PDA

View Full Version : Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR), its Effect on Turfgrass


ICT Bill
11-13-2008, 11:10 AM
A study from 2006, of interest. This is not our product but one very similiar, they do not use mycorrhizae in their mix and I am not sure they are still around. We are expecting the same type result from our plots with the University of Rhode Island. Anecdotally our plots are doing very well, we have to wait for the statistics.

The product PGPR (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria) was compared with a synthetic and an organic fertilizer for its effect on turfgrass quality, growth response, and nutrient uptake. The trial was conducted on a USGA specification sand based putting green located at Olds College, Olds,
Alberta.
The PGPR product produced better turfgrass quality than the untreated control on seven of the eight rating dates, although it was only statistically different on the final rating date (table 1). Generally, the PGPR was equal to the fertilized treatments in spite of the fact that there was no nutrient value to the product.
The plots treated with PGPR had a better growth response, as measured by clipping yields, than the untreated control on each rating date and was significantly better on three rating dates (table 2). The PGPR produced clipping yields that were statistically similar to three of the four fertility treatments, Milorganite at 0.6 and 1.0 kg N/100m2 and the Contec at 0.6 kg n/100m2.

When compared with the untreated control plant nutrient values were significantly higher for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, copper and magnesium when the PGPR product was applied (table 3 and 4).
Calcium was considerably higher for the PGPR treatment, but it was not statistically different. The plant nutrient value for potassium in the PGPR treatment was equal to the high rate of Contec which had 0.5 kg K/100m2 added to the plots. These results would indicate that the PGPR promoted nutrient availability and uptake.

Full paper is here http://ptrc.oldscollege.ca/pdf/PlantGrowthRhizo.pdf

DUSTYCEDAR
11-13-2008, 08:10 PM
thanks for keeping us up to date

ICT Bill
11-13-2008, 08:44 PM
what was most interesting about it was the NPK was the same or higher in the soil test

WAIT A MINUTE...... there was no NPK applied???? just beneficials

YEP nutrient miners, phosphorous miners, good guys that make nutrients available

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-13-2008, 08:47 PM
bill,

wow! that was a great report....thanks for the link!

.... if i wanted to have one of these really scientific unbiased ''UNIVERSITY'' studies for me what is the going $rate$ these days?

ICT Bill
11-13-2008, 11:31 PM
bill,

wow! that was a great report....thanks for the link!

.... if i wanted to have one of these really scientific unbiased ''UNIVERSITY'' studies for me what is the going $rate$ these days?

Great question, I am glad you are so interested in giving back to the community
I would say ask your local University, great thing, you could give back to the community by supporting the University and they could test your theories

It is a win win situation

this is exactly what we need more of

thank you for the question, actuallly a stunning report, microbes did better than fertilizers !
Imagine, you may have data to begin supporting your theories

Smallaxe
11-15-2008, 09:49 AM
" ...The PGPR produced clipping yields that were statistically similar to three of the four fertility treatments, Milorganite at 0.6 and 1.0 kg N/100m2 and the Contec at 0.6 kg n/100m2. ..."

How does 0.6 kg of N/100m2 come out in lbs/k?

" ...what was most interesting about it was the NPK was the same or higher in the soil test ..."

That is why putting in the ammendments and structuring the soil is done B4 the soil test. Soil test are only a snapshot in time and will only show what's available now , rather than the potential of the soil.

Soil tests are a diagnostic tools, that leads to, only treating the symptoms. Treat the disease first and see if the sympoms go away.

Thanks for the confirmation. :)

JDUtah
11-15-2008, 07:45 PM
"

How does 0.6 kg of N/100m2 come out in lbs/k?


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=.6+kg+to+lbs&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=100+square+meters+to+sq+ft&spell=1

Thus .6 kg of N/100m2 = 1.322 lbs N per 1,076.4 sq feet = 1.228 Lbs N per K

Smallaxe
11-16-2008, 12:55 AM
Thanks JD, ... :)

ICT Bill
11-16-2008, 10:14 PM
That is why putting in the ammendments and structuring the soil is done B4 the soil test. Soil test are only a snapshot in time and will only show what's available now , rather than the potential of the soil.

Soil tests are a diagnostic tools, that leads to, only treating the symptoms. Treat the disease first and see if the sympoms go away.

