Which is the best way to optimize your fertilization? To make soil test?
Fertilization plan can varies from weather, number of mows, types of mows, location...
tnx,d
Hi DAmjan
It is important that the emphasis is based on field response data conducted under local soil-climate turf conditions which will allow proper interpretation of the results. By this I mean, the soil test results needs to be well correlated with crop response or yield.
It is all very site specific and a million things come into the equation such as soils, species, cultivars, micro climate, mechanic operations etc etc
It is also important to know the methology and extraction method used to come up with the numbers before correct interpretation can be carried out (different extractants and extraction times will remove differet amounts of nutrient from the soil, so that different methods require different interpretation criteria). Guesswork or ancedotal evidence, or even field data from other parts of the UK are not appropriate.
Cheers
Ant
27 Jun 2010 by Anthony Asquith
I am hopefully putting a little booklet together on this in the near future - all the so called myths and wizadry that have since been discredited.
AA
Anthony, discredit this
Cation Exchange Capacity greens Mallorca
meq % ppm
Ca 1,01 31,6 202
Mg 1,6 50 192
K 0,031 1 12
Na 0,535 16,7 123,05
Cation Exchange Capacity Madrid 8,4 meq Calle 1 10/2009
meq % ppm Target percentage
Ca 4,916 58,5 70
Mg 0,775 9,2 15
K 0,537 6,4 5
Na 2,19 26,1 5
Cation Exchange Capacity 16,397
Meq Percent Greens Cornwall
Ca 15 91,5
Mg 0,953 5,8
K 0,251 1,5
Na 0,193 1,2
Calcium is necessary for cell production, when deficient??
Sodium kills turfgrass. Magnesium is at center of chlorophyll molecule and when deficient ??? Magnesium reduces hydraulic conductivity when in excess ??? No tee to green no green fees
Stop listening to turf talk radio : standard soil analysis, CEC, saturated paste, tissue analysis, a (full cation, anion, pH, and EC ) water analysis can all be helpful tools.
Viewing turf performance from as many perspectives as possible can only be a benefit.
CEC and ppm's are both weight by weight measurements, if you figure up your espoused sufficiency range levels you will see they are virtually the same CEC ranges that you discredit.
Regards Michael
27 Jun 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 27 Jun 2010
Michael
Firstly, in UK turfgrass and soils, deficencies of anything other than Nitrogen are extremely rare in the real world in traditional soils which most of our surfaces are made up of (I admit, high sand, low CEC soils, new constructions are a different beast) but on saline affected soils chemistry becomes more of a complex issue ie K:Na ratios, Calcium application, flushing, gypsum etc so this is an accepted practice in places but not here in the Uk. But, we are talking about 'extremes' here seldon encountered in the real world here in the UK. The soil testing system is subjective based system based on a technicaly flawed system which was proposed over 50 years ago, it is a soil based only system that ignores plant requirements and classes everything the same - 'one size fits all' - both plants and soils.
What do the numbers actualy mean?, only the salesman (which are often thinly disguised as agronomists or advisors) and true believers can interpret such results. What are we to do about it if results are high or low providing we stick to a sensible turf nutrition programme in the first place?
Don't get me wrong I have used soil analysis and will continue to do so but only to confirm thoughts, use it for troubleshooting and use it to look at trends before making knee jerk reactions in nutrition. You cannot apply something so univerall, esp as results differ from site to site here in the UK let alone worldwide.
For those who have worked on the ground as practical turf practitioners, turf management is about working with the elements, having a modicum of common sense, it's about correct visual observation and correct deduction, it's about feel, it's about sight and it's about producing a surface for sport. The turf will tell you what you want to know!
I treat a lot of the numbers, ratios, nutritional values as pure garbage - I have seen may crap and poor soils on golf courses over the years with fantastic Bent/Fescue greens. Numbers, ratios, nutritional values are not that important in normal soil situation put forward, what is available to the plant is as then you are dealing with actuals and hard facts.
All this comes back to agriculture and farming, yes, there is requirements for specific soil/crops etc but not in turf, no work has ever been done with grasses in regards to exact numbers etc as there are so many widespread parametres
AA
27 Jun 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 27 Jun 2010
Michael
The numbers above relate to courses in Spain - here in the UK, the laboratories differentiate in their results from lab to lab let alone country to country (as said above) which is why I always advice my clients to maintain consistency in their results by using the same lab with the same extraction and methology. Numbers often presented to me mean diddly squat as what do they actualy mean in the real world of turf management? are the root and soil ok, no obvious problems with growth/yield, disease/pest trouble etc..the list goes on.
