4 Jan 2010 by korky
Happy New Year to all Pitchcare contributers and readers.
I have some more questions to help me understand the goings-on in our soils. The microbes and small animals in the soil eat each other and so release nutrients in a useable form for our grass to grow?Bacteria have already consumed Nitrogen and has it 'held' in their bodies until their demise. Does the same apply to other nutrients e.g P and K and micro nutrients? Is there an indefinite supply of all the necessary chemicals to make grass grow well in soil, but it needs to be in a useable form, a job performed by bacteia etc?If we get the biology correct is there any need for chemical fertilizers? can we not just feed the bacteria?Mineralisation produces a surge of growth in mid summer? Is this due to the microbes going into overdrive because of the favourable temperatures?
Hi Korky, lots of excellent questions.... some of which I may answer or part answer correctly. I don't know about the soil microbes and small animals all eating each other, however they are all part of a diverse food-chain.
Bacteria thrive by feeding off root exudates such as carbohydrates and proteins. Proteins contain nitrogen and when the bacteria are eaten by nematodes and protozoa. They in turn excrete ammonium which is converted into a plant useable form of nitrate nitrogen as part of the nitrogen cycle process.
Other nutrients such as P, K and micro-nutrients are all within the plant when it is alive. Once it dies and is broken down, these nutrients are released via decomposition and the nutrients become part of the minerlised organic matter and available for plant up-take.
Therefore, a healthy soil food web can provide most of the nutrients required by turf without the need for additional inorganic fertiliser input. It is important to note that the perfect healthy rootzone and soil food web is almost impossible to produce, since we place so much demand on fine turf in terms of wear and tear, clipping removal, soil type, etc. etc.
Mineralisation or decomposition is going to be at its optimum when soil temperatures are at their highest. However, this can slow down when the soils become dry or droughty, or compacted, even the soil pH can have a negative affect. I could go on, but I have probably confused you enough already!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
4 Jan 2010 by korky
Thanks Ken. You are not confusing me one bit. My area of interest is not real fine turf but like golf fairway. We always cut with gang mowers and let clippings fly, every week. Our hurling is played in summer and autumn but we start preparing in late Feb/Mar. My goal is to produce a thick healthy sward of about 1". We give our pitches plenty of wear and tear as we have lots of teams from 6years to adults.I have been reading lots about the Soil Food Web and I feel that some of us may be overmanaging our turf. I used 18.6.12 @ 1.5bags/acre last summer to give the pitches a boost but produced a surge in growth that put pressure on staff to keep grass cut. It did need some boost at the time but I realise now that something lighter like 5.5.5 would have been adequate??One of our main supporters is a fertilizer compounder and they may be able to make a formulation to suit our requirments. Any thoughts on that? I know there are a multitude of slow release compounds on the market but they are expensive any may not be needed in our situation. Would appreciate comments.
4 Jan 2010 by Barry Pace Last edited 4 Jan 2010
Blimey Korky.. Am I misreading and are you sure on figures you are talking Bulk Bags/Acre arent you for last Summer! In one hit??? Thats one hell of a lot... like more than used in Silage production levels... No wonder you had a surge!!!... Just think of that dollop of salts all in one hit on your soil web....
That is, if correct, 375g/sq.m....... ouch..
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
4 Jan 2010 by korky
No Barry. 1.5X50Kg which works out at about 15gms/sq.m.
4 Jan 2010 by Ken Barber Last edited 4 Jan 2010
Hi Barry, that's a bit of an assumption there mate! By the way..... your looking better!
Hi Korky, It depends on what you want from your turf, but I would look for an organic product or one with a minimal inorganic nutrients added (usually cheaper). Returning clippings is an advantage, provided it is not too excessive. Maintaining a grass factory with too much nitrogen will see thatch levels increase. I maintain my fairways the economical way (sustainable). I only apply fertilisers to those fairways that are looking a little weak and then I only apply the occasional light application of sulphate of ammonia with 5 or 10 ltrs molasses and or seaweed extract, through the sprayer. I am only talking about 2 or 3 25kg bags of product per hectare, which is pretty low, but then I don't see surges in growth. You could add potassium nitrate if you wished, but its dam expensive now. Phosphates rarely leach from soils and in most cases, additional applications are not required. Soil tests can confirm this.
I earth-quake and/or verti-drain them annually, which has seen a vast improvement in sward density.
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Aaahhh good ol 50kgs.... lol was thinking OMG must be ODing on lemsip here I thinks lol
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
12 Jan 2010 by IGS
Hey Korky,
I only get chance to catch up with all things pitchcare now and again so excuse my late reply.
Ian Reid @ Vipers Rugby club has not applied any NPK for over 3 years and his pitches are very good - that good in fact that he won the IOG volunteer groundsman of the year in Nov '09.
Feeding with any fertilisers usually ends up the the plant going cold turkey - the solution to this is to apply more, and more
result shallow rooted plants of an artificial health - reliant more and more on its drug - fertilisers
14 Jan 2010 by vid
To back up what IGS says above Korky, you will find on here examples of people only applying very light amounts of N to their turf. None of them are unhappy with the health of the plant as a result.
