View Single Post
  #97  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:20 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
You don't think that there may be differences in disease incidence between different turf species or different management practices? You should learn more about plant culture, then rethink this statement.
Hmmm, putting words in my mouth again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
Are you suggesting that similar results may not be seen on turf maintained at a different height? Do you have some data to support that conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
BTW, the scientific literature has documented quite thoroughly the different affinities of the Pythium spp and the impact of management practices, such as mowing height.
By all means, please provide some credible cites, in particular, with respect to compost suppression of the disease at different mowing heights.

Also skip .... with respect to pythium, proper water and soil water management are more important than cutting height .... but of course you already knew that. And of course we won't mention the importance of nitrogen application timing or the fact that lush growth is more susceptible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
I'm not saying they were intentionally misleading. But, I think their research is incomplete. Did you actually read the paper?
Actually skip, that is exactly what you said. FYI, the point in all this was to show you hadn't read the papers you claimed to have read, you know, given your remarkably ignorant statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
Nelson's paper clearly states that efficacy has been seen only in greenhouse studies, but NOT in the field. This is precisely for the reasons that were discussed ad nauseum in all the threads about biologcial controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
My quick calculations (I just eyeballed it) came out to about 5.5#N/M, but the math shakes out to 4.6#N/M. In the early 1990s, most golf course superintendents were using about 2.0 to 2.5#N/M/yr on creeping bentgrass, so the rate the paper used was closer to 2X. Today, many supts are using 1.75 to 2.0#N/M/yr, which gets us closer to 2.6X. Not bad for eyeballing it, I think.
Says you. I asked for data, not more declarations of supposed "truth" from you. By data, I mean credible data, not made up skipster data for irrelevant points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
Either way, it makes sense that the untreated control would have more Pythium than the compost plots, since its N was delivered as soluble N, while the N in the treated plots came from the compost.
And you claim to have read this paper? Where did they state the type of N used?

From material and methods:
All greens were
mowed three times a week at a 5-mm cutting height. In 1991 and 1992, total
amounts of nitrogen applied were 178 and 215 kg/ha, respectively. In 1993, a total
of 225 kg of nitrogen per ha was applied. No pesticides were applied at any time
during the 3-year experimental period.

This isn't the first time you have been caught intentionally misrepresenting cited literature.

Further, perhaps you can explain how N rates or type of N make a difference with respect to the objective of the study?
The purpose of this study was to investigate the mech-
anisms by which a variety of composted amendments suppress
P. graminicola-incited damping-off and root rot of creeping
bentgrass and to determine the role of compost microbial
populations and activity in disease suppression.

What was it you were saying about understanding? BTW, I am still waiting for that name of conventional fungicide they supposedly tested against and used at 10% the label rate. Why don't you provide a quote from the paper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
This is where knowledge and understanding really come in (and where you show us that you don't have it). Pythium activity is increased by available mineral N. When you compare a plot fertilized completely with soluble mineral N to a plot fertilized with insoluble immobilized N, you have the same total N application, but a completely different environment for disease growth.
Amusing given what you just said. So we have more misrepresentation of the literature. BTW skip, how about providing some peer reviewed literature to substantiate that last statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
A more complete and more accurate comparison would have been to use the same amount of soluble N in all plots. But, this did not happen.
And more misrepresentation. You are really struggling here skip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
If you're going to use research, you have read it, understand it, and have the ability to think critically about it.
Hmmm, yes indeed skip ..... all of which you have NOT accomplished here. You keep saying something about reading the study when you clearly have not, and are intentionally misrepresenting the study and accusing the authors of manipulating the study to produce a desired result. Reprehensible doesn't even begin to adequately define your behavior here.
 
Page generated in 0.04530 seconds with 7 queries