People get tied in knots over this sort of stuff by pushy salesman trying to hit targets and as I have always said, by becoming too concerned with soil chemistry when trying to produce a surface for sport needs to be placed into the degree of ignorance that exists and there are far more important things for people to worry about such as compaction, pests, disease, thatch etc.
I have spend 12 years in research and looked at just about everything on the UK market under controlled enviroments (most do little if anything) and in most cases the obvious turf problems present more problems (as stated in the above paragraph)
I am a big believer that everything will adapt to it's given situation and will adapt to the physical and chemical nature of that soil (I have seen many poa annua actualy become a bio type due to it's ability to evolve and adapt plus soil life live in such hostile enviroments but can still support a plant) and as said seldom 'drastic' situations are extremely rare in the real world.
AA
Anthony, you take 100 grams of soil use an extractant method that best approaches real life and see how many of 20 mg quantities of calcium, 12 mg of Mg, 39 mg of K and 23 mg of Na are present. If below pH of 7, hydrogen, aluminium take up more of CEC as pH drops. The meq of H is 1 mg and 1 meq of Al weighs 9 mg ( chemical weight divided by 3+ polarity ).
1 meq of Ca = 200 ppm's ( chemical weight / polarity x10 )with an assumed bulk density of +/- 1.5 g / cc. Same for all others.
Any soil sample uses ppm's and or meq.
The one soil sample from Cornwall has the CEC being choked by the calcareous component active in soil solution. Magnesium is at heart of the chlorophyll molecule and lacking. P is also choked because there is 6% of active calcium carbonate meaning there are 24,000 ppm's of calcium sequestering 85 ppm's of available P.
Over the last couple of months I have been advising a club in Eastern med that had a series of soil analysis from a top UK provider. I spoke with head scientists of Adas, Rigby Taylor, European Turfgrass Labs, Scottish Ag College and many other to understand UK nomenclature.
The consensus was that when soil nutrients are expressed in mg / L a weight by volume basis that needs a bulk density to convert to ppm's or CEC that a liter of soil is assumed to weigh one kilo.
Everyone is entitled to their own philosophy, but soil weighs from 1.3 to 1.65 g /cc, the periodic table has not changed recently to my knowledge and ignoring CEC as a baseline tool is ignor_ _ _ .Chemical compounds combine and interact on a milliequivalent basis.
Groundsmanship is an art for sure and many groundsmen without scientific training do a phenomenal job. But when an advisor goes into a new situation, a thorough knowledge of science is necessary to evaluate specific circumstances. Guys with art, common sense, and a pen to document trials and errors will get it right eventually. Coming in cold turkey is tough.
Good luck in your advisory role. Michael
27 Jun 2010 by Mike Last edited 27 Jun 2010
Well, I think someone needs to have a word on you pair for 'dumbing down' the forum 
Much of what is said runs way beyond my pool of knowledge, so I won't even attempt to interpret or translate much of what has been said into english!
With that said however, I think there are some important messages that we can all take from the above. If I am understanding things correctly, it would seem that:
Science does have a part to play in all situations, but increasingly so in unnatural situations which are rarely encountered at recreational level which are played on 'natural surfaces'
The most accurate science lab for each ground is each ground - soil tests can tell us what's going on in the soil, but can fail to factor in the specific individual circumstances of each site - a soil test is exactly that, and this should be considered and the results must be taken in conjuction with the specific conditions of the site, which a science lab does not have access to.
Most of the problems that we encounter are actually man made, be it through poor construction or poor maintenance practices.
As I have said all along, the best way to tell what works at each site is to run your own trials and see what works in that environment. Keep a diary of what's done, when it was done, what the conditions were when it was done, and most importantly what the results were. I would question any scientific test that can argue with a documented, detailed history of what has taken place at any given site, but I would be open to 'tweaking' on a trial basis.
I remember having a conversation with a top notch groundsman - one I hold in higher esteem than any other industry figure. We were talking about fertiliser programs and such like. I was 'misguided' at the time, and I based everything on the numbers i.e. ratios of nutrients and the recommended requirements. I remember him saying to me "Mike, the numbers are nearly the same, don't worry about it" - amazingly simple outlook, yet probably the best piece of advice I ever received.
