21 Nov 2009 by andy smurthwaite
new to board can any one suggest a winter fertiliser for a football pitch . money very tight. thanks andy
A soil analysis would be wise. That way you know what your pitch needs and what it doesn't.
In general, however,you would be looking for a fertiliser low in nitrogen (N) and relatively high in phosphorous (P) and potassium (K)
N:P:K
From the posh end of the room!!
Guessing in the dark here, but i dont expect you could go far wrong with 7.7.7 for now.
i would agree with Aladdin, get a soil test and see what you soil needs, tests are not very expensive as your local college should be able to help,
Brian
everything happens for a reason
22 Nov 2009 by andy smurthwaite
thanks for the help will look for a soil test. cheers andy
Make sure that you get an independant test carried out, local college or STRI as examples. Should you use fert supplier for free, you are likely to dissapear in a host of products recommended and often at silly prices.
Money is tight everywhere, before you go to far, can you give an idea of your budget and how often you believe you need to apply.
7% Nitrogen in Winter? :/
22 Nov 2009 by Mal
3:12:12 may be a better bet unless your analysis suggests other corrective nutritional componants required. If the pitch is new to you I would suggest you also get a soil trextural analysis included so that any future feeding programmes can take into account the CEC (nutrient holding capacity of the soil).
Geography is everywhere
22 Nov 2009 by Charles Johnson
It can be perfectly sensible to use a 7.7.7 type feed in Autumn, it probably says Four Seasons on the bag which is a clue, conditions in the South are mild and the (rye) grass is still growing where it gets enough daylight.
The post mentioned that funds were tight. The post also suggested to me at least, that the man asking he question might not have a lot of knowledge.
My reply was based on these assumptions and that probably the most easy product to find at the lowest cost would be the good old balanced National Growmore. I do not believe that 7% Nitrogen is to much on a soccer pitch at this time of the year, still officially autumn, especially as Charles says if you are down in the South.
It will probably be the cheapest he can buy.
Its good to know that a few are up and about on a Sunday morning though.
22 Nov 2009 by Mal
Hi Bath & Charles I wouldn't suggest that either of you are wrong. The difference between 3 & 7 isn't that great and a 3:12:12 would be just as typical an analysis as you are likely to also find defined as a winter outfield fertiliser. At the end of the day, Andy will I am sure make an astute purchase based on the range of opinions offered based also on the budget he has available.
regards
Mal
Geography is everywhere
As Mal says the difference between 3 and 7 isnt much, and you may find that the actual difference is even less than the analysis declared on the bag.
Rye is a hungry grass and as its being kicked about all winter it probably deserves a bit of a feed, never seen much fus on rye, usually a bit of rust if anything and that can be grown out with a bit of a feed.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Hello All,
Just a thought regarding fertiliser applications.
I dont work in football, but the first thing I would be looking for if I was to make an application of fertiliser would be asking how many units/kg per hectare do I want to apply to my site in this circumstance? and then looking at price comparisons of the 2.
Lets say we (off the top of our heads) wanted to apply 10kg of Nitrogen per hectare or 10 units of N with this application.
If we looked at the 2 analysis's of fertiliser mentioned 3.12.12 or the 7.7.7 and wanted to look at amounts needed and price comparisons....I would look to do the following equation.
Amount of N per hect required
=
kgs per hect required / (divided by) % nutrient in fertiliser X 100
So...if we run this formula over the 2 analysis's mentioned at a rate of 10kg of N per hectare (which we require) we would get the following: (I'm only going to look at N as I'll let you do the maths on P and K.)
3.12.12
@10kg per hect / 3(%) x 100 = 333 kg of 3.12.12 per hectare.
7.7.7
@10kg per hect / 7 (%) x 100 = 142 kg of 7.7.7 per hectare
Big difference of amounts needed isn't there if you do it like that? Nearly double the amount of 3.12.12 is needed to provide us with our 10 kg of N per hectare.
Obviously, there will be a difference between costs but this should always be taken into the equation when working out and selecting material needed for such an application.
Note.. these calculations were made on the basis that we are working with a hectare, but the totals can be easily divided down for the overall size of area we are going to treat.
