11 Mar 2010 by EDS
The soil analysis report for my cricket square shows:
pH : 7.74
Sand : 44 % Silt : 32 % Clay : 24 %
CEC : 21.1 (meq/100g)
Index mg/l
P 3 31.2
K 2 168
Mg 2 58
Ca 3037
I’d be grateful for any help regarding a fertilizer programme to try and achieve correct balance/levels of elements. For the last 2 years I’ve been applying a 5-5-10 + 4% FE throughout the year as recommended to me.
Still Learning
What recomendations came back with the analysis, from memory those figure look okay, little low on clay for cricket and the pH although above 7.0 will allow a full use of the nutrients within the rootzone.
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
looking at those figures p is fine and as it is less soluble than the other macro nutrients i would go for a 12.0.6. for pre season spring and then back to your usual. the nitrogen is a little high for cricket but should be mowed/leached out enough by late april.
it maybe good to use a liquid sulphur and iron product. is there any mention of trace elements in your report?
11 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith
Des
Do not get tied in knots with this sort of stuff, don't ever use the information in isolation but use as a very rough guide at the most as some of these are technicaly flawed as it depends on the methology and extraction used and matched with the right soil or overstimation can occur (for ex, the BCSR method recommends twice as much as the SLAN method) so it is much better to work with actuals rather than adopting any nutritional methods that are scientificaly flawed based on a 'one size fits all' philosophy.
I am in the process of putting an article together for Pitchcare about the myths and ancedotal information on soil testing and how the majority of figures/recommendations that are put together by companies are factualy discredited by well trained soil scientists and researchers.
This is another area I have looked intoover the years as a researcher and I am always at the end of the phone if any of you guys want any more info.
Ant
Anthony,
Are you saying that soil tests are a waste of time?
Or just be a little sceptical?
How are we supposed to make an informed decision on choice of fertiliser?
Martin
Sceptical for good reason I would suggest.
As AA suggests...things to do with dirt should not be looked at in isolation.
11 Mar 2010 by IGS
Hi EDS,
Your soil analysis shows a small part of the parameters that you actually require and is typical of an agric spec.
However you can glean some data from the results obtained
pH : 7.74 - Slightly High but typical of cricket loams
Sand : 44 % Silt : 32 % Clay : 24 %
CEC : 21.1 (meq/100g)
Not much you can do about and these are typical of a UK cricket loam
P @ 31.2 ppm - no problem there and you will probably find that there is tonnes of Phosphate within the soil - no need to apply any mote of that, so save some money
K @ 168 ppm Low so need to include some as a one off and maintain levels. Potassium will be limited as exchangeable due to the pH level. You will also need to balance applications with the much needed Magnesium that is deficient on your loam -
Mg @ 58 - aim at a level of 200 Mg and 250 Potassium you never know there may be other benefits s well
Ca @ 3037 ppm do not increase you are stuck with this and need to balance the K & Mg accordingly.
I have removed the index figures as they relate to agricultural crop production and therefore are inappropriate here
Do you have the organic matter content?
Try to use high analysis products rather than compounds
And don't forget to feed those all important microbes
Don't bother with the iron - there will be tonnes in your rootzone loam. it is a cosmetic expense that is not needed in most cases unless you like lip stick - most of us do - On girls!
Try a Hy-KMag as your nitrogen input can be made seperately either as a liquid or small applications of ammonium sulphate - cheap as chips. do not use ammonium nitrate
Like Ant - I am always at the end of the phone if you need more information.
Agree with Anthony re soil testing. Conclusions will vary.
Clay content not too bad, I've seen a lot of UK cricket loams struggle to reach 20%. Mainly Surrey.
PH is high, good for nutrient availability & growing rye grass. Not so good re worm activity. I've had a lot of problems re worm casts in high ph soil, do you? Same goes for weeds & diseases, they generally prefer a higher PH...
12 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 12 Mar 2010
Martin
Actual numbers don't exist for nutritional elements, only wide ranges and numbers recommended are all based upon the Base Saturation system from work done in Virginia on fertille soils by Dr William Albrecht and Firman Bear, which has since been discredited after a lot of peer reviewed work and field work.