Thanks for the confirmation. :)
I agree that a soil test is a snap shot only, I am not quite sure what you are saying about ammending first

These were isolated plots, one got one ammendent and the other was treated completely different with another ammendment. These are 6 different plots all treated as an isolated plot with seperate treatments

Smallaxe
11-17-2008, 09:48 AM
I agree that a soil test is a snap shot only, I am not quite sure what you are saying about ammending first

These were isolated plots, one got one ammendent and the other was treated completely different with another ammendment. These are 6 different plots all treated as an isolated plot with seperate treatments

The reason for study is to apply what is learned to the real systems of our businesses and our techniques of cost effective quality service to our customers.

What was learned from this study? and how would one apply the results to his/her business?

We discovered that pgpr made available nutrients that are in the soil. The no-input Control Plot did not show increase nutrient usage in 'all' of the tested elements, but this is the same soil. [for all practical purposes]

The question is: Would a soil test from the pgpr plot be different from the control plot by the end of their season??

Actually, there are a couple of interesting questions that come to mind regarding the interaction of soil, nutrient, bacteria, soil testing, and plants just from this one study; however the answer to the main question is - - 'It doesn't matter'.

The reason a soil test doesn't matter, is because - it does no good to know what nutrients are "in" the soil, but rather what can you do to increase the "availablity" of the nutrients.

First ammend the soil, (with compost is a good start) to increase availability, and if you are still scratching your head, wondering what is going on - then spend your time and money on a soil test.

So even though the idea of this study confirming the necessity or not of soil testing, was NOT your intention in presenting it - it actually had that effect.
Keep an eye on the big picture and it is much simpler to avoid confusion on the details.

ICT Bill
11-17-2008, 10:32 AM
What was learned from this study? and how would one apply the results to his/her business?
It was learned that visually and through testing that an inoculum product could produce the same results as a "fertilizer"

The question is: Would a soil test from the pgpr plot be different from the control plot by the end of their season?? Yes the data shows that the PGPR plot had statistically more NPK than the control plot

The reason a soil test doesn't matter, is because - it does no good to know what nutrients are "in" the soil, but rather what can you do to increase the "availablity" of the nutrients. I have spoken to many that agree completely with that statement, there are testing procedures that will test those parameters only, maybe Barry will chime in here, we were talking to a guy in New Jersey. his analogy was "you can be in the middle of the ocean and test for water and it wil come back positive, but can you use it?" his company uses testing procedures to test for available nutrients only

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-17-2008, 07:29 PM
not trying to beat a dead horse but i have a few questions?

in this report since it leaves alot of info out what was the product? how many pgpr species are in it? and the CFU per ml/ or liter in it?

the plots where constructed from a USGA greens soil mix? so that means it's completely SAND?

so the pgpr where able to fix N and cycle it back to the grass?
with and excess of 1+ lbs of N in the soil i mean sand base in two months?
with no other food for them except root exudate's?

not trying to make a big deal of this and supporting local university's is good. but since these are funded projects from the product manufacturer and are done by students.
it just seems that like most of the reports/study's i read like this that the true facts are a little blurry:confused:

not to jump of topic too much:)
soil tests does not tell the WHOLE STORY about the soil but it is a dame good important place to start.

i have yards that came back so high in P that i do not have to add it for years? how else would i have know that? with out the soil test?


ph for instants....biology will in time can adjust ph for the plant but factors like acidic parent material that make the soil in question, lack of proper chemistry in the soil, too much irrigation/rain, soil compaction/lack of o2,anaerobic soil/organisms present and thriving,too much ammonium based ferts will all make soil acidic?

whats wrong with using natural high cal lime anyway???????????
biology can't do every thing on it's own...most account for proper structure and chemistry in the soil too?

Smallaxe
11-18-2008, 08:45 AM
...

Yes the data shows that the PGPR plot had statistically more NPK than the control plot

...

It looked to me like they were analysing the clippings moreso than testing the soil.

An accurate soil test should show the amounts of elements removed from the soil, [harvestted] I would think, anyways.

Smallaxe
11-18-2008, 09:14 AM
...
not to jump of topic too much:)
soil tests does not tell the WHOLE STORY about the soil but it is a dame good important place to start.

i have yards that came back so high in P that i do not have to add it for years? how else would i have know that? with out the soil test?
...

I heard it said that there is probably no lawn in the world lacking in P enough for grass. P added to the soil is wasting more p and tying up more of the other elements that P bonds with. AM fungi and friends unlock the tied up P over time.

