer, David Aiken, Glen Submitted to: Journal of Environmental Quality Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: January 11, 2006 Publication Date: May 1, 2006 Citation: Brauer, D.K., Aiken, G.E. 2006. Effects of a waste paper product on soil phosphorus, carbon and bulk density. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35:898-902. Interpretive Summary: Applications of animal manures have increased soil test P values in many parts of the United States, and thus increased the risk that soil P will be transferred to surface water and decrease water quality. To continue farming in these areas, landowners need tools to reduce the risk of P moving off agricultural land. A field experiment was conducted near Booneville AR to evaluate the effectiveness of a waste paper product on soil structure and soil test P values. Additions of a waste paper product increased soil carbon content (i.e. organic matter) and decreased soil bulk density, but had no effect on soil test P values. These results indicate that decreased in P in runoff from soils receiving waste paper are most likely due to changes in soil structure rather than the chemical properties of soil P. These results are of interest to landowners who apply animal manure to field for crop and forage production, and agricultural and natural resource professionals who advise landowners.

Technical Abstract: Long-term applications of animal manures to agricultural fields have increased soil test values for phosphorus (P) to high levels in many parts of the United States and thus increased the likelihood that P will be transported to surface water and degrade its quality. It has been hypothesized that applications of a waste paper product to soils with high soil test P (STP) will decrease the risk of P transport to surface water by decreasing dissolved reactive P (DRP) and providing organic matter resulting in improved infiltration, but confirming data are lacking. A field experiment was conducted near Booneville AR (USA) to assess the effects of different rates of waste paper addition on STP, bulk density and total soil carbon (C) with a soil with moderate levels of STP, i.e. approximately 45 mg Bray1P kg-1 soil (dry weight). A Leadvale series soil (Fine-silty, siliceous, thermic Typic Fragiudults) was amended with 0, 21.8, 43.5 or 87.5 Mg waste paper ha-1 to supply approximately 87, 174 or 349 kg of Al ha-1, respectively. One year after additions, there was a strong negative correlation between waste paper application rates and soil bulk density and a strong positive correlation between rates and total soil C content. Rates of waste paper had no effect on either soil bulk density or total C two years after additions. Soil DRP and Bray1P were not affected by waste paper addition rates. These results support the hypothesis that decreases in dissolved reactive P in runoff from soils receiving waste paper additions were likely due to changes in soil organic matter and structure, rather than changes in the chemical forms of soil P.

Research Project: ASSESSING NUTRIENT LOSSES, EMISSIONS, AND PATHOGEN TRANSPORT FROM MANURE APPLICATION AND ANIMAL PRODUCTION SITES IN THE WESTERN U.S. Location: NWISRL, Kimberly, Idaho Title: Changes in soil test phosphorus from broiler litter additions Authors Leytem, April Sims, J - UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE Submitted to: Communications in Soil Science Analysis Publication Type: Peer Reviewed and Plant

Journal

Publication Acceptance Date: January 18, 2005 Publication Date: October 1, 2006 Citation: Leytem, A.B., Sims, J.T. 2006. Changes in soil test phosphorus from broiler litter additions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 36:2541-2559. Interpretive Summary: Nutrient surpluses on the Delmarva Peninsula have lead to a continual accumulation of soil test P (STP), a potential source for transport of P to surface waters. This paper examines the effects of initial soil test P concentrations and broiler litter additions on STP accumulation. Broiler litter was applied at rates of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 g per kg (dry weight) to three soils: an Evesboro sandy loam (Mesic, coated Typic Quartzipsamments), a Pocomoke sandy loam (Coarse-loamy, siliceous, thermic typic Umbraquults), and a Matapeake silt loam (Fine-silty, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults). Soils and broiler litter were incubated for 16 wk with subsamples analyzed after 4 and 16 wk. There was a linear increase in STP (Mehlich3), water soluble P (WS-P), iron-oxide strip extractable P (FeO-P), and Mehlich-3 phosphorus saturation ratio (M3-PSR) with broiler litter additions. Regression analysis indicated few significant differences in STP response to added BL between soils within the same soil group having different initial STP levels. Correlation analysis and stepwise regression indicated that increases in WS-P and FeO-P from added BL were more closely related to the degree of P saturation of the soil rather than traditional STP measurements. Therefore, decisions regarding manure placement within a watershed should be based on the potential P sorption capacity of the soil as well as potential P transport pathways when the goal is the reduction of P transfer to waterbodies. Technical Abstract: Nutrient surpluses on the Delmarva Peninsula have lead to a continual accumulation of soil test P (STP), a potential source for transport of P to surface waters. This paper examines the effects of initial soil test P concentrations and broiler litter additions on STP accumulation. Broiler litter was applied at rates of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 g per kg (dry weight) to three soils: an Evesboro sandy loam (Mesic, coated Typic Quartzipsamments), a Pocomoke sandy loam (Coarse-loamy,

