7 Apr 2010 by BAS
Guys/Girls
Been looking into coming away from traditional fertiliser application on my cricket tabel to a more plant and planet friendly products,such as biodynamics..
I belive in these product as its seem s common sense to me ie the use of Micbrobes ,bacteria ect and product that work in harmony with the plant..
Has anyone any experience of using such products on there cricket squares and any pros or cons involved.
7 Apr 2010 by Mike
Some are better than others. Some products have been shown to work with varying degrees of success, and many have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to try to fill their order books.
You also need to prepare the fact that many of these products are site specific - what works at one place, won't necessarily work at another.
My advice would be to score some free samples and run your own trials - if successful, go ahead and buy the product.
Ask for supportive data based on proper scientific research work as there are no silver bullet solutions to managing turf but there is a lot of primeaval crap around.
The basic principles of turf/soil management has not changed over the years.
AA
9 Apr 2010 by vid
does that mean Anthony that it shouldn't change. As an advocate yourself of locking the chemical cabinet and throwing away the key (Europe is moving us in that direction whether we like it or not anyway), is it not time to look at the fundementals and put our time and effort in there, rather than relying on not too well informed reps with a particular product to sell - at the end of the day most of us know when we are being informed and when we are being sold to even when the end result is you buy a product!
9 Apr 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 9 Apr 2010
As with any product or big claims, supportive data is required that justifies the expense and some evidence you can place utter faith in, not to discredit products but to ask for scientific data for it's use on turfgrass to support it's claims on a variety of soils, grasses etc.
There are so many products that are classed as silver bullet solutions which are erroneous that the plant nor soil needs including some of the fanciful fertilizers, biostimulants etc on the market.
The hard thing for a lot of people is to not get drawn into the primeaval swamp of bull - The basic principles of turf management/managing soils have not changed over the years but it has hugely from a commercial perspective with flashy, well designed soil reports that follow through with fancy products on the back of quite often technicaly flawed and irrelevent soil tests. Some of these snake oil merchants could sell jelly beans for turf if not the oils they are selling.
Cheers
AA
9 Apr 2010 by BAS
After much consideration and a very informed view of AA(cheers) and others,l decided only to trial some natural/organic products on 3 of a possible 15 wickets on my second square.l am getting the products for free so cant really lose and if the visual results dont stand out after trials l wont go any further and will stick with the tried and tested products l ve always used..
AA,thanks again for your advice on the phone yesterday..
9 Apr 2010 by vid Last edited 9 Apr 2010
I agree completely Anthony that the principles dont change but I dont share your deeply depressing view of the market. There are always snake oil merchants and misleading report writers but there are also a lot of people out there (myself included) who genuinely want to find solutions to turf growing problems which will last more than a few weeks and will set the area back on the track of more sustainable growth. The fact that a lot of grounds are in a very healthy state through good practise still doesnt mean that good reports are of no value. Take phosphate as an example - a very expensive part of fertiliser - with the right practises this can often be taken out of the equation and save money as can many other expensive 'extras' erroneously included in some of these reports.
Understanding what is going on in the soil itself is very important. A single test is only a snap shot of what is going on but a series over a period of time paints a picture of how your turf area is performing. To try to understand and further ones knowledge is literally a fantastic practise - its what you are constantly doing yourself Anthony. Knowledge will see off the snake oil merchants.
To be honest mate I am surprised by your negativity especially considering you eloquence on this site. You seem to be tarring us all with the same brush and I for one am a bit put out by it because I dont understand what you've got against us. As I said I undestand your point of view but it is now making a very one sided argument instead of your more usual unbiased 'thirst for knowledge' approach
10 Apr 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 10 Apr 2010
Mark
I believe a lot of fertilizer is over sold and over promoted for totally the wrong reasons. This all goes back to exactly what I was saying in the soil testing post in that a lot of it is all put together on the back of a technicaly flawed system which class the plant and soil as exactly the same in regrads to nutrition, a soil based only system only that gives no consideration to anything else. The attraction of this system is that it does not require extensive research to caliberate the methodology on which fertilizer recommendations are based. However, it is a soil based concept that ignores plant requirements (indicted by sufficiency levels) and does not take into account of differences between species in their adaption to different soil conditions so essentialy it's a case of 'one size fits all' - both plants and soils.
Albrecht recommendations for Ca, Mg and K fertilizers (what a lot of companies based their programmes on) is often estimated at over twice the amount of nutrient required compared to the sufficiency levels for each nutrient, which is no doubt what some 'salesman' like about the system.
Numerous experiments over the years have demonstrated that the use of this approach alone for making fertilizer recommendations is both scientificaly and economicaly questionable.
From SOME of the products I have looked at/trialed over the years and still today, I have observed that the Fe or N in the product is the best part of it - probably the most expensive N or Fe you will ever buy. Also some seaweeds I looked at was classed as just water with very little actual product in the mix, but just enough Fe in for the user to see a response via colour.
Some microbial products I tested did nothing in the growth chambers I looked at, which are used in agriculture inc thatch degrading products, but from what I saw the biological apect of those sand soils developed quickly and naturaly and the plots with product did nothing.
The best results I have seen, the best biostimulant and fertilizer on the market is AERATION, do this and all the natural processes will follow. Ofcourse the microbial life still needs carbon, Nitrogen etc, but when you look at how much comes out of the roots (natural exudates) and what is mineralised and broke down in the soil, you begin to realise that some products won't even touch the ground.
