Take a moment to read this:
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/21st_century_soil_health_tech_doc.pdf
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/21st_century_soil_health_tech_doc.pdf
Wait for a second... The Koske paper clearly stated the new greens were slow to colonize naturally.... that AMF was benificial to turf and the need to find a commerical inoculant would help greens keepers bring their product to market faster.phasthound, I like your citation of the Tarbell and Koske paper (it also cites my research). If you read the paper, you'll find that all positive plant effects from mycorrhizae were LESS than those form using nitrogen fertilizers alone. They also found that no incoulum increased mycorrhizae numbers beyond those found in un-inoculated soil. Good try, though.
Your second attachment includes a lot of irrelevant info (remember, ther eare differences between annual and perennial croppign systems). The only relevant citation is the Genna et al paper, which simply restates the Tarbell and Koske findings. Its also interesting to note that you thought data from 2010 could be outdated when it did not support your position, but you think 1997 data is somehow better.
Again, nice try. If you're looking to deliver poor quality lawns at a high cost with no fertilizer, you certainly have found your answer!
Did you notice the different in colonization time for conventionallly managed greens and inoculated greens? Hint: it was less than one week! And, they found that mycorrhizae OTHER THAN THE ONES THEY APPLIED colonized quicker! They found that if they applied a commercial mycorrhizae, that same species colonized no faster than it would have naturally, while other species colonized a few days faster.Wait for a second... The Koske paper clearly stated the new greens were slow to colonize naturally.... that AMF was benificial to turf and the need to find a commerical inoculant would help greens keepers bring their product to market faster.
This disputes your statement that Mycorizial fungus did not benifit turf and that it would quickly colonize naturally.
No I did not read that in the report. Please point me there. I got your boy for you just come and get it or back off the smack.Did you notice the different in colonization time for conventionallly managed greens and inoculated greens? Hint: it was less than one week! And, they found that mycorrhizae OTHER THAN THE ONES THEY APPLIED colonized quicker! They found that if they applied a commercial mycorrhizae, that same species colonized no faster than it would have naturally, while other species colonized a few days faster.
A couple of days advance does not justify the expense for me. After a week, you can't even tel lthe difference in what's been treated anyhow.
Issues like this really separate the men from the boys. Some lawn boys think that a spray will solve all their problems. Those who actually understand ecology and microbiology know better.
andHere is what I read "While turf in newly constructed greens meeting the USGA specifications will eventually form mycorrhizas, the migration of AMF fungi is slow. In a study of 20 greens not inoculated with AMF, the population of AMF spores in one- and two-year-old greens was very low or spores were absent entirely. "
Odd .... why didn't he "reference" his own paper. :laugh:The linked paper was a redux version of a peer-reviewed paper that was made easier to read for the general public. All the conclusion in the paper were taken from the author's own work and the work listed in the "further reading" section.
Still, no one has produced research to the contrary ....
Only one person is slingging mud and ignoring what is writtenAll right, before this gets out of hand.... instead of slinging mud at each other, I suggest we agree that there are different opinions on how soil biology works and move on. Neither side is going to convince the other and the discussion will continue to disintegrate.
I've come to understand that soils need to have beneficials thriving in them in order for the soils to be providing the environment for the plants to be thriving... that is no longer at issue...All right, before this gets out of hand.... instead of slinging mud at each other, I suggest we agree that there are different opinions on how soil biology works and move on. Neither side is going to convince the other and the discussion will continue to disintegrate.
I brought up the subject of soil health not just as part of a good turf management program but also to highlight other reasons to improve the health of soils.
Healthy soils
Decrease soil erosion and compaction
Reduces the amount of nutrients required for healthy plants
Conserves water by improving the soils ability to retain moisture
Stabilizes pH so nutrients can be readily absorbed by plants
Allows better root penetration
Stimulates root development due to better structure and density of the soil
Improves drainage especially in clay soils
Come on skip. If you can't draw meaningful parallels between Ag/rangeland/forest soil management to turf & landscapes than you are more ignorant than I had previously thought.Come on, Kiril! That majority of your links have nothing to do with turf at all!
Again with the ignorance.Apparently you haven't read those that do, since they agree more with my statements than with yours. I suppose next, you'll try to tell me how you practice precision ag on lawns without accounting for differences between lawns!
Let's assume I am in the spray and pray biz, what do I apply to my lawns?Like I've said over and over, you guys can apply whatever you like to your lawns -- I'm not going to stop you. But, you're grasping at straws to find a way to back up what your salesman told you.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you continue to put words in peoples mouths and make claims you never have any hope of supporting.Maybe you should ask yourself one question:
Maybe if you read and understood those references you ignore (you know, the ones you don't post) you might have an answer to your question.Every article I've come across, stops short of stating what one can do to increase the beneficial population of microbes
So you don't know, either :laugh:Maybe if you read and understood those references you ignore (you know, the ones you don't post) you might have an answer to your question.
Maybe some are are but I am not sure about others. I hope everyone reads some of the papers not the post so they can make up their own minds. The Koske paper as I read it is pretty much saying there is a NEED to inoculate new putting greens. The failure was firmly placed on the manufactures of the inoculates, one in being tained, two in dead spores and 3 in not enough spores in the recommended dose for TURF. The companies with viable spored did inoculate and colonize another form of grass called Corn.Let's be gentle please. Some people are trying to learn.
That would be a priority in all cases where the soil barren. No argument there. Those are primary tools.To go back to the topic of soil health, I think the main issue here is soil organic matter and proper plant nutrition. No matter which side of the fence you come down on with regards to mycorrhizal inoculation or microbial introduction, all sources (those for and against adding biologicals) emphasize that some level of organic matter is needed to support biological processes and that poor soil nutrient status leads to poor plant health.
so you withhold the plant food because the soil is poor?Soil health or value would have a lot to do with soil structure regardless of soil texture... OM makes the difference between dirt vs. soil IMO...
Dumping NPK on dirt that has no CE sites to either hold the ferts for transfer or indeed be available for transfer to the plant in adequate amounts is a waste of NPK and leaves the lawncare guy blaming those evil contractors...
Compacted clay vs. sandy sieve would be handled differently in order to make it healthy, and dumping microbes onto it without food or regard to habitat is no different than dumping NPK w/out regard to CEC...
:laugh: Yes... That's exactly right... :laugh:so you withhold the plant food because the soil is poor?
Well, to keep the party going, add more organic matter. In addition, much of the food for microbes is exuded by plant roots. In fact, the exudate will favor the microbes that are beneficial to the plant. Roots constantly slough of dead cells which add to SOM.
Microbes also are responsible for mining nutrients from the inorganic parent material of the soil. Mycorrhizea are critical for unlocking P and transporting it to plant roots. Certain nitrifying bacteria extract N from the air in soil pores and make it plant available.
The human part of the puzzle is to use practices which enhance rather than harm the process that builds soil health.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more