siliceous, thermic typic Umbraquults), and a Matapeake silt loam (Fine-silty, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults). Soils and broiler litter were incubated for 16 wk with subsamples analyzed after 4 and 16 wk. There was a linear increase in STP (Mehlich3), water soluble P (WS-P), iron-oxide strip extractable P (FeO-P), and Mehlich-3 phosphorus saturation ratio (M3-PSR) with broiler litter additions. Regression analysis indicated few significant differences in STP response to added BL between soils within the same soil group having different initial STP levels. Correlation analysis and stepwise regression indicated that increases in WS-P and FeO-P from added BL were more closely related to the degree of P saturation of the soil rather than traditional STP measurements. Therefore, decisions regarding manure placement within a watershed should be based on the potential P sorption capacity of the soil as well as potential P transport pathways when the goal is the reduction of P transfer to waterbodies.

Journal of Soil Contamination Title Editor Publisher Language Keywords Journal 3146 of Soil Contamination

[Editor in Chief] Dragun, James (Dragun Corporation, Farmington Hills, MI, US) Chris Richardson - CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, US (FL) English periodicals; pollution; soils

Description The Journal of Soil Contamination is a new journal concerned with the technical, regulatory, and legal challenges of contaminated soils Derived from printed version: ISSN 1058-8337

Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal

An Official Journal of The Association for Environmental Health and Science Increasing to 8 issues in 2011 ISSN: 1549-7887 (electronic) 1532-0383 (paper) Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Subjects: Bioscience; Environmental Engineering; Environmental Studies & Management; Pollution; Sedimentology & Stratigraphy; Soil Science; Publisher: Taylor & Francis Previously published as: Journal of Soil Contamination (1058-8337) until 2001

Status of work on soil test Five soil testing centres planned Tamil NaduARIYALUR: Soil testing centres with farm laboratories would be set up in five primary agricultural cooperative societies (PACS) soon in Ariyalur district under the National Agricultural Development Programme (NADP), said Collector T.K.Ponnusamy, here on Friday. Presiding over the 57 {+t} {+h} all India cooperative week celebrations here, the Collector said agriculture service centres

had been started in the PACS at Vadaveekam, Kallathoor, Keezhakaavattankurichi, Ponparapi, Tirumazhapadi, Keezhapazhur, Ambapur and Udayarpalayam. The Agriculture Department has decided to establish agri clinics and soil testing centres in all the 20 blocks in the district. The objective of the initiative is to supplement the efforts of government extension system, make available supplementary sources of input supply and services to needy farmers and provide gainful employment to agriculture graduates in new emerging areas in agricultural sector. The department has invited agriculture graduates to submit proposals for the establishment of the clinic. Jharkhand to have 8 more soil testing labs In its bid to boost crop productivity in the mineral- rich state of Jharkhand, the Government of India has sanctioned a Rs 1.21 crore project to set up eight more soil testing centres in areas where farm output is relatively low. The project to set up soil testing centre is a part of the nationwide campaignNational Soil Health Missionthat has been formulated recently by the Union Ministry of Agriculture to maximise crop output to tide over scarcity of foodgrains including pulses and oilseeds. The strategy has been chalked out keeping in view stagnancy in crop production over the last one decade despite increased inputs like seeds, fertilisers, micronutrients, irrigation and pesticides. Premier institute of farm technology in the State, Birsa Agriculture University (BAU) has been tasked to establish new soil testing laboratories (SLTs) at Godda, Bokaro, Garhwa, Chatra, Lohardaga, Seraikella, Pakur and Palamu under the public private partnership mode. These centres would be located in the premises of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs).

Fifty per cent of the project cost in terms of building and infrastructure would have to be borne by the KVKs, while testing equipment like atomic absorption spectrophotometre, Ph metre, UV-visible spectrometre, flame photometre, and technical training on handling soil samples would be provided by the university, BAU Dean and eminent soil scientist, AK Sarkar said. All the laboratories will be asked to conduct as many as 10,000 soil samples in a year, and dish out suitable recommendations for increasing micronutrients for soils along with soil health cards to farmers in the respective districts. The laboratories also need to take follow up action to make sure that the recommendations really benefited the farmers, Sarkar stressed. In addition to the new ones, the existing eight SLTs at Ranchi, Chakradhapur, Dumka, Sahebganj, Hazaribag, Giridih, Gumla and Latehar, are working under the control of the Agriculture Department, will be strengthened under the guidance of qualified scientists of the BAU. The project also envisages establishing a new quality control laboratory (QCL) at Dumka besides refurbishing the existing QCL at Ranchi to test the efficacy and quality of nutrients and pesticides and also to check the supply of fake fertilisers and seeds in the market. a few days ago the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has engaged a Delhi based contractor to conduct soil testing at 47 locations on the 43.55Km Ahmedabad--Gandinagar link which is the North South corridor. While the East-west corridor includes the Kalupur railway junction and Thaltej link which is 9.83 Km. Since the entire metro project is an elevated system the soil testing becomes important. "Most of the soils here are sandy silt with a little amount of gravel and are non-plastic' in nature. Chemical analysis of sulphates, chlorides and organic matter are being analysed in the soil.