It goes without saying that the grass plant as well as any other plant derives all its nutrient requirements from the air and soil without interference from us. For the last 50 years at least we have been enhancing this growth by appling fertilisers that have a 'positive' direct effect on the plant but a negative effect on the soil microbiology. The plant becomes reliant on these applications and adapts its growth patterns to suit.
Using products that enhance the soil microbes as well as encouraging the plant directly without damage to the soil infrastructure has got to be the leap back to sustainability that needs to be achieved. This is another way of looking at the maintainance of turf and is not , as some people think, necessarily more expensive. In fact I would most definitely say that because of the improvement in soil and plant health there are very large savings to be made both financially and in the application of noxious, environment damaging products
Very well said vid and absolutely true that the sustainable route can be less expensive both short and in the longer term.
The light at the end of the tunnel is not a train
whilst i appreciate with the principle of sustainable management practies does it actually work in practice? let me explain my reasons.
On one part my site, i have 5 junior pitches , 3 of which sit above a Thames Water resevoir, these 3 pitches have recieved NO fertiliser, or organic dressing of any kind for over 30 years due to constraints imposed on us, and frankly, they are c**p, low vigour, full of weeds and thin sward.
the other 6 senior pitches that are used have recieved fertilsier, are 100 times better, i put this down to the fertiliser we apply.
There are on site factors / management practices to consider, but on first examination / impressions the general health of the pitches where we do fertiliser are better than the ones where we cant.
14 Jan 2010 by tonybolton Last edited 14 Jan 2010
Not too sure, Swann might get something out of that track. Sorry wrong thread
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother
14 Jan 2010 by vid Last edited 14 Jan 2010
Neil read IGS's post.
If you play, mow, compact a surface then it is not in its 'natural' state, so some care is needed. None of the microbial enhancement practises are particularly effective without care of the surface and sub surface. What else do your premium pitches get that the others dont. If they get regular and/or deep seasonal decompaction for instance - this alone wold make a substantial difference. I would like to bet as well these other pitches get the training and junior usage on top of their regular play.
Yes fertiliser will help improve a deficient pitch - but for how long and will the grass plant be able to sustain its growth between applications - if it cant you will either have to apply more fertiliser or expect the turf to deteriorate.
Enhancing the soil microbes is not just a nutrient question. Ask yourself why does aeration improve the plant - no more nutrient has been put in directly, but the increased levels of oxygen have improved conditions for soil microbes which in turn produce nutrient for the plant. The plant also searches out this microbial activity by putting out new root. This root will exude food for the microbes and the microbes return the favour by supplying the plant with new nutrients.
Further enhancing these microbes by improving the balance of the soil - balanced PH, balanced minerals and balanced microbial nutrient. These microbes need carbon in order to exist, this is provided naturally by root breakdown and plant matter breakdown let alone the microbes themselves. This is moved around the soil profile by the many invertebrates living in the soil. If we remove a lot of this carbon by boxing off clippings or removing invertebrates then we have upset the natural balance. Modern practise has seen us not concern ourselves about this imbalance and we do little to rectify it. By applying inorganic fertiliser we bypass the need for the grass to look so actively for nutrient- it doesnt put out as much root and it doesnt as a consequence feed so many microbes. The plant grows due to the fertiliser but just about every other aspect of the soil health deteriorates.
My thinking is, and this is backed up by such examples as IGS's among many others, that if you recreate the balance in the soil by adjusting the mineral supply and PH, plus adding to the available carbon content and ensuring the profile remains aerated without killing off the vital microbes of this process, then the soil will be able to provide all the needs of the grass plant that we need for it to sustain strong growth. This has the added benefit of reducing disease, eradicating excessive flushes of growth, extending the growing season and strengthening the grass plant so that it can better withstand not only the sporting pressures applied but also drought stress, lack of nutrient stress, waterlogging stress, freezing stress.... to name a few.
This is as common sense as it gets - working hand in hand with nature rather than ignoring it.
So Neil this is not a magic wand to fix problems - it works on the fundemantal principles of how things grow in nature. We shouldnt be ignoring this process and bypassing it quite often at greatly increased expense, we should be looking to use it to advance our industry in to a more sustainable age. Agriculture cannot continue much longer raiding the topsoil - this is disappearing wordwide at an alarming rate and our food production is becoming more and more reliant on an unsustainable process, just like so many other things. Our amenity practices are no different, if we carry on poisoning our soils it will become increasingly difficult to attain the standards we wish. There comes a time where this is no longer possible and the system breaks down altogether. The intelligent solution is to reverse this trend so that this point is NEVER reached.
Here endeth the lesson!!
14 Jan 2010 by Mike Last edited 14 Jan 2010
Neil - i'd like to ask how your cultural maintenance practices differ between the fertilized and unfertilized pitches?
Sustainable doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't apply any products - my understanding is that you aim to make minor adjustments to the macro and micro nutrient levels to correct any imbalances in the soil, and once the correct balance is achieved, the performance of the pitches should be of an acceptable level. Blanket applications of fertilizers can 'mask' these imbalances and these goes on to give the turf the appearance of a healthy sward, but the cost of these is the reliance on continuing applications in subsequent years.
