Forum Groups

 

Forums / Talking Turf / "Gen Next Complete A and B" products

"Gen Next Complete A and B" products

68 posts
  1. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    5/25/2013 8:05 AM
    I'm still waiting for convincing research to come. This stuff is pricey. I always have concerns about "proprietary" mystery products.



  2. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    5/25/2013 10:05 AM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said: I'm still waiting for convincing research to come. This stuff is pricey. I always have concerns about "proprietary" mystery products.


    I agree with Ron, I need research that shows it works, I'm not smart enough on my own. Although, will they research it on my variety of bent with the same weather conditions, same soil mix and water regime I do?

    I think that is the one thing we kind of forget (or at least I do) when asking about how products are working. We all have different HOC, soil, turf variety, weather conditions, irrigation regimes and the like. I know some of you all have shared some of that information, but not enough for me to evaluate and see if it is worth trying here. Of course I'm an old stubborn guy anyway, I don't change easily, unless I know for sure it is going to make it better.

    I do enjoy the discussions though, even though it just makes me feel even dumber then I thought I was.

    Thanks!

    Mel

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

  3. Dave Birrer
    Dave Birrer avatar
    0 posts
    5/28/2013 7:05 AM
    Kevin Tansey said:
    Dave Birrer said: When I was introduced to this product, I was definitely skeptical of what I was told it could do. After reading this thread, I thought I should give it a go. I've made 7 apps now at the 8oz rate and I'm impressed. I have dominant plus bent and it's "ALIVE". The color is great and the ball roll is even better. I haven't applied any N since the first week of April after aerification and we're still getting about a half a bucket of grass (w/ triplex) every 4-5 greens or so mowing and rolling every other day (Trimmit is used). Based on what I'm seeing out of the bent this early in the season, I'm expecting some good results come November on the Poa front.



    Dave,

    Are you using the A & B? I'm confused on your statement that you have made 7 apps but say you haven't applied any N.

    I made 4 apps of A and B, two at 16 oz and two at 8 oz on 2A of greens and applied 7-0-0 ammonium sulfate and in the end there was no difference between ball roll, color, or rooting. I had high hopes for the product in the beginning and thought we were seeing a difference but in the end there wasn't. Maybe I might see something if I went all season long but it still took 6 weeks for my greens to heal from aerification with and without GenNext applied. For the price this is being sold for after 4 applications I would have expected it to out preform anything else I have been doing. I can't justify the cost of the product for the results it produced.


    Kevin,
    Yes, I am using A & B and I should have said no additional N has been applied. The 8oz rate will give you .122 lbN/M every two weeks, but only .033lb of that is in the nitrate form, the rest is in an organic form. My point is, that is not very much N and counting the organic fraction of this is debatable.



  4. Kevin Tansey
    Kevin Tansey avatar
    0 posts
    5/28/2013 10:05 AM
    Dave,

    I figured that's what you meant but I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly. At some point that organic portion has to come into play. My 2 month comparison on 2 acres with and 2 acres without GenNext showed me no difference after the second application into the third application. Maybe I just have to much poa to see a difference, i don't know. But again for the cost of the product I cant justify spraying it since spraying GenNext alone wont help correct my soil and plant deficiencies. For 7 months on GenNext for 4 A of greens I would be looking at $28K and that doesn't leave much room to buy other products that would be more beneficial.



  5. Brian Nettz
    Brian Nettz avatar
    0 posts
    5/29/2013 11:05 AM
    Kevin,

    I think it is unrealistic to expect results from 2 apps. I did a three month comparison here and it wasn't until the end of the second month that things began to shift noticeably. We are very Mediterranean here in climate. Temps as I write this are in the 50's with overhead fog and wind in the 10mph range. If this stuff will grow bent here, it will grow it anywhere. Didn't you guys in the East have a late Spring? Was that factor weighed? You gotta have more patience. It really works. Just remember: it's a marathon and not a sprint. I was skeptical in the beginning as well.

    Having said all that, you still have to manage to bent; D&I irrigation, fertility, smooth rollers, etc.

