Having listened to fellow groundsman over the past weeks it would still appear that there are some major misunderstandings regarding artificial lighting.
Please allow me to confirm a few facts as with such a substantial investment its vital clubs understand the science and do not get mislead with sales. Parken Stadium opted for the MLR 1000W technology for obvious plant beneficial horticultural reasons. Some older systems, as the original MLR system, on the market are still using a 600w technology and some systems are being changed to 750w.
Increased power of the bulb will encourage increased response from the plant. These results are achieved through a combination of light and heat. A recent independent study of the MLR 1000W Technology recorded increases in air temperature of 1c and more importantly soil temperature of 4-5c. This is a major factor in sustaining growth/ rooting through the winter months. Recover of wear will also be increased with the 1000W technology.
Some grow light rigs with 600w technology may not produce the desired effect through the winter months. You could turn up the heating system but that has consequences to the rooting and running costs.
In winter 2007/08 in Copenhagen we successfully established a pitch from seed. Seeded mid December and played on in mid February. That was the first repayment on the lights. Since that date we have recovered 2 turf installations hammered due to the events calendar, using MLR 1000W technology. Total initial investment recovered.
A major stadium installed a turf pitch early in January 2009 and could not root that turf using 600w technology. I am aware this situation is present in other turf pitches where rooting can not be achieved due to insufficient intensity of the grow lamps. Did any users of 600w technology struggle through the winter last year? If you did you are probably being advised to buy more light rigs where in reality it would have been cost effective to buy the most efficient rigs in the first instance.
MLR 1000W lighting rigs during the same period enabled a pitch to be installed in February, played champions league on it the same day work was completed. From there we staged 33 sessions in 3 months on the pitch and achieved substantial rooting.
There is similar multi use stadium in Europe where using 600w technology rooting can not be achieved and again the pitch is replaced. The advice from the advisor is that the turf soil is in compatible with the rootzone. I had the same situation in February and my 1000W lighting rigs rooted the pitch in, pics will follow.
Fellow groundsman informed me they have been advised that 1000W technology at increased intensity will not increase the grass response. Why then introduce 750w lamps and are currently discussing changing from 600w to 750w. Why if it makes no difference, this is misleading. Therefore my 1000W would improve and increase the plant response further?
Understanding the science and informing the end user or potential customer should be about trust with such a large investment. The 1000W technology would out perform 600w and 750w units. As a potential customer/user you should be aware of all the facts.Are you being informed of the these facts?
If you are unsure with the concept of artificial lighting contact an independent advisor. The STRI would be beneficial to potential clients, as previously stated stick to the science and ignore the sales. You will then achieve a superior end product.
I have worked with supplementary lighting for a number of years and was influential in MLR’s decision to develop the 1000W technology. Whilst there is a lot more to learn I understand the basic and benefits of the systems. It right that some facts regarding supplementary lights are broadcast for the benefit of all.
Kind regards
Chris Hague
23 Sep 2009 by Leeboy Last edited 23 Sep 2009
But when you look at pitches such as Arsenal, Spurs Villa, Newcastle etc, that over recent years using a 600w system have been outstanding, then surely that tells you they work as well? I know form using both types of sysyems, firstly one of the MLR units that concertina together and now the SGL units
, of which we have just bought 5 more SGL units, the practicality also has to be looked at? We can work under the SGL units cutting in both directions without having to move the units more than 2 meters, with the MLR unit we had to fold it in no matter which way we were cutting, and as was seen by the majority of Premier League groundsmen at Ibrox in February, moving them form one side of the pitch to another took almost 2 hours, whereas you can look at doing the 9 SGL units in a quarter of the time without the need to put moveable trolleys on each end etc which takes its time as well, twelve wheel marks per unit on the MLR as opposed to just four on the SGL as well. Obviously I know you are using a different system to the one at Rangers, so I cannot comment too much on that, though looking at the pictures I wouldnt be too confident of it staying upright in high Manchester winds!
Based on what we have used over almost 6 years of using the lights, height is certainly a major contribution. There was no doubt that our first MLR performed better than our second one, the difference being that the second was almost half a metre higher than the first. Comparing the second MLR to the SGL system we have now is a none starter as the SGL ones are much better for us. Timing of use will also be a contributor as well by making sure that you dont start to use them too late, we were not the best advert for SGL last season as our pitch suffered due to an unexpected and lengthy European campaign that was never taken into account as a possibility when the previous summers concerts and boxing match were booked in, that said the performance of the lights, along with a few other contributing factors, certainly maintained the pitch at a level we would not have got with the second MLR.
The problem with MLR against SGL will always be the amount of end users, and looking back the 'get up and go' of SGL has always been far better than that of MLR, though I know that is changing given their recent visit to the UK. Until they get a system used by a top Premier League club, that is easy to use, successful, workable in regards pitch maintenance and backed up with the support given by SGL, they will probably always suffer because people always refer to success stories that companies have as references, and there is no doubt that at the moment SGL have stolen a march on their rivals.
Nice advert though!
