I am a strong believer in the utility of soil analysis I disagree however with the using of either plant or soil analysis. In truth we need to utilize both they are complementary in deciphering the limitations to plant growth. Rather than either both methods should be used together and a much better snap shot of the condition of plants and their limitations and optimization can be had.

yes can be use a method for limiting nutrient status,or there are different methods but the best method is combination between soil ,plant and irrigation water analysis then limiting the nutrient status.

or depending on solubility diagram after soil analysis.or depending on plant analysis using diagnosis recommendation integrated system(DRIS method or DRIS-chart method).

Please consider always the limitations of soil and/or plant tissue analyses as these come from samples that should represent a much bigger context. Sure, they can be used to guide fertilization plans however, with the limitations I have mentioned.

In truth we need to utilize both they are complementary in deciphering the limitations to plant growth and the productivity.

From a total crop production standpoint, both are useful. However, when you are starting out without any information about establishing a crop and trying to decide as to what fertilizers to apply for a good yield, a soil test is always the best place to start. A soil test will provide an index of the fertility status of the soil in question and will allow one to apply fertilizer in amounts that are economically and environmentally sound. In order to be of best use, the soil tests need to be calibrated for the crop, soil types and climate in question. There is quite a bit of information in the literature for most common soil test methods that can help relating soil test values to fertilizer recommendations for crops. This is a good starting point and over several seasons, the fertilizer recommendations can be fine tuned to fit local or regional growing conditions and practices. This is called calibration of the soil tests.

Once fertilizer applications are made to a crop, plant tests are useful to determine if the recommended rates are adequate or appropriate for the field and crop. The recommendation calibration process uses both soil and plant tests to fine tune the fertilizer recommendations.

Keep in mind that:

1. Soil tests present a picture of the soil nutrient status before the crop is planted and allow fertilizer applications before the crop experiences deficiency symptoms and possible yield loss.

2. Plant tests give different pictures of the plant nutrient status at different stages of growth. Plant tests are "after the fact" tests. If deficiency symptoms occur before fertilizer can be applied, then crop yield may already be damaged before the deficiencies are identified and an "after the fact" fertilizer application may not be effective in making a full correction of the deficiency depending on the growth stage of the crop.

Using soil or plant tests or both depends on the research or production questions that you are trying to address and are related to the time and environment in which you are trying to address the questions.

The utilities of soil tests and plant tests are different. As Larry Cihacek pointed out, probably we may start with soil tests and further actions on nutrition can be based on plant tests.

Thank you

In order to ensure a clear picture of the state of the nutrients present in the soil, especially the elements that may be fixed on soil particles in unavailable formula, we must conduct both analyzes to obtain this condition.

We can analyze soil and plant all day long but the sensing of the plant color and growth is the best measurement of all. Our best situation is the use both the soil and plant analysis and stay in close contact and observation of the plant state and the nature of environmental conditions. Bruno Bosari was intimated of the holistic evaluation is so important our personal connection and sensitivity add to our technological data and technological data is always complemented by our observation and experience and indeed our intention is critical also. A danger of going only to technological is that we eliminate potential for subtle energies we do not completely understand. This falls into a venue of people who have green thumbs and their efforts are more rewarded than others. Indeed our intentions are critical. There is nothing more certain than not believing and then getting results which fully support the limitations which often reside in our own attitudes.