Mike
Mike A Guys with art, common sense, and a pen to document trials and errors will get it right eventually.
This is quoted from above in my post. Making notches on the wall is the way to go. Science helps to get you where you want to go a bit faster.
I agree with keeping it simple.
An understanding of soil physiology, biology, and chemistry is not a bad thing.
Almost 20 years ago I went into Royal County Down and met with Walter Beattie in May sometime. He said the weather had been cool and he hadn't fed the greens yet that year. I went in a few weeks later and he said he still hadn't fed and there was a thunderstorm the night before and he got almost 4 grams of N according to the local meteorological station. He was rubbing his hands together and said he was good to go til mid July, natural greenkeeping at its best.
Walter was a great greenkeeper and Royal County Down legendary.
Let's say now that a hydraulic hose burst and fried an area half the size of a green. There is no turf nursery and no more natural dune sand to replace the affected 4 inches of rootzone, the club championship is tomorrow and you need to buy sod and find some rootzone material similar to the natural rootzone and compatible with the sod.
You need someone that can interpret sieve analyses, understands grass species, and you need them quick.
Many times a new advisor is not called in until disaster has already struck.
Groundsman that change locations may have to start the learning curve all over again.
I am really behind on my work trying to evaluate the relevancy of the other bases on the CEC for a client with soil pH's above 7. Make any sense to any of you?
Brookside is not my favourite lab.
Cheers Michael
27 Jun 2010 by Mike Last edited 27 Jun 2010
Let's say now that a hydraulic hose burst and fried an area half the size of a green. There is no turf nursery and no more natural dune sand to replace the affected 4 inches of rootzone, the club championship is tomorrow and you need to buy sod and find some rootzone material similar to the natural rootzone and compatible with the sod.
Have a turf nursery
Be thorough with pre start checks
Follow a machinery maintenance plan religiously
Keep a supply of rootzone sand (and all other base supplies for that matter)
Use Biodegradable hydraulic oil on machines where there is a risk of spillage seriously affecting play
Being a good groundsman/greenkeeper is all about preparation - you should aim to be prepared for every eventuality... even acts of god!
"Before everything else, getting ready is the secret to success." - Henry Ford
Edit: Forgot to add that I do agree with your points!
Reads like you've got a fan there Ant....not.....
Mind you, anybody who quotes soil analyses to 4 sig figs and uses commas instead of decimal points on a UK based website fails to get my vote. And playing clever bu99ers by revealing hidden data in subsequent posts........
Michael, you can throw dirt at me all day long. I won't care and I'm not a threat to your income. I don't earn my living from the earth (not for over 25 years at least) and I won't rob you of your contracts. Anthony on the other hand is, in my experience, a decent bloke who is trying to make a living and has a refreshing honesty - if sometimes an ability to put his arguments in scientific terms that many don't fully understand. Independantly I share many of his views about the over-hyping of big business and I appreciate his willingness to help even those of us who can't afford to pay.
For interest, in comparison to your superb CV on a different thread, I've worked on Monks Kirby CC and Hibaldstow CC. I'm sure you're in shock and awe.....Jon. 1st class Honours degree and PhD in Chemistry. More than 20 years in multinational chemical industry. 15 years of maintaining village cricket grounds on a tight budget.
The ciderman rolls
Jon, it is late and do not get me started on the quality of UK soil science. My point is that many supers and groundsmen's jobs depend upon being able to understand these numbers or someone to do it for them. It does not **** rain 4 days a week everywhere in the world.
The numbers are not mumbo jumbo, they are real science. Anthony and I have been in contact a few times. The bleeding yanks have this birth control capital punishment talk radio crap going on about whether Albrecht was full of it. If you run the sufficiency levels into CEC percentages and sufficiency levels are based upon where you will see a field response from a particular fertilizer application you will see it is a load of smoke and there is no difference between CEC and sufficiency level guidelines. Are the guidelines written in stone, NO.
I am a yank living in Europe for almost 20 years, the whole system in the States is based on biweekly fungicide apps, a chemical for whatever malady is just a call to Sygenta or Bayer away. I think it is a shame and hope the rest of the world stops moving that direction. I am for simplistic turf management and believe me proper analytical procedures are necessary in many parts of the world. I use guidelines to go in a direction to you get to the quality necessary. Overkill is not my style but understanding the periodic table and how chemicals interact is important to me and my clients.