Firstly having never used the SGL system on a practical capacity i can only make comment based on information gathered from my counterparts within football.
when i decided to purchase lighting rigs for use within Ibrox stadium the decision was based on performance and expected recovery within our particular environment.
cost efficiency and simplicity was also a factor, i spent a long time with Nico (SGL) and Oyvind (MLR) before coming to a decision, in the end i went for the MLR system.
last year was the first time that we used lighting rigs and yes in the beginning it was quite time consuming moving the rigs across the pitch when required but very quickly we became quite proficient in our deployment procedure between fixtures and required recover within the stadium so that moves across were planed into maintenance programmes.
all groundsmen are very adapt at making life a a bit easier when carrying out work related programmes and working with lighting rigs SGL or MLR respectively is no exception.
we all find ways of reducing time.
as for our MLR rigs we can cut the pitch following a match and deploy in any area of the surface including cabling up in 2 hours
when we cut the pitch between games we simply push the units together and cut.
Lee is correct in that when we cut the pitch long we need to attach the handling unit and move it across, but in reality how difficult is to to simply push the rigs together attach the handling unit and pull it across the pitch to the new position
with our three rigs it can be done in 45 minutes planned into the deployment patten.
i would rather move my three rigs even with the procedure of attaching a handling unit that move 9 or even 12 SGL rigs to cover the same area.
as for the 1000w technology v the 600w or 750w technology i can only comment on tangible evidence gathered at Ibrox and the crux of the matter is that we maintained an average grass cover that exceeded over 90% and never fell below 80% the expectation of the three MLR rigs within the stadium was only 70% grass cover maintained.
last winter was one of the coldest for some years and even with temperatures of -5 and as low as - 8 recorded for long periods grass production during this time was recorded the same as October and April respectively.
rooting remains stable at 150 mm throughout the winter the 1000w technology provided rapid repair to worn or damaged areas even during prolonged cold spells soil temperature remained stable at around 8-10c under soil heating usage fell by 75% and was only used as insurance before games as required
the performance of our three MLR rigs as outstripped our expectations and if the argument is only that of handling or working below them then it a small price to pay for such a large return
Nico and the SGL system has indeed captured the market with his commitment and enthusiasm but i took a chance on Oyvind and the MLR system and i can categorically say that i am delighted with the results and commitment i get from MLR
the choice is yours
David Roxburgh
Head Groundsman
Ranger Football Club
25 Sep 2009 by mario
I cannot comment upon lighting rigs or the preparation of football pitches working exclusively within cricket.
However, in my 40 years of attending matches at Ibrox Park, I have never seen the playing surface look as good as it does now.
Well done Roxy and your team!
I know no boundaries.
one thing that i think needs to be mentioned is that some places may well work fine with 600w systems. It would be very dependant on the prevailing conditions.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
David,
The following section from your comment 'i would rather move my three rigs even with the procedure of attaching a handling unit that move 9 or even 12 SGL rigs to cover the same area.' looks like you are saying that your three units cover the equivalent of 9 or 12 units at any one time-have I read that correctly?
Cheers
Lee
 |
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother
25 Sep 2009 by mario
Oh, I gotta feeling that the gloves are off....mmmmm!
Yes sireeee....I've got more Lux than you!!
I know no boundaries.
27 Sep 2009 by aturnbull Last edited 27 Sep 2009
Hi All
Is the use of lighting rigs all about:
1. replacing reduced sunlight levels found in modern stadia
2. adding to sunlight, i.e. enhancing photosynthesis
3. adding extra heat to the soil/turf and enhancing light levels?
Speaking as someone who has never managed high level pitches I find it incredible the amount of fertiliser used on these pitches - I was quoted 60kg of N per month all year round (about 600kg N per year) because the Groundsman wanted to make sure the grass was green on television.
That amount of N will restrict the uptake of other nutrients, especially on sand dominated pitches, making it necessary to apply all sorts of other nutrient products to the turf. High N also makes turf particularly vulnerable to insect pest attack - high N means little root growth, and what is there is nibbled by parasitic nematodes and the grass has no means to defend against them. Not much chance of resisting environmental nor pest attack.
Is it the unique environmental conditions and pitch constructions found in your stadia, pressures of television and the pressure from club managers that requires these intensive management regimes? Are the use of lighting rigs necessary because of the high N used?
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
I think to do with phot0synthesis Andy. Never seen one in action but have been told this
Ben is right as it helps with shade and heats up seed for cold germination when the sun levels are poor which has a effect on the plant energy system. Groundsmen have a harder job than most turf people due to temps and lack of light.
Hi Lee
good luck tonight nice to see your club where it should be your pitch looks superb
wish Rangers were in the premiership
in reply to the area covered, my three MLR rigs cover one quarter of the pitch at a time, deployment pattern is determined by the shade and wear areas.
would i be correct in that it takes 9 or more SGL rigs to cover Half a pitch
i again repeat that i have not used the SGL rigs and i am not saying that they don't work, you just need to look at all the grounds using that system to see they work fine.
what i am saying is that i only have three MLR rigs providing the same or possibly a better return given the climate in Glasgow and have no issues moving or working around them.
David
28 Sep 2009 by mario
Being in the Premiership is one thing, David. But would we be in the Champions League if we were?
