Technology Comparison: Trace Genomics vs. Haney Test vs. PLFA
Trace Genomics provides actionable insights for soil management by analyzing soil biology with the most comprehensive sequencing technology available. Our TraceCOMPLETE™ product includes reports on the levels of plant pathogens and microorganisms (microbes) that impact nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) levels. This provides a more complete picture of your soil health and, alongside soil chemistry, better recommendations for fertility product placement.
The Haney Test (also known as the Soil Health Tool and the Haney Soil Health Test) is also a measurement of soil health that includes recommendations for fertilizer applications as well as cover crops. The Haney Test focuses on overall soil microbial activity rather than presence of individual species.
PLFA stands for phospholipid fatty acid—this is a component of the cell membrane of microorganisms. Different microbes contain different PLFAs, so measuring these molecules in a soil sample can provide quantitative information about the types of microbes present. This analysis is unable to identify individual species of microbes, but can still provide some information about soil health as a measurement of soil biomass and diversity.
The table below describes the differences between Trace Genomics biological analysis, calculations from the Haney Test, and PLFA analysis.
Trace Genomics vs. Haney Test vs. PLFA
| Trace Genomics—metagenomics | Haney Test | PLFA |
|---|---|---|
| Measures soil microbial biomass with DNA | Calculates microbial biomass with a measurement of activity (CO2 burst test) | Measures soil biomass using phospholipid fatty acids (present in microbial cell membranes) |
| Able to identify microbial species (high resolution) | Does not identify specific microbes | Identifies groups of microbes, but not enough resolution to identify species (low resolution) |
| Directly quantifies abundance of microbes capable of cycling N/P | Estimates soil nutrients (N/P) that are available to microbes | No information on soil nutrients |
| Provides recommendations for type of fertility product | Provides quantitative fertilizer recommendations | No fertilizer product recommendations |
| Does not provide cover crop suggestions | Provides cover crop suggestions | No cover crop suggestions |
| Includes pathogen data | No information on pathogens | No information on pathogens |
| Results are not impacted by soil structure | Results are impacted by soil structure | Results are not impacted by soil structure |
| Robust over different soil types and environments | Results are impacted by different soil types and environments | Robust over different soil types and environments |
| Uses smart benchmarks to provide context, so results from any location can be interpreted | Tests need calibration for each state | Results can vary by measurement method, so need to stick with the same lab to compare results over time |
| Future changes in protocol can be retroactively applied to past data for a more direct comparison of soil health measurements over time | Future changes in protocol cannot be applied to past samples | Future changes in protocol cannot be applied to past samples |
For all tests, the timing of sample collection is important.
Summary:
Trace Genomics and the Haney Test both estimate soil health and provide fertility product recommendations. PLFA analysis provides quantitative information about microbial biomass and diversity. The driving difference is that Trace measures soil biology using DNA, the Haney Test makes calculations using chemistry, and PLFA measures another (lower resolution) biomolecule.
About the author: Dr. Tuesday Simmons is the Science Writer at Trace Genomics. She earned her Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of California, Berkeley, studying the root microbiome of cereal crops.