The hard fact is Turfgrass can live well in a wide range of nutritional values and PH levels but a lot of scaremongering goes on by suggesting that you will have problems if the soil is not maintained to a certain nutritional value.
The BSCR system is commercialy pushed around the world as basing a fertilizer report on this method estimates twice as much fertilizer than if based on the SLAN method of nutrition plus it is so easy to base everything on, hence why it is used so widespread.
A lot of work has been done in agriculture on specific crops/soils etc but not much field and research work has been done on sports turf grasses in relation to this subject as there are so many widespread parametres so 'benchmarking' can never implemented, not even localy never mind universaly.
So, my advice would be, use consistant labs (preferably local) that uses the same methology/extraction methods, build up data of your own site based on observation and chemical change and more important, check the grass, soil structure inc roots and, if everything looks ok, it probably is regardless of what the soil report says as all these are based on 'TEXTBOOK'.
Cheers
Ant
200ppm for magnesium? surely 50ppm is about right?
12 Mar 2010 by EDS
Firstly.... a really big thanks to you all for the very helpful replies - this in my view is exactly what this forum is all about... helping the less experienced [like me] and passing on collective knowledge. Thanks to those that have also taken the time out to PM me.
My sqaure is "10 years old" and the site was previously grassland - agriculture. The club simply did not have sufficient money to "properly" construct the square in terms of excavation to depth and starting with a clean "block" of loam, in essence all we could afford was to incorporate loam into the existing soil, far from ideal. That said it is regularly complimented on how well it plays but like everyone you always think it could perhaps be a bit better but thats not necessarily down to the soil but am keen to manage this properly.
In reply to some of the questions asked, the report is a very basic fertlizer company one and doesn't mention trace elements, regarding the PH level, I spray twice a year for worms and they dont create any significant problem, likewise the rye grass doesnt suffer particualrly from disease and excess weeds.
Regards
Still Learning
Is it not a little irresponsible to advocate using a fertiliser containing too high a nitrogen content, on the understanding that the excess will 'leach away'? Surly there are enough products on the market to find one with an adequate quantity of the stuff, or in forms that are not so readily available.
Other than environmental considerations, can not too much nitrogen at this time of year can cause problems with scorch?
We are all still learning.
12 Mar 2010 by IGS
Martin / EDS,
if you want a loose loam one that breaks up then have a low Mg content. If you require higher shear strength than you the soil requires lots of Mg - but no point added loads of Mg as it will limit plant uptake of K
pH at 7.74 is limiting nutrient availability and should be reduced at that level the exchange levels of Manganese will be very limited.
Simply shifting pH will also increase overall nutrient availability the magic number being approx 6.5
Text books Anthony - I agree some of the text book methods that we have been exposed to are somewhat limiting. What we can see goes a long way but we must not ignore works by such people as Horst Marschner and others?
With reference to agriculture, soil mechanics and other related industries - I am afraid that they are light years ahead of our small turfgrass industry and almost everything we have learnt & experienced as come from those sectors.
As Anthony states we must be careful not to interpret data based on the worn out soils of the US but get to know and understand our own soils biota and the growing plant in our ‘temperate’ climate.
12 Mar 2010 by IGS
Hi Head Tea Boy,
Not sure of you are referring to the use of ammonium sulphate - 21% N 18% SO3
This granular material can be applied at between a few grams and loads of kilogram’s / m2 (not recommended). It is also very soluble and can be made into a liquid solution
So you have the flexibility to apply what you feel is appropriate that is why you are / we are the turfgrass managers.
Of course there are many other forms of nitrogen but that is
a good start, it is reasonably priced and will give you a response.
Personally I prefer the organic nitrogen forms
Good morning IGS.
Initially I was referring to an earlier contribution which suggested applying a 12.0.6 as a pre-season fertiliser. This sounds dangerously high to me, and allowing it to 'leach away' is a bit controversial.