Causes

of

soil

degradation

Soil pollution, also commonly known as soil contamination, is a condition that occurs when soil loses its structure, biological properties and chemical properties due to the use of various man-made chemicals and other natural changes in the soil environment. This form of pollution is generally more common in developed countries, such as the USA and the United Kingdom, as compared to developing countries. Factors often believed to contribute to soil pollution include the use of chemicals such as fertilizers, the salinity of the soil and environmental changes. Some of the most common factors causing soil pollution are Erosion Soil erosion can be defined as the movement of surface litter and topsoil from one place to another. While erosion is a natural process, often caused by wind and flowing water, it is greatly accelerated by human activities such as farming, construction, overgrazing by livestock, burning of grass cover, and deforestation. The loss of the topsoil makes a soilless fertile and reduces its water-holding capacity. The topsoil, which is washed away, also contributes to water pollution by clogging lakes and increasing the turbidity of the water, ultimately leading to the loss of aquatic life Excess use of fertilizers Approximately 25% of the world's crop yield is estimated to be directly attributed to the use of chemical fertilizers. The use of chemical fertilizers has increased significantly over the last few decades and is expected to rise even higher. Fertilizers are very valuable, as they replace the soil nutrients used up by plants. The three primary soil nutrients often in short supply are potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen compounds. These are commonly referred to as macronutrients. Certain other elements like boron, zinc and manganese are necessary in extremely small amounts and are known as micronutrients. When crops are harvested, a large amount of macronutrients and a small amount of micronutrients are removed with the crops. If the same crop is grown again, depleted levels of thee nutrients can result in decreased yields. These necessary nutrients can be returned to the soil through the application of fertilizers. In addition to fertilizers, a large amount of pesticides (chemicals used to kill or control populations of unwanted fungi, animals or plants often called pests) are also used to

ensure a good yield. Pesticides can be subdivided into several categories, based on the kinds of organisms they are used to control. Insecticides are used to control insect populations, while fungicides are used to control unwanted fungal growth. Mice and rats are killed by rodenticides, while plant pests are controlled by herbicides. Problems with pesticide use Pesticides not only kill the pests but also a large variety of living things, including humans. They may be persistent or non-persistent. Persistent pesticides, once applied, are effective for a long time. However, as they do not break down easily they tend to accumulate in the soil and in the bodies of animals in the food chain. For example, DDT, one of the first synthetic organic insecticides to be used, was thought to be the perfect insecticide. During the first ten years of its use (1942-1952), DDT is estimated to have saved about five million lives primarily because of its use to control disease-carrying mosquitoes. However, after a period of use, many mosquitoes and insects became tolerant to DDT, thus making it lose its effectiveness. Persistent pesticides become attached to small soil particles which are easily moved by wind and water to different parts thus affecting soils elsewhere. Persistent pesticides may also accumulate in the bodies of animals, and over a period of time increase in concentration if the animal is unable to flush them out of its system, thus leading to the phenomenon called bioaccumulation. When an affected animal is eaten by another carnivore, these pesticides are further concentrated in the body of the carnivore. This phenomenon of acquiring increasing levels of a substance in the bodies of higher trophic level organisms is known as 'biomagnification' Other problems associated with insecticides are the ability of insect populations to become resistant to them, thus rendering them useless in a couple of generations. Most pesticides kill beneficial as well as pest species. They kill the predator as well as the parasitic insects that control the pests. Thus, the pest species increase rapidly following the use of a

pesticide, as there are no natural checks to their population growth. The short-term and the long-term health effects to the persons using the pesticide and the public that consumes the food grown by using the pesticides are also major concerns. Exposure to small quantities of pesticides over several years can cause mutations, produce cancers, etc. Excess salts and water Irrigated lands can produce higher crop yields than those that only use rainwater. However, this has its own set of ill effects. Irrigation water contains dissolved salts and in dry climates much of the water in the saline solution evaporates leaving its salts, such as sodium chloride in the topsoil. The accumulation of these salts 15 called salinization, which can stunt plant growth, lower yields and eventually kill the crop and render the land useless for agriculture. These salts can be flushed out of the soil by using more water. This practice, however, increases the -cost of crop production and also wastes enormous amounts of water.. Flushing out salts can also make the downstream irrigation water saltier. Another problem with irrigation is waterlogging. This occurs when large amounts of water are used to leach the salts deeper into the soil. However, jf the drainage is poor this water accumulates underground gradually raising the water table. The roots of the plants then get enveloped in this saline water and eventually die. Thus, in the long run it is better for us to adopt sustainable farming practices to prevent the degradation of soil. Health effects Contaminated or polluted soil directly affects human health through direct contact with soil or via inhalation of soil contaminants which have vaporized; potentially greater threats are posed by the infiltration of soil contamination into groundwater aquifers used for human consumption, sometimes in areas apparently far removed from any apparent source of above ground contamination.