It is also my understanding that you will only get the best out of a sustainable organic approach if your cultural practices are spot on, for example, is the weed content on your unfertilized pitches due to compaction? If the compaction was relieved, would the weed content reduce?
To go a stage further, you also have to look at financial sustainability. For example, if you found that you had to implement a much more robust maintenance programme into your unfertilized pitches, what would this cost, and how would this compare to the cost of maintaining a fertilized pitch throughout the year?
Edit: Vid beat me to the same point - to fast for me, Vid!!
Mike
Vid, Mike,
as i said, there are underlying factors that affect this, one of them being that the senior pitches get verti drained, and the junior pitches dont, but then to be fair, when i started at the School 6 yrs ago the ONLY thing that was done to the pitches was fertilising, and there was still a big difference between the junior and senior pitches.
Would they be better if we could verti drain the junior pitches? yes, without a doubt, but then they are solid tined / earthquaked, so it is not as if they get no maintenance.
Dont get me wrong, i am not disagreeing with the principles or the methods behind this, but surely for this method to be implemented the natural soil structure is going to have the biggest impact?
Isnt the best turf management method is to find out exactly what a grass plant in a specific location requires to fulfill its function and role , and ensure it gets this? ( which is what we have been led to believe by various agronomists / consultants) this can then be enhanced by the de - compacting / mowing, to, as Vid said, make a decent pitch better.
14 Jan 2010 by vid
In a word Neil - NO. What we are saying is get the requirements of the soil right, not the requirements of the plant alone - that is exactly where we have been going wrong. Other than that I wont preach to you any more as you are obviously in the same mindset!!
Now Vid, i am not into disagreeing but, what is the perfect balanced soil and do we have any of it anywhere ? Surely the reason that different species thrive in different enviroments is at least partly down to soil composition. When we play sport we are impacting big time on the grass plant. We grow different species to accomodate a variety of sport, so surely the composition of the soil and its food content, however it gets there, has to be a consideration.
Grass survives in verges on the side of the road and that is usually brutalised in its maintenance. You could not look after a sports surface in the same manner and expect it to survive surely. However, the way some organisations treat there surfaces it does make me wonder.
I can see the sense in the soil food web/chain, but purely because of the way that we want the grass to perform suggests that we have to help it and that means more than filling the surface full of holes, as vital a culteral task it may be.
Problem is, we will all have to be re educated again and science of any kind was/is not a strong subject of mine. It sometimes can be interesting though.
Hi Vid,
I dont mind the preaching, we are all here to learn more!
I never implied that we should concentrate on the plant alone, sorry if it came across as that, but most sports grounds are built on native soils, some may be lucky and have good soil, others not so lucky and be on heavy clay / sand, or , like us, landfill,
Parent material is going to be integral on what nutrients the soil can provide the grass plant, pH of the soil and the drainage capabilities, and ulitmatley any subsequent fertiliser requirements the plant needs to function as we want it to.
Yes we can initiate good management practices so that whatever the soil is it is in its optimum state and give good growing conditions, but, if the natural soil isnt providing these conditions for that to happen, or the demands of the sport are such that additional treatments are required, then additional applications would be needed to supplement this.
All that you say is true Neil, but......
Native soils are going to have a complex soil food web involving microbes that are frequently bombarded with fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. If we're kinder to our native soil and look to wean it off the dependence on all of these chemical inputs then nature gets a chance to restore a balance.
It's not a process that comes together all in one go, it takes careful nurturing of soil through cultural practices so that eventually we can start to encourage natural processes so that the microbes can actually start the processes back up again to feed the turf from the soil. The science is far more complex but we need to get back to fundamentals where soil is not acting like an addict waiting for its next fix of fertiliser but rather produces many of its own nutrients in a natural way through the Carbon and Nitrogen cycles, aided by the intelligent cultural practises of the informed grounds professional.
So natural materials combined with cultural practises can combine to help us to help nature to help itself.
The light at the end of the tunnel is not a train
Hi Dave, totally agree, but could this thought process be applied to different locations with differing ground conditions and get the same positive results?
What i am trying to say, if ground conditions are conducive to this method then great, but if the soil you have is of poor quality to begin with........
14 Jan 2010 by vid
Thats not the point I'm making Bath. Grass will grow in all sorts of unhealthy areas but it doesnt mean it will withstand the sort of abuse that sport does to it. The point I'm making is that to treat the plant in isolation to its environment and USGA golf greens and sand base football pitches take this to the extereme, is to ignore the fundamentals of balance within nature. The production of a decent playing surface is the management of all the needs of the plant even down to the light it receives in some cases - this relies almost entirely on the chemical sheet and not nature. These surfaces have to be continually tested and attended to to get the best out of them and are as close to an artificial surface as you can get without turning to plastics. No way can all sport be treated like this, there just would not be enough resources to do so.