I hope this can save a few people a couple of quid here and there. Though, I do get a little concerned when I hear of just stick this analysis on or that on or that. With this method its really simple. You will be able to budget better and also know exactly what you need to put out to get your required amounts of N per hectare. Also you wont go over ordering stock that's not needed.
Best Regards
Dave
Learning is there for every man
22 Nov 2009 by andy smurthwaite
thanks to all posters i am greener than the grass on the pitch but i am enthusiastic an need help. cheers andy
Where in the country are you, Andy?
From the posh end of the room!!
Just a note. Soil analysis will not give you nitrogen levels so don't waste your money on a soil test .
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
23 Nov 2009 by andy smurthwaite
i am from whitby. north yorkshire coast. cheers andy
26 Nov 2009 by IGS Last edited 26 Nov 2009
Soil analysis DOES give you Nitrogen / NO3-N & HN4-N as well as all the major macrontrients and macro nutrients.
Nitrogen is important to know and to quantify the Carbon: Nitrogen ratio, soil reserves and balance
Not sure what soil and plant (agronomy) Chris Mitchell practices?
Analyse and save loads of money as then you will be able to apply only the elements required in the correct amount.
Remove those blinkers - there's a whole new world out there, if one looks....
IGS, cant say i have ever recieved a soil test result back with nitrogen readings - is this something that needs to be specified at the time?
readings will be accurate at time of testing, but would they correspond accuratley to those readings by the time the groundsman recieved them back from the lab?
26 Nov 2009 by pacman75cricket
I was of the understanding that there was no point in testing for Nitrogen as it changes so frequently.
26 Nov 2009 by IGS Last edited 26 Nov 2009
Total Nitrogen will fluctuate over time as it is either increases or is mineralised or locked up as NH4-N, NO3-N, NO2, N2, etc
Nitrate-N and Ammonium-N may fluctuate but does provide a good in sight to what is going on in the soil and influences plant species and growth habits
Nitrate-N and Ammonium-N ideally need to be balanced on a 1:1 basis. As we know both can be added to the soil in the form of various forms.
Other data obtained from knowing these levels such as the Carbon and Nitrogen ratio ideally should be balanced at about 12:1 and others
as we know there are many reactions occurring all the time influenced by moisture contents, oxygen levels and other elements not forgetting 'pH'
I use these analysis to monitor soil health to allow for inputs to be made as applicable however for the past few years No added 'fertilisers have been applied on several sports pitches and others going the same way yet the grass swards are hard wearing and recover from damage very rapidly
Having this data as a useful tool for effective Biological turfgrass management, as all elements (nutrients) with the exception of some NO3-N (Nitrate-N) is processed biologically (soil and plant microbes) to make it available as plant food
If a 'fertiliser' based management strategy is undertaken then the influence is still important so that the efficacy of the applied nitrogen can managed to avoid over supply. loss and so on
Most accredited labs will provide this information but sometime it has to be requested.
Well I beg to differ because I have never seen N levels anywhere on a soil analysis. I have been told by numerous agronomists who know far more than I do that the only test for N is a leaf anaysis and it only tells you what is is on that particular day.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
27 Nov 2009 by IGS
That is your prerogative - to differ or not
27 Nov 2009 by vid
Chris seeing as IGS carries out his own testing I think you might just be on a loser on this one!!
Well Vid, he is the first person that has told me that there is a soil test for N.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Anyway another point is that even if a soil test is done it cannot tell you how much to add because nobody knows how much is the right amount. There are so many variables. Site, soil type, grass species, shade, organic content of soil, temperature and so on. With all of those variables how many parts per million should there be of each element present in the soil? I certainly does not tell you on a bag of fertiliser.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
27 Nov 2009 by vid
You would benefit from a chat with IGS, Chris - he gave me an analysis of total N, broken down into its variants, the amount available to the plant per hectare, the excess or deficiency in N, how to correct it (with his products of course). But he also supplied that information on all the important elements that the plant needs plus their relationship in ratios with other elements that should be held in balance. Other than the fact that hes a bit of a 'techy' and I dont think he will deny it, he really knows his stuff and along with other companies is taking our industry in a new direction that it should have been going in half a century ago. Having said that, I dont need to big him up as I am convinced he represents the way forward in our increasingly envirofriendly world and will find his own success.