However, I understand that nitrogen is available in different forms, each from different stages in the nitrogen cycle. In some of these forms it can either be used by the plant immediately, or washed away with soil water, but in other forms it needs time to change into a usable/leachable form. I understand that this information is given on the product label, but I havn't got my head around it yet.
As you say, we are turfgrass managers, and if we understand more of this sort of thing, we are better able to make the most of the situations in which we find ourselves , the materials that we have to use and advice given us. We will also be better equipped to distinguish between advice and opinion. (I am currently torn between my supplier's advice , that it is still too cold to feed and seed, and my club's opinion that it is too late.)
I also understand that most soils in Britain are sufficiently high phosphate, and that we don't need to routinely include this in our feeds - but we do through habit. Phosphate is the component, which has to be mined and has become very expensive recently, so cutting it out of our regular feeds makes good sense.
 |
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
12.0.6 @ 30gms/m2 is higher than I would use in season as it would make for green greasey wickets but as a kick start 6 to 8 weeks prior to play is not excessive. Most clubs are short of labour especially at this time of year so one application saves time. All I was suggesting is that any slightly sappy growth will have grown out. There will always be some leaching of soluble
nitrogen either through rain or irrigation.
The initial question was for a fertiliser programme.
I gave what i think is a reasonable and simple answer should
I have put my head above the parapit maybe i shouldn't have
HA HA!
All this debate and no straight answers!
Hi EDS
http://harristurf.crinet.com/education_train/understand.asp
Here is a link that might be of interest. Although I agree with most of what has been said about soil analysis Harris labs differ somewhat as they base their ratios and guidelines on not only the 50 states of US but also 35 countries worldwide. They correlate all the input and then base their guides on the data received. With 50 years of data some accuracy has to be there.
But as stated before if you want consistency in your findings you must use the same lab year after year as figures vary dramatically.
The nice thing you'll see from the link is the advice they give and the correlation between all the nutrients and availability of same.
When looking at analysis most data received is extractable data when in fact exchangeable data will prove much more benefical as it will tell you if nutrient lock up is occuring. In many cases results might show huge amounts of any given element but not say wether this is available to the grass plant or not.
Liebig's law of the minimum and the wheel of confusion (nutrient correlation) are great tools of reference and help. These were in most of my early study books.
13 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 13 Mar 2010
I will say it again, do not use soil analytical testing or PH in ISOLATION, use as a rough guide with a huge modicum of common sense!.
There are not such a thing as a 'perfect' plant nutrition programme, especialy when there is a living plant involved with different grasses, cultivars, soils and also nature plays a huge part. If you asked 10 people, you will get 10 different answers. I feel there is no artificial numbers to hit, no exact numbers actualy exist, only huge ranges as turfgrass can survive in a wide range of soil conditions, chemical elemental ranges and PH values, just deal with actuals and more importantly, look at the turf/structure inc roots and if everything is ok, it probably is, regardless of what the soil test says. Over the years I have seen so much 'scaremongering' advice from advisors/representatives etc trying to push such recommendations for the 'ideal' soil that does not exit on system, which from a turfgrass perspective is technicaly flawed and some of the soil reports and recommendations I see are absolute erroneous
I have used the testing process in the past and then monitored the chemical balance or any distinct drastic changes of the soil chemistry (never seen drastic changes) and in geological times, heavy clay soils can change over hundreds of years, not years (Some rare exeptions). Anyone who is interested in such information, refer to proper soil science data an methods, these have not changed since the 1930's but bad advice is still widely practised today, globaly around the world.
Steve
You would literaly need tonnes of S to reduce truly Alkaline soils - high Alkaline soils such as those on chalk downland have to be farmed as they are as it is unpractical to attemp to amend such soils. If it is merely a case of slightly high PH then elemental Sulphur is best (but needs to be used in the right form as oxidation is required), Ammonium Sulphate is ok but not quite so effective. Also in geological times scale, this would be a slow process to Sulphuric Acid.
Cheers
AA
Martin, if there were too many straight answers, we wouldn't learn so much.