What we are left with is trying to get the best out of the surface for our own purposes within the budget we have been allowed. The more money we seem to get the more we seem to pour in to achieving this artificiality ..... why?? For the same or even less imput financially you can achieve as good a result (in my opinion far better). Aeration is a part of this and without oxygen the soil will not be so active. But enhancing the soil microbes is also 'fertilising' the plant. There is nothing wrong with a bit of direct feeding of the plant when it needs it ie recovery of a wicket but this should not be at the detriment of the soil microbes as these are supplying nutrient anyhow - without any imput from us - nitrogen is plucked from the air metabolised by nitrfying bacteria in the soil and fed to the plant for it to metabolise, it dies becomes nutrient for the bacteria and so the cycle repeats itself. Nitrogen is the most obvious of these but there is another myriad of symbiotic processes that also feed the plant. Why would we ignore this natural process and bung chemicals at the plant instead?
14 Jan 2010 by vid
And Neil yes it can be applied universally which is why its important to find out waht deficiencies each area has, recover the area to balance then work with nature for the production of much healthier grass plants
Yes the thought process can be applied in differing ground conditions and achieve positive results providing the cocktail that the grounds professional puts together (in conjunction with good advice) takes all of the local conditions into account Neil.
The variables come in all forms, and as you say one of the important considerations is the condition of the indigenous soil. If the quality is poor then the deficiencies can be rectified in time, even a poor crumb structure can be improved culturally and naturally.
It's all down to finding what the deficiencies are initially in the soil and creating a road map to make the necessary improvements. When that is established then informed decisions can be made. In your very particular circumstances a detailed soil analysis could soon lead on to a sustainable road to recovery, how quick that recovery will be can only be assessed once the information has been gathered, but it is very possible indeed.
The light at the end of the tunnel is not a train
This debate seems to move to a higher plane week by week.
I can see why Neil’s fertilised grass will look better because we must not forget that as far as the plant is concerned ammonium or nitrate is the same chemical weather it comes out of a bag of inorganic fertiliser or a nematodes whatsit (not sure of message board etiquette) having been converted from root exudates.
So continuous cutting and compaction will drain the soil’s nutrient reserves of readily available phosphate, magnesium, calcium etc and kill off the soil microbes which can convert atmospheric nitrogen and root exudates to plant available nitrate.
Regardless of the starting quality of soil it is not too difficult to bring it back to life. The job is much easier on a soil football pitch than a USGA golf green. To kick a football pitch back to life you can sometimes get away with applying a few tonnes of green waste compost after aerating in spring. If it does not drain some sand top dressing will also help. If nothing has been added for thirty years then adding some sugars and humates or humic acid plus a small amount of organic fertiliser to feed the microbes and encourage more photosynthesis will also help.
Once natural growth processes are established thatch will degrade to form humus increasing CEC and nutrient retention, earthworms will feed on the nematodes and protozoa and improve friability, and the process of restoration will speed up.
In a soil rootzone we have found you do not have do too much in the way of chemical analysis to work out what the plant needs because most soil analysis only measures the available/exchangeable nutrients NOT the total nutrients which are usually present in abundance. The microbiology will make the total reservoir of nutrients available by a variety of means. (In USGA or 80/20 rootzones there are often chemical imbalances which should be rectified to get good results)
So Neil if the water authorities let you apply a few tonnes of good green waste compost (ideally with NPK of 1:0.5:0.5 which is often available) and a few kilos of brown sugar, some humic acid and fish hydrolysate on the pitches you may find the quality of the 3 pitches improves substantially, they may not be championship standard but you may be surprised at the result.
Hi Martin, , unfortunatley the "official" constriants imposed on us prohibits the use of any organic or inorganic materials above the resevoirs, however we have used green waste to good effect on some of our other pitches, so i am aware of the benefits of this.
Due to operational needs we only apply localised top dressings very sparingley to these 3 pitches but, the application of a green waste is pretty much a no no, ulitimatley i am not prepared to risk my job should the Water boards monitioring equipment pick up a contaminant from the green waste.
We have to rely purely on aeration, aeration and more aeration, we have looked at micro clovers, fescue and bent dominated swards, the best method we have fond is to simply continue to heavily overseed with a rye mix, and hope for the best.
Despite a lot of hard work put in by many people and good hard evidence supplied by a well known fertiliser company on the leaching properties of soils, the water board are not prepared to revoke this, it seems no one is prepared to make this decision and it is easier to say no.
15 Jan 2010 by IGS
Have a look at Nitrogen fixing products and if the biology of the soil can be enhanced with natural materials there may be a solution to improving the grass sward.
N-fixing microbes are harmless as if applied to water they simply die with no hazard. They will to produce an abundance of N as they work in synergy with the plant and it demand as opposed to having nitrogen applied
Composts can be excellent but can contain lots of heavy metals as well as soluble nitrogen . phosphates, etc depending upon their origin.
Neil
Thats a tough situation to be in. As IGS says you can try nitrogen fixing bacteria but they are not that great in grass rootzones.
We used to work with treating landfill leachate and in our experience most landfill sites built in the last 30-40 years are either lined or have some form of leachate control, so i am surprised by the water boards stance.