27 Nov 2009 by vid Last edited 27 Nov 2009
The whole point of this kind of thinking is that the analysis provides a snapshot of the health of the soil and the microbiology within it and how this can be enhanced to produce the same effect as applying regular amounts of inorganic fertiliser.
The microbes within healthy soil are more than capable of supporting strong healthy growth particularly when well fed in a balanced environment. At the end of the day a grass plant with the exception of a few very small amounts of micronutrients (still however vital to the plant) is made up entirely of elements it obtains primarily from the air with the help of these same soil microbes, bypassing these microbes can induce a rush of growth, but also causes untold damage to this ecosysystem that it takes a while to recover from. By-products of these applications can also cause or help to cause deficiencies in these other vital elements.
putting these microbes back in to the soil and stimulating them has the same effect of applying palletfulls of fertiliser over the 5ha area I look after, and the cost is not necessarily higher with the added benefit of less disease occurrence - win/win in my books. Still need to convince the comittee at the next meeting but I would be surprised not to be supported!!
Putting microbes back in the soil. Interesting that one, as 99% of soil microbes have so far not been identified. So how do you know you are adding the right ones. If the soil conditions were right, with the speed of which bacteria grow, there would be no point adding more. If the conditions were not right the levels would drop straight back to what they were in a very short time. The manufacturers of 'beneficial yoghurt' have just been called over the coals for claims they have made. All these microbe additions state they will only work in conjunction with a vigorous aeration routine. The ones already there will do that. Unless you have a completely sterile sand rootzone there are bacteria already there waiting for the right conditions. Originaly the microbe idea came about because there was a glut of microbe based product in the States that were used to digest sewage. When the system was changed a new market was looked for and golf courses were seen as a target. I don't know if that is still the case but it certainly was at the begining.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
27 Nov 2009 by vid Last edited 27 Nov 2009
Chris, you are entitled to your opinion but I would suggest you do a bit of research first. Beneficial microbes are used in correcting imbalances in the stomach and that yoghurt manfacturerer thought they could jump on the bandwagon, with a product that didnt. However yoghurt is a good stimulant of these microbes, I think the condition is something like divers reticulosis (Im not going to check) this is treated in some cases by innoculating the intestine with a beneficial microbe and then feeding it with a corrected and balanced diet to help ease the condition, the fact that there are 99% unknown bugs here as well has not stopped them identifying a key beneficial microbe and promoting it by innoculation and careful diet. We are talking similar practises here to achieve our goals.
Yes all soils will recover eventually from the microbial devastation that inorganc high N fertilisers have caused over so many years, a lot of soils are practically devoid of these beneficial organisms and healthy populations take a time to build up again. Innoculation with a N producing microbe is cheaper than applying the equivalent amount of nitrogen in granular or sprayed form. It is then just a case of encouraging them to multiply and grow. Compost teas, molasses, grass clippings, liquid manure etc all feed these organisms without damage AND produce a healthier plant less prone to disease.
No this isnt a waste by product from america. Yes it has been used for several years is growing in popularity and has a proven track record.
No I dont sell any products myself nor do I get any reward from it. My opinion is from researching the idea and forming my own opinion. I have looked at Symbio, Soil Harmony, Laverstoke Park and have read the discussions within this magazine, posting as per Martin Ward and IGS further enthuse me.
I hate putting chemicals on to a grass plant that are not immediately beneficial - consdering the way fertiliser scorches the grass plant before it is washed in and the way a slight mistake burns holes into the sward I am excited by the prospect that I can achieve this without this risk and this damage. Are you then protecting the idea of bypassing the natural process by applying unnatural products that lead to a weakening of the plant and the ensuing application of even more chemicals in the form of pesticides?? I dont get your resistance - this isnt 'quackery' this is tried and tested - what are you afraid of??
Just to add a bit of comment, and no this isn't prompted but just in the interest of clarity, for those that don't know Chris or what he does, he manages a very beautiful natural old golf course to a very high standard in what I would describe as an outsiders impression, a sympathetic way, almost (love him or hate him Jim Arthurish way), good golf in my eyes and they get to see all sides of the game.