Peter
13 Mar 2010 by IGS
as long as we learn something every day - we must be moving in the right direction
Keep asking why? afterall it is better than fire fighting (running for the quick fix disease control or growth boost that then usually leads to needing the quick fix disease control).
Have a great weekend - learning
Looks like I shall be putting my soil analysis with my cranfield report on rolling when it comes!
;))
Steve
IGS - its the weekend so I shall be lazing not learning :)
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
14 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith
Just don't use anything in ISOLATION and use a huge modicum of common sense when reading or the interpretation into subjective information for producing turfgrass for sport.
Ant
14 Mar 2010 by IGS
Hi Ant,
can you elaborate on your statement.
hoping that you are well, cheers
Mark
15 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 15 Mar 2010
Hi Mark
I am good mate, you?
I think all my above comments elaborate my opinions - the 'art' of Greenkeeping or Groundsmanship is far more complex than simply looking at a bunch of figures or textbooks. I have seen a lot of people simply get tied in knots of this sort of stuff, when in fact the surface is playing well, looking good and the soil structure inc roots are looking good so all probably is good, regardless of what the soil report says as the simple fact is turfgrass can survive and be healthy in a wide range of PH, Nutritional values etc - I have seen it many times over the years.
Just look at how fertilizer recommendations are put together by a flawed system proposed over 70 years ago in the Albrecht System that overestimates in soil based systems, such as the Base Saturation system (great from a commercial perspective). This work has been peer reviewed many times and been dicredited, but fertilizers are still being put together on the back of this work, on numbers that simply do not exist, but certain nutritional targets are still being targeted. As I said, you can only apply ranges of numbers.
The fertilizer recommendations put forward are based on a soil based system only, the amount of fertilizer required depends on several factors such as geographic location, soil type, grass type and management approach, but, not much work has been done on specific grasses, soils, management practices so for me, this is hardly conclusive and needs to done with common sense, with an understanding of soil chemistry and an understanding of the site and it's requirements as most grounds are site specific, and the building of historical data is far more better from the turf manager than some recommendation that says 'one size fits all', both turf and soil that is quite simple technicaly flawed so any information is subjective at best.
What I do not like is, the amount of scaremongering that goes on that says you have to reach a specific taget nutritionaly, or a 'perfect' PH or the turf manager will have problems - all this goes back to everything I have said on here in this post, very little work has been done in Turfgrass for sportsturf for nutrition and been correlated to specific field/trial work that is INDEPENDANT as there are so many widespread parametres ie Different cultivars, species, soils etc so benchmarking is immposible.
I am a big believer in, at times working with what you have got (unless there are obvious problems), I have seen so many problems from trying to amend soil PH, when in practical terms, the amount you would need to change the PH, would be tonnes and tonnes, especialy on clay based soils that geologicaly change over hundreds of years. So, my advice would be, don't manage turf out of a textbook, if evrything ok then it most likely is.
It ths same with all these snake oil products around - some people are trying to reinvent the wheel, but it is all about providing me with proper data, something I can place faith (Not much around) in that it has been subjected to proper scientific research. I am not saying they don't work or they do, just provide me with proper reasearch (most don't work and don't warrant the cost).
Ant
15 Mar 2010 by Mike
There's an awful lot to be said for an open mind... I applaud Ant for taking up the reigns and challenging what has become a generally accepted logic that far too many people subscribe to.
To condense what Ant has said re benchmarking and such like - take two surfaces, one a high clay content cricket square, the other a sand based football pitch, both sown with the same perennial ryegrass sward. Now, we hear all to often that perennial rye needs approx 300kg of N per ha, per year - what a load of tosh! Take the examples of the two surfaces above - how can anyone set the benchmark figures of what your fert inputs should be without having intimate knowledge of the dynamics of each and every site? For me, soil tests are good for monitoring change and progress, or identifying specific conditions in conjunction with what symptoms you can see on the sward itself - I certainly wouldn't rely on a set of figures devised by someone who has never seen my site to tell me if our turf is healthy or not.
