Types of testing you all do Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   7/31/2013 11:07 AM

   Just wondering what all kinds of testing you all do and why. Also can you tell what results and changes have you made because of it, and how often are you testing?
   
   I remember years ago doing soil testing in NJ through our Scotts rep. Did it every year, would pretty much see the same results, only thing we tried was some straight sulfur to try and lower some pH. Eventually we traded out one year of soil test for a visit from the USGA. Not sure what they are doing now.
   
   Did do some testing back during a grow-in, really didn't use much of the info that I remember, mostly just because we were growing in and the fertilizer was most important. We did use a lot of Ammonium Sulfates to avoid diesase issues and try and help short term pH issues.
   
   Where I'm at now we did do some soil testing back in 2005. It looked at pH's micronutrients, and the soil audit looked also at Organic Matter percentages. Thinking about doing some more soil tests again and wonder what should I really be looking for? I do what to check OM again, I think visually the percentages look high, (this is on my greens). Do you all do your greens regularly or do you do all your areas regularly?
   
   Saw in a post a few weeks or so back about ISTRICS testing, I have heard of it before, but don't remember or really know what does that testing involve? (tried to google it, but didn't come across the specifics, maybe I should try a different search engine?).
   
   Just trying to learn more and would be greatful (I mean grateful, when is spell check going to get fixed?) for any information you all can share.
   
   Thanks!
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Andy Jorgensen

   

   1 posts
   
   7/31/2013 12:07 PM

   Mel,
   
   We do soil testing twice a year. Results are basically the same. The reason why I do them is so that I have a basis to go off of when things start to turn. I can then send off a sample and compare to what it used to be.
   
   Only time I do physical tests are when something goes south. And then I'll do the bad green, and my best green for comparison.

   
   
   
   
3. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   7/31/2013 12:07 PM

   Andy Jorgensen said: Mel,
   
   We do soil testing twice a year. Results are basically the same. The reason why I do them is so that I have a basis to go off of when things start to turn. I can then send off a sample and compare to what it used to be.
   
   Only time I do physical tests are when something goes south. And then I'll do the bad green, and my best green for comparison.

   
   
   Andy, by physical tests, is that something like soil infiltration and organic matter content? Just trying to determine what you mean by physical testing. I'm guessing your soil testing would just be your basic pH and nutrients?
   
   Thanks!
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
4. Andy Jorgensen

   

   1 posts
   
   7/31/2013 1:07 PM

   Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

   Andy Jorgensen said: Mel,
   
   We do soil testing twice a year. Results are basically the same. The reason why I do them is so that I have a basis to go off of when things start to turn. I can then send off a sample and compare to what it used to be.
   
   Only time I do physical tests are when something goes south. And then I'll do the bad green, and my best green for comparison.

   
   
   Andy, by physical tests, is that something like soil infiltration and organic matter content? Just trying to determine what you mean by physical testing. I'm guessing your soil testing would just be your basic pH and nutrients?
   
   Thanks!
   
   Mel

   
   
   
   Yes, basically infiltration rate is really what I look at. My soil test is everything else nutrient related.

   
   
   
   
5. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   7/31/2013 3:07 PM

   I used to test all areas twice a year with a consultant who then produced a series of recommendations and even specified my fertilized mixes for the coming period. I had ten years worth of data and when I went back through all of the soil tests and recommendations, nothing ever really changed. I quit testing like that. I test greens once or twice a year and that's it and thats only to confirm that nothing has gone seriously south on me. The only difference that I have seen is that I have saved about 5k a year. Now, if I had a true soil issue and was actually trying to counteract or correct a problem, I might consider that money well spent, but as it is, I think I wasted my members money for a lot of years.
   
   Regards,
   
   Steve

   
   
   
   
6. Michael Vogt

   

   2 posts
   
   7/31/2013 8:07 PM

   Hi Mel:
   
   If you have sand greens, I think it would wise to have a soil physical analysis done - to be certain you have the correct balance of gas-moisture in the root-zone. Follow this link to learn more: http://istrc.com/
   
   My best, Mike

   
   
   
   
7. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   7/31/2013 9:07 PM

   Drug testing.

   
   
   
   
8. John Faber

   

   0 posts
   
   7/31/2013 10:07 PM

   I do 2 sets of soil sampling a year but they are done in exchange method (you buy product then you get 1 free test per $x spent). Like others have mentioned not a huge change in nutrient levels but like the background documentation especially since I use effluent water and have to report to our provincial government.
   
   I am a big proponent of the ISTRICS testing but only do it every other year at the most as it is quite pricey. I came to my course 6 years ago and had huge thatch issues which ownership/management would not believe. I convinced them ISTRICS was money well spent and when I showed them recommended OM in the top inch is less than 2% and we were over 6%, I was able to get them to agree to 2 core aerations per year. After 4 years of a 2x per year aeration and a very aggressive verticut program we got these numbers down to just over 4% and are continuing on. End result has been a firmer, healthier putting surface.
   The other thing I liked out of that testing was the recommendation of vent stacks on the drain lines and flush outs. All of the greens that I have been able to find the exit pipe on are much healthier since the venting was installed and I have a great story of a drain line that dead ended into clay and once opened up released about 5 minutes worth of 14 year old stagnant water.