    Brian Nettz
    Presidio Golf Course
    San Francisco



  6. Kevin Tansey
    Kevin Tansey avatar
    0 posts
    5/29/2013 11:05 AM
    Brian,

    I understand what you are saying. However, I was told by the company that I would see noticeable benefits within two applications. I was told to make my first application at the end of February here in South Jersey. I don't even think about running a sprayer until March. I have no water and nutrient uptake at that point in the year. I made my first application at the 16 oz rate March 29th followed by a 16 oz rate 2 weeks later, then two 8 oz shots bi-weekly with my last app being on April 24th. On April 24th I was at 618.5 GDD on the 0 degree Celsius model. I had aerified March 4 & 5 and holes on GenNext greens didn't close any faster then the non GenNext greens. I wish I could go all season on it to compare but I cant afford that on top of everything else. I feel if the company is going to make claims that I will see some results within two sprays, I feel I should have seen something. Maybe it is unrealistic but I didn't make the statements, and I didn't have that expectation until that was said. Color was great at first but after .5# N/m in two apps it should be. As soon as I had the non GenNext greens "caught up" with N levels there was no difference in color.



  7. Brian Nettz
    Brian Nettz avatar
    0 posts
    5/29/2013 1:05 PM
    OK Kevin, you got some good points there. I'm not judging your programming and I can see the frustration written all over your response. The product has made me a believer but I also don't feel a need to convert you. I like to praise products that make a super's life easier, and will be vocal about those that don't just the same. Have a great season!



  8. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    5/29/2013 1:05 PM
    Kevin,

    If I did the math right, that's $7,000 per acre? That's my whole fertilizer and chemical budget for 2 acres of greens, 2 acres of tees, and about 30 acres of fairways and maybe 20 acres of rough, but we only treat that for broad leaf and maybe some clover.

    Mel

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

  9. Kevin Tansey
    Kevin Tansey avatar
    0 posts
    5/29/2013 6:05 PM
    Brian,

    No frustration pointed at you, the frustration is with the results I had. I took everyone's opinion on this product and tried it out. Taking everyone's good and bad and trying it for myself. Just didn't work out for me. I totally agree with your thoughts. Just putting the "other side of the coin" out there. Good luck with your season also.



  10. Tim Brink
    Tim Brink avatar
    0 posts
    12/19/2013 9:12 PM
    Normally I don't post but thought we would put this out for general comments.

    We read the "Myth Bustin'" on the GCI site (article) which details popular beliefs that have no factual basis. Of particular interest to us was:
    Myth #2

    Microbes need to be added to improve soil.
    Verdict: False.
    "The microbial community in turfgrass soils is plentiful and diverse," Pat Gross, USGA Green Section Southwest Region director, says. "Additions do not improve soil conditions in any significant way. The microbial community is mostly influenced by moisture, air porosity, temperature and nitrogen content."

    Our question is - What feeds and stimulates this community?

    GenNext products contain no live microbes: 20 years ago in our research we determined that inserting live microbes into the soil did not show enough improvement in turfgrass health. So let's close the case on adding microbes to the soil - it isn't the answer. However, from that research, we determined that the byproducts produced by those microbes in the short time they were able to survive did add some benefit to the soil. From that, researchers designed a system to grow all the necessary microbes, fungus filaments and lots of other macrofuana creatures, such as nematodes and arthropods, in a lab environment. The researchers then harvest the byproducts produced by those live organisms. By concentrating on all the byproducts produced critical to superior turf, we are able to energize the microbial, fungus filaments and other macrofuana creatures present in your soil to perform at much higher levels.

    Nutrient mining: In a healthy soil, bacteria and fungi efficiently remove other important minerals from the soil that plants require, such as iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, and manganese. These organisms excrete special enzymes that unlock the chemical bonds that tightly bind these valuable micronutrients in soil particles. The GenNext products contain these special enzymes to make micronutrients available immediately where the bacteria and fungi populations might be deficient.