Mike
So what should EDs put on his square?
8-0-6+Fe+Mg@35gM2
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
15 Mar 2010 by Stuart Stenhouse
Theres been some mention about what granular to apply so I thought id use two of the examples stated and do the calculations to show its not what analysis you use its what application rate you use. (sorry but I use lbs /1000ft2 so someone can do the conversion to metric)
8-0-6 @ 35g/m2 = 0.56lbs N /1000ft2
12-0-6 @ 20g/m2 = 0.48lbs N /1000ft2
25-0-0 @ 10g/m2 = 0.5lbs N /1000ft2
So at these rates im putting out less N using the higher analysis fertilisers than I would using the lower analysis fertiliser. So my question is how can you make a statement that says 'I think 12-0-6 is too high'?? As long as the granular size is small enough SGN125 or below then these rates can go lower. Dont get sucked in by the fertiliser rep or what the bag says.
Looking at the initial soil test results I see three things:
As mentioned the High pH which will limit nutrient availability.
High CEC possibly caused by the Clay content but more than likely being heavily influenced by the high Ca content.
High Ca - due to Calciums influence in the soil it is quite probable that most available nutrient is tied up.
So what can be deduced from that - Probable low nutrient availabilty within the soil which makes applying granular fertiliser very inefficient.
Other than that imo it serves no further purpose. How anyone can say P level is fine, no more P will need to applied is beyond me. Firstly no where in the test does it indicate soluble nutrient levels. So how do we know much P is actually available - YOU DON'T not without a soulbility test. This applys with all nutrients not just P.
The problem as I see it is not the soil test or the fertiliser rep who has produced the soil test its the inability of many turfgrass managers to interpret one correctly. Do that and you will hold your own in any conversation with any rep.
Regards
Stuart
15 Mar 2010 by Eddy21 Last edited 15 Mar 2010
Just to add to Stuarts post:
For conversion from lbs per 1000 ft2 to KG per hectare for nutrient amounts, I use the following as a guidline:
0.5lbs of N per 1000 ft2 is about 20 KG of N per hectare.
Hope this helps
Dave
Learning is there for every man
15 Mar 2010 by Stuart Stenhouse
Thanks Dave I should really go metric in this day and age
Hi Stuart
As my boss is American, I had to learn imperial way after moving across here. It works both ways really.
I have found the above conversion extremely usefull when reading papers/ research from across the pond.
Dave
Learning is there for every man
Hi guys, good info, although, I think you have just moved away from where most cricket groundsmen/women are comfortable, many of whom are volunteers or part time.
My post was a little tongue in cheek but was what many guys out there will be able to understand and apply to their situation.
Personally I will apply something similar to what I suggested but at a lower rate just to keep the grass growing but not to excess and that will be based purely on my gut feeling and experience.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
I would'nt have thought that 8.0.6 would promote to fast a grass growth Steve 63, unless of course you applied at something like 70gpsm.
At something like 35gpsm should be fine around about now, now that things are warming up a little.
I don't know bath, there was no frost today but it felt bloody cold, no sun I guess
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Warming up and wet end of week, get it on.
Further to the idea of not applying phosphate, I have no scientific evidence to offer, but only some here-say and applied logic (which fits in with much of what is written here).
As I understand it, phosphate is mainly associated with seed germination, and that British soils are sufficient in it (whereas, US soils are not). Seed germination is important when we are sowing seed, but otherwise it is only weed seeds that will benefit - Poa annua, for example.
On a fine green and with a limited budget, (assuming my understanding is correct) it would make good sense to avoid using Phosphate.
As for metric/imperial, bring back real money!
16 Mar 2010 by Stuart Stenhouse
HTBoy in the original soil test results as I said the high concentrations of Ca are affecting the availability of the P. In this case both will readily tie up and form Calcium Phosphate which is completely unavailable to the plant so no matter how much P is in the soil the Ca will make it unavailable so some form of foliar applied P will help. P is not only used during seeding it is a Major nutrient required by turfgrass. It is involved in energy transfer and plays a big part in root developement especially at this time of year. So if our levels are sufficiently high in the UK I guess we all have 10" root systems. The fact we dont says something.