An alternative might be compost teas but there are miniscule quantities of soluble nutrients in them which should be held in the soil by the microbes.
The nutrient you may apply from compost teas is insignificant compared to the potential leachate from the waste. You have obviously explored all possibilities but given that with compost teas you are only putting on the nutrient that you might extract from 3-4 litres of compost per hectare you may be able to do this - the argument being that increasing the microbial biomass will increase the nutrient retention properties in the soil.
Another approach is to make sure that the roots are inoculated with mycorrhizae as these fungi extend the root area and solubilise phosphate and help the plant assimilate nutrients and water. Natural unfertilised rye grass systems are nearly always mycorrhizal but the infection rate drops substantially when the roots are exposed to compaction, shear and the grass cover thins out due to wear.
Look on the bright side if you do find an almost zero input solution you might make a fortune out of selling almost nothing
HI Martin, thanks for your response.
Yes, the concrete roof to the resevoir is lined, but i believe the water boards stance is based around the fact that the resevoirs supply treated drinking water to London, i also belive they have blanket rulings for all their resevoirs, regardless.
they carry out waterproofing tests every 10yrs and repair as neccessary, ours were last done 2 yrs ago so by their own admission they are fully waterproof, yet still no one is prepared to revoke the ruling.
As i said, we have prepared papers, had technical research input from companies, but still nothing, so, 6 yrs is long enough to be flogging the preverbial dead horse, so will have to focus on what we can do, rather than what we cant!!
15 Jan 2010 by korky
Hi Martin, you mentioned a good green waste compost. I am close to sourcing a compost produced from food waste(hotels etc). I do not have an analysis as of yet. What tonnage per acre should be applied to a rugby pitch and when? How often should it be applied? I think the price is about €20/tonne. Is that good value? Also, how can I measure soil pH? I have access to a pH/conductivity meter. Can it be performed on wet(undried) soil?
15 Jan 2010 by IGS
Neil,
Have you got a comprehensive analysis of the soils / rootzones?
The information gained will allow you to appraise from a factual stance and determine the most effective - risk less solution to your and other sites such as SSSI.
You will find that mycorrhiza and other microbes will be there and may just need a boost along the way - a simple and effective strategy, with no risk of leaching
15 Jan 2010 by vid
Hi Neil, the products used in most of these circumstances do not contain contaminants and would have a similar effect to the green waste - if you have not already done so there must be someone responsible for their water safety policy and you may get some headway. I am sure that there must be some movement here as at the end of the day the living medium is producing similar 'contaminants' all the time. This same person would hopefully be able to qualify what is meant by 'organic' contaminants after all foxes, dogs, cats, rats, mice, birds etc all leave deposits of 'organic' fertilisers around the place!!
Hi Vid,
A substantial document detailing everthing was included in the re negotiation of the lease about 2 years ago, we have subsequently been through everything with the water boards operations manager and we have exhausted all possible avenues of negotiation.
We have to be sympathetic to the water board as if we are too "persistent" in our requests there may be repurcussions to the School.
It comes down to someone not prepared to say " yes, you can apply x y z " if they were to they find contaminants in the water without application of anything, no one can be blamed- it can be put down to nature,
IGS
No, just had a normal nutrient / pH soil analysis carried out couple of yrs ago.
15 Jan 2010 by Martin Ward Last edited 15 Jan 2010
Korky
Re waste food compost.
We have not used this - forgive me if you have asked these questions but a couple of very important points.
If the food waste contains meat, fish or milk products you must have confirmation that it has been composted to a high enough temperature to kill off any ecoli, listeria, salmonella.
You should get the supplier to provide a certificate from a lab that it does not contain pathogens. I am not sure of the regulations they are probably on www.wrap.org.uk
Frequency of application and amount depends upon the composition of the soil and the compost but we have found that for green (not food) waste 1or 2 tonnes/hectare on the surface or 1 - 4 tones if you introduce it to tine or core holes produces noticeable results on most surfaces. You can apply it at any time but if used as anutrient source it works best in spring and autmn. At €20 a tonne so long as it is not all water that seems a good deal. It is usually sold by the m3
As to the pH use the meter as instructed, most are reasonably accurate. I should not worry about pH too much. Good soil biology will produce the correct pH. Witness all the sports turf and grass manuals which say you must have a soil pH of between 5 -6.5 to grow fescue in chemically managed soils when fescue is just about the only grass to grow on chalk downland ( at least in the south of England)where the pH of the soil is 9+ but the biology producing humic, fulvic and other organic acids can bring the pH of the rhizosphere down to below 7
15 Jan 2010 by vid
Rhizosphere - nice word Martin must use it myself - have been struggling for another descrptive word - is it rootzone or more specific
15 Jan 2010 by IGS
Vid.
Rhizosphere - The area around the growing roots, where various substances that are exuded from the plant roots creating an acidic pH around the roots that aids the up take of nutrient ions.
15 Jan 2010 by korky
Martin, this facility is a new one and may be just providing a service to divert waste from landfill. Compost is produced in batches with air being recycled through the pile continuously via a series of pipes.This air is heated by the composting process itself. Meat would be present in the raw material, most definitely. I will ensure it is properly thermotreated before I use it. As for pH measurement can I use a spoonful of soil in say 100mls of water stirred well to give accurate result or should the sample be pre-dried?Thanks for all your advice. This topic has been stimulating.
