Welcome! Login | Register

Message Board - Natural Turf: Primo Maxx

Next Unread Thread
 
Alex @ Dunning
Posted 10 Mar 2008
Avatar: Vizsla
Posts: 4

Who invented Greens Committees!!!!

I have been reading up on the many benefits of the Growth Regulator Primo Maxx and I am thinking about incorporating it into my programme. According to its own website its the dogs thingys and the local Reps do say that it "does exactly as it says on the tin". However, I was just wondering what professional users have thought so any comments more than welcome. Any noticable diff after 1 application or only after a few months e.t.c. I am planning on using it on tees, aprons and bankings. Any users have experience of using Primo on Golf Greens? any adverse effects after long term use?
Cheers,
Alexander @ Dunning
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
ian macmillan
Posted 10 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 335

Hi Alex, Primo Maxx, simply one of the best chemicals within our toolbox. On greens it slow's down elongation with hardened cells', increases root development,suppresses seed head establishment , affords consistency" and green speed without shaving the greens'. Never used on tee's etc. If I was stranded on a desert island with a golf course then two things I would take=Primo and Oars. Try it and marvel with it's results. Regards,Ian
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Adam King
Posted 11 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 137

alex,
i have used primo on greens/ tees/rugby pitches and cricket outfield. a great product at the right time of the season with the only negitive being some stressing of the grass if not used along side some form of fertilser, liquid is best when tank mixed with primo.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Ken Barber
Posted 11 Mar 2008
DSC00699 2
Posts: 1699

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.

Hi Alex, All of what Ian Mac say's and more. I have been using it or similar for more than 10 years and would not work without it!

I don't cut below 5mm in the growing season, apply minimal N and keep acceptible green speeds. The biggest bonus is that Poa doesn't like it, while your desirable grasses are not effected.

If you do go with the programme, just keep an eye on the weather, hold off during drought conditions and tankmix with something that will stimulate a little growth.

KB
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Alex @ Dunning
Posted 11 Mar 2008
Avatar: Vizsla
Posts: 4

Who invented Greens Committees!!!!

Thanks for all the replies. I purchaed a 10L liquid fert along with the Primo so hopefully will have no problems on that score. I got info from the Primo website regarding timing of applications and weather conditions so all good to go. Only slight conern is the fact that Primo doesnt really like Poa so 25% of my tees could look like death!
For those that are interested I will place a posting a few months from now saying how things went - I always think its good to leave feedback once advice has been given.
Alex
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Ken Barber
Posted 11 Mar 2008 Last edited: 11 Mar 2008
DSC00699 2
Posts: 1699

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.

Hi Alex, Don't worry about the Poa, Primo doesn't hit it hard, it just stresses it a little which gives the desirable grasses the edge. I have never seen Poa hurting to the point where the grasses really thin out or look stressed.

KB
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
PNCawood
Posted 13 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 100

A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.

Good choice re the primo - it will certainly help you in the areas that you will be using it. It's one of the most turf safe product I've come across, so dont be too concerned about discolouration in Poa.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 13 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

"A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be discovered." Well, Primo is yet another chemical when we are all trying to reduce chemical usage! Low amounts of water and fertiliser tend to stress poa. Why an earth we need a chemical to do it is beyond me. Someone is now going to tell me it encourages tillering. Well so does walking over the grass and rolling it. I know a lot of you are going to come screaming back at me but I have a very strong feeling about greenkeeping in a bottle. Remember all those solve all problems bacteria programs? Where are they now and how many wasted an absolute fortune on them? Probally the similar place to cow pats in a barrel!
It's alright I have put my recyclable tin hat on!

Chris


Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
bob mac
Posted 13 Mar 2008 Last edited: 13 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 16

Chris to have the courage of your convictions is to be in a place of admiration! so why would you be needing a tin hat?
The reduction of chemical is a preponderance, or should be? a principle of all turf practitioner's. But you know what Chris" sometimes one chemical can establish a reduction of many? and primo is a difinitive example! research it"
Tillering production? of course it does" in preventing elongation, the Crown (engine room) deploye's elements,waxes, and sugars to do a job else where" and usually engineer's towards roots' and shoots' in the form of root mass and tillering. Chris if you close your mind you decrease productivity! Wishing you well, Bob Mac.

Primo is a chemical with well discovered virtue!