Im not suggesting for one minute that everyone goes out and applys P more you just learn about nutrients and soils then you can make better judgement calls. Incidently for those of you about to apply a granular how much of that granular product do you think will be taken up by the plant??
While I appreciate that some guys do this as a part time job that isnt an excuse not to educate yourself. You dont have to go to college its all available on the internet.
One last point HTB have you been to the US, if you havent how do you know that P is deficient in US soils. Heresay and logic are not always correct, why not find out for yourself.
Apologies if I sound a little frustrated it is not aimed at anyone but if our industry is going to move forward and we get the respect we deserve then education plays a big part in this. I cannot imagine basing any recommendations to my employers based on heresay and then asking them to give me money to waste.
Regards
Stuart
16 Mar 2010 by Eddy21 Last edited 16 Mar 2010
Hi all
I must admit also many times on this site I have been a little concerned when I hear that an application of this analysis fertiliser will do or that will do.
Yes as correctly stated we can apply high analysis fertilisers at very low rates on a more often basis or we could choose to apply slow release fertilisers at higher rates on a less often basis.
After re reading the whole post again last night I have seen about 5 analysis of fertilisers recommended in the given situation and not once have I heard the characteristics of such fertilisers mentioned....Personally I feel it is a slight cause for concern as we need to know that there are many forms and characteristics of fertiliser that can be applied in a turf situation which could end up with different results or growth patterns occurring.
Trying to keep this as simple as possible here is a bit of an insight:
Fertilisers have different release rates and will perform differently in certain situations. We have conventional release products that will be fast acting and will be taken up by the plant quickly and are very fast acting, these products can be used at low temperatures, though care has to be taken to avoid leaf burn and such an application should be followed by a cycle of irrigation, or applied before rainfall.
As a rule of thumb we should never apply more than 0.5lbs per ft sq or 20 kg of N per hectare in a single application, as in doing this we would generally create a grass factory (so to speak). Personally in my situation we use a lot of conventional or straights but in very low volumes on a more often basis, this is usually applied in a liquid form, so we know exactly what the plant is getting on a regular basis, personally I feel its a more effective way of fertilising. This type of approach can be used also with micro granulars (ie the Anderson's range) but like Stuart has stated just how much is being used up by the plant with granular applications?
On the other hand we have slow release products which will release nutrients over a longer time scale. Larger amounts of N can be applied in one application as the release rates are pretty slow. N release generally occurs with temperature, moisture or microbial activity and as a whole will work better when the soil warms up a bit.
We can also throw organics into the equation which rely heavily on microbial decomposition and are another slow release product.
With the forms of slow release fertiliser we may not see an initial reaction following an application and may have to wait a little to see some results. Personally I use this method of in a golf situation on tees, fairways and approaches as it is less labour intensive and longer lasting. Such an approach maybe of use on a cricket outfield? These products tend to be more expensive and as a rule of thumb no more than 80kg of N should be applied in one application.....though this really should be based on what your soil needs are.
Many manufacturers can offer us a fertilisers that contain a percentage of conventional and slow release within their products. These are a good option as we can get a little kick of growth and steady nutrient release over a longer time period.
In conclusion these are all really important facts to consider when thinking of what to put down on your surfaces. If you want to learn a little more about individual nutrient sources ie forms of Nitrogen and how they react I'm sure it will be possible to do so on doing a quick google search.
As for picking the ideal fertiliser programme for ones given site, that is down to you personally to make these decisions.
Though the main points really to consider are:
How much N.P.K am I going to apply per month in the growing season? Do the calculations (formula easily found)
What are my target NPK levels for the year?
What form of Nitrogen am I going apply and what are its release characteristics?
What grass species are we trying to favour?
What effect will this product have on pH soil readings?
How often do I want to apply and what are the costs?
Are the environmental conditions correct for successful use of such a form of fertiliser?