All the best Michael ps Anthony, turn off the talk radio
Could I just point out that fertilisation has nothing whatsoever to do with fertliser. Fertilisation is about reproduction.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
29 Jun 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 29 Jun 2010
Michael
Yes, I cannot get this through to you - there is this type of information for agriculture but not for turf, nor there ever will be due to so many wide acceptable parametres. Some advisers I have come across are agriculture trained advisors or consultants that have literally runined turf surfaces over the years as Greenkeeping is a study in INFERTILITY, not agriculture. How much of the land over the years in that is classed as extremely toxic by extreme acidity (thus Al solubility) would of been reclaimed for farming, yet bents can and do tollerate and thrive happily in such enviroments. I am a big believer that the vegetation will adapt to the given situation, which lets face it, in sports turf terms is very rare to encounter 'extremes' of any nature.
Where is the statistical verification that following such a system improves turf, not a little but significantly, and worth the cost?
On a final note - it seems a lot of people who advocate this kind of stuff are commercialy driven, so much so that 'scaremongering' seems to be going on from certain pressure groups within the industry. There is no 'ideal' soil, nutritional value, PH...it depends on the adaption of that particular plant in question which is wide and varied.
The proposed system that was put forward by Bear, Albrecht etc is widely advocated by salesman etc hence that is what they like about the system - it's easy and commercial. The attraction on this system, is that it does not require extensive research to calibrate the methodology on which fertilizer recommendations are based. However, it is a soil only based concept that ignores plant requirements and does not take into account of differences beetween species and their adaption to different soil conditions. Essentialy, it's a case of 'one size fit's all' - both plants and soils.
I often get asked to suggest an 'ideal' fertilizer programme which I quickly decline - what I can do is, I can work with the client over a number of months/years and learn to understand about that particular site, it's specifics (every ground is different so it's all very site specific) and requirements - Only then can I make an informed judgement based on what I see.
I summed all this up in my very first reply at the top on this page.
Let's move on from this now and talk about something worthwhile!
AA
29 Jun 2010 by vid
Anthony - you still surprise me - I know my allegiencies are changing by the moment but I would hate to think I am losing my independance of thought.
As a groundsman first I have found it enormously rewarding delving into plant and microbe nutrition and the relationships within the soil that lead to healthy plant growth. I am not degree trained but the amount I have learnt over the past year or so has given me a completely different outlook on the turf environment.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the first and foremost tool of any groundsman is observation and sensible reaction to this. However sight is only one aspect of observation and unless you have considerably better eyes than I do we are only guessing about things at a molecular level. Reliable testing not only gives you an insight into the molecular and chemical world but takes the game to a point beyond guessing. Also you would have no reliable way of knowing what had changed to make the difference if you had no comparative data.
As an analogy your 'groundsmans eye' would be useless without light. Understanding the causes of failure in the soil are useless without testing. without light or testing the whole thing is pure conjecture, trial and error and guesswork. It has been working for years in agriculture we are way, way behind them. There is absolutely no reason why given all the information - observed, cultural and chemical - why you should not make an accurate assessment of the turf status and its requirements.
You are absolutely right in your assertion that testing in the wrong hands is a poor tool, how many fertiliser salesman ever tell you of the base saturation or even attempt to explain anything about it at all!! What needs to be guarded against is misinterpretation of results to meet a commercial end. What should be encouraged is proper explanation of results to achieve soil health not chemical dependancy
29 Jun 2010 by Mike
Just to throw this in another direction, but one I consider to be of prime importance to all of us, why is it that we are so far behind agriculture in terms of research?
Yes, we may be a small industry by comparison, but we are far from a small industry. One of my pet hates is when people focus on the 'industry' as an individual entity, rather than as a critical component of the industries which we support. Looking at things in a broad, all encompassing spectrum, it's clear to see that our industry is an integral part of a globally massive industry, yet there are still basic questions which have long gone unanswered.
