Original core samples


results were then shared and put to use in formulating programmes for the coming year. Simon, the students and I then went about implementing those programmes. I mentioned earlier that John had decided to play devil’s advocate. This was taken to the furthest extent in that the Symbio range aims to improve the soil biology, soil structure and reduce the thatch levels via biological means; the YARA range is entirely focused on providing the plant with the exact requirement of nutrition that it needs to be happy and healthy. Reducing the thatch and improving the soil life was not on its radar at all. This means that we are able to directly compare between cultural and mechanical means of thatch reduction and soil condition improvement.


In practice, this means that Symbio are


It is important that students get involved in the process


not too keen on coring, or slicing and cutting operations, as they impede the development of the web of fungal mycelium colonising the soil. YARA are not concerned by this, so we are able to rip and cut and slice and remove as much as we want. All the greens undergo the same levels of solid tine aeration and other maintenance operations - brushing grooming etc. - but this subtle difference in thatch attack means we will be able to draw a direct comparison on thatch degradation levels over time. The next obvious question is, how do they analyse what is going on? The answer is the STRI Programme. Over the past couple of years, Alistair Beggs and his team have been working in conjunction with a number of greenkeepers at developing a method for benchmarking a putting green’s


performance and playability against a set of standards. Having developed the scheme, they were now at the stage of rolling this out and, in terms of our trial, it was perfect timing. As a result, Alistair’s colleague, Kath Bentley, came out at the start of the year, shortly after the biological and chemical samples had been taken, and before the programmes started to be applied. Taking readings at this same datum point, Kath analysed the greens for the following:


• Surface firmness • Putting speed • Surface smoothness/trueness • Appearance surface and soil • Volumetric water content • Species composition


116


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