Hi Korky
Re measuring pH it depends on the meter - some you can just put a probe in the soil using these you can see the great variety of pH as you move down the rootzone and away from the roots, some you may have to prepare the soil as you suggest, hopefully there is an instruction manual with the meter you can use .
If you do have to prepare samples it is difficult to do a good comparison you have to use exactly the same amount of soil and DISTILLED water each time measured to a gramme, stir it for the same time and take the reading from the same spot, because you get different readings in the sediment and supernatant. http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-measurements-procedure has some good basic info on how to do lab samples
As I said before pH is not that important if it is somewhere between 5 and 7.5 becaus ethe microbiology will buffer it. It is probably better to buy a £10.00 probe and take the reading from the same spot inthe soil it will save time and if not 100% accurate will be fairly consistant and tell you if pH is becoming more acidic or alkaline
16 Jan 2010 by IGS
Do not rely on any pH metre from garden centres, etc.
I have tested several from various manufacturers with a hope that a low cost metre would be useful - not so
you are better using a lab for about £10.00 or investing in a professional metre - try Hanna Intruments at http://www.hannainst.co.uk/category/Pocket-pH-meters/32/
16 Jan 2010 by Mal
IGS You are right that there are a lot of pretty variable pH meters out there in the market but the best ones are obtained through scientific equipment suppliers of which there are plenty to be found by searching the internet. It is said that unlike other professions to be a greenkeeper or groundsman you have to be a specialist in a number of different fields - Scientist, Mathematician, Accountant, project managing, negotiator etc. thats even before you stick a kettle on to make a cup of tea. however getting to the point I think that we should add to that 'theorist' (and I don't mean that in any sense of trying to take away the very good and sensible and correct discussion above) thats because a great deal it seems of what is sugested, tends to be subjective and the scope of soil science is so immense. We put fertiliser on our ground because we are told that we should be adding it and, there is a lot of substantial evidence that it produces the desired effect. Nearly every book on the subject of greenkeeping or groundsmanship covers the subject but next to nothing on what is discussed above. So for a great number of groundsmen and greenkeepers the subject is a giant leap and of course belief in what is right is in the interpretation of the evidence. So some will stick firm, some will dabble and others will embrace it but I'm sure that those that embrace it will be those that either have to beacuse they cant afford fertilisers anyway or like in Neil's situation their hands are tied. So until the ideas here are published more widely it will be a struggle to get people on side. I for one have been dabbling and still havn't yet made my mind up that it is having the right effect but mainly because I don't have the right scientific information to hand to say that my soil is responding to what I have been doing. For sure it looks good on the surface and people have said how great our grounds look. But I have been spiking more on the areas that I have introduced the use of sugars and amino acids etc. because it helps the soil organisms to grow.
My next step is to pull on my soil scientist hat a little further and to look at ways to monitor the soil better. I have just got some soil sieves. I have a Hanna soil pH meter, and I am building a library of testing methods that I can carry out myself now that I have set an area aside by my biofuel generator. I am curious, not being dismisive and looking forward to some better understanding of what is happening from a worms eye view. Insidentally I am sure that in a school environment the ceramic teacher would allow the use of an oven to determine the organic content of a soil. Perhapes we can discuss this topic further during our week at Harrogate?
Geography is everywhere
16 Jan 2010 by vid
Well put Mal, it is an uphill struggle, but you only have to feel the enthusiasm for it to know it is more than just a passing fad. With prices in chemicals constantly increasing and availability decreasing (yes the 2 are linked), and increasing concerns and legislation to protect the environment, this way of thinking should and most probably will find its way to the front.
The problem is money, as usual!!
The chemical companies are very big and very powerful, they pay for a great deal of research and education in to promoting this non natural way of going about things. Why pay for a tonne of fertiliser when you can pay for an ounce of innoculant to do the same job. Organisms in the ground make nitrates literally out of thin air - no costly chemicals at all. The innoculant only speeds the process up, the organsims will establish themselves over time anyway. There are some 'independant' bodies that are largely paid for by these companies. One such company is currently turning up at venues just visited by businesses promoting this new outlook and offering a years worth of free fertiliser.....yes you heard right a whole years worth of free fertiliser. You tell me they are not worried.
This is only a small forum there are seldom more than a few hundred people at most reading the thread. But I enjoy getting this across to as many as I can so that at least a few people wont continuously believe everything the reps say to them when it comes to chemicals. I remember being sold a new fungicide only to find 3 weeks later the rep was in canada having won a holiday for selling the most of this product, it was no more effective than the one I had been using.
It therefore follows that an enormous amount of persuasion has to be done here to get people to do what should be happening naturally anyhow. You are quite right about education - I too knew very little of all this until recently, except I was taught the carbon and nitrogen cycles when I was 12, so how come I have let the fertiliser companies convince me that plants cant grow strongly and effectively without their products when I was taught that they can at the tender age of 12.