I understand fully his angle on the wonders of bugs, golf has seen products for a good number of years now possible sold at times with the impression that adding the magical lil buggers is the cure all, or so the pitch could be taken if not talking to the likes of the real knowledgables like Martin Ward. This has done 'bugs' no favours at all, and by many they are seen as an expensive waste of money because the whole package either wasn't understood or up until recently what has to be done alongside just wasn't acceptable by the golfing customer. Scepticism is rightly to be expected of anything that hasn't worked rightly or wrongly.
What is the cure all is the creation of the environment where the bugs, microbes and fungii that live in all soil are able to do their thang, with the right conditions the 99% that we don't know that do probably 98% of keeping soil healthy will be able to proliferate in a balance.
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
And no hes not a customer, well not this decade anyways...
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
27 Nov 2009 by vid
Thanks Barry, I was wondering. However he obviously has not had an approach by the people I have and if he had he would know that the innoculation of the soil is only one part of what he is offering. His rsearch and direction are achieving and maintaining the right balance of foodstuffs and minerals to get the most out of the soils microbes - you do not have to add any microbes but those that are advised that they would benefit have had very positive outcomes. It is very much in its infancy so there is a lot of education to be done.
Dont forget the chemical companies have a lot to lose if these methods are adopted and they spend a lot of time 'smapling' and 'educating' us all to apply these chemicals to their maximum.
To take Chris's method (no offence Chris) I would assume that he applies his N requirement without already knowing what his soil is already producing, that cannot be cost effective even if it is having the desired result. Also without looking at those that have tried this regime change and without being prepared to give it a go, how will you know whether it works or not.
Not that it matters I like the look of this new system and am trying it out over the next few months on half the ground to see what difference it makes. If it doesnt take your fancy the big chemical boys will keep you wrapped in their warm embrace!!!
27 Nov 2009 by IGS Last edited 27 Nov 2009
If what a turfgrass manager is achieving in terms of:- quality, playing characteristics, aesthetics, not to mention environmental / sustainability and all within financial constraints then why should one be concerned with other methods or the need to understand the why’s and how’s of plant agronomy / soil science.
On the other hand, a turfgrass manager may be interested in the why’s and how’s to gain or simply monitor the health (and maintain) potential of the sports turf under their responsibility.
No one is right and no one is wrong as the end result is the proof.
I personally like to know what is going on, even if the final conclusion is ‘everything is OK’
It is when things are not OK, that disease / lack of vigour & health / loss of infiltration / hydrophobic conditions / and other detriments come along that may warrant some form of attention to return the soil & plant back to its previous acceptable quality status.
Analysis as a management tool to monitor as a ‘Health Check’ may be worth considering. It certainly continues to be useful in the holistic management that I prescribe to and can save lots of expense by quantifying the health of a soil and if there are any potential detriments, such as Aluminium toxicities preventing deep rooting, Manganese deficiencies giving take-all an opportunity to flourish, that can be avoided.
The basic analysis undertaken in the days of Mr Jim Arthur did not quantify much at all and came from the agricultural sector based on the need to provide adequate nutrition that is estimated to be removed by a 5 tonne / Ha crop of winter wheat or 70 tonnes / Ha of potato.
No wonder he proclaimed it was not worth looking at and in that scenario he was 100% correct.
In agriculture where yield and quality is paramount the farmers making profit nowadays are doing so by mapping their fields so that the most appropriate ‘fertilisers’ are applied at the most cost effective rates. These professional growers are finding the need to apply ‘pesticides’ for the control of diseases are reduced and the shelf life of a crop is improved the other benefits is the nutritional value of the crop that is passed onto us as consumers of the foods.
A large proportion of applied ‘fertiliser’ only become available the year or so after application with many yield potentials are limited by the lack of liable carbon in the soil.
There is a lot in the press about carbon, usually concerning emission levels. Loss of soil health is directly as a result of low liable carbon levels. To replenish 1% carbon back into the soil would take approximately 250 tonnes of well rotted farm yard manure per acre (approx 600 tonnes / Ha). - Imagine
Having Nitrogen levels and Carbon levels identified can be a useful management aid to prevent the risk of denitrification and so on
Using analysis to say monitor and shift pH to buffer any risk of Aluminium toxicity or increase Manganese availability is an effective and low cost soil management practice.
Balancing other elements can increase flocculation or manipulate a tight cricket wicket but also create a more conducive habitat for those aerobic microbes that are essential for a health soil and vibrant plant.