Health consequences from exposure to soil contamination vary greatly depending on pollutant type, pathway of attack and vulnerability of the exposed population. Chronic exposure to chromium, lead and other metals, petroleum, solvents, and many pesticide and herbicide formulations can be carcinogenic, can cause congenital disorders, or can cause other chronic health conditions. Industrial or man-made concentrations of naturallyoccurring substances, such as nitrate and ammonia associated with livestock manure from agricultural operations, have also been identified as health hazards in soil and groundwater.[5] Chronic exposure to benzene at sufficient concentrations is known to be associated with higher incidence of leukemia. Mercury and cyclodienes are known to induce higher incidences of kidney damage, some irreversible. PCBs and cyclodienes are linked to liver toxicity. Organophosphates and carbamates can induce a chain of responses leading to neuromuscular blockage. Many chlorinated solvents induce liver changes, kidney changes and depression of the central nervous system. There is an entire spectrum of further health effects such as headache, nausea, fatigue, eye irritation and skin rash for the above cited and other chemicals. At sufficient dosages a large number of soil contaminants can cause death by exposure via direct contact, inhalation or ingestion of contaminants in groundwater contaminated through soil. Ecosystem effects Not unexpectedly, soil contaminants can have significant deleterious consequences for ecosystems[7]. There are radical soil chemistry changes which can arise from the presence of many hazardous chemicals even at low concentration of the contaminant species. These changes can manifest in the alteration of metabolism of endemic microorganisms and arthropods resident in a given soil environment. The result can be virtual eradication of some of the primary food chain, which in turn have major consequences for predator or consumer species. Even if the chemical effect on lower life forms is small, the lower pyramid levels of the food chain may ingest alien chemicals, which normally become more concentrated for each consuming rung of the food chain. Many of these effects are now well known, such as the

concentration of persistent DDT materials for avian consumers, leading to weakening of egg shells, increased chick mortality and potential extinction of species. Effects occur to agricultural lands which have certain types of soil contamination. Contaminants typically alter plant metabolism, most commonly to reduce crop yields. This has a secondary effect upon soil conservation, since the languishing crops cannot shield the Earth's soil mantle from erosion phenomena. Some of these chemical contaminants have long half-lives and in other cases derivative chemicals are formed from decay of primary soil contaminants.

Environmental remediation Clean up or environmental remediation is analyzed by environmental scientists who utilize field measurement of soil chemicals and also apply computer models (GIS in Environmental Contamination) for analyzing transport[8] and fate of soil chemicals. There are several principal strategies for remediation:

Excavate soil and take it to a disposal site away from ready pathways for human or sensitive ecosystem contact. This technique also applies to dredging of bay mudscontaining toxins. Aeration of soils at the contaminated site (with attendant risk of creating air pollution) Thermal remediation by introduction of heat to raise subsurface temperatures sufficiently high to volatize chemical contaminants out of the soil for vapour extraction. Technologies include ISTD, electrical resistance heating (ERH), and ET-DSPtm. Bioremediation, involving microbial digestion of certain organic chemicals. Techniques used in bioremediation include landfarming, biostimulation and bioaugmentatingsoil biota with commercially available microflora.

Extraction of groundwater or soil vapor with an active electromechanical system, with subsequent stripping of the contaminants from the extract. Containment of the soil contaminants (such as by capping or paving over in place). Phytoremediation, or using plants (such as willow) to extract heavy metals

Soil types of Jharkhand & hazaribagh

Soil content of Jharkhand state mainly consist of soil formed from disintegration of rocks and stones, and soil composition is further divided into: 1. Red soil, found mostly in the Damodar valley, and Rajmahal area 2. Micacious soil (containing particles of mica), found in Koderma, Jhumeritilaiya, Barkagaon, and areas around the Mandar hill 3. Sandy soil, generally found in Hazaribagh and Dhanbad 4. Black soil, found in Rajmahal area 5. Laterite soil, found in western part of Ranchi, Palamu, and parts of Santhal

Parganas and Singhbhum

Many Kinds of soil, namely, gravely soils, sans loam, red ferruginous loam, rive alluvium and even black sticky clay are found, which show on the average 0.05 percent Nitrogen, 0.001 per cent Phosphate, 0.010 per cnt Potash and 5.5 to 6.8 per cent, the maxium value of Nitrogen being 0.106 per cent and the minimum 0.027 per cent. According to the commonly accepted terminology the soild of the district can roughly be classified into three categories, namely (1) kewal, (2) lalki matti, (3) daudhiya matti. Kewal soil is dark grey in olour and is the most fertilie in the district. With the help of the common manure of cowdung or cmjpost and chemical fertilizers it has yielded up to 120 maunds of paddy per care. The red soil is more common in the district and grow maize, bajra and arhar during kharif season and surgujiya (oil-seed) during rabi season. If irrigational

facilities are available paddy could also be grown and red soil. Durdhiya matti or calcareous soil has an excess of lime and could only be cultivable with the help of a profuse quantity of cowdung and other organic materials.

