News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom Yost

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2007, 08:38:10 PM »
My company makes products for "applied computing" (i.e. embedded computers).  A few years back, we worked with a client on an interesting agricultural application and it would seem to be relevant to golf course maintenance.

The system is mounted in a tractor and uses GPS to accurately map the boundaries of a field taking into consideration elevation changes.  The computer is then used to direct the tractor operator for the very precise application of fertilizers or pesticides, eliminating overlap or missed areas and thereby saving money.  Pretty cool I thought.

Wondering if anything like this is used in golf course applications?


Tom

Ken Moum

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2007, 10:52:50 PM »
Wondering if anything like this is used in golf course applications?

Tom

I don't know if anyone is actually using it, but some of the people who make those devices are trying to sell it to the golf course management community. I get press releases from one or two of them.

Ken
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Mike_Young

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2007, 11:32:12 PM »
Wondering if anything like this is used in golf course applications?

Tom

I don't know if anyone is actually using it, but some of the people who make those devices are trying to sell it to the golf course management community. I get press releases from one or two of them.

Ken
ONE OF THE LARGE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS BOUGHT ONE OF THE ELCTRIC DOG FENCE COMPANIES AND WILL EVENTUALLY USE IT FOR MOWING PATTERNS FOR GREEN MOWERS ETC WITHOUT OPERATORS ETC...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Dan_Sterr

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2007, 06:06:36 PM »
Brendon,

I got this from the March issue of the SSSAJ...You might want to question how up to date your professor is on his research.  I see this as a prime example of fooh fooh money being thrown at a problem that may have even been created in a supers mind.

The use of "balanced" Ca, Mg, and K ratios, as prescribed by the basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept, is still used by some private soil-testing laboratories for the interpretation of soil analytical data. This review examines the suitability of the BCSR concept as a method for the interpretation of soil analytical data. According to the BCSR concept, maximum plant growth will be achieved only when the soil's exchangeable Ca, Mg, and K concentrations are approximately 65% Ca, 10% Mg, and 5% K (termed the ideal soil). This "ideal soil" was originally proposed by Firman Bear and coworkers in New Jersey during the 1940s as a method of reducing luxury K uptake by alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). At about the same time, William Albrecht, working in Missouri, concluded through his own investigations that plants require a soil with a high Ca saturation for optimal growth. While it now appears that several of Albrecht's experiments were fundamentally flawed, the BCSR ("balanced soil") concept has been widely promoted, suggesting that the prescribed cationic ratios provide optimum chemical, physical, and biological soil properties. Our examination of data from numerous studies (particularly those of Albrecht and Bear themselves) would suggest that, within the ranges commonly found in soils, the chemical, physical, and biological fertility of a soil is generally not influenced by the ratios of Ca, Mg, and K. The data do not support the claims of the BCSR, and continued promotion of the BCSR will result in the inefficient use of resources in agriculture and horticulture.


Abbreviations: BCSR, basic cation saturation ratio • CEC, cation exchange capacity

john,
is that the soil science society of america journal?

Brendan Dolan

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2007, 06:52:07 PM »
Craig,
I hear what your saying, and yes soil types change alot here in Wisconsin too.  I am not saying that soil sampling should be a regular thing, but that it can be helpful tool.

Brendan

Don_Mahaffey

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2007, 07:03:37 PM »
Dan,
Reality is, there is a very large debate on this issue...and both sides are worth listing to, provided they don't just copy and paste.
Don

Craig Sweet

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2007, 07:06:35 PM »
Brendan, just as an aside...I know a guy with a very successful wholesale nursery business. This guy grows some fantastic plants...so one day i was dinking around with some potting mixes for bare root trees....and I called Brad and asked him what his mix consisted of...and his reply was "For God sake, whatever you do, don't copy mine!" He had sent in a sample of his mix to the county extension agent for testing, and they told him there was no way he could grow plants in his mix! They said it was awful!  Well...whatever it was, it worked, so he stuck with it...

If there is one thing my boss has taught me, it's that you can over think this whole think very easily.  of course all those young greenkeepers coming out of fancy turf schools will argue with you that you have to think about all this stuff and do all these tests and watch your cations etc. etc... :)

Dan_Sterr

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2007, 10:16:21 PM »
don
i understand there are other methods and ways of interpreting soil test data, i was just wondering if the quote john was refering to was from the soil science of america journal and who would have the research to back up the idea that the bcsr method of soil test interpretation does not work.

Ray Richard

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2007, 11:48:21 AM »
I wouldn't worry about gibberlic acid ratios. The goal is to grow grass using food(N,P,K),air and water. Add a liitle iron sulphate to green it up and don't worry about the rest.

 A salesman tried to sell me fertilizer with "enhanced micronutrients", he took a test and determined that Moly and Gold levels were low. Hey, its a business to grow turf and please the customers (members-players) and none of them can tell the difference between a micronutrient deficiency or not.

Michael_Stachowicz

Re:The Downside of Turf Research
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2007, 12:03:37 PM »
What the research on these approaches are missing is real world uses.  The one study I saw on base saturation was done on bentgrass and they saw no difference between meeting the base saturation ideals and other soil fertility goals.  This makes sense as bent is a poverty grass and will perform no matter the soil fertility guidelines.  Where the base saturation method works is on mixed poa stands, bluegrass, and rye...also any farming operations.  Base saturation works, makes a great soil, healthy grass, etc.

That all being said, it is not the way to maintain bent or fescue.  The lush fertile conditions of that program will allow weeds and poa to come in and flourish.

Tags: