I have been trawling the internet to find some answers regarding
feeding soil microbes. There are lots of different views.
First it would seem that all soils have a microbe population some more healthy than others.
This follows on from the chlorinated water question.
I am proposing to feed the existing microflora and fauna with
molasses and liquid seaweed. I will first carry out renovation works. seeding aeration and a dose of preseeder fertiliser.
then a couple of weeks after full germination I am thinking of spraying with the molasses and seaweed is this OK?
Or do i need to add more microbes by way of compost tea?
Does compost tea add more than microbes and arn't there enough microbes in the soil to start the ball rolling?
The background is that to achieve a healthy looking sward at present i am applying 40gms/m2 of fertiliser three times in the
growing season. If I don't the grass just stops growing!
3 Feb 2010 by vid
Hi Martin, you are right in saying the organisms are already present, in some cases they have been virtually eradicated by pesticides and other chemicals, however a lot are airborne and will over a time recolonise, top dressing will also possibly reimport beneficial microbes. It may be necessary to reintroduce (innoculate) your surfaces in order to speed this process up. There are companies supplying these products now and specialising in looking after the microbial make up of the rhizosphere as well as the extra needs of the sports surface grass plant, compost teas are the product of one such company. What you are doing is great!! The shift now is to get you from relying on your fertiliser doses as these are working against what you are trying to do with molasses and seaweed. There are several companies in their formative days being very successful in removing the reliance on straight inorganic based fertilisers with all the coating and slow release techno babble. replacing them with microbial enhancing products that feed the plant naturally is the way forward in my view - welcome to my world!!!
What's your soil?
If you're on sand then the answer will be different to if you're on clay. Established pasture will be different to fresh-build on top of a landfill. Etc. etc. If it's an established cricket square with a clay-loam soil, what benefit will seaweed give you?
Don't believe all the marketing hype without asking yourself whether you really believe what the salesmen are telling you - and have they proven their products on your type of surface. A product "designed" for a sand-based golf green with low mineral retention capability may have no benefit on a clay based surface with its high retention potential.
Is your application rate unreasonable? Without knowing what your surface and your maintenance methods are I don't know. Are you boxing clippings off? If so, how much nutrient are you taking away? Are you washing nutrient away through irrigation? You application rate translates to about 4 x 25kg sacks of fertiliser on a cricket square over the season. Thats not outlandish - so long as you meant 40gsm of fertiliser and not 40gsm of nutrient element. If you're using 7:7:7 then 4 sacks is pretty normal imo. If you're using 20:20:20 (or something else high in content) then it sounds high.
The soil web ideas sound great - but if they were the whole story, why is my "organic" outfield not massively healthier than my square? Something doesn't add up there methinks.
What I'm driving at is, is your current practice "wrong" as you appear to think it is, or is it just that some salesmen have told you it's wrong?
btw - I tried molasses last year on my cricket square and won't be wasting money again this spring. I'm a sceptical cynic who believes good science and my own eyes more than marketing hype.
The ciderman rolls
Thats where we differ then jon. I also used molasses last autumn/winter/spring and my eyes tell me that i started the spring/summer with the best sward i have ever had. A certain sea weed product was also used in conjuction with the Atumn and spring application.
It could be that of course that made the difference, but i am still with it for the immediate future at least.
What product were you using, at what rate and what frequency ?
I have looked at fancy stuff made especially for turf and have decided to use raw unsulphured molasses and straight liquid seaweed. All the cuttings are left on and I believe i aerate adequately. it just seems to me that applying nearly 1.5 tonnes
of various fertilisers. 10.15.10 then 12.6.6 then 9.7.7 twenty bags at a time is a serious amount of fertiliser and costs a fortune! five years ago I topdressed with composted green waste
thirty tonnes + per pitch this has helped water retention and probably improved the health of the soil. It wasn't done at the time to improve microbial activity but it must of helped. It is annoying to go back to my old rugby club and ask how much fertiliser they use only to be told that they never have to and their pitches look great. their pitches are on a heavy clay loam with a good drainage system. My pitches are on poor green sand!
Bath
I used molasses from an equine feed supplier. I applied a total of about 4 litres in two doses separated by about 6 weeks. Area treated about 12 track widths.
I'd earlier tried human food grade black molasses on a smaller area.
I guess I'm about to be told that all molasses are not equal...?
The ciderman rolls
4 Feb 2010 by Martin Wythe Last edited 4 Feb 2010
I have just sourced 20 litres of molasses for £21.00
i will spray that and 25 litres of seaweed on the two pitches
sit back and see what happens. If nothing happens then back to good old 12.6.6 etc.
i reckon it is quite different on a cricket square as the maintenance is so intense. I use a bit of both. A regular application of fertiliser and a tonic of seaweed in between.
I have got no scientific evidence to back this up but it seems to work.
jontaylor it is true that all molasses are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others...
Martin the seaweed application must be of a product that may not be as cost effective as others either, there are seaweed products that have an application rate of 3 litres per hectare in 200-400 litres of water, and your two rugby pitches would probably constitute 1.5 hectares between them including in goal areas? (Plant) food for thought perhaps? It's true that we can't always get scientific evidence of everything we know is 'doing some good' in life, but improved plant health and root structure is a pretty good start.
The light at the end of the tunnel is not a train
A good response David! We could advise jontaylor in regard to grades of molasses.We could point out it's flexibility and ease of application due to an enhanced viscosity, it's bulk density,it's specific gravity, it's enhanced filtration, it's dilution rate, it's abilty to pass a 03 nozzle allowing better coverage. We could then convey the products origin, it's harvesting techniques. All this and much, more are contrary to all molasses being equal. I suppose we could say the same about a single malt and a good blend, both scotch, both a million miles apart. Failing that! we could recognise" that some are more equal than others? Regards. Ian Mac
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