Ok my father helped me on this post.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
BC
Posted 13 Mar 2008
Brian-Clough-500.jpg
Posts: 195

I intend to live forever, so far so good...

Plant growth regulators are not new kids on the block they have been in use in amenity turf for over 25 years, albeit for different reasons and guises. There is no denying how useful they are and they are not high on the list of unfriendly enviromental chemicals. Having said that I dont think anyone uses chemicals for fun, and greenkeeping without chemicals would be great but unrealistic at this moment in time given the demands of end users in relation to the weather.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
jlawrence
Posted 13 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 4335

Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.

Chris, if primo helps reduce the growth of the plant would it not reduce the feeding requirements and therefore reduce your chemical input that way.
I realise that would be using one evil to lower the use of another - but if the reduction is high enough then it is justified imho.
For us cricket boys, the increased tillering could be a good thing - i know some who have used it to good effect.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Alex @ Dunning
Posted 13 Mar 2008
Avatar: Vizsla
Posts: 4

Who invented Greens Committees!!!!

When I first looked into using Primo one of the first benefits I realised were the reduced need (in theory) for other chems / ferts to an extent that it would be cost-effective (although not cheap) and "friendlier" Must admit obviously havent used it yet hence the top of this thread.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
jbuddington
Posted 13 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 50

Just been to a joint Rigby Taylor/STRI open day up here in the North East and the main viewpoint- although already covered on this site several months ago, is that it a fantastic tool for improving sward density, cleanness of cut desease tolerence and take up of germination. A show of hands of guys in the room who had used it was less than 20%. Apparently New Zealand turf professionals have been using this chemical for 7-8 years at differing application rates, dependent on its purpose and have all said they would like to never be without it. As far as feed goes, it can give a false sense that because the sward looks healthy, it is- when in fact the stuff is not a feed, but is in conjunction with feeding correctly reducing its frequency.As I said, this message board covered it months ago, just shows that we are taking part in the fast track market leader of information services.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 14 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

John, just a thought regarding use on cricket squares. A cricket wicket is basicaly clay bound together by the roots of the grass which is pretty well shaved off to produce the surface. When I was being taught botany it was instilled in me that there is always a balance between root and shoot. If you remove some of the shoot not so much root is required by the plant. So it will not produce it. Bentgrass growing naturaly and not being cut for instance, will have a far greater root depth than one that is regularily shaved down in fine sports turf. So the point I am making is that if by the use of this chemical it reduces shoot production surely the plant will reduce its root production to compensate which is not what is required for binding a cricket wicket.

So far in the various threads that have appeared regarding primo, I have not as yet seen someone declare a figure for the annual cost for its use.

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
PNCawood
Posted 14 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 100

A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.

Chris - I admire a man with the conviction that you have. I too dont agree with greenkeeping or groundsmanship in a bottle - the way forward is integration - all the methods used wisley when needed, cultural nutritional ans chemical. Chemical being the last in the list as the last resort.

As a counterpoint - how much deisel do you think can be saved in faitway mowing withtwo Primo applications a year?

The trade off is C02 Vs the primo use. I'll pm you the answer. It is possible to reduce our impact on the environment and work smarter - take the benefits where we can find them.

0
QUOTE REPLY

 
jbuddington
Posted 14 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 50

I wasn`t singing its praises or anything in the form of advertising.......just passing on some of the info I heard yesterday. I don`t for instance know whether STRI have been told to push the stuff, but they certainly were pushing it yesterday and were saying it was the dogs b*****ks for stressed turf on greens, tees and shaded areas, where it is believed primo aids recovery.
I do not know its pros/cons are on cricket pitches.
The STRI lady speaker was a New Zealander Megan Hood.
The other speaker was Henry Bechelet, also of STRI. I also know that some of the stadium guys spray prior to concerts to stave off stress, as an earlier thread says.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Mal
Posted 14 Mar 2008
Avatar: Fruit Bat
Posts: 1376

Nothing succeeds better than a toothless canary

Hi chris you are right when regarding root depth being affected by shoot length. The reason that grasses root deeper dispite shoot length in the case of applied Primo is in the nature and action of the product. The product inhibits the production of hormones necessary for the elongation of plant cells. Basically all the other chemistry is still going on so the plant instead of wasting energy that it makes form the increase in tillers (another trait from using primo) it puts into root activity.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 14 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

Wouldn't Primo reduce elongation of cells throughout the plant rather selecting just the stems, or does it select just the hormones for shoot development.
I had imagined that the effects on the surface would be mirrored underneath, more rootmass and less root depth, not that I've thought a great deal about it, with not having a sprayer :-(

Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 15 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

PNCawood . You fail to mention that to use primo, first it has to be manufactured using energy. Secondly it has to be transported half way around the planet before being stored in a heated wharehouse before being carried in a truck to its final destination. How much CO2 has that just pumped into the atmosphere? Oh and of course there is the small matter of a sprayer being used to appy it.