Mike
29 Jun 2010 by vid
As a whole Mike amenity horticulture is not commercially driven to the same extent. Farming has some very big mutinational interests. Preparing food requires a closer science level so research and money is piled in. Turf is much more localised and has no particular joint output interest. Most of the commercialism capitalises on the fact that there is so little unified opinion. If something goes wrong with sports turf ie the 18th green at your local golf club it will not make national headlines. For all the guff going on about Wembly there has been little or no discussion in the media about the fundamental causes of the turf issues there, so why would big commercial interests invest time and money into changing the staus quo when the staus quo is supplying a very nice standard of living - thank you
No reasonably sized arable farmer does anything without regular soil tests to optimise his fertiliser programme. They now use this information and satellite imagery to precisely control the amounts applied by computer in the cab of the tractor. we have benefitted in that this technology is being used (but not as fully) by turf managers and we now have available for our use sophisticated sprayers and spreaders that can adjust application rates from one area to the next,
imo, soil tests etc are good for indications or backing up your gut feeling. the test results aren't the be all and end all for our industry.
As has been pointed out, the various required figures for a maximumyiekd for xyz plant doesn't exist outside of the agri industry. but that doesn't mean the figures are pointless.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
30 Jun 2010 by Michael Rogers Last edited 30 Jun 2010
Here is one of my soil analysis and partial recommendations for a UK links course
mm Percent
Sand 2-.05 92
Silt .05-.002 4
Clay < .002 4
Soil Salinity
Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0,363
Chlorides meq / 100 gr 0,222
Sulfate expressed as %CaSO4 0,056
Sodium in meq / 100 gr soil 0,193
pH and Calcareous %
pH 7,95
Total Calcareous as CaCO3 54,71
CaCO3 active in soil solution 5,97
Organic Material
Total organic material % 4,2
Total Organic Carbon % 2,436
Carbon : Nitrogen Ratio 6,066
2009
Primary Macronutrients
Organic & ammoniacal N % 0,402
Nitrogen as NO3 ppm 30,091
Phosphorus available ppm 86,44
100 gr soil Potassium available ( meq ) 0,251
Secondary Macronutrients
100 gr soil Calcium available ( meq ) 22,197
100 gr soil Magnesium available ( meq ) 0,953
Micronutrients
Iron available ppm 178,01
Manganese available ppm 10,87
Zinc available ppm 11,79
Copper available ppm 1,49
Boron available ppm 1,25
Targets Cation Exchanges Percentages
<5 Sodium 0,818 Okay
2 to 7 Potassium 1,064 Very low
65 to -80 Calcium 94,079 Very high
10 to 20 Magnesium 4,039 Very low
Interactions
Calcium : Magnesium 23,292
Potassium : Magnesium 0,263
USGA Texture Particle Size % by weight
Less than Fine gravel > 2 mm 0,18 Okay
10% Total Very coarse sand 1-2 mm 1,19 Okay
More than Coarse sand .5-1 mm 4,52 Very low
60% Total Medium sand .25-.5 mm 13,86 Very low
< 20% Fine sand .15-.25 mm 75,48 Very high
< 5% Very fine sand .05-.15 mm 3,48 Okay
< 5% Silt .002-.05 mm 0 Okay
< 3% Clay < .002 1,28 Okay
Total of very fine sand, 4,76 Okay
silt, and clay not to
exceed 10%
2009
Granulometry %
30 Jun 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 30 Jun 2010
In regards to the numbers, nobody has still answered the question - where is the statistical verification that adopting such figures improves turf, drasticaly and worth the cost of maintaining such ratios and balances within the soil??
I have done some work investigating this sort of approach some years ago in conjunction with soil scientists around different parts of the world. The research concluded that experiments to test the method found that it did not work - sufficiency of nutrients is what is required, not any specific ratio or value.
The concept of cation saturation ratios for Ca, Mg, K etc was originaly developed for lucerne in north-eastern USA..the theoretical basis for this approach is that the concentration of cation in solution, the fraction most rapidly available to plants, is best related to it's proportion on the ECEC rather than to the absolute amount of exchangeable cation. It was noted, however that for Ca, Mg and K there could be substantial departures from this so called 'ideal' soil without detriment to yield and growth, particulary for crops other than lucerne. The 'optimal range' of cation saturations varies greatly beetween species and cultivars. It is therefore best to regard these much quoted 'ideal' saturation ratios as no more than a very general guide across a wide range of species and cultivars so DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF MAKING FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS.
I have never ever seen evidence or proof that balanced recommended ratios, specific nutritional values work in all my years of researching turf/soils used for sport - sufficiency is the KEY, with appropriate field trials to calibrate any recommendation system
All this I have mentioned above.