    Mycorrhizal Fungi:[/b] Mycorrhizal fungi is a keystone to the health of any plant. This fungi forms as a partnership with plant roots. A healthy plant produces sugar and shares it with fungi in exchange for providing water and minerals to the plant. Mycorrhizal fungi grow through the soil and possess fine hair-like strands called hyphae. These strands form a network of canals that absorb water and minerals from the soil, then transporting it back to the plant root. Mycorrhizal fungi do not feed themselves, they must enter the living root tissue of the plant. Once inside the root, it is allowed to absorb sugar and other compounds from the plant. To increase the efficiency of these strands, you must have a healthy root zone. The GenNext products contain simple and complex carbohydrates (sugar) and other byproducts designed to help the process of developing an elaborate network of absorbing strands that reach in to the soils. Effectively, these strands act as ultra-thin absorbent roots. This in turn supplies water and minerals that makes the plant grow vigorously, producing more sugar, which it continues to share with the fungi. Another feature of increasing this population is in that Mycorrhizal threads act as a sponge, absorbing water during moist periods, then retaining and slowly releasing to the plant during periods of drought.

    So, the USGA says you have a plentiful and diverse microbial community, but the modern turfgrass practices, including common management methods, are known to suppress biological activity in soil. The use of fungicides, pesticides and herbicides create an environment where microbes cannot perform the necessary functions.

    Wrapping this up, microbes excrete an array of important and beneficial byproducts which include amino acids, organic acids, carbohydrates, enzymes, growth regulating compounds and others; bacteria, fungi, algae protozoa and a host of other creatures feed on and utilize these byproducts. Without these essential byproducts, your turfgrass is not performing at optimum efficiency.

    GenNext researchers have spent years identifying these critical byproducts and further, have designed products that stimulate healthy plant responses. Part of the "Key Complex" in our products incorporate these byproducts to stimulate the biological community in your soils.

    The best way to see how our products perform is to spend $500.00 – you will receive five gallons each of our C&D products, you will treat 24,000 sq. ft. of your turfgrass three times, and you will see superior coloration, with the beginning of your new, healthy turfgrass.



  11. Larry Stowell
    Larry Stowell avatar
    0 posts
    12/20/2013 9:12 AM
    Tim,

    Can you provide links to the research that supports the claims that specific microbes or microbial pathways are stimulated with Next Gen products that benefit turfgrass performance? I know there are a lot of new techniques being used for soil microbial population research that I am not familiar with. Things like total soil DNA analysis that could be used to demonstrate the claims that microbial ecosystem changes or the biochemistry of the soil changes in a beneficial way. For example, detection of enzymes or enzymatic by products.

    Maybe you don't need to speculate on how the product works, just provide the efficacy data from independent replicated trials compared against an appropriate control, such as 0.122 lb N every 15 days using urea. That would make it easier for me to recommend that superintendents give the products a try.



  12. Brett Morris
    Brett Morris avatar
    0 posts
    1/2/2014 4:01 PM
    Tim,

    I'd like to see those as well. My email is brettm@amgrow.com.au

    Thanks - Brett.



  13. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    1/11/2014 1:01 PM
    You still with us Tim?



  14. Michael Rogers
    Michael Rogers avatar
    2 posts
    1/13/2014 5:01 AM
    Hello Larry, Brett, and Ron

    Would you please post examples of well conducted well reasoned research data that have inspired you to buy a product?

    Thanks in advance. I have personally marketed biological products to over 300 golf clubs in +/- 20 countries on three continents. Tim has had research done by one our most famous and popular talk radio turfgrass professors. This new breed of turf researchers love the limelight, glory in yellow jounalism, and have research assistants that have decided that hollow-tining does not reduce thatch more than solid-tining and that superintendents are throwing away thousands of dollars on excess K.

    Many very qualified supers have commented favourably on the Gennext products. If a super is interested in a more bio approach, I believe there is enough of a positive buzz about this product to give it a try.

    As for a control, why not use your normal greens program of N P K micros etc. I do not understand using simple N.

    Saludos Michael



  15. Larry Stowell
    Larry Stowell avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 8:01 AM
    I don't purchase products, but I recommend products for use at hundreds of golf courses, maybe thousands if anyone follows suggestions I make on Twitter (@paceturf). I gladly recommend products that have demonstrated performance that match manufacturers claims (assuming that the claims are beneficial). The research report below illustrates the type of research that influence my recommendations.