Another and final point is hat this way of promoting good growth should encourage practitioners to develop an 'eye' for the requirements of the grass. Once things are back in balance it should be relatively easy to keep it there because nature works that way - it will naturally fall back in to balance. PH imbalance has more often than not been caused by inappropriate fertiliser use. Dont use fertiliser and the soil rapidly heads back to a 'normal' ph. Have you not noticed that the only analysis you get provided with by the fertiliser companies relates directly to their own products, other imbalances are never spotted.
Hi All
This is a great thread and a credit to all who have, in their own different ways, put across their experiences, learning and views on this huge subject.
Its amazing that after all our scientific discoveries, mankind is only just scratching the surface of areas of understanding and knowledge. One being the sea and the other the world of soil microbes. Did you know that their are an estimated 100,000 to 10,000,000,000 number of bacterial species on earth? The numbers are unknown because most cannot be identified or measured in a lab. The same can be said about the fungal population of soils. And we think that we know how to manage our soils?
One of the fascinating discoveries is that some species of rizhosphere bacteria feed on root exudates, which are fed on by protozoa, which excrete ammonia, which is turned into nitrate by nitrifying bacteria that also produce auxins which directly lead to enhanced lateral root growth. And some still say that it is all about the chemical component of the soil environment? That feeding the soil microbes is just an unnecesssary luxury?
Let's meet up this week and have a chat.
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
17 Jan 2010 by IGS
Hi Andy,
can you clarify your statement
"That feeding the soil microbes is just an unnecesssary luxury?"
Hi Mark
This is a comment I hear often, or words to that effect. The meaning is that we just need the right nutrients for the grass, and forget the microbes. They are not relevant to managing turf for sports. It is a view I used to subscribe to until I began to understand the central role microbes play in plant growth and health. It was when I began my own investigations and trials that I changed my view. Even selection of grass species can be determined through the change in microbes species as each plant has associated microbes that form beneficial associations and interactions. I am not just talking about mycorrhiza and bacteria but also nematodes that parasitise specific plant species.
It is not a luxury to spend money on feeding microbes, it is central to good groundsmanship and greenkeeping.
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
17 Jan 2010 by Barry Pace Last edited 17 Jan 2010
I got you Andy... I think he meant others say "That feeding the soil microbes is just an unnecesssary luxury?"
Would like to chat to any of the 'knowledgeables' or for that matter 'theorists' up at Harrogate next week about the injection of materials into soils either for flocculation or soil 'stimulation', we have the ablility now to put liquids or solutions in with the Gwazae and want to know what you all reckon are the products we should be looking at.
We have sourced a very fine grade Gypsum, talking to the bug and seaweed boys, can put wetters in, polyfancyacrylamides but am also interested in the humic acid route and even just sugary water and would like views or pointers if anyone wants to spend a few minutes over a coffee.
We on A22 if you passing.
Regards all
Barry
EDIT: lol Andy beat me to it
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
17 Jan 2010 by Mike
Barry - can I ask what sort of results you have been seeing with gypsum injection, and under what circumstances that you have been applying it, please?
Mike
Barry, one day we must catch up and share our floculation hypotheses. We did touch on this before and I have almost concluded my work on dispersion and slaking of clays, and I do have something in mind to a definitive solution. Good luck with your stand next week and I believe you are to be almost a neighbour with my partner Andrew T. Best Regards Ian.
23 Jan 2010 by korky
now that the days are beginning to stretch when can we expect growth to return.Isthe soil temperature the governing criterium of growth? Is that because the bacteria come out of dormancy at 6C? Is photosynthesis temperature dependent?
Hi Korky, your questions never to be answered with a truly definitive response. If I may? I would suggest a plethora of reasoning directed to the limiting factors of Winter months. As you rightly say! bacteria, or most, go into a quiescent state below 5c followed by a further reduction with osmotic pressure when the ground moisture becomes frozen, cutting off the food supply. As the ground thaws the aqueous solution allows the under ground fauna to feed from the nutrients mummified within the frozen soil" this in turn starts to feed the grass plant. This released moisture becomes another factor that kicks in the photosynthesis process. So to that end! photosynthesis is temperature dependant. Ian Mac.
There are some bacteria and fungi that work at very low temperatures, that are beneficial.
I have been brewing and applying compost tea this winter.... but I await to see if my control grass and my applied grass show any differences through the summer. We will see?
Absolutely Paul, and the (psychrophiles) will tolerate an environment to zero centigrade. However let's realise that the moisture in soil pore space which becomes frozen" does not represent a brew tank "usually" sited within the sheds? Ian Mac
23 Jan 2010 by Mike Last edited 23 Jan 2010
Korky - have a good read of the following link:
http://soils.usda.gov/SQI/concepts/soil_biology/soil_food_web.html
Some very good information contained within the text.
Mike
Yes Ian, but I may have well wasted my time......... but then time will reveal all.
Paul, how could you have possibly have wasted your time when you have tried? I sincerely hope your endeavour pays off. Regards, Ian.