AA
Anthony, please tell me what these sufficiency range levels are.
Then divide the sufficiency ranges by their ( milliequivalent weight x 10 ) add up the total meq of Ca, Mg, K, and Na then divide the meq of Ca,Mg,K, and Na and multiply by 100 and tell me what CEC percentage ranges you have derived from your sufficiency level guidelines.
I have sent you the two most prominent set of sufficiency levels from the States turfgrass industry and converted them into CEC ranges so you can see what I am talking about.
I am really behind with the world cup, tennis, and this dialogue; I need to get back to balancing CEC values for clients prescribing soil amendments and leaching regimes.
This topic should be sufficiently exhausted after you read my email.
Hopefully yours, Michael
1 Jul 2010 by vid
Anthony you obviously then have not looked far enough, to dismiss investigation into balance within the soil is not logical alongside your argument for 'groundsmans eye'. Exactly the same amount of common sense needs to be put in place when assessing testing. When looking at a poorly performing turf area groundsmans eye will not tell you the ph but will tell you that it is most likely to be acidic or alkali by observing weed types rooting depths worm activity disease etc. Noticing that certain colourations of the grass or diseases are present will indicate what deficiencies there are but again not how much. Correction by foliar application or by additions to fertilisers is both expensive and very short term. Deficiencies are much better corrected in amounts of the basic raw material to mitigate cost - these raw materials are mostly cheap. Vital elements for fixation of nitrogen for instance arent even mentioned in most testing reports and so are somewhat useless in their scope, so on that point I agree with you.
I find it very difficult to agree with what you are saying, trial and error or guessing is just not a professional way of going about our business. 'Error' is just not an acceptible result on highly managed turf areas. Not many top turf managers have the luxury of time to experiment.
This line takes us back to the dark ages, testing properly used and adequately explained especially when carried out by independants with no commercial interests will expose the very people you are complaining about. Those that are using these tests to properly empowr their customers with the knowledge required have nothing to worry about.
I still dont know how you expect to make a proper evaluation using groundsmans eye and experience alone. Guessing can lead to very serious contamination of the very ground we should be nurturing and the polluting of our environment. Surely those on limited budgets - very limited in my case - need to avoid waste and optimise their costs by targetting nutrients that are deficient not those that are in surplus. If agriculture can tell us crop requirements on grassland then I would be pretty amazed if tables of turf requirements for the different sports usages could not be or have not already been compiled
Until somebody can tell us what the right amount of each nutrient is what is the point of testing to see what there is there already? Just look at it with experience and go from there. Stop trying to over complicate things. Grass has been used as a sports surface for many years without all of the suedo science and in many cases the surfaces are poorer now than in the past. Funny how most of the suedo science seems to emulate from sales persons or am I just being cynical?
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
1 Jul 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 1 Jul 2010
Third time - Where is the statistical verification that adopting such as system (Albrecht and the BCSR theory) improves surfaces SIGNIFICANTLY, and worth the cost on a wide adaption of turf species and cultivars?
I cannot believe I am having to repeat over and over so to reiterate and draw this pointless discussion to a close so here are my points to follow for the interested readers of Pitchcare on soil chemical testing:
1) Analyse the soil using correct accepted procedures that have been calibrated againgst fertilizer experiments in that particular region and to interpret the results using criteria derived from those calibration experiments.
2) The analytical method used by the laboratory must be applicable to your region for soil testing to meet your specific needs.
3) Differences in soil type and climatic conditions will influence availability of different nutrients and the suitability of different extractants.
4) Use them to confirm you thoughts and see trends without making knee jerk reactions.
5) Use as a rough guide only, do not use them in ISOLATION, like anything in turf.
Soil chemical sesting has become far too commercialised and I hear stories of samples being analysed and intepreted in different contries let alone counties. I hear of stories of wicket soil analysis with full fertilizer recommendations advocated even though heavy clays soils change chemicaly over thousands of years.
I reiterate, there has never been any work done on turfgrass to suggest these critical tension ratios and nutritional values are hold true, I often see infertile soils on some golf courses and bowling greens with a plethorea of bent/fescue domination. In the real world, deficiencies of anything other than Nitrogen is extremely rare in the UK and what is of most importance is what is AVAILABLE as you are dealing with actuals.