I'm with you Steve. A plant will not produce a lot of root if it does not have a balanced leaf system. If the plant produced a lot of root the reduced leaf of the plant would not be able to produce enough food for the roots.

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
vid
Posted 15 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 1609

I get the impression sometimes Chris, that greenkeepers in particular but also a lot of groundsman feel they are not doing their job unless covering the grass in chemicals and using the latest piece of kit. I however read with interset these different threads (just look at the one on sugar!!) to see if they have a particular and practical application for my circumstances. I will not support products that increase our abuse of the environment. Primo Maxx is on my 'watch' list, sugar I may dabble with after pre season rolling. I have said also I dont approve of using linear aerators every season as they increase dramatically the amount of top-dressing thats used. I just like to think I apply myself to these things before leaping in at the first opportunity to please my fixer (or rep as they are commonly known). But amazingly, and I think you are finding it as well, our concerns seem to fall on deaf ears as soon as the 'latest thing' appears on the market.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
zoid
Posted 15 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image9.png
Posts: 699

chris/vid

I take your points but it does seem as far as primo is concerned, the only critics are those who haven't used the stuff and all those who have seem pretty enthusiastic about it's benefits?

That seems quite compelling; particularly as the emissions trade off is probably roughly balanced?
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
vid
Posted 15 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 1609

Thats why its on my 'watch' list, I'm not dismissing it. But I need to see a reason for my changing my current practise. The conversation on this thread has not quite explained to me its true benefit for non golf circumstances. I tried to engage the sugar thread as to the physiology of what was going on at root level, but the reply I got didnt satisfy my interest so I still, even after reading all the posts, dont understand how the plants take up and utilise dissolved carbohydrate through its root system. Until I do I am less likely to use it, as I am primo Maxx
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
GRG
Posted 15 Mar 2008
Avatar:  37
Posts: 3914

So Vid, despite many positive posts about primo, sugars and linear aeration/scarifying, your not even prepared to experiment, you only need a small area, to find out for yourself. Sorry, but how negative is that !
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
vid
Posted 15 Mar 2008 Last edited: 15 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 1609

Bath, thats blatantly untrue. I know and advocate the use of many things and I havent said I mistrust any of them, I just dont like to do or use things before I understand them. I asked a very specific question about sugars but did not receive an answer to my question and yet in my post I said I intend to use it - I cant see negativity in that - I'm just taking good care. As for Primo Maxx, being told that something is good on one surface doesnt mean it is automatically good on another and nothing yet convinces me it has a use on cricket that would warrant the extra expense and time, please convince me. I am sorry but there is far too much 'its the greatest thing since sliced bread' and next year its gaining dust in the chemical cabinet, I am now too long in the tooth to accept what an advert or rep tells me and I am surprised, to say the least, that I am getting criticism for being no more than cautious and careful with the environment. Please give me one good reason why I should use an extra ton of soil on my thatch free square just because I can linear aerate down an extra 5mm. I know when it should be used but I dont think for 1 minute it should replace a good scarifier, it is another excellent tool for groundsmen to use when required. Perhaps Bath you like the idea of even more fields being stripped of their topsoil or perhaps you think cricket loam is magicked up from somewhere. The only negative comment is yours about me - I suggest you reread my posts.
I think it deplorable that we think of ways of further harming our environment for the sake of a bit more coverage/colour/bounce etc. I am interested in the sugar argument as I have already said at least once and will 'dabble' with it. I have advised many cricket clubs that i travel to, to use a linear aerator and also quite afew that they dont need to - I think thats balanced not negative.
I believe you are a pitch advisor - now you are worrying me!
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Ken Barber
Posted 15 Mar 2008
DSC00699 2
Posts: 1699

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.