   
   
   
   
9. Ashton Alan W

   
   8/1/2013 10:08 AM

   Mel,
   
   I agree with John in regard to ISTRC. I've been at my club for ten years... no-till conversion to Miniverde the summer before I arrived. We did samples every two years for a six year period... able to show my BOD that our twice each summer, aggressive aerfication schedule was just what we needed to get the profile where it needed to be. Love the inch by inch analysis they provide... now I know how my organic levels trend form year to year and I'm able to aerify just the right amount (hole/spacing) to maintain...

   
   
   
   
10. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    8/2/2013 7:08 AM

    None

    
    
    
    
11. Canedo Alberto J

    
    8/2/2013 11:08 AM

    No Testing.

    
    
    
    
12. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    8/2/2013 11:08 AM

    I agree with the above two opinions. In the book Practical Greenkeeping, Jim Arthur contends that the downfall of British Golf Courses happened at the same time soil testing was introduced. Soil Testing tells you how to maximize crop yields...not exactly what we are trying to do

    
    
    
    
13. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    8/2/2013 11:08 AM

    Larry Allan said: I agree with the above two opinions. In the book Practical Greenkeeping, Jim Arthur contends that the downfall of British Golf Courses happened at the same time soil testing was introduced. Soil Testing tells you how to maximize crop yields...not exactly what we are trying to do

    
    
    But it is information, even if a little inaccurate. It's what we do with the information that counts. Do we decided to grow corn or bentgrass?
    
    I believe there are certain aspects of soil testing that are valuable but they are more in the realm of how the tested material effects soil structure and drainage. In the arid west, its pretty important to monitor sodium and e.c. levels. Everywhere it is important to monitor organic matter levels.

    
    
    
    
14. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    8/2/2013 12:08 PM

    I guess things have come a distance since Jim Arthur's day but the point he was making is that most soils "experts" have agricultural backgrounds. Think back to school and I bet many of the soil profs were borrowed from the Ag department. Many soil tests are preformed by purveyors of fertilizer and the more things they can pack into that bag, the more they make.
    I haven't used an NPK product in the past 2 years. Just ammonium, urea and ferrous sulphate and I don't see any signs of deficiency except for phosphorous early in the season, which I just apply foliarly

    
    
    
    
15. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    8/2/2013 12:08 PM

    Red that book should be required reading for all in the profession. In addition to what you mentioned he gives a fairly robust critical analysis of the science behind the various tests and why they are of little or no use in developing a fertilization program. Among my favorite qoutes on the subject: (paraphrasing from memory, I'm not going to look up the exact quote)
    
    'Everything you need to know the grass and your experience will tell you'
    'If you find something you don't like in the soils report, what the hell could you really do about it anyway'

    
    
    
    
16. Holt Michael

    
    8/2/2013 12:08 PM

    I do soil samples primarily for soil pH and organic matter content. The micro nutrient levels are also important to me. But most important, I think, with Champion bermuda greens is the organic matter content. I try to do this about every other year or every third. My thought is that it's not going to change significantly in a year or 2. I am monitoring the high levels that I inherited and since then have implemented an aggressive aeration program. The levels are decreasing and it will be useful to see what they are now after 2 years of aeration. I often wonder how important soil sample results are when I am on a foliar feed fertilization program.

    
    
    
    
17. Kevin Tansey

    

    0 posts
    
    8/2/2013 3:08 PM

    We are on a greens testing program with an independent lab. For about $2500 we send out 18 soil samples (9 spring/9 fall), tissue samples every three weeks May thru September and three water quality samples (spring, summer, fall). The tissue testing is the most valuable part of the whole program for us. It has helped cut out the "snake oils", the "this fixes everything" products and stick with the basics that work. We have also sent out organic matter samples to help monitor organic matter throughout the 4" profile to help justify some of our aeration practices.

    
    
    
    
18. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    8/2/2013 3:08 PM

    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: Red that book should be required reading for all in the profession. In addition to what you mentioned he gives a fairly robust critical analysis of the science behind the various tests and why they are of little or no use in developing a fertilization program. Among my favorite qoutes on the subject: (paraphrasing from memory, I'm not going to look up the exact quote)
    
    'Everything you need to know the grass and your experience will tell you'
    'If you find something you don't like in the soils report, what the hell could you really do about it anyway'

    
    
    If I am using reuse water and I am monitoring sodium levels in the soil and I see them rising over time, I can address the issue in a number of ways. If I am implementing a no disturbance approach to greens management and soil organic matter is not rising but actually dropping I can stay the course. I don't think smelling the soil or talking to the grass is going to tell me that.
    
    However, I do agree that many of the nutritional aspects of soil testing for turf are of little use. I've seen fairways that show a deficiency in one element or another perform every bit as well as another that shows no deficiency, even though both fairways are only given only a nitrogen source.