Have I calibrated my spreader/ sprayer properly to put out my desired amounts?
Am I going to use liquids/granulars, slow release,straights or a mixture this season? What will work best in the given situation?
There really is many ways to attack a fertiliser programme for beneficial results....I suppose this is down to personal preference, cost etc. Though if you start to look a bit deeper at this subject, make personal observations, take notes and research the subject you will have every success along the way.....and who knows you might even save a few quid?
Best of luck with it all
Dave
Learning is there for every man
Again really good info, but as I said earlier, you are moving away from where many cricket groundsmen are comfortable.
If you re-read the original post it is specifically with regard to a cricket square and a little advice was asked for to supplement the recommendations that EDS has been offered over the last two years and the analysis that he has had carried out.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
16 Mar 2010 by Eddy21 Last edited 16 Mar 2010
Hi Steve
Hope all is well in the sunny North West?
I appreciate where you are coming from though the post has really gone full circle with many different subjects being discussed within.I understand that all levels of the industry can read the posts on here and sometimes interpreting information can be difficult, though its all about learning and building on ones knowledge. This I feel is the best thing about this site and there is so much to be learnt from one another (even though we often move away from the original question slightly)
It sometimes is difficult like AA stated in the earlier post to recommend a perfect nutritional programme based on such limited information and basic forms of testing. Many factors can influence the outcome.
Now I know certain things are said in gest on here (and I've been guilty of the same thing in the past) but trying to read it as though I was an outsider looking in, I think certain things and myths can be literally interpreted as the gospel truth. That is why its important to form a basic understanding of fertilisation and why we do it and for what effects.
As stated above the one size fits all guide to fertilisation and interpreting soil tests doesn't work. Although I don't work in cricket I will give you an example of my situation to paint a better picture. On our site we have 40 golf greens, 27 USGA greens (at different ages) and the rest are original push up greens. We have 3 different fertiliser programmes on the go. One for soil greens, one for the older USGA greens and one for the new USGA greens. As you can imagine it takes some planning to get the greens performing the same based on nutritional applications, though its possible. Our pH is around the 7.3 mark so in theory we could have a little nutrient lock up. Applying sulphur could bring down this pH reading, though if you look at other factors such as high pH water, topdressing sand available etc it would be pretty hard to maintain. This in turn means we have to work with what we have and in fairness I think we do a good job.....basically what I'm trying to say is that looking for the ideal in everyday situations is not always possible and like previously stated good turf and playing characteristics can be produced if readings and values are not quite bang on.
Making the correct decisions is key to success in any job and its just the same for us in turf industry.
Although we have moved away from the subject valuable information has been talked about and shared in this post subjects such as:
pH interpretation and differing views on the subject.
Nutrient lock up.
Application rates.
Percentage Analysis of fertilisers
Conversions from imperial to metric.
Different performance characteristics of fertilisers products.
An awful lot to say the least. If one was to gain from reading such information and it helps them on their quest to achieve the desired results and effectively do their job better without being scaremongered and spending large amounts of money on this and that....surely its all relevant information whatever sport we work in?
Regards
Dave
Learning is there for every man
EDS,
In response to Steve's prompt.
I have no experience of your square, but your's sounds a very familiar story - a square built onto the natural base, a high pH, and what people seam to say is a pretty "normal" soil analysis.
I had a soil analysis done a few years back and it told me, similar to yours, that most things were pretty middling except the pH.
So, despite the chorus of "always get an analysis before buying fert", I look at the grass and I listen to the main themes behind the general advice and work from there.
In winter I apply feed higher in K than N and in summer I do the opposite. In spring I tend to apply a flat profile feed. For me, P is of little concern as I believe from all I've read that the spring feed probably gives me enough to last all year.
"Grass factory"? Only if you apply too much N - learn from it if you do and apply half as much next time, followed by the other half a few weeks later. I regularly buy high content feeds and then apply them thinly - it's generally much cheaper though it takes man time to do it unformly.
I've never sought out feeds containing Mg, though perhaps I should investigate at some point. I usually apply iron separately, for moss control.