Chris, you know how to get a debate going don't you!

You wear your green hat when its suits you though..... You had better stop having diesel delivered, since it costs so much to get it out of the ground, refined, delivered to your supplier, delivered to your course and then you go and pollute the atmosphere by pumping it out of your machines.

Get off your green box and read up on Primo Maxx, better still try it!

KB
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
GRG
Posted 15 Mar 2008
Avatar:  37
Posts: 3914

Please do not let me worry you Vid, nothing in life is worth that. Linear aeration is an operation close to my heart, i totally believe in it, as do most first class grounds that i am aware of. I only apply approx. six bags of loam per pitch during the renovations, but it does mean that it is well keyed in. We only have to incorperate soil, not smother the surface. The slots also act as an excellant seed bed. I only scarify to approx. 6mm in depth, no need to go any deeper if it is not required. I have never been able to achieve 6mm depth with any machine that did not have tungsten tipped blades, unless the ground was damp, but then you could not clean up properly. At my club, i have 31 wickets to renovate and 14 practice batting ends, how many times would i have to change the blades if non tipped blades were used ?
My contracting arm renovates approx 200 wickets, 4 tennis courts and 2 bowling greens each autumn. How many sets of blades would i have to replace each autumn, waste of steel etc, etc. I have replaced my tipped blades once on my pedestrian linear aerator, now six years old and i have just this winter replaced my tipped blades on my tractor mounted machine, five years old. I expect if the maths were done, its been cheaper as well.
Different scources of sugar have been used with great succes for years, so hardly a new idea to treat with caution, caution in practice perhaps.
Primo max and similar have also now been in use for some time, so again hardly a new experiment. I believe that new benefits are now being found. If it means less grass cutting, less polution, wear and tear and fuel, thats good for the enviroment. If it puts more roots into a cricket square then great, that is about the hardest thing for most of us to achieve. If you do not find any benefit then at least you have had a go, but the only way one finds out, is if they have a go see if it works for them.
I am sure you do your best and being a major contributor i do read your posts with interest. But please do not be worried.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
vid
Posted 15 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 1609

No arguments there Bath, I dont really know why you picked on me. Primo Maxx however, even you use a lot of 'ifs', when there are less I'll be more interested. I expect the company making the profits to do the trials not me, apart from not having the time, I dont like taking the risks with my customers green stuff!
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 16 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

For all the great testimonies of Primo I am still curious as to wether it reduces cell elongation in just the shoots, or is the reduction indiscriminate throughout the plant?
Are roots shortened with the shoots?

Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 16 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

Effect of trinexapac-ethyl on root growth (root mass and depth)
Primo MAXX is proposed to increase root and rhizome production by increasing root
mass and root depth. This is contended to increase availability of soil moisture to turf,
implying increased tolerance or avoidance of drought stress.
Primo 1EC did not usually have a significant effect on rootmass or root length. In two
Kansas field trials, the root length density of perennial ryegrass treated with 192 g a.i./ha
Primo 1EC was numerically reduced in the upper 10 cm of soil but was either unaffected
or numerically increased at lower depths, such that total root length in the top 40 cm of
soil was unchanged or slightly reduced. In one field trial conducted in North Carolina on
greens turf, rootmass was usually not significantly affected by monthly applications of
48 g a.i./ha Primo 1EC over 2 years, but was numerically reduced at least as often as it
was increased over the 2 years of the study. In greenhouse and growth chamber trials,
rootmass was increased for Primo 1EC-treated perennial ryegrass but was usually reduced
for creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass.
Untreated and Primo 1EC-treated Kentucky bluegrass or tall fescue did not usually
significantly differ in the force required to pull harvested sod pieces apart or to remove
transplanted sod pieces from soil. For Primo 1EC-treated turf, numerically more force
was usually required to pull apart harvested sod pieces than for those that were untreated.
However, these data were not corroborated with root mass or root depth data.
The data submitted do not support a claim that application of Primo MAXX will increase
root and rhizome production, or increase root depth of turf.

Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
vid
Posted 16 Mar 2008
No Avatar
Posts: 1609

Thanks Steve, facts are always more convincing than unsupported recommendations. I'm sure PM is a great chemical, but as I said I am yet to be convinced that it will make any difference to cricket wickets.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 16 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

Not my research! but interesting nevertheless, still not against, just curious.

http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/prdd/prdd2001-05-e.pdf

Best Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 17 Mar 2008 Last edited: 17 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

HELLO, still no comment from anybody as to the annual cost of using primo.

