The key to managing with less is determining and prioritising the standards for each ground, apportioning resources according to stated standards and distinguishing between desired and needed practices
nitrogen) rather than a ‘shotgun’ approach. Soil testing and, in particular, adopting a ‘sufficiency level of available nutrient’ as opposed to base cation saturation ratios will allow genuine deficiencies to be identified. When purchasing fertiliser consider the
cost/kg of actual nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium etc.) rather than the price of the fertiliser. Rather than taking a ‘blanket approach’
focus fertiliser applications, particularly nitrogen, on the high wear/use or damaged areas. Often, in junior grades the wear is concentrated down the centre of the field, there is no need to broadcast fertiliser across the entire field. For the vast majority of sportsfield situations, nitrogen will provide the best return for your fertiliser dollar. Usage Control - this is a very blunt tool,
but is very effective at critical times - especially during winter for maintaining turf cover. Additionally, it reduces the renovation costs required to reinstate the field at the end of the season. Education of end-users and those responsible within sports clubs is required to encourage play, and particularly training, across all the designated grounds. Grass Selection - selecting the best
suited grass species for your region and climate will impact on recovery from wear, irrigation requirements and fertiliser requirements. Choosing the species that is best suited to your environment can have a significant influence on maintenance inputs and costs. Oversowing - results from oversowing can be variable at best and new seedlings are especially susceptible to damage and
dry conditions. Often, newly oversown areas will be worn bare by mid-season while mature plants survive. Look at the seeding rates used. There is no need to exceed sowing rates of 25kg/ha/pass. Rates higher than this result in inter-row competition retarding the rate of establishment, i.e. it is better to sow in multiple passes at recommended rates rather than using a single pass and very high sowing rates. Given seedlings are very poor competitors, oversow those areas that have a weak cover rather than the entire field.
Do not seed when environmental conditions are unsuitable, e.g. when there has been little rainfall and the soil conditions are dry. Increased fertilisation, to maintain density of mature grass plants/recovery of existing plants, may be a more effective use of your resources rather than trying to establish new seedlings, with a limited turn around between seasons. Spring Aeration - aeration is often carried out on a calendar basis. Reductions in spring aeration can provide savings, particularly on those grounds which aren’t irrigated. Where fields aren’t irrigated, autumn treatments generally provide the best return - improving winter drainage. Material Quantities - options to consider include minimising soil removal during renovations, thereby reducing the amount of new soil that needs to be purchased. Also, consider incorporating soil/sand with coring and, where appropriate, working this back into the surface, thereby reducing the amount of topdressing materials required.
Innovation - Look to new products, equipment or techniques that will provide long term savings. Another example is to increase maintenance inputs to reduce the frequency of expensive reconstructions of surfaces. The extended renewal period allows potential for capital monies to be redirected into maintenance. In the future we will likely see hybrid
technology from the car industry being adopted on turf machinery. Some turf equipment, particularly in the golf sector, already uses this technology and it is anticipated this will progress into large area mowing equipment. Training/Communication - the potential options for reducing costs raised above rely on having effective monitoring systems for each field. This will require having well trained staff that can recognise issues as they arise and report them back to decision makers - alternatively an independent audit process could be used, but this in itself may add costs at a time when you are looking to reduce them. Constant feedback is required both from
and to stakeholders so that all parties are aware of the reasons for the changed maintenance and the impacts of this change.
IN summary, each groundsman’s requirements will be different. The key to managing with less is determining and prioritising the standards for each ground, apportioning resources according to stated standards and distinguishing between desired and needed practices.
Everett Darlington, Agronomist, NZSTI
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