Usually, as no doubt, will be the case at the golf course that Mr Chris Mitchell manages the indigenous soil and plant microbes will be functioning perfectly well.
At times, when under stress, low light, high / low temperature and so on a boost of microbial nourishment will maintain their (microbe) activity and subsequent plant health throughout the year.
‘Let sleeping dogs lie’ – by all means I agree if everything is good then there is no problem.
But is the full potential is being realised!
Vid, I know plenty about bugs in soil, gwazaes have been blasting it in in Southern hemisphere for a few years now, and my eyes are opened almost daily to the unseen benefits of this natural 'machine' that either lies dormant in the soil, unable to breath or drowning or is burnt out by salts or hammered by fungicide along with the bad guys. It is a well recognised fact within the fruit industry out there that root disease treatment, reduced plant losses, higher crop yields and a massive reduction in chemical application are the benefits of a healthy soil.
Things have moved on a leap in sportsturf in the last few years from the early days of monthly 'bugging', bunging on the 'dust' the realisation is that you can bang as many bugs on as you like but it is the health and state of the whole soil environment that is crucial and I think far too much (sorry Martin) credit has been given to additions when is it really a case of the new management regime stimulating the 'machine' into its full potential. Yes feeding or stimulating the lil critters is important but they have to be able to live in the first place.
Yes there are certain situations where the added bugs are the main catalyst, take land remediation, black layer treatments etc but again its the provision of the right environment that is paramount.
Again given the right conditions I am sure that the added bugs in the usual suspects products are of great benefit, helping to balance or stimulate soils, especially in newer more sterile constructions but scepticism must be expected as how is this proven.
I have greens that we have saved from the brink of being ripped up, where in addition management techniques have improved as they can actually undertake aeration positively that have gone from soft unplayable surfaces for 3-4 months of the year, that were riddled by disease attack to being some of the better greens on courses, being far less prone to fungal savaging, with a notable reduction in fungicide use. Not a single bug added, but the existing enabled to flourish.
Mind you I can bung as many bugs as you want actually within the soil so as soon as they come up with credible products I will be pushing it hard, along with getting this whole soil environment 'machine' recognised and respected as it should.
Barry
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
27 Nov 2009 by IGS
Hi Barry,
over the years and several sometimes costly quantifying evaluations later I have found that the bugs are there and as you rightly say just need to be made comfortable in their habitat.
After that just ensure that they have a adequate food suppy.
I have many high quality sports surfaces that have not recieved any inorganic or organic 'fertilisers' for over 3 years.
My whole point for writing on here is to provoke a wider interest than the 'adverts and sales ploys' branded about by all and sundry
This industry seems to be smoothered in myth, wizardry and a desire to feed a turfgrass as though it is a high yielding agricultural crop
but may be that keeps everyone in a job....
Shades of the "Soil Food Web" discussion we were having not too long ago.
A couple of questions if I may, Mr. IGS.
What is the importance of birds (if any) in this process?
What sort of a role might spiders play in the whole Soil Food Web system?
From the posh end of the room!!
Hi Vid. As a matter if interest I use just under 30kg of N per hectare, per annum on greens of mainly organic N and 70 kg on rootzone rye tees. No fertiliser is applied to rough or fairways. Just lots of aeration.Fertiliser salesmen hate me.
I am a great believer in using ones eyes and seeing what the plant needs.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
28 Nov 2009 by vid
Hi Chris, couldn't agree more. I just want to produce a quality sports surface using nature rather than a chemical catalogue. My starting point is to get things back in balance, that I am doing now with the help of IGS. I have his detailed analysis and some advice. What I like is the depth of detail that allows me to progress my plan within my fairly limited budget. I feel that I will get more from this method then the chemical route I have been plying ie more for the money invested. I am as sceptical as you are about quackery and some of the new initiatives are great for the soil but I am not sure the carbon footprint of the number of applications makes it environmentally so sound. The good thing is that the products available cover a range from corrective applications of main and trace elements to biofoods to enhance the soil microbes. So far I have not been pushed at all to add microbes but it is an avenue open to me if required. The products are no more expensive than any one elses and for the detail and advice service he provides he deserves my custom.
The only question I was posing really Chris was surely you would benefit from knowing where you are with each of your profiles so you can add the required amount rather than the 'regular' amount. You may find that the total N is at a level where little benefit other than a flush of growth is achieved, at the expense of knocking back the surface biology.
Vid, I'm afraid I'm a bit old school and believe what I see when I look. I had a soil test done a number of years ago on 3 greens. I was told that there was a phosphate deficency in all of them and I should feed them with a full NPK. The greens in question were fecue/bent and a little poa with a smooth even tight sward and very good colour. I always remember Jim Arthur saying to me many years ago. By all means get a physical soil test but as for a nutrient one, get one if you must, but ignore it and use your eyes. It has held me in good stead for the last 35 years.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Vid, I' not saying your wrong with your approach. I for one will certainly be interested to see how your methods are working. Anything away from expensive things in bags and bottles is the way forward in my book.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
30 Nov 2009 by Mal
A physical test is probably the best test you can carry out if you are new to a ground and for a quick test as you say Chris you can use your eyes to identify layering of both organic matter - whether that is in the unbroken down state or by depth of the the dark colour of the soil, eveness or banding of soil into layers from topdressings or spiking practices and and secondly use your thumb and fore finger to feel the texture of the soil though this will not show you the type and range of sand contend i.e. if it is rounded or sharp. So I would back that up with getting a sample sent away for a more detailed breakdown if only to confirm my initial findings
Geography is everywhere
Like minds Mal.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
30 Nov 2009 by vid
Most of the reason why I have gone in to such depth is a problem I have with the football pitch - the plantains are profuse and refuse to die. I have tried every timing, repeat applications, different chemicals - I am very careful to calibrate the equipment to make sure application is accurate. However I have a fairly low magnesium and potash count, being a weed plantains have a fairly high requirement of potash, so that is my starting point - up the potash and magnesium and see if the weeds are finally killed off. I couldnt have detected that by eye (I had already tried fertilising before spraying), and it took a bit of research to find all this out plus the accurate and detailed analysis mentioned before backed up by a PQS analysis done by Sussex CCC on the square.
I'm with you all the way Chris with doing things by eye, but it certainly helps to be advised (as well as educated) as to what possible problems and deficiencies exist in the soil profile, I feel I am better able to understand what is going on with the plant and the way it works sybiotically with different microbes in the soil. The work being pioneered at the moment should have been done 50 years ago rather than the chemical companies telling us how we should artificially make plants grow with little or no care for the damage done to the soil itself. I'm enjoying the challenge and I hope other people will keep their eyes open as this all seems to be good stuff at the moment.
At least I dont think I'm being brain washed!!
Help me on this Vid.
Plantains don't die despite weedkiller applications. Plantains need potash to thrive. Up the potash and the plantains will die.
Have I got that right?
The ciderman rolls
1 Dec 2009 by vid
yup, thats what I reckon. Hormonal weed killers cause the plant to outgrow itself therefore the plant needs to grow strongly. Any growth inhibiting factor can allow the weed to grow through the effects of the weedkiller. Its why I assume its on most labels that the weed needs to be growing strongly
I thought that a % of plantains was an indicator of compact soil conditions, hence why it is often found in greater numbers towards the centre of pitchs corresponding with higher wear levels. Well that is what I have been led to believe at college, can't say that I have seen myself.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Plantains are easily killed by just showing them the label on the can. They are one of the easiest weeds to treat. If you are not getting a good kill then something is wrong with either the chemical or the application method. I agree with Steve that plantains are indicative of bare compacted surfaces.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
1 Dec 2009 by vid
Slit in 3 directions, vertidrained and the middle 20m GA30'd with 33/4" solid tines and hollow cored over the raised areas, scarified to 1/4" in 2 directions and the raised areas scarified at least 2x more. Goal areas and bare areas in centre circle spiked until they start to break up. Disc seeder applies ryegrass at 15g/m tripled up on bare areas. Concentrations of plantains linked with bare and thin areas, hardly present at all on wings. Fertilised with a half dose of 12:6:6, sprayer calibrated and serviced before use, amount of chemical used corresponds with maximum dose on label. nozzles used apply a medium spray and the amount of water and forward speed are easily within the minimum and maximum limits for application. Application by myself. Pitch watered with 2 x travelling sprinklers supplied by high volume/pressure Lowara pump and 25mm hoses when dry for more than 2 days. This all within a budget of £1600 that does not include labour or machinery costs for scarifying, slitting or watering. Ga30, vertidrain, seeder, sprayer and spreader hired in (Ga30, sprayer, spreader and 1 x sprinkler owned by me). Products used - Tritox, Headland Relay, Bastion T, Greenor, Mircam +, Mascot super selective and this year Praxys. This has been going on for 10 years without a satisfactory plantain kill and it has been getting worse.
