Unfortunately I did not communicate my full meaning.  

Wilson, one thing I noticed: you said "For an Olsen test a 7 ppm P is not all that bad." Remember, Wilson, this was done with Mehlich III, not Olsen. You cannot correlate. A 7 ppm P on a Mehlich III is "bad".

At first I mentioned I hoped they used the Olsen chemistry because of the 7 ppm P. Later I mentioned 7 ppm is not bad meaning for Olsen chemistry, unfortunately I did not believe they used the preferred extractent for a high pH soil. So yes 7 ppm is not too wonderful. You would think a high dollar laboratory, public or cooperate, would have the smarts to use the best extractent for that soil's pH.

The mentioned technique of not using a high computed CEC value, in a soil with free calcium, is not that unusual. I have much the same problem with Midwest Labs in Omaha. They do not report the free calcium and use only the soil calcium in computing their CEC. My problem was I knew my soil's CEC ran between 40 & 60 meq/100g.  These calcium levels resulted in a reported 3,000 ppm Ca values, 20 meq/100g CEC values, and the base saturation ratios fairly close to ideal. I have them run their measured CEC test, $17.10 each. Then I plug these numbers into the CEC equation only using the value of Calcium as the unknown. The resulting calcium level is again in the 4,500 to 7,000 ppm Ca range. So if all the above is true Don's true CEC value just may be in the >22 meq/100g range. Using CEC X 8.07 to CEC X 10.44 potassium. CEC X 6.5 to CEC X 12.5 for magnesium, and CEC X 140 to CEC X 150 for calcium, his desired numbers would be even higher.

As to phosphate, for many years TX A&M with their modified Morgan chemistry, misled the blackland farmers. TAMU soils folks insisted our soil has high levels of P even though most farmers used phosphate and saw a positive economic response. Eventually they also changed to Mehlich III chemistry, as a cost savings not as an improved system. They absolutely will not run Olsen chemistry for our 8 pH soils and refuse to even compute CEC values. TAMU insists any test results above 150 ppm K does not require potash. At 300 ppm K my alfalfa will have a tissue analysis of barely 1% K! Desired is from 2.20% to 2.50%. Using the magic equations above I can get my alfalfa into the desired ppm K range. When this happens the soil test will range between 400 ppm K and 600 ppm K depending on which field we are considering. In large crowds I refrain from disagreeing with the educated elite, but one on one I can be fairly insistent about how the cow ate the cabbage.  (I should mention TAMU at one time reported my calcium levels in the 40,000 ppm Ca range. They found most of the calcium using their Modified Morgan Chemistry. )

 Thank you for the references. The second one is in my notebook and the first one will be shortly.

I hope I have said what I am meaning to say and that growers from different a climate & different soil. instantly understand what I am trying to say and can read through what is on paper.