Soil Sample Preparation

Ideally, a soil should be tested without disturbing or altering it chemically or mechanically in the process of sample preparation. soil samples are usually dried and pulverized. Subsamples of the dry,pulverized soils are either weighed or measured byvolume. Galvanized containers, cast iron mortars,rubber stoppers, brass screens and a variety of othertools can contribute to contamination with iron, zinc and other micronutrients, and should not be used. dryingcan result in increased release of exchangeable potassium(K) in many soils and in fixation in others. (The fixation tends to occur in recently fertilized soils at higher test levels.) Increased temperature can also increase the exchangeable K levels

Early studies in Iowa (11) showed that the results from field-moist samples were better correlated with the potassium uptake by plants than the results from air-dried soils. Higher correlations with field-moist samples were also found in the regional K studies in the late 1950s and early 1960s . The K release on drying and the reversion on rewetting can be controlled with organic additives (12), but this procedure has not been evaluated in practical soil testing. Drying and method of drying may also affect the results of the tests for mineralizable nitrogen (10), phosphorous (13), sulfur (3, 13, 16), zinc (7) and perhaps other micronutrients, but the correlations between the test results and the uptake of nutrients by plants have not been shown to be significantly affected by drying. Primarily because of the effect of drying on potassium results, a method of testing undried soil samples was developed and put into use in the Iowa State University Soil Testing Laboratory until 1990. Because of the difficulties of analyzing moist samples and because most correlation and calibration studies have been done on air dried soils, the undried soil analysis method has not been adopted widely. The traditional method of preparing dry samples is presented here.

Recommended Procedure for Handling Dry Soil Samples

Traditionally, most soil analysts have considered dry soil as the convenient state from which to start chemical tests. Because soil samples are received in a wide range of physical conditions, a common denominator in preparation is required to alleviate these problems and expedite processing.

Drying
Moist, well-mixed samples may be transferred to paper bags, cardboard boxes or aluminum trays of convenient size. The open sample container is then placed in a drying rack or cabinet equipped with exhaust fans to expedite air movement and moisture loss. If heat is necessary, the temperature of the cabinet should not exceed 40C (104F). This is especially critical for potassium analysis, which can be significantly influenced by drying temperatures. If nitrate analyses are involved, the soil should be dried or frozen within 12 hours of sampling. Such samples can be dried by spreading them out on a clean paper or cloth and blow drying them with a fan. Where sample volume is not adequate to justify artificial drying, samples may be spread on clean surfaces,such as paper plates. Initial crushing of soil clods will decrease the time required for drying at room temperatures.Microwave drying is a relatively rapid method to dry a few soil samples. For moisture determination,the method worked well . However, microwavedrying appears to change many nutrient analyses as compared to air-drying , and is not recommended.

Crushing and Sieving

The nature of analyses to be conducted, plus presence of rocks or limestone concretions, dictate initial steps to crushing. Crush samples designated for mechanical analyses with a wooden rolling pin after removing all stony material from the soil Crush other samples with a flail-type grinder, a power-driven mortar and pestle, or some other crusher which is designed to minimize contamination through carryover from one sample to another If micronutrient analyses are to be performed, it is essential that all surfaces coming into contact with the soil be stainless steel, plastic or wooden, preferably in the order listed. Crushing to pass a finer mesh sieve may be desirable for analysis utilizing less than one gram of soil.

pH and Lime Requirement

In most soils, the soil pH is buffered by several components of the solid phase, including hydroxyl aluminum monomers and polymers, soil organic matter, and undissolved carbonates in soils.

Lime requirement tests, which generate recommendations for effecting relatively long-term changes in soil pH, are designed to account for soil buffering capacity.

Soil pH Determination
Several precautions should be taken when measuring pH of a soil/liquid slurry. Electrodes should be checked and maintained frequently to prevent surface residue buildup, which may affect the measurement. Rinsing between each soil sample, however, is not usually necessary. Electrodes should be protected to prevent insertion to the very bottom of the slurrycontaining vessel. If this is not done, abrasion of the sensing surfaces will occur, decreasing the life of the electrode and leading to inaccurate pH readings. All meters should be calibrated routinely at two points with buffer solutions of known pH before measuring the pH of a soil sample. use a set of reference soil samples of known pH to evaluate the performance of electrodes Soil pH is normally measured in a soil/water slurry. The presence of soluble salts in a soil sample will affect pH. For that reason, some analysts prefer to measure pH in a mixture of soil and 0.01 M CaCl2 . The excess salt in this solution masks the effects of differential soluble salt concentrations in individual samples. Below are procedures Equipment and Reagents 1. 5 g soil 2. pH meter with appropriate electrode(s) 3. Paper cups or equivalent 4. Distilled or deionized water 5. 0.01 or 1.0 M CaCl2 6. Appropriate buffer solutions for calibrating the pH meter