    
    
    
    
19. Andy Jorgensen

    

    1 posts
    
    8/2/2013 4:08 PM

    You are correct in the phrase it's what you do with the information that matters. The results might tell you that you are low or high in some cases in certain areas with a recommendation for correction, but if the greens are performing well, why do it?

    
    
    
    
20. Larry Stowell

    

    0 posts
    
    8/3/2013 10:08 AM

    Micah Woods at the Asian Turfgrass Center and PACE Turf are working on a new set of soil nutritional guidelines that are much lower than previous sufficiency guidelines. Base saturation guidelines are not considered - that is a different discussion. I have provided a link to the new guidelines and a presentation that discusses the development of the guidelines. There are reasons to test soils, but these new guidelines indicate that we don't need nearly the level of soil nutrients and fertilizers as we previously thought.
    
    Aside from soil nutrients, soil pH needs to be monitored in some areas to maintain levels betweenn 5.5 and 8.5. Soil sodium and total salts can be an issue and need to be monitored in arid areas. The need tor soil testing will vary depending upon turf, soil, water and expectations. But, once you get a pretty good handle on nitrogen requirements, you can get a pretty good idea how much of the other nutrients you will need to apply.
    
    The new guidelines suggest that there is an abundance of nutrients in many turf soils - but not all. Some locations will benefit from testing more than others.
    
    Check the Minimal Levels for Sustainable Nutrition (MLSN) here: http://www.paceturf.org/index.php/journal/using_fuzzy_logic_to_interpret_soil_chemistry_data/
    
    MLSN presentation for the Gulf Coast GCSA: http://www.paceturf.org/journal/P3:

    
    
    
    
21. Timothy Walker

    

    0 posts
    
    8/3/2013 10:08 AM

    Andy Jorgensen said: You are correct in the phrase it's what you do with the information that matters. The results might tell you that you are low or high in some cases in certain areas with a recommendation for correction, but if the greens are performing well, why do it?

    
    
    
    Why do it ? Why would you want to shoot from the hip? How can you build a fertility program without knowing where you are? Because a salesman suggested it?
    
    If you have data however the recommendations tell you, it's up to you to interpret the data and apply what you feel is necessary.
    
    I have always used soil tests to see pH calcium deficiency and I can tell from the data if I need to apply any other nutrients.
    
    There has been a tremendous amount of work and investment with Turfgrass soils professors recently. Yes there was a time when an ag soils guy was crossing over to teach basics for Turfgrass degrees but not today. Now there are soils guys who are specific to Turfgrass.

    
    
    
    
22. Andy Jorgensen

    

    1 posts
    
    8/3/2013 4:08 PM

    Timothy Walker, CGCS said:

    Andy Jorgensen said: You are correct in the phrase it's what you do with the information that matters. The results might tell you that you are low or high in some cases in certain areas with a recommendation for correction, but if the greens are performing well, why do it?

    
    
    
    Why do it ? Why would you want to shoot from the hip? How can you build a fertility program without knowing where you are? Because a salesman suggested it?
    .

    
    
    
    What I was implying was if you have been sticking with a program that has been working for you, and the greens are performing well, i don't see a need to act on the recommendations on a soil test. For instance, My soil tests say the pH is high, at 7.2-7.6, and the recommendation is applications of sulfur. What the soil test doesn't know is that my water is roughly 7.4. The greens look and perform great. So why would I act on the recommendation to lower pH when it's working where it is, and the next time I water it will revert back to the higher pH anyways?
    
    If I had a problem, then yes, I would have a test done. It would be stupid to go into it blind. I do soil testing twice a year, spring and fall. If I'm happy with the turf, I rarely do anything with the results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    
    
    
    
23. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    8/5/2013 10:08 AM

    Thanks all for the replies.
    
    Thought there was some great dialoge and debate.
    
    I don't think testing would have me change my fertilizer programs, they seem to be doing fine, I would think any kind of defencicy I would see would be helped by trying to do a short term pH adjustment, to allow the plant to better take up the nutrients? (Like that one chart from school shows how avalible nutrients are with the proper pH). I also think with my folilar products I do address my minor products on greens anyway. When it comes to tees and fairways, it might be interesting to see what the major nurtrients look like since we have pretty much just been going with nitrogen the past 3 to 4 years, (fairways in particular, we have used some more complete fertilizer packages on tees). Would think if test showed any issues it would help us improve our programs for fairways. (currently we are putting down only 1.35 lbs. of N with an application in late spring with a pre-emergent and insecticide, I don't think it's enough, and fairways appear to be running out) I will ask in another question how much N are you giving your fairways.
    
    I am most concerned with organic matter in my profile, it just looks high to me in that down to about 4 inches and below that it appears I am looking at the original greens mix when the greens were redone in 1993/94. Maybe my numbers aren't as bad as it looks, so having hard numbers would be benefical, same as the moisture meter has given me this year.
    
    Thanks again for all the help and debate! Also looks like I have some material to read this winter.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO