David Goodjohn of GSB Loams asks “what’s in a name?” and, indeed, ponders what he does for a living!
He also provides some useful tips on doing a ‘Motty’ test to ascertain which type of loam you should be using
THE LOAM RANGER!
“SO, what do you do for a living?” is a question we all get asked from time to time. Turfcare professional? Sportsturf contractor? Supplier of Loams and Sands for Sportsfield construction? “Ah, so you do lawns then…” is the usual response! Funnily enough we have a similar thing ‘within the industry’ when it comes to any mention of Kettering Loam. It’s often difficult to separate the myth and rumour from the reality when it comes to certain statements made about the kind of loam that originates from the area around Kettering, situated in the middle of England in the quiet rural county of Northamptonshire. There are plenty of options when it comes to choosing a loam for your new cricket square or tennis court - Ongar, Surrey, Kaloam, Mendip and, of course, good old Kettering! But what do we understand by these descriptions? Ongar, Surrey, Mendip and Kaloam are
recognised by cricket groundsmen and carry certain connotations, the geographical ones which are shared with Kettering. In other words, Ongar is a location in Essex, Surrey is the County, the Mendips are in Somerset and Kettering Loam comes from that town in Northamptonshire. Only Kaloam fails to give any clues away in the name. Unfortunately, another connotation
with Kettering is an old horticultural one where that lighter loam (typically 24-28%
96
clay content) was used for growing and in certain John Innes type composts. Indeed, it still is favoured by some chrysanthemum and cactus growers! Kettering Loam still is used as a description when the loam is used in school cricket and local authority squares where input is limited from turfcare professionals and a lighter loam is preferred. It also suits many tennis applications. Stronger clay loams are also found in Nothamptonshire; GSB Club loam is typically 28-30% whilst GSB County is 30- 32% clay. Whilst clay is not the single determinant of a ‘useful’ loam for cricket, it certainly indicates that the soil would be sufficiently strong in terms of binding strength when it comes in at those percentages of clay in a soil test. To go into depth about what constitutes a perfect loam would be a longer remit than this article permits, suffice to say each different loam has its merits. A really useful guide for soil strength is the Adams/Stewart Soil Binding Test (ASSB) which, through the production of ‘motties’, the breaking strength of a dried ball of cricket loam can be measured in a laboratory to ascertain the true strength. Ask any reputable soil laboratory and they’ll be sure to help out. If you don’t know, or can’t afford, a lab here’s how to go about it (alternatively read my earlier article
http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/article/348 5):
1. Crumble the loam down into a workable size (2mm or less), remove all fibrous matter from the sample (i.e. living roots, grass plant leaves, dead
and decaying matter, thatch, any small stones), transfer half a cup full to a clean plate.
2. Moisten the sample (with distilled water if possible, otherwise use tap water) until it can be moulded by hand. Water must be added slowly to ensure that the loam does not become too wet to mould.
3. Mould vigorously by hand over a period of five minutes to destroy all aggregation. Add more water if necessary.
4. Roll the soil into a ball and place it on
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140