Procedure
1. Add 5 mL distilled or deionized water to the 5 g soil sample 2. Stir vigorously for 5 seconds and let stand for 10 minutes. 3. Place electrodes in the slurry, swirl carefully and read the pH immediately. Ensure that the electrode tips are in the swirled slurry and not in the overlying solution. For the CaCl2 measurement, I. II. III. add one drop of 1.0 M CaCl2 solution to the previous sample, or prepare a sample as in Steps 2 and 3, using 0.01 M CaCl2 instead of water. Stir vigorously and let stand 30 minutes, with occasional stirring. Read the pH as in Step 3.

SOIL ORGANIC MATTER Equipment: 1. Standard 1 g scoop. 2. Glass marbles with a diameter slightly larger than the mouth of a 50 mL Erlenmeyer flask. 3. 50 mL Erlenmeyer flasks. 4. Digestion oven, capable of temperatures to 90oC, with air circulation fan and fume exhaust. 5. 10 and 25 mL pipettes or dispensers. 6. Standard organic matter samples. Reagents: 1. Digestion solution: (0.5 M Na2Cr2O7 2H2O in 5 M H2SO4): Dissolve 140 g Na2Cr2O72H2O in 600 mL of distilled water. Slowly add 278 mL of concentrated H2SO4. Allow to cool and dilute to 1 L with deionized water. Procedure: 1. Scoop 1 g of soil into a 50 mL Erlenmeyer flask. 2. Pipette 10 mL of dichromate-sulfuric acid digestion solution. Include a reagent blank without soil. 3. Cover the Erlenmeyer flasks with glass marbles, which act as reflux condensers, to minimize loss of chromic acid. 4. Place in the digestion oven and heat to 90oC for 90 minutes. 5. Remove samples from the oven, let cool 5 to 10 minutes, remove the glass marble caps, and add 25 mL of water. 6. Mix the suspension thoroughly by blowing air through the suspension via the 25-mL pipettes used to add water or by mechanical shaking. 7. Allow to stand three hours or overnight. 8. Transfer 10 mL (or other suitable volume of clear supernatant into a colorimeter tube. This can be accomplished conveniently by use of a pipette bank set to dip a suitable distance into the supernatant solutions. Care must be taken not to disturb the sediment on the bottom of the flasks. 9. The blue color intensity of the supernatant is read on a colorimeter at 645 nm with the reagent blank set to give 100% transmittance (or 0 absorbance). The instrument is calibrated to read percent organic matter from a standard curve prepared from soils of known organic matter content.

Soil Inorganic Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen

In this procedure, nitrogen in the form of the nitrate ion (NO3 N) is extracted from the soil with water and measured colorimetrically after reaction with phenoldisulphonic acid. Water is used to extract NO3 N, using 1 part soil to 5 parts water. Colloids are precipitated with Ca++, and soluble organics are removed with activated charcoal. After filtration, an aliquot of extract is reacted with phenoldisulphonic acid. The NO3 N forms a blue-colored complex,

which is analyzed with a colorimeter.

Interferences

Principles interferences are chloride and soluble organic compounds. Chloride is precipitated with Ag2SO4. Colored organic compounds are co-precipitated with Cu(OH)2 by the addition of CuSO4, followed by Ca(OH)2.
Apparatus and Materials

1 Soil 10 g 2 Erlenmeyer flask, 125- ml 3 Graduate cylinder, 50-ml, 100-ml 4 Oscillating shaker 5 Measuring scoop, tsp 6 Beaker, 150-ml 7 Funnel tubes 8 Hotplate 9 Pipette, 10-ml 10 Medicine dropper, 3-ml 11 Burette, 50-ml 12 Colorimeter or spectrophotometer 13 Colorimeter tubes, matched
6. Reagents.

1.CuSO4 solution, saturated: Add 210 g of CuSO4 .5H2O to 100 ml of water. 2. Ag2SO4 solution, saturated: Add 10 g of Ag2SO4 to 100 ml of water. 3 Ca(OH)2: finely ground powder 4 MgCO3: finely ground powder 5 Activated charcoal: Heat in a muffle furnace at 500 oC for 1 hour to remove NO3 -. 6 Phenoldisulphonic acid: Dissolve 83 g pure phenol in 500 ml of concentrated H2SO4. Dissolve until clear. (Check the H2SO4 for NO3 - contamination by dropping several crystals of phenol in several ml of the acid. The solution must remain clear.) Add a 1-pint bottle of fuming H2SO4. (Use the fume hood!) Place in a boiling water bath for two hours. Store in an amber bottle in a dark cabinet. This reagent is extremely corrosive. 7 NH4OH, 1:1: Mix equal volumes of concentrated NH4OH and distilled water. 8 Stock standard nitrate solution, 500 ppm N: Dissolve 3.60 g KNO3, dried at 105 C, in water and dilute to 1 liter with water. 9 Dilute standard nitrate solution, 20 ppm N: Dilute 20 ml of 500 ppm N to 500 ml with water.
Methods