So Chris tell me which bit I've missed out, 'cos I'm tearing my hair out and my professional image with the football club is seriously dented - hence my attempt at anew approach
MMMnnnn, see where your coming from Vid. Which particular type of plantain is it?
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Hi Vid,
Must be a nightmare and we are struggling to help, I only have an RT brochure to hand and all three of thier herbicides that you mention state a control of hoary plantain, so????? dunno!
It does state within the blurb for selective plus to feed two weeks before applying so assisting chemicle take up and filling after control, so I see where you are coming from in that respect.
What does your RT rep (and reps) say?
How about doing everything except weed control and get a contractor in to do that one job?
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Part of the problem with plantain (hoary anyway) is that it is rosette forming and quite large, so as it dies back slowly, there will be weed seeds competing with the grass to germinate in the space left behind, also the large leaf area will reduce grass seeding effectiveness underneath the large leaves, it can be difficult to get seed under those large leaves.
Can be a bit of a catch 22 as you cant spray and seed within 6-8 weeks of each other.
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
1 Dec 2009 by vid
Hi Chris - both types but predominantly broad leaf plantain.
Hi Steve, RT rep and me fell out ages ago - dont speak to them and dont buy their products as a result (nothing wrong with RT by the way just this particular rep!!) - plenty of others to choose from!! I get advice where and when I need it but I always feel the big fertiliser and chemical sellers will do anything to keep us addicted. Some reps are very good and know the industry well and can talk about things at greater depth than the product label, however the greater majority have the sales pitch and little else and I wonder why so many put their trust in them.
I am a contractor and I certainly would not trust another to do it better and at a more appropriate time than myself.
The spraying window before is excessive in my opinion especially when using a disc seeder so I spray about 10 days in advance and germination of grass is still excellent, however waiting for the 2 leaf stage after germination is a problem because by then the weather has dried considerably. But I have sprayed in dry conditions as well as moist conditions with little difference in effect, and at this critical time for the new grass plant we water anyhow.
Perhaps you should know that on the cricket outfield where no vertidraining is carried out and only half the slitting, weed kill is excellent. The football pitch in question is continuous with and part of this outfield.
Does it have anything to do with the seed bank ? Treatments only kill the growing plant. Unless a further treatment is applied towards the end of the summer to kill the new plants, surely new seed is dropped ready to manifest itself come the following spring. Just a long shot.
Disc drill the seed during March vid, most germinates while the ground is still moist and you can then spray that much earlier in the season. Playing football after seeding will damage some seed, but in my experience not much.
1 Dec 2009 by vid Last edited 1 Dec 2009
Thanks Bath, appreciate what you ae saying but the plants dont die - its not a matter of regrowth I work very much with the motto '1 years seeds = 7 years of weeds' so I expect an amount of reestablishment. Trouble is even young plants seem able to grow through the weedkiller. I spray the weed leaves lift and the centre grows out as normal but then the weed seems to settle back down and survive - a few die, most are knocked back but the majority survive.
If i may add a slightly different view to the plantain debate.
Plantains are tap rooted and prefer similar soil biology to poa annua i.e. poor quality and bacterial dominant.
As the posters here have said plantains seed and grow in bare compacted soil that is frequently disturbed. i.e soil with little or no cellulose and lignin to feed fungi.
Given that plantains seed in summer but the seeds may germinate in disrupted soil the next year herbicides have to be applied on a regular basis - not a cost effective solution given resources, cost of seed and the need for possible application when overseeding etc.
If you change the soil biology to fungal dominant by applying screened woody green waste compost, vericompost or compost teas as a source of nutrient you will not need so much mechanical surface disruption, you will unlock nutrient and reduce inorganic fertiliser need and the biology will start to favour tougher perennial grasses allowing competitive exclusion of annual and perennial tap rooted weeds.