Which P does your soil test reveal to you?
1) The available P at the moment?
or
2) the amount of P tied up in the soil?

Soil test are an absolute waste of time unless there is a specific problem that can't be worked out with a bit of compost and some organic fert.
Testing for Ph is more applicable, I admit.

That is one thing that this study demonstrated. The typical routine of - 'test the soil, add the proper numbers of NPK' - is a waste of time and NPK.
This study demonstrated that a living soil will utilize nutrients already there, in the soil, rather than adding more soluable nutrients every 3-4 weeks.

ICT Bill
11-18-2008, 09:54 AM
not trying to beat a dead horse but i have a few questions?

in this report since it leaves alot of info out what was the product? how many pgpr species are in it? and the CFU per ml/ or liter in it?

the plots where constructed from a USGA greens soil mix? so that means it's completely SAND?

so the pgpr where able to fix N and cycle it back to the grass?
with and excess of 1+ lbs of N in the soil i mean sand base in two months?
with no other food for them except root exudate's?

not trying to make a big deal of this and supporting local university's is good. but since these are funded projects from the product manufacturer and are done by students.
it just seems that like most of the reports/study's i read like this that the true facts are a little blurry:confused:

not to jump of topic too much:)
soil tests does not tell the WHOLE STORY about the soil but it is a dame good important place to start.

i have yards that came back so high in P that i do not have to add it for years? how else would i have know that? with out the soil test?


ph for instants....biology will in time can adjust ph for the plant but factors like acidic parent material that make the soil in question, lack of proper chemistry in the soil, too much irrigation/rain, soil compaction/lack of o2,anaerobic soil/organisms present and thriving,too much ammonium based ferts will all make soil acidic?

whats wrong with using natural high cal lime anyway???????????
biology can't do every thing on it's own...most account for proper structure and chemistry in the soil too?

Universities teach systems, in turf trials they are teaching the correct way to do a scientific study. Are some of them botched, sure probaly a lot of them. They normally do not see the light of day.

Do soil tests have their place, absolutely. a great place to start.

If you look at the succession chart and assume long term use of high salt fertilizers, fungicides, new construction, etc will be considered major disturbances. The first ones to colonize are the bacteria colonies, the soil food web builds from there. What we are trying to do is get those colonies in favor of the good guys.

So if you are transitioning a property that has had major disturbances, the bacterial colonies you would like to build first are the nutrient miners and the ones that fight known pathogens. As these colonies build the fungal numbers, if supported and existing, build. If we are also able to get in the general area known and wild fungi and support them we can soon get nutrient cycling going and reduce inputs by large amounts.

If you able to do this with seedlings or bio primed seed every season, the roots of the plant will carry the beneficials into the soil and build colony's. The most fertile place in the soil is at the tip of a root, lots of rooting and nutrient cycling is much easier, that is one of the reasons why the closed system of turf is perfect for this application, lots of roots, lots of plants, lots of places for colonies to survive and flourish

Will you still have to ammend? most likely.
will you still have to test? probably
The part that we try to focus on the most is the transition and taking a site from the beginning of succession. You may agree with it or not but it does reduce inputs

if you were a national franchise and someone said they could reduce your fertilizer inputs by 50% to 75% and reduce disease pressure at the same time I do believe I could get your attention

Is it using one product over another ? yep. but our products do not leech or volitize and head a site to fertile soil with good practices. Nutrient reduction in waterways is one of the top priorities in the country, well... behind big financial bailouts, I do believe we help with that

treegal1
11-19-2008, 11:31 AM
yep and no profane amounts of natural gas and coal fired power used...................

Smallaxe
11-20-2008, 09:36 AM
Other bits to be gleaned from this study is: In the clipping yeild chart we can see that the higher dose of N was pretty much overkill. However, the overall turf quality chart spiked during this time moreso than any other.
The PGPR plot was just out of the 'acceptable' range at 5.9 while the high syn fert was scoring 6.6 which was the highest of them all.

Even though there was less dry matter mass, or because there was LESS dry matter production - the nutrient chart showed more P in the PGPR plot than all the others. This is perhaps the huge blind spot that fertilizer people have. No New P is necessary!!!

Calcium and magnesium uptake in the non-fertilized plots were also more vigorous. I remember reading that the new P would bind with calcium and Magnesium. So not only was P unnecessary at this point , but it actually hindered other elements.