Ken,everybody is using diesel but not everybody has to add further manufactured items to the soil!

Vid. I wonder how many people have bacteria programs gathering dust in their chem store? I'm with you regards to sitting on fence. As of yet have not been convinced either way as far as primo goes.

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Yetanotherdave
Posted 17 Mar 2008
rugby-french_25.jpg
Posts: 142

Primo Rules,
Depends on amount per application, we'll use 1.8ltrs PH and we will apply every 3 weeks from July until Mid October. work it out your prices may differ to ours.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 17 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

Havent bought any so I dont have a price, but I dont own a sprayer so that would add several hundered £ on to my budget costs to get a contractor in every month to spray

Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Dave
Posted 17 Mar 2008 Last edited: 17 Mar 2008
Avatar: Belgian Tervuren
Posts: 741

You can buy Primo for around £300 per 5 litres and standard application is at 1.6 litres/Ha.
We used Primo at Molineux all last season to great affect. It reduced our cutting operations there and at the Training ground by 100%. We did notice a big change in root growth, but whether that was down to the Primo or the increased aeration (allowed due to less mowing time) is unknown.
We sprayed every 4-5 weeks during the growing months and if you base our use of this product on 4 football pitches (3 Ha) then we used about £1000 of product.
If you reduce the time of 3 men @£100 per day for just 1 day a week mowing for 16 weeks that would save £4,800. Reduction by 2 days £9,600. Increase the growing season to 20 weeks and that figure is £12,000.
This is before you take into account wear and tear on the mowers, machine maintenance and breakdown repair, fuel.

As I said at the beginning the use of Primo allowed the guys to get on with lots of other jobs that they wouldn't normally find the time for.

Added: I attended a seminar 2 years ago about Primo, and from memory it is a late cycle growth inhibitor affecting the giberilic acid cycle near the end. This means that it only restricts top growth, and allows all the rest of the good things to carry on.

I can't see us changing our views and use of Primo at Wolves now we have seen the results.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
...
Posted 17 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image15.png
Posts: 1908

Something I hadnt considered, less mowing = less compaction = greater root growth,

dave, if I gave those figures to our accountants we would just end up with even fewer staff.

Regards

Steve
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Dave
Posted 17 Mar 2008
Avatar: Belgian Tervuren
Posts: 741

It's always difficult to pinpoint particular work or products to the general pitch improvements.
Even the weather accounts for much of how and why the pitches perform or not each season.
This year the training ground and the stadium have looked as good as they have ever done considering the usage etc.
The lads knew that if they missed a day of mowing last summer, it wouldn't mean a very long day to catch up again. This was in contrast to previous years where a day missed meant a murderous following day of cutting and box emptying to get back on top of the situation.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
zoid
Posted 17 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image9.png
Posts: 699

Is there an alternative in the newer, slower growing cultivars of rye?

I haven't used them yet but isn't this a more economic long term option?
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Ken Barber
Posted 17 Mar 2008
DSC00699 2
Posts: 1699

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.



To the unconverted!

The only person I need to convince on the benefits of Primo Maxx is myself...

I have used growth regulators for years simply because I find they improve the uniform density in my greens. Whether it is Poa, creeping bent, colonial bent or creeping bent which dominate my sward.... As a mix of any, their growth rates under normal circumstances would be variable.

since growth regulators fine the grasses down and encourage a more upright growth habit this problem is eliminated. My green speed is increased and I can set my greens height above 5mm without upsetting my membership.

I have big greens.... over 1.5 ha and 5 lt of Primo Maxx lasted the whole of last years growing season.

I am not even going to mention money saved on fuel, machinery wear and tear or labour........ I said I wasn't going to mention money saved.......STOP!

Zoid, As for new or old cultivars of Rye, they require high N input and mowers need to be set to perfection, if they go out of cur part way through the day, they tear rather than cut!

KB


0
QUOTE REPLY

 
zoid
Posted 18 Mar 2008
Avatar: Image9.png
Posts: 699

KB

My post followed Dave's who was talking about football grounds.

Perhaps I should have addressed it directly to Dave but I assumed the next poster would figure that out.

I was wrong.

;-)
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 18 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

Ken, surely you still run a mower over your greens daily to true up the surfaces and remove any debris thoughout the growing season. So you will not be saving a lot of fuel, labour or wear in that direction.

Spoke to an agronomist yesterday and was told that there is no evidence that primo increases root growth. The labeling also states not to use in drought conditions.

Just a thought

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Dave
Posted 18 Mar 2008
Avatar: Belgian Tervuren
Posts: 741

Wow, what a great discussion, views from across the industry.
In football we have a relatively short window, to bring the new grasses up to speed (establishment) and in many ways treat it as a cash crop. With regular triclkle feeding and additional supplements, coupled with intensive mowing we want to push the grass on quickly, establishing a thick healthy sward and decent root system to survive the winter months where wear is at it's highest.
To that end it will be interesting to see a 'new' range of dwarf rye's that don't just bolt as soon as they see Nitrogen.
The use of Primo has retained all of the above without the constant bolt of top growth.
Chris, while Primo may or may not hold big advantages on greens, I presume that its use on fairways and rough would have a marked difference in labour and machinery?
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 18 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

To be honest Dave, with the non stop demand for manicuring courses these days all the other areas need to be cut or rolled constantly to make them look 'nice'. You cut your pitches prior to matches to make them look nice in the same way as theye are watered just to make the ball run a little better. It never ceases to amaze me that that with all these things as well as reduced light from modern stadia, the grass survives at all! Talk about uphill battle! The only real place for primo , IMHO, is in those places that are difficult to maintain with machinery. After all before the name changed to primo it was called short cut because that was its intended use.

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Dave
Posted 18 Mar 2008
Avatar: Belgian Tervuren
Posts: 741

Hi Chris,
The demand in football stadia for a 'good looking surface' is there all the time, even out of season. With the events held in the suites and boxes daily, the pitch is seen as the corporate 'draw'.
Using Primo, means the stripes and presentation are there without the need to cut every day.
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Alex @ Dunning
Posted 18 Mar 2008
Avatar: Vizsla
Posts: 4

Who invented Greens Committees!!!!

Since starting this discussion I must admit I didnt expect so many opinions and advice - all off which most appreciated. I originally started the discussion to get advise from users on Primo. After my recent promotion to HGK I knew that I would only have another set of helping hands from May to Sep so I wondered what could I do (other than the usual over worked and under paid) to enable the well-used 9 holer maintain its high standards as previously there has always been two full-time staff. I heard about Primo and thought it could help me with the frequency of mowing and aesthetic value of the course. Areas intended on spraying were Tees, and banking areas to cut down on Flymo/Strimming. Not too sure I will use it on Greens until I see for myself the outcome. Thanks for all your input!
Alex
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Leeboy
Posted 18 Mar 2008
005.JPG
Posts: 1074

We have used it for a variety of reasons, those being:

Renovation time:So that the existing grass doesnt outcompete the new seed for light, giving it a better chance to germinate. Application prior to renovation next door will also be done this year as it suppresses the Poa content and makes it easier to remove when it is scarified.

Reducing cutting:We have difficulty getting on the pitch next door in the summer due to daily schools athletics use. Monthly applications reduced the cutting from every two or three days to three times a month, in turn saving manpower, fuel, machinery wear and tear amongst other things.

Concert preparation:Spraying prior to flooring going down meant that once the flooring was removed 8-10 days after being put down, we were spending less time cutting and emptying with the rotary mowers, which meant other remedial work got done a lot quicker than in previous years.

All our applications are at 1.6l/ha, last year we sprayed next door 6 times and the main stadium 3 times. A similar program will be undertaken this year as well depending on the ever expanding program of events.....

Its lovely stuff!
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
chrismitchell
Posted 19 Mar 2008
IMG 3321
Posts: 1400

Green is not necessarily beautiful.

Lee, yours and Daves use of primo makes good sense to me and I can see where you are coming from with it. My big question still is, is it really viable and of that much advantage on a square or green.

Chris
0
QUOTE REPLY

 
Ken Barber
Posted 19 Mar 2008
DSC00699 2
Posts: 1699

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.

Only one way to find out Dave...... Try it!

KB
0
QUOTE REPLY

This Message is read only, you may not post a reply at this time