23 Jan 2010 by IGS
5 degrees Centigrade you say! - or at least the book say
A recently measure soil at 100 mm depth indicated a temperature of 4C - however in that soil the root development is very active with white roots actively growing beyond 200 mm depth and the grass leaves in good colour, from which one could perceive that the grass is growing well and that the associated microbes are all active.
These and other observations reaffirm that 'we' should all remove the blinkers from our eyes and heads and not believe anything we hear and only half of what we see - to quote someone or other....
Hi IGS, this "someone or other" speaks with wisdom on the aspect of belief in what we hear as we have to "do" to fully understand how things are. On the active root development at 4c- Well" you witnessed it and with your academia on this very subject it would hardly be prudent of of me to aver an argument against. I would imagine a glut of circumstances would explain the presence of the associated microbes still supporting the plant even at such low temperatures to include= water held at rhizosphere, temperature at root tip, sugar content of the plant, and mainly, the type of associated microbes? and consequently! their food source. I do hope we can meet up this year for a good blether. In the mean time, I wish you well. Ian
24 Jan 2010 by Mal
I have always held it is better to do something and fail trying, than to do nothing at all
Failure = Learning (At least something has been done to asertain an outcome)
Do Nothing = Stagnation (Nothing is gained and in a lot of respects, situations tend to regress)
You can never waste your time learning (or trying)
Geography is everywhere
25 Jan 2010 by korky
Mike A
Thank you for that link. It is indeed a very informative article.
While I'm on, what is the advice to get early growth? The last couple of summers were very wet and not suitable for good growth. It was late Summer before swards started to look good again. Any thoughts? Jim
The early growth conundrum is an interesting one. Obviously soil biology does not stop at 5oC witness simple visual indicators like snow mould, and the fact that leaves break down in northern forests under permanent winter snow.
We have been looking at a range of factors and there is no direct means to success but there do seem to be a number of common denominators.
The first is grass species - perennial grasses grow first and looking at the activity of the food web in spring it seems that some fungi become active in cooler soil than most bacteria, given that perennial grasses grow in a more fungal dominant, mycorrhizal food web it seems to make sense that they take up nutrient more readily in cool soils than annual grasses with less developed root systems that live in bacterial dominant soils that are preparing to put energy into seed production.
Secondly given that poa annua does not have the soil resources to take up nutrient efficiently in cool weather the nutrient has to be put into the plant. This means that nitrogen is more readily available if applied as nitrate, rather than ammonium which needs bacterial activity to complete the nitrogen cycle
Thirdly nitrate may still not be taken up without an effective chelating agent like fulvic acid to actually get it into the plant.
Fourthly oxygen is needed hence the green rings around tine holes in spring. If the rootzone is water logged or completely compacted then getting any grass to grow is next to impossible.
The above is a simplistic answer and can be fine tuned with biostimulants, readily available sources of phosphate, calcium, magnesium and potassium but if you get these four conditions right you should see earlier growth
Wow! This has turned out to be a very interesting and informative thread..... I kinda wish I hadn't spent the last 2 weeks relaxing on a sun-drenched beach! Believe that and you'll believe anything...... even that inorganic fertiliers are are essential to healthy plant growth!
Some of us older folk will remember the early days of turf management, when fertiliser was produced in-house. A prime example would be the composting of seaweed gathered from the shore-line. And seaweed is recognised as being one of the best plant stimulants today.
Many of you have touched on the subject of the chemical supply companies and their products. From the early days of your introduction to turf management, be it from your supervisor or lecturer or company representative, you are brain-washed into believeing that pesticides and inorganic fertilisers are essential. That they take the hard word out of turf management, they have slow release capabilities, they prevent disease. And because it has been this way for generations, it must be the right way.
Well I reckon over the next 5 to 10 years there is going to be one almighty swing towards organic, sustainable management. I believe this will be driven by EU legislation, the cost of raw materials (look how potassium nitrate has more than doubled in the last 18 months) and budget restraints. I have moved in this direction because after 35+ years in this game I have learnt to be pro-active, not blinkered and to work within the constraints of my available resources. Without question, I am spending less while seeing a general improvement in my fine turf areas.
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Ken - I totally agree.
As one of those who relied totally on synthetic fertilisers to produce playing surfaces, and then taught others to do the same, I can understand those who want to jest at my 'conversion'. I don't think that we will ever get away from the need for applying some synthetic fertiliser as, at the end of the day, you do what is necessary to produce a playing surface and keep your job.
However, you very right in pointing out that the rising cost of fertilisers, a greater understanding of the soil environment and increasing environmental protection legislation, means we have more incentives to look at different ways of carrying out our jobs.
What made me change my mind was seeing the results of applying management techniques that concentrated on the soil microbial environment. Further studies then led me to see that even conversion to fescue golf greens really meant manipulating the microbial balance. On the whole, nutrient rich soils are dominated by bacteria and nutrient poor soils dominated by fungi. Growing a ryegrass sports pitch requires a different approach to encouraging microbes than to starving, fescue dominated, golf greens. Hence the need to apply the right solution and not rely on a blanket approach that may not be right for your turf.
A balanced approach indeed Ken!
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
