From here it the conversation reminds me of the story the little lady describing the elephant eating cabbages in her garden. Her total experience had that really big cow (elephant) was pulling up those cabbages with its tail not a trunk.

Some appear worried about the semantics, and/or have difficulty with considering a different soil, climate, & management style. Almost everyone on this page has a considerably different soil &/or climate from that here. A long time ago I learned to look with a jaundiced eye at pronouncements of our learned friends. There are at least 5 distinct and unique combinations just within the borders of Texas. Shoot there are three different challenges just in this small county. That does not mean that because Overton is on an acid sand where it rains a lot, their information is not interesting and useful. I like to read the PPI publication Better Crops, exoduses they have research from all parts of the world. By the same token that does not mean that findings in ND MIGHT Not find some application in Central Florida.
I will now confine my examples to alfalfa. Some very good researchers tells us that there is a poisoning by in old stand of alfalfa that inhibits the survival of seedling alfalfa. Autotoxicity. I have to assume that this is true in Wisconsin and in Kentucky, but I can attest to the fact that it is not true in Bell County Texas, right in the middle of the Texas Blacklands, with it's semi arid climate, and calcareous soil.
Twenty years ago we had two researchers looking at baling hay slightly damp and storing that hay with out spoilage. These two perfectly good researchers found widely differing truths. This caused considerable consternation in the forage world. Problem was, no one considered the difference in local, microclimates. In Wisconsin's haying season the humidity seldom goes below 50% and the New Mexico humidity seldom reaches 50%. With this little difference in mind, the data from each of the researchers became very relevant.

As for the chloride chlorine terms, that is of little importance as long as we understand each other. We apply 300 pounds per acre of phosphate fertilizer. That could be mistaken for 300 lbs of P2O5, or if using liquid 10-34-0 really applied just 101 lbs of P2O5, which as the rest of the world says and thinks is 44 lbs of P phosphate. In this it pays to be specific.

 As for soil testing Laboritories. I have not found one that did not believe their work was the only one that was true and accurate.  The truth is we are paying for a soil analysis not a gold analysis. It is for sure we are not getting more than what we are paying for. Soil and plant analysis is simply a tool. Unfortunately a fairly dull tool, not the sharp cutting edge they claim to be. As long as we understand this small truth, their information can be of some use. We, the growers,have an advantage over them that is seldom acknowledged. We know our local conditions and limitations and they only have a fuzzy perception of most of our conditions. It is our responsibility to KNOW what our crop in our soil, with our climate, for our yield potential, farmed with our management really needs. We should know what it takes to attain that fertility range.