1. Place 10-g of soil into a 125- ml Erlenmeyer flask. 2. Add 50 ml of water by means of a graduate cylinder. 3. Add 2 drops of Ag2SO4 and 3 drops of CuSO4. 4. Shake 10 min on an oscillating shaker (or 30 min intermittently by hand). 5. Add tsp of Ca(OH)2; shake thoroughly by hand and let stand 10 minutes. 6 . Decant about 30 ml of the suspension into a 150- ml beaker.

7. Add tsp of MgCO3 and swirl. 8. Add tsp of activated charcoal; shake by hand and let stand 2 to 3 minutes. 9 . Filter into funnel tubes. 10 . Wash the 150- ml beakers employed in steps 6 9. 11. Pipette 10 ml of filtrate into the same 150-ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness on a hotplate. The temperature of the hotplate should not be high enough to permit spattering as the solution approaches dryness. The sample must be completely dry. 12. Cool; then add 3 ml of phenoldisulphonic acid rapidly to the residue in the beaker. Use a rapid delivery medicine dropper calibrated to deliver 3 ml. The reagent should flood the bottom of the beaker rapidly to prevent formation and loss of volatile nitrogen oxides. 13. Swirl; let stand until the residue is dissolved and the solution is clear. 14. Carefully add approximately 20 ml of distilled water. 15. Cool. 16. With a 50- ml burette in a fume hood, carefully add 1:1 NH4OH until full yellow color develops and then 3 ml in excess (approximately 15 ml total). 17. Transfer the sample to a 100-ml graduate cylinder and dilute to 99 ml with water. Mix the solution by pouring back-and-forth from cylinder to beaker several times. (A small amount of solution will remain as a film in the beaker. Also, a graduate cylinder is calibrated to deliver rather than to contain a given volume. A 100-ml graduate cylinder will contain slightly more than 100 ml, the excess being retained as a film on the cylinder walls when the cylinder is emptied. To compensate, the cylinder is filled to only 99 ml. A volumetric flask should be used for precise work.) 18. Determine the NO3 N using a colorimeter at 420 nm. Zero the colorimeter with a reagent blank.

Phosphorus
The Bray and Kurtz P-1 Test results are well-correlated with yield response on most acid and neutral soils in the region. This test is used for soils that contain small amounts (less than 2 percent) of dolomite or calcium carbonate . It should not be used for soils containing large amounts of lime. Since the phosphorus may be precipitated during extraction, the result is very low test values . The Sodium Bicarbonate (Olsen) test for P is preferred for highly calcareous soils. The test results are well-correlated with crop response to P fertilization on both calcareous and noncalcareous soils. The Sodium Bicarbonate (Olsen) Test values are more highly correlated with yield response on calcareous soils than the Bray and Kurtz P-1 (1:10 ratio).

Bray and Kurtz P-1 Test for Phosphorus

The method detection limit is approximately 1.0 mg kg-1 (dry soil basis) and can be reproduced plus or minus 10 percent. The color development procedure can be accomplished manually or by automated techniques Equipment 1. No. 10 (2 mm opening) sieve 2. 2 g soil scoop 3. Automatic extractant dispenser, 25 mL capacity.(If preferred, pipettes are acceptable.) 4. 50 mL Erlenmeyer extraction flasks 5. Rotating or reciprocating shaker with a capability of 200 excursions per minute (epm) 6. Filter funnels, 9 to 11 cm 7. Whatman No. 42 or No. 2 (or equivalent) filter paper, 9 to 11 cm. (Acid resistant filter paper may be needed if using automated method of determining concentration by intensity of color. Bits of filter paper may cause an obstruction in the injection valves.) 8. Funnel rack 9. Appropriate vials for color development 10. Volumetric flasks and pipettes required for preparation of reagents and standard solutions; pipettes or a dilutor used for color development 11. Photometric colorimeter (manual or automated) suitable for measurement in the 882 nm range (610 to 660 for Fiske-Subbarrow) 12. A computer or calculator, used for calculation of the concentrations of phosphorus in the soil Extractant: 0.025 M HCl in 0.03 M NH4F 1. Dissolve 11.11 g of reagent-grade ammonium fluoride (NH4F) in about 9 L of distilled water. 2. Add 250 mL of 1.00 M HCl (previously standardized) and make to 10 L volume with distilled water. 3. Mix thoroughly. 4. The pH of the resulting solution should be 2.6 plus or minus .05. The adjustments to pH are made using HCl or ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH). 5. Store in polyethylene.

