Buy a test Claim free tests
← Back to the free tests
Your report

The gap between your two paddocks is the answer

Two paddocks on one property, sampled the same day. Below is the comparison as it appears in your report, on real chemistry and real sequencing results.

The DNA result

What is actually living down there

This is the part every test gives you. The sequencing names what is in each paddock and how much of it there is, from the organism running the place down to the ones present in ones and twos.

What is in every report, and what is not

Every soil DNA test includes the DNA analysis and the report written from it. That is what names the organisms in your paddock, including the pathogen in the example below.

The mineral panel is not included in every test. The soil chemistry on this page is run on a selected group of samples across the program, chosen by us. Where it has not been run, your report is written from the DNA results alone. You can add the mineral panel to your own samples for $229 per sample plus GST.

DNA · every reportMineral panel · selected samples

Good paddock

Mucor sp. at 73.9%, a beneficial saprobe. A strong fungal community, relatively narrow.

  1. Mucor sp.

    73.89%

    Fungus · Helpful fungus.

  2. Capillimicrobium parvum

    0.40%

    Bacterium · Common soil bacterium.

  3. Conexibacter woesei

    0.37%

    Bacterium · Common soil bacterium.

  4. Baekduia alba

    0.30%

    Bacterium

  5. Rhodoplanes sp. Z2-YC6860

    0.27%

    Bacterium

  6. uncultured bacterium

    0.27%

    Bacterium

  7. Nocardioides scoriae

    0.25%

    Bacterium

  8. Nocardioides anomalus

    0.25%

    Bacterium

818 species identified from 5,994 reads assigned to species level. The eight most abundant are listed.

Poor paddock

Calonectria ilicicola at 67.5%, a black rot and seedling disease pathogen. A strong single-pathogen signature.

  1. Calonectria ilicicola

    67.50%

    Fungus · Plant pathogen.

  2. Mycobacterium branderi

    5.23%

    Bacterium · A large group of soil bacteria; most are harmless or beneficial.

  3. Prescottella defluvii

    1.34%

    Bacterium · Soil bacterium, breaks down complex organic matter.

  4. Conexibacter woesei

    0.45%

    Bacterium · Common soil bacterium.

  5. Capillimicrobium parvum

    0.41%

    Bacterium · Common soil bacterium.

  6. Nocardioides panacis

    0.33%

    Bacterium

  7. Jatrophihabitans sp. SB3-54

    0.24%

    Bacterium

  8. Conexibacter sp. SYSU D00693

    0.24%

    Bacterium

439 species identified from 2,465 reads assigned to species level. The eight most abundant are listed.

The fungal community is inverted DNA

Beneficial and pathogenic fungi as a share of the fungal community in each paddock. Same farm, same day, same soil texture.

Good paddockPoor paddock
Beneficial and pathogenic fungi as a share of the fungal communityIn the good paddock beneficial fungi are 99.4 percent and pathogenic fungi 0.0 percent. In the poor paddock beneficial fungi are 0.1 percent and pathogenic fungi 99.3 percent. The same figures appear in the table below.0%25%50%75%100%Share of the fungal communityBeneficial fungiGood paddock, Beneficial fungi: 99.4% of the fungal community99.4%Poor paddock, Beneficial fungi: 0.1% of the fungal community0.1%Pathogenic fungiGood paddock, Pathogenic fungi: 0.0% of the fungal community0.0%Poor paddock, Pathogenic fungi: 99.3% of the fungal community99.3%
MeasureGood paddockPoor paddock
What the community is made ofDNA · every report
Fungi, share of reads74.4%68.1%
Bacteria, share of reads25.3%31.7%
Beneficial fungi, share of the fungal community99.4%0.1%
Pathogenic fungi, share of the fungal community0.0%99.3%
Actinobacteria7.32%11.76%
Measures that do not separate the twoDNA · every report
Shannon diversity
Marginally higher in the poor paddock.		2.222.35
Observed taxa
Not comparable: read depth differs 2.4-fold.		818439
Nitrogen-fixing organisms
No separation.		1.99%2.39%
Plant-growth-promoting bacteria
No separation.		1.95%2.47%
Total reads
Sequencing depth, not a soil property.		11,9884,930
Pathogen species detected
Runs the other way: more pathogen species were named in the good paddock, at 0.28% of reads against 0.16%.		134
Mineral panel

The chemistry behind it

Where the mineral panel has been run, the report sets the chemistry beside the biology. On this farm the two point the same way.

How far behind the poor paddock sits Mineral panel

Each chemistry measure in the poor paddock, divided by the same measure in the good paddock. The darker the bar, the further behind. Actual values are in the table below.

