Message Board - Cricket: Square drainage and compaction aided by Calcium?
11 Feb 2010 by Dapstar James
Bear with me guys!:
I've been toying with idea's for my cricket square maintenence this year and I was wondering if anybody had any experience of Soluble Ca being used and its effects specific to cricket soils (bounce etc.)
Background: I maintain a square that by sports standards doesn't drain as effectively as I'd like, plans for sports drains are currently in their infancy and financing that is a few years away. But in the mean time:
The idea: I have had the idea of using Ca to "bind" clay particles and free up pore space in pitches out of use to better distribute and allow penetration of irrigation/ rain water, alleviating the extent of drainage problems and creating a more extensive root structure within the sward.
Additionally, just prior to match pitch prep the freed up pore spaces, following irrigation and then allowed to dry somewhat through evapotranspiration would reveal airspaces that would very easily be taken up by rolling and compacting the soil provided optimum moisture levels are present and gradual rolling at increasing weights is administered.
The combination of bound clay particles (increased clay/ soil density in a very small area) and increased air/ water space (lower soil density over a large area) mean that the compactive potential of the roller upon the pitch is increased, given that compaction and bulk density increases are made by the compaction of airspaces between soil particles.
As a result, a more compacted, more responsive pitch is created. good for growth, good for roots, good for drainage, good for cricket.
What do you gentlemen (and ladies out there!) think of the theory? a viable option? Having never tried it before, perhaps a test on a dedicated colts/ friendly wicket is the answer.
Let me know your thoughts and experiences.
Cheers Guys,
James
12 Feb 2010 by vid
My current knowledge on this is in its infancy but I believe James you may achieve the reverse of your intention. The Ca to Mg ratio is important in the cohesion of a surface, the Ca molecule is larger and therefore displaces more than the Mg molecule it replaces. A higher amount of Mg will help bind the clay particles not the other way round.
12 Feb 2010 by willard
I've been using a granular form of calcium nitrate as my main feed this year.
Mainly because the soil ph is low, and low on calcium, which is no surprise.
Results have been good, but I won't know if the ph has changed at all until I have the soil retested at the end of season.
Water take up seems good, compaction from rolling & pitch firmness appears better also.
However I did also solid tine the block twice in the winter, rooting appears deeper as a result.
The soil in NZ is generally more acidic than UK, therefore ph control has been my main reason for using calcium nitrate.
But I have been interested in reading that some people say the product can help moisture intake.
One season is a little to early to come to any conclusions.
A soil test will help, but in general I've been impressed with the product.
It's also very soluable, which makes take up very easy, but more applications are needed. Every month is about right for rye grass grown in NZ conditions.
12 Feb 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 12 Feb 2010
Hi Dapstar
I have done loads of work with Ca on high tensile/cohesive soils
Without going into it too much, it is a complex topic as it's all about, the attraction beetween elements, charge and valence of ion and surface, shape and size of both, and on hydration sphere or Hydrated Ionic Radius etc.
Ca and Mg behave in exactly the same way in soils, both increase 'flocculation' and overall soil structure, but, there is slight differences between the two but it cannot equate much to tightness or compaction as the ions have very similar characteristics.
I have seen interesting results with Ca use on cracking dynamics, density and more important, field trial subjected to play.
Cheers
Ant
12 Feb 2010 by Grassman2011
So yes or no Anthony ?
12 Feb 2010 by Anthony Asquith
In a nutshell, I would say do not overdo it with Calcium!
AA
12 Feb 2010 by Grassman2011
On the fence Ant ? How much is not overdo mate ?
12 Feb 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 12 Feb 2010
I have not quantified how much, it is impossible to answer, as there are many things to consider such as minerology, clay content, plus, generaly speaking, in semi arid climates there could be other problems, so the forces for attraction need to be greater, so this affects the amount applied to reclaim (ex SSS).
The structure of clays and the effects of Ca dominated soils that are 'free' in solution, in equilibrium and part of the cationic exchenge are well documented in the physical and structural impact of soils.
AA
12 Feb 2010 by jlawrence
Careful Anthony - you'll be saying next that the amounts change from site to site depending on what's needed to keep everything in the correct balance 
Dapstar: "I maintain a square that by sports standards doesn't drain as effectively as I'd like".
I'm not sure that adding anything to the surface will increase drainage. The very nature of preparing a cricket pitch means that they won't drain. We wet it, then roll it, then dry it until it's hard, this means that drainage is next to nil. It relies almost entirely on run off to clear surface water, which is why we have to spend to long desperately trying to re-wet tracks after play in order to give the grass a chance of surviving.
I can see that a more compacted pitch is good for cricket, but I can't follow how that would be good for growth, roots and drainage - the former precludes the later imho. Compaction is the enemy of drainage and grass growth.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
12 Feb 2010 by Martin Wythe
If there is a high water table the square might be staying wet from the bottom up by capillary action. the only answer is drainage if that is the case.
12 Feb 2010 by jlawrence
Martin, True. But then you're looking at draining the lower rootzone not the actual playing surface - which is what I thought Dapster was talking about.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
12 Feb 2010 by Martin Wythe
Could you use a penetrant like pervade or is this likely to knacker
the soil stucture?
13 Feb 2010 by Anthony Asquith
Hi Martin
I am not convinced about the use of soil surfectants in high cohesive and low Organic Matter soils.
AA
14 Feb 2010 by philipfish
Hi all,
Have a look at this post from a year or so back.
http://www.pitchcare.com/message/message/16482
Phil Fish
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