Not an instant solution by any means but if you can scarify the rosettes and create a space for grass seed to germinate one that should contribute to eventual success
1 Dec 2009 by IGS
This soil has a liable carbon content of 25,000 ppm - so no shartage there and with a well balance Nitrogen (N03 : NH4) content.
May be too much - not sure about the soil texture - not known..
maybe a herbicide resistant cultivar?
1 Dec 2009 by vid Last edited 1 Dec 2009
Thanks Martin a new look always appreciated. The soil is heavy but seldom supports puddles for any length of time and although true clay particles are around the 10% mark this still acts as a predominantly clay loam soil. Grass establishment is not a problem and grass plants develop well and healthily in between and about now have filled in a lot of the space left by the dying plant. The problem is and has been for quite a while a lack of herbicde kill off of plantains - no other weeds remain. Herbicide was applied in late April and July this year, first app. full strength Mircam, second app. Praxys
1 Dec 2009 by vid Last edited 1 Dec 2009
Martin - do you think then that a fungal deficient soil could cause this. Fungicides have not been applied to the football pitch and surprisingly given the recorded amount of N only 1 dose of 12:6:6 per annum applied at 25g/m - 30Kg/Ha N. This lack on N uptake by the plant and residue in the ground indicates to me that there is a lack of cation to take up the N compound anion for use by the plant. Thre is a massive hole here somewhere and I'm trying to fill it in!! It is exercising my knowledge base close to its limit, but am enjoying the learning experience immensely.
1 Dec 2009 by Martin Ward Last edited 1 Dec 2009
Vid
There has been some research in Denmark where herbicdes are not readily available on organic weed management - a paper presented at the last National TurfGrass Foundation conference stated that tap rooted weeds almost disappeared when they put beet waste and humates and humic acid (i.e. fungal food) on fairways.
We have seen that bacterial dominant soils are prone to poa annua and if this gets worn and compacted you get tap rooted weeds like dandelions and plantains.
You are correct about the lack of CEC, the two main sources of negative ions are clay and humus. Most sports turf rootzones do not have much clay while humus is produced by fungi breaking down thatch and any other organic matter you add. Thatch is in short supply on a well used football pitch so low fungi.
Low fungi levels = bacterial dominant soil for tap roots and annual or early successional grasses
Hence my earlier suggestion to add woody compost which will break down to humus and increase fungal levels and CEC
The problem is that continuous stud wear breaks up the fungal hyphae so it is not so easy but there are ways to increase fungal dominance on all soils. I am not sure where you are based but i am running a free seminar at Ramside GC in Durham on 8th Dec and Cannington College Somerset on 10th Dec, email me if you want more details
cheers
M
This is a very good thread with superb input from many. Martin, your points are particularly of credence. One thing though? your hypothesis of fungal dominance could detract from the necessary inclusion of Bacterial count and as you are fully aware all life needs diversity! and as such" both Fungi and Bacteria should share a balance? (my hypothesis) I wish I had time to attend your Seminar as I'm sure many will internalize "so" much only to become knowledge. Good luck on the day's Best, Ian Mac
1 Dec 2009 by vid
Apart from the plantains there is no problem establishing ryegrass and there is a good presence of AMG within the sward but it is certainly not dominant anywhere, for the greater part of the year clippings are returned to the surface, we do however box off for a time in the autumn until it gets too muddy. BTW we are on the S coast
1 Dec 2009 by Martin Ward Last edited 1 Dec 2009
Ian
quite correct in turf rootzones we have never seen good fungal levels without good bacteria levels, but we very often see high bacteria and low fungi - in turf it is not easy to get fungal dominance as everybody managing poa annua will attest.
Bacteria use the root exudates full of protein and carbohydrate to metabolise, they then get eaten by protozoa and nematodes which excrete ammonium.
From the analysis of turf rootzones we have done most perennial grasses seem to need a ratio by weight of fungi to bacteria of about 0.75:1 to 1:1 in the rootzone for successful growth
Vid
In that case you seem to have a problem my guess is that when the pitch gets muddy the fungi die off creating conditions for the seed to germinate and the plantain to grow but given the cost of compost it is worth a trial, I would be interested to hear how you get on but my guess is it will take at least a year to see results with the plantains
M
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