Yes, I do advice soil analysis and have used it for years but for the right reasons and not the wrong ones and from the advice I see, people I have talked to the interpretation is carried out by a commercialy based entity with in view to making sales targets. As I have aluded to throughout and only the real believers and salesman can interpret exactly what those results mean. Soil testing can be a 'tool' in the right hands but so often the commercial titanic of pressure groups push it so widely will gay abandon on something which is very subjective.
I have looked at soil chemical analysis over many years with some of the most repected soil scientists around the world and we all come to the same conclusion, which eveyone can read about from my above information.
AA
Anthony, let's make this simple. What are your sufficiency levels?
Show me a useful soil analysis and demonstrate its correct application. Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?
Anonymous
1 Jul 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 1 Jul 2010
Seen a wide ranges of various levels from so called very low to high levels to very high - all differ hugely but all have one thing in common - very healthy turf.
The numbers you provide are your numbers and it works for you for your particular clients worlwide. With possible different methodology, extractants, climatic variations here the results are meaningless.
Turfgrass can live happily and survive in a wide range of nutritional values, ratios etc, and extremes (which could cause problems) and real deficiences are very rare in the real world of turfgrass management.
AA
Now let me see if I have read you right Ant......... just to confirm, be sure etc
Soil testing is a tool to be used, more of a map than a bible?
No Gospel according to St NPK then.....
Thoughts?
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
1 Jul 2010 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 1 Jul 2010
Exactly that, a rough guide, certainly not to be used in isolation and supported by calibration againgst fertilizer experiments in that particular region and to interpret the results using criteria derived from those calibration experiments. Use as guides to monitor and track trends rather than make knee jerk reations based on limited knowlege on the plants overall system, especially when the result is related to parametres that can be very broadand not necessarily related to sports turf.
Both Tissue and soil testing can be a good idea in sand profiles if you have the cash and the labs are INDEPENDENT of fertilizer companies and salesman. Remember in such soils, hydroponics spring to mind. I have looked at a lot of stuff in controlled conditions in growth chambers like they use in ag, including some of the snake oils that people try to sell which is fact very expensive water.
On the other hand, a well trained eye and experience is just as important with a modicum of common sense.
AA
So thats a yes then.... sort of... more of a sketch than OS map...
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
Yes, the main thing is that the plant has sufficient quantities, nothing else comes into the equation, only under extreme circumstances which are very rare in the real world, especially here in the UK.
AA
A thing about soil tests, how many use an independent lab for ther results? Most will use a fertiliser company who will then work out a programme based on this. Not saying it is wrong, but we need to bear in mind that fertiliser companies exist to SELL to us, so being able to interpret the results of soil tests in conjunction with the mark 1 eyeball, and not just buy stuff cos the rep says so has to be the way to work.
1 Jul 2010 by mackay
At the risk of making myself unpopular: there's a lot of plagerism going on above without any referencing. Especially from Perveril et al. It leaves me feeling uncomfortable about some of the honesty of these posts. I wonder if there is going to be such a complex discussion if certain tracts should be referenced? - it would give greater credence to that view.
Please don't ask me to qualify the above statement as I have no intention of being so rude as to do so.
Great thread though. :)
1 Jul 2010 by mackay
And appologies to all Americans, but can we PLEASE spell 'fertiliser' and 'optimisation' with an 's'. Pretty please?
appologies
Pot, Kettle, Black.
GOGGA
Andy, it's an excellent thread, carry on I say.
I'm just waiting for that 'little book' that AA mentioned at the top to appear in the PC Shop.
GOGGA
1 Jul 2010 by vid
Hi again Anthony, thanks for clarifying your point. When I am advising anyone as part of my work my first step is to have a good look at the sward in all areas and to locate areas that are performing less well than others, I then take cores and look at the profile - look at the soil type layering, rooting depth etc I then take samples from the generalised area to try to avoid local variations and send them on to an independant lab...... but most of all I will not attempt to suggest remedial action including the use of product before I have had time to collate the results and send my report to the customer so that he/she has time to take a look. Only then can a reasoned and informed conversation between the turfkeeper and myself or you Anthony (effectively the salesman) take place.
I hope on that we concur and I can shut my row!!
Vid (busy as hell Anthony trying to save my bacon but when I get a mo I'll give you a buzz)
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