I know no boundaries.
Hi David,
9 for half a pitch, which is what we have just gone to-not that you would notice too much as we had a horrendous fusarium attack last weekend, and following tonights game we have the reserves on here tomorrow night as well-lights are all well and good if you can actually use them, regardless of who supplies them, I have yet to see them work parked in the tunnel!
Cheers
Lee
Hi Lee
you better believe it won't make the slightest difference who supplies lights if we cant get them on the pitch for fixtures outwith the first team.
do you think that due to the financial constraints that many club now face we will find that the pitch will need to take more games especially reserve and under 21s
i don't mean to be disrespectful to the many clubs that play an enormous amount of games and still produce good pitches but at the very top level its important that the very platform our top professional football players perform on is maintained in as high a condition as possible.
football pitches in the UK are maintained by a very unique bunch working at the highest level possible within the constraints of clubs and if we are to maintain the present level of surface we need the maintenance windows to carry out the work.
anyway time to get off my soapbox and prepare for Sevilla training tonight and the game tomorrow with the big one on Sunday v Celtic.
to every groundsman who reads this keep the head up for in football we are the people who matter
David
We rarely play reserves in here to be honest, but we had one at the start of the month and the one tomorrow. The only upside is that after tomorrow we have almost 4 weeks with no game, which is why they have decided to play it here. That said, it is up to others whether they play here or next door, so we will see how many more we have in here as opposed to next door.
Hi David,Leeboy. Going back to Andy Turnbull's question. What are the main pertinence of the rigs? Ian Mac.
Lee, hope your well as ever, lets face it your reserves are probably worth more than some of the other first teams out there now.... so they should get a trot out on the main pitch now and again ROFL...
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
I believe that lighting rigs are used for all three reasons.
There are parts of many stadia which never see sunlight - and certainly never during the winter.
The lights will raise both soil temperatures and photosynthesis levels. By raising the soil temperatures it gives you the opportunity to get new grass established during the winter months where it would otherwise be simply impossible.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
Thank you jlawrence. Best, Ian Mac.
Does the use of lighting rigs during the colder winter months having a negative effect on root growth?
Surely by constantly "forcing" new seed through with the lighting rigs + the high levels of N used on sand based pitches to encourage top growth, then this must compromise root growth to a point?
Or is this something that is a neccessary sacrifice to maintain the actual surface?
I did a little research on this and discovered the it was to create the suns sugar in winter by the norwegians in 1997 in tronheim. It was trialed by Manchester united. and that appears to be that.
Hi All
A very interesting discussion and thanks for the sharing of knowledge. It just seems to be a very expensive way to help the grass generate sugar in shaded conditions when there are far cheaper methods on the market. I was wondering if their were any other benefits that justified the expense? I know you guys have developed very sophisticated turf management regimes that certainly show themselves week in week out and you are a credit to our industry.
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
Thank you for the interest and comments. My intention is to offer an
understanding of the concept of supplementary lighting for the benefit of
all. I respect everyone methods and opinions and choices. The UK
groundsman are a credit to the industry and to football and I wish them
all every success. Although it could it be said that the lighting rigs have enhanced
an already good product?
The role of a grow lamp is to turn electrical energy to in Photosynthetic
radiation energy.
The wave length within light for plant growth is 400-700nm and this area
is termed the Photosynthetic active radiation PAR. High pressure sodium
bulbs can produce light concentrated in PAR area of light (blue and red)
Grow lamps give the plant energy and enable the plant to photosynthesise
by means of light and heat. Therefore to increase the output of the lamp
will increase the response from the plant. Therefore Dave and his team at
Rangers can maintain 90% pitch cover with only 3 units. With some 600 watt
systems you being advise you require 9. The 1000W lamps Dave is using
produce an average of 300 umol. The 600watt system I have measured average
around 200umol.
umol is a measurement of Photosynthetic Photon flux Density (PPFD) which
calculates the number of photons available to the plant for
photosynthesis.
PAR.light reading measures the energy content of the light, not the speed
of photosynthesis.
There are practical pros and cons with all systems and again that is down
to the individual choice. For example I chose to develop the system for
Parken based on a number of criteria to suit my requirements but
ultimately the end product is the priority. As Lee, I too work in the rock
n roll industry and at times not even the sun can help us. I can work
under my rigs and water the pitch, but I have a theory that at times it
may be beneficial to let the grass do its thing and leave it alone.
Working with the lights in Parken I have reduced the N application. The
lights give the plant the energy to develop.
Neil, we established a pitch in Parken during the winter months from seed.
The seed was covered for the first few days and kept moist. On germination
the lighting rigs were deployed and the plant developed due to increase in
energy from the light rigs. To encourage the establishment we did apply
N.P.K in the form of a 6.9.6. Your theory that N would encourage top
growth I agree with and for that reason autumn /winter feeds are generally
applied in Parken throughout the year.
cheers
chris
 |
30 Sep 2009 by Parken Last edited 30 Sep 2009
 |
 |
30 Sep 2009 by Parken Last edited 30 Sep 2009
 |
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