I have also seen some liquid, carbon products that when you do the simple maths the application rate is close to ZERO in that the added or applied product is very tiny (if anything) so quite often I observed it did nothing.
Some things that are sold out of a bottle do not need to be added as they are plentiful in soils anyway and develop naturaly and the huge amount needed to make a difference would be very costly.
As I said to BAS (as I say to everyone when I advise) if you like the look of a product, trial it over a period of time, statisticaly verify that it has DRASTICALLY improved the soil/plant etc - it's no good improving it a bit but SIGNIFICANT results need to be seen to justify the cost.
AA
10 Apr 2010 by BAS
guys thanks for your inputs,from what l understand you are both respected throughout the industry.I believe the more people l ask the more differant views l ll find which can only be good,but the decession has to be mine.The only way forward to me is to test and see any differances on MY site,if any.l need to see the differnce to my sward,not just on paper.This has to be the way forward,l ve nothink to lose the costs seem lower than conventional fertilsers and if it works the envoiromental and health of grass benifits are there.AA like you l have also been a victim of salesman and there lies or creative patter,but not all groundsman are purely grass cutter(though some are,l used to be)so l ve got to give the benifit of the doubt in this case. l am fighting hard to take each salesman on merits,trust has to be earned in my book with results to match.All l can say on Mark is in my brief experience of dealing with him he s not purely sales driven he seem to have a genuine passion for what he believes in. l hope l am proven right and can come on here in a years time with some positive news on my trials,proof in the pudding..
10 Apr 2010 by Mike
BAS - you cannot go wrong if you run your own trials. Where I am given the responsibility of buying materials, I will not take anyone's word for anything. I run my own trials, and will not consider buying anything based on a sales pitch... talk is cheap, proven results are what will enhance your performance in your job. I won't spend a penny with anyone until I have concrete evidence based on my own trials that what I am trialling works - I value my employers money and my own performance too much to rely on another's word. There are too many people out there who are willing to relieve people of their hard earned money by selling products that don't work, but on the flipside of this, there are also some very, very good products with people who are genuinely passionate about helping you along the way. It can be very difficult to see the wood for the trees sometimes. As far as I can see, there are only 2 ways to weed out them 'bad eggs', and that is to either be educated enough to be able to see a scam (which isn't always easy), or to trial the products. Personally, i'm not educated enough (yet) to always be able to take an educated, considered opinion on whether a product will work or not, but that's not to say that i'm stupid enough to take everyone's word for everything, and this is why I trial everything. I may not always understand the results, and why certain things are happening or aren't happening, but you cannot argue with results that are right in front of your face.
Personally, I have a huge amount of respect for both Anthony and Vid, and have learn't an awful lot from both of them over the years as they have passed wisdom on to many through this message board. Both are vastly experienced, skilled and passionate groundsmen, but ultimately, it is you that works on your cricket square, and only you will be judged on the results of your labour. Keep trialling, find what works for you, and go with that.
Mike
10 Apr 2010 by vid Last edited 10 Apr 2010
I know.... these arguments go round in the same circles at times, it was not long ago I was saying that all business at some time or other comes down to trust, but trust is so regularly broken now that it doesnt surprise me that everything seems to need to be tested first. But I ask you, if I carry out a thorough analysis and find there to be a deficiency of one kind of another and this could be improved by a corrective application, then (a) you need to trust the analysis, (b) you have to trust my interpretation of that analysis (c) you have to trust the products I am advising and probably most importantly (d) you have to trust that I will come back!! Some reps and advisors seem to put no effort in at all and spend little or no time explaining the process. Others invest a great deal of time, money and knowledge into their reports and it is incredibly obvious which is which.
Unfortunately some inadequate reports are perceived as good enough when they are not and another problem can be that a very thorough and technical report is presented by a rep who is unable to explain what is written there. If we had to test everything we would wait a year before taking up a plan fully - thats a whole year wasted, but I agree you have to be comfortable with a change before you implement it.
I cant on here convince you to buy from my product list but I would hope that when you listen to what I say and with reference to others that support or use me you would very quickly form a trust, if not I have failed to convince you and thats my loss. We trust brand names all the time in food, clothes, electrical goods etc and it is not necessarily the most expensive that are the most trustworthy, nor do we test each product out. However we do ask for refunds/ complain/ talk to our friends/ never use them again - all down to the gaining or losing trust in the product.
11 Apr 2010 by vid Last edited 11 Apr 2010
Hi Anthony, nice reply - thanks for that, I'm glad you took it the way it was meant.
I know a well known machinery company that observed the increase in growth created by deep aeration. So they decided to test it and found that the increase in growth was limited ie it plateau'd, so they researched and found that the reason for this was that the soil microbes quickly ran out of nutrient and there was a sudden drop off in their performance. This very much matches what I understand of the dynamics involved and I have always seen this microbial feeding as an integral part of a programme that includes aeration - without it the effects are not as great. In fact trials have been done to fit spray tanks and booms to the aeration equipment so that the 2 operations are done together for maximum effect and minimum application cost (a very pleasing reduction in carbon footprint!).
Microbial feed is only a part of the process because at the end of the day we are concentrating on the plant not the microbe. So balance, aeration, stimulation are all part of the equation and I would say that for the heavy requirements of most sports turf all must be properly adressed to achieve the desired effect.
So yes aeration is the most important starting point but without balance and extra stimulation its benefits are limited
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time