As for pH, it does worry me, but mainly for the future when I run out of worm controls. As Ant has said, bringing the pH of limestone based fields down is next to impossible, and anyway the Ongar loam comes in at over pH8. The grass still grows.
And the clay content - you know how your tracks play. Higher clay may give stronger tracks - but they will get harder to work with. High clay tracks will stay wet longer, drain less quickly and usually be harder to grow grass in. If you have the facilities and can invest the time to manage higher clay, go for it, but do it by slowly incorporating a higher clay loam - which I guess is what you've been doing for the past ten years.
The ciderman rolls
16 Mar 2010 by EDS
Hi Jon
I think you are right, we sound we are working on similar type squares. Mine was "constructed" on existing agriculture grassland and not excavated and constructed as you would choose... if the budget allowed. We had to get on with what we could afford.
Like you I do pay attention to what the square actually looks and plays like.
The reason for my posting was to seek views/advice as to what I was being told to put on in conjunction with the analysis I had been given... I accept all that has been said in this thread regarding whether the reports are reliable and whether you should place too much, if any, reliance on them. I think they are an indicator, albeit imperfect.
One of my concerns was also continually applying iron all year round instead of just at the normal autumn/winter time. There has been some very useful advice offered and like you say... you need to take it away, digest it and see whats right for you.
Thanks for your helpful comments.
Still Learning
Just my 2p worth, I don't use fertiliser on our ground and never have in 25 years, on the square or outfield.
Am I just lucky with the conditions we get where we are ?
What goes around, comes around
I think that this possibly one of the most satisfying threads that I have read recently and Stuart, Eddy, jon etc a big thanks to your input.
Advice, thought provoking comments, a smidge of controversy and a reminder to take nothing for granted.
We are always learning and it would be a sad day when I felt I had nothing left to learn.
Just waiting for the analysis that I commisioned last month to start the whole thing over again 
Best Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
16 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith
Des (EDS)
I have done a lot of trial/field work with Fe in it's various forms on clay soils (and grass) of different mineralogy and correlated this data to pitch performance, testing and it's effects structuraly on soils.
Ant
Ant,
has your work revealed anything? 
as always, Best Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
16 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 16 Mar 2010
Steve
A lot, although far too much to type on here.
Basicaly most cricket soils are alkaline so any soluble forms of Fe would soon ppt as an oxide and that the initially amorphous oxides crystalized over time so in general in soils, Fe oxides tend to aggregate, so for example oxide rich red soils found in the tropics have a very high clay content but behave in the field like sandy soils. You can get oxides cementing soils into rock-like lumps 'laterite' but you would need an awful lot.
In a nutshell, without going into too much detail, the measurable effect was that added Fe would decrease binding strength thus reduced potential achieveable soil density, but again you would need an awful lot.
Ant
Eddy 21
0.5lbs per foot square ?
Thanks for your input Overstone.
Typing error.....0.5 lbs of N per 1000sq ft/ 20 units of N or 20kg of Nitrogen per hectare.
All the best
DE
Learning is there for every man
25 Mar 2010 by Anthony Asquith
I think at times, to become too concerned with soil chemistry in terms of supplying information for turf needs, has to be placed into the context of the degree of ignorance that exists.
AA
25 Mar 2010 by IGS
Hey Ant!
what’s wrong run out of things to say and have turned to writing riddles....
Your statement above
"I think at times" - ok I think we will all agree with that bit, but be more specific which time was it?
"to be (or not to be) concerned with soil chemistry" well most turfgrass managers deal with it every day with or without knowing soil chemistry
"in terms of supplying information" - here many folk 'supply' and charge money for it. Was that last term
"for turf needs" yes at time it does.. (need) probably / allegedly!
"to be paced into the context of the degree of ignorance" - you got me there. Is that in Celcius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin?
Existence - who knows - any clues
Answers on a post card to ‘AskAnthony.con’, lexicologist & prestidigitator chap.
Please send a stamped addressed envelope if you wish to have your post returned
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