Soil chemistry in the poor paddock as a percentage of the good paddockEight chemistry measures, each expressed as the poor paddock value divided by the good paddock value. The good paddock is 100 percent on every measure. The same figures appear in the table below.0%25%50%75%100%Good paddock at 100%, the targetPoor paddock as a percentage of the good paddockNitrate nitrogenNitrate nitrogen: the poor paddock is 12.8% of the good paddock13%Potassium, exchangeablePotassium, exchangeable: the poor paddock is 34.0% of the good paddock34%Calcium to magnesium ratioCalcium to magnesium ratio: the poor paddock is 36.7% of the good paddock37%Phosphorus, Bray 1Phosphorus, Bray 1: the poor paddock is 50.0% of the good paddock50%Effective cation exchange capacityEffective cation exchange capacity: the poor paddock is 54.6% of the good paddock55%Estimated organic matterEstimated organic matter: the poor paddock is 74.6% of the good paddock75%Total carbonTotal carbon: the poor paddock is 74.7% of the good paddock75%Total nitrogenTotal nitrogen: the poor paddock is 80.0% of the good paddock80%
Four measures run the other way. Exchangeable aluminium is six times higher in the poor paddock (0.24 against 0.04 cmol+/kg), sodium base saturation is 8.0% against 1.4%, DTPA manganese is 14.1 against 7.1 mg/kg and DTPA iron is 299 against 157 mg/kg.
MeasureGood paddockPoor paddock
Soil chemistryMineral panel · selected samples
pH (water)
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 4A1		7.385.86
Nitrate nitrogen
EAL in-house S37		11.7mg/kg1.5mg/kg
Phosphorus, Bray 1
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 9E2		26mg/kg13mg/kg
Potassium, exchangeable
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		326mg/kg111mg/kg
Effective cation exchange capacity
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		9.7cmol+/kg5.3cmol+/kg
Total carbon
EAL		1.98%1.48%
Estimated organic matter
EAL		3.47%2.59%
Total nitrogen
EAL		0.20%0.16%
Calcium to magnesium ratio
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		7.92.9
Exchangeable aluminium
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		0.04cmol+/kg0.24cmol+/kg
Aluminium base saturation
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		0.4%4.6%
Sodium base saturation, ESP
Rayment & Lyons 2011, 15D3		1.4%8.0%

Source. Soil chemistry: Environmental Analysis Laboratory, sampled at 0 to 15 cm in late October 2025; methods as listed against each result. Biology: nanopore sequencing of samples taken in early November 2025. The sodicity threshold is the Australian Soil Classification, Isbell 1996, CSIRO. Farm and paddock names are withheld. Every figure is reproduced from the laboratory and sequencing results without adjustment.

What you do about it

Three constraints, and three ways to act

The left column is what this paddock’s own results flag, each marked with the test it came from. The DNA named the pathogen; the mineral panel explained the ground it was growing in.

What the results flag in the poor paddock

  • A pathogen has taken over

    HighDNA

    Calonectria ilicicola, a black rot pathogen, is 67.5% of everything detected and 99.3% of the fungal community. The good paddock carries none of it, and its fungal community is 99.4% beneficial.

  • Nitrogen supply has collapsed

    HighMineral panel

    Nitrate nitrogen is 1.5 mg/kg against 11.7 in the good paddock. Total nitrogen is 0.16% against 0.20%, and the organic matter that feeds it 2.59% against 3.47%.

  • The soil is sodic and acidifying

    HighMineral panel

    Sodium base saturation is 8.0%, above the level of six at which the Australian Soil Classification calls a soil sodic. pH is 5.86 against 7.38, and exchangeable aluminium 0.24 against 0.04 cmol+/kg.

What the report recommends

  • Option 1

    No-regret tweak

    A change to the form or timing of an input you already apply, matched to the biology actually present rather than to the label on the bag.

    Low cost · costed per hectare in your report

  • Option 2

    Moderate change

    A targeted biological input, or a change in the rotation, aimed squarely at the constraint ranked highest for your paddock.

    Moderate cost · costed per hectare in your report

  • Option 3

    Transformational change

    A one to three year program working on the constraints together, with a re-test at the end so you can see whether it moved.

    Higher cost · costed per hectare in your report

Every option is written so you can hand it to your agronomist. The call for your paddock stays with the person who knows it.

Ready to find out what your poor paddock is missing?

Register in two minutes. The kit goes out in the post and the report comes back to your inbox.

Claim your free tests Buy a paddock test
Buy a test Free tests