Phosphorus Standards 1. Stock Standard Phosphorus Solution (50 ppm P) a. Dissolve 0.2197 g of oven-dried, reagentgrade potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) in about 25 mL of distilled water. b. Dilute to a final volume of 1,000 mL with extracting solution. (If this solution is stored at 40F, its shelf life should be approximately 6 months.) 2. Working Standard Solutions a. Using the information in Table 1 for Bray and Kurtz P-1, pipette appropriate volumes of 50 ppm stock standard P solution into proper volumetric flasks. b. Use the extracting solution to bring each standard to the proper volume.

Potassium

Potassium (K) in soil is generally estimated by measurement of the water soluble and exchangeable forms. The amounts of K in the soil solution are quite small relative to the amounts in the exchangeable form.

Estimate of Available Potassium

Equipment
1. Standard NCR-13, 1 or 2 g scoop 2. Automatic or semi-automatic extracting solution dispenser (10 or 20 mL) 3. Extracting flasks (50 mL Erlenmeyer or conical flasks) 4. Funnels (or filter holding devices) and filter Paper 5. Receiving receptacle (20 to 30 mL beakers or test tubes) 6. Rotating or reciprocating shaker capable of 200 excursions per minute (epm) 7. Atomic absorption/emission spectrometer (set in the emission mode for K)

Reagents
1. Extracting Solution (1 M NH4OAc at pH 7.0) a. Place approximately 500 mL of distilled water into the mixing vessel. Add 57 mL of glacial acetic acid (99.5 percent) then add 69 mL of concentrated ammonium hydroxide (MIX IN THE FUME HOOD). Bring the volume to about 900 mL with distilled water. Adjust to pH 7.0 with 3 M NH 4OH or 3M acetic acid. After cooling to room temperature, bring the solution to a volume of 1 L and recheck the pH. b. Alternative: Reagent grade ammonium acetate may be used. Add 77.1 g of NH4OAc to 900 mL of distilled water. After dissolution of the salt, adjust the pH to 7.0 as above. Dilute to a final volume of 1 L. (Check this solution for potassium contamination from the salt.) 2. Extracting Solution (Mehlich-3) 0.2 N Ch3COOH (acetic acid, glacial: 99.5 percent, fw 60.04, 17.4 N), 0.25 N NH 4NO3 (ammonium nitrate: fw 80.05), 0.015 N NH4F (ammonium fluoride: fw 37.4), 0.013 N HNO 3 (nitric acid:68 to 70 percent, fw 63.02, 15.5 N), 0.001 M EDTA [(HOOCH2)2NCH2NCCH2COOH)2, ethylenediaminetretraacetic acid: fw 292.24]. a. Add 8 L of distilled water to a 10 L carboy. b. Dissolve 200 g of ammonium nitrate in the distilled water. c. Add 40 mL NH4F-EDTA stock solution and mix. d. Add 11.5 mL acetic acid. e. Add 8.2 mL of nitric acid. f. Add distilled water to bring volume to 10 L. Mix throroughly (provides enough extractant for 400 samples). 3. Standards a. Stock solution (1,000 ppm K) Dissolve 1.9073 g oven dry, reagent grade KCl in 1 M NH 4OAc at pH 7.0. Bring to a volume of 1,000 mL with the extracting solution and mix well. b. Prepare a 100 ppm standard by diluting 100 mL of the 1,000 ppm K stock solution to 1 L with extracting solution. Pipette 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 mL of the 100 ppm K solution into 100 mL volumetric flasks and bring each to volume with extracting solution. These solutions will contain 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 ppm K, respectively. The extracting solution serves as the 0 ppm standard. 4. Reference Soil One or more reference soil samples of medium to low levels of exchangeable K should be available to carry through each run of unknowns. These reference samples should be prepared in bulk by regular sample preparation methods and stored in sealed containers at cool temperatures (4 to 20C).

Procedure
1. Scoop 2 g of prepared soil into an extraction flask. (See Chapter 2 for scooping techniques. Use the appropriate number of blanks and reference samples per laboratory quality assurance/ quality control procedures.) 2. Add 20 mL of extracting solution to the extraction flask. (Note: The quantity of soil and extracting solution may be varied as long as the 1:10 ratio is maintained.) 3. Shake for 5 minutes on the shaker at 200 epm. Recheck speed weekly. 4. Filter the suspensions through Whatman No. 2 or equivalent filter paper. Refilter or repeat if the extract is cloudy. 5. Set up the atomic adsorption/emission spectrometer for K by emission. After warmup, determine the standard curve using the standards and obtain the concentrations of K in the soil extracts.

6. To convert K concentration (ppm) in the soil extract solution to ppm in a soil (mg K/kg), multiply by 10. To convert to pounds of K per acre, multiply by 20.