    Trying to knock down research data with words alone is futile. If you have research data that illustrate other research is not accurate, please provide the results. Simply stating that you don't believe the data is not a scientific argument. Certainly sales prowess does not substitute for scientific research.

    http://www.paceturf.org/journal/wetting_agents_and_microbial_based_products_for_control_of_fairy_ring_and_l



  16. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 9:01 AM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said: You still with us Tim?

    Welcome home Ron.



  17. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    1/13/2014 11:01 AM
    Michael Rogers said: Hello Larry, Brett, and Ron

    Would you please post examples of well conducted well reasoned research data that have inspired you to buy a product?

    Thanks in advance. I have personally marketed biological products to over 300 golf clubs in +/- 20 countries on three continents. Tim has had research done by one our most famous and popular talk radio turfgrass professors. This new breed of turf researchers love the limelight, glory in yellow jounalism, and have research assistants that have decided that hollow-tining does not reduce thatch more than solid-tining and that superintendents are throwing away thousands of dollars on excess K.

    Many very qualified supers have commented favourably on the Gennext products. If a super is interested in a more bio approach, I believe there is enough of a positive buzz about this product to give it a try.

    As for a control, why not use your normal greens program of N P K micros etc. I do not understand using simple N.

    Saludos Michael



    Sorry, I prefer not to chase around every new product that hits the market, even with claims from supers that have used the products, without something more to look at. I do have a limited budget. If I chased every product I've seen claim to be the latest and greatest over the past 25 years where would I be? Provide the research and my mind is much more open.



  18. Tim Brink
    Tim Brink avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 11:01 AM
    Sorry for the delay in responding do not monitor these forums very often.

    The spring of 2014 will complete the 39th year of studies by an extraordinary set of researchers. The internal research we have accumulated during this time frame is massive and includes internal and external studies of turfgrass. Over the years, as new discoveries were made, they were put into operation in all phases of the turfgrass industry through a consulting practice. The products were applied, and their reactions were studied. With increased data on the products, the formulations were improved so that results could be achieved on a universal basis. All of this knowledge and research led to the development of methods to copy nature - methods and natural processes with products that would speed up natural reactions and improve upon them so that results could be seen quickly, and continual improvements would be accomplished.

    Let's be clear we haven't invented any new substances that create the strong performance. We have simply identified and replicated the key enzymes, plant hormones, microbial byproducts etc. that our research indicates is critical to superior plant health. To fully disclose what each additive is and does would be an outline for others to potentially replicate the products.

    Sure we University Research stating the turf looks and performs better on the GenNext products.

    Here is a quote and link to a study done in Iowa: No significant differences were found in nutrient content among any of the treatments. We are still not sure why the plots receiving A & B appeared to have a higher quality during the season.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3YFByMa5-mCLWZMQ1I4Yk55ZDg/edit?usp=sharing

    Here is a link to a table from Michigan State outlining poa reduction:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnYFByMa5-mCdENnRUZESU5INzZSOVZtUUNwUW9PdHc&usp=sharing

    I would like to ask why consistent performance isn't enough?

    • Several hundred courses use the products with positive results?
    • The retention rate on courses using the products is 92%?
    • A National Publication named it Best of 2013?

    Here is the bottom line, does it really matter why turfgrasses thrive on the GenNext products? Isn't it just important that they thrive? If you question whether the products perform spend $500.00 do three applications, anytime during your growing season, on a half-acre of your greens. Do the applications, in a side by side comparison to your current program. Review density, root depth, coloration, ball roll and anything else that's important to you then you decide if the products perform at your course.



  19. David Stout
    David Stout avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 12:01 PM
    I have read here and there about these products and like a previous poster said, I'm not able to chase every new product available on a limited budget. I am all for experimentation and producing data through check based research at each of our facilities that will enable us to compare apples to apples. However, I'm extremely intrigued......

    That being said, I think its extremely important to know "why" A&B products enable turf to thrive. If we don't know why a product works we don't really know if its as effective as it can be. For example, if items such as amino acids, OA's, and microbial excretions are a key to making this product work, then great. Just quantify it somehow with checks. Like other skeptics, any time I see a product high in soluble N or that is high in Fe, Mn, or Mg I need to ask if I just applied those products alone would I achieve similar results. I'm not knocking the product as I've never used it, but I would need to see some more before I took the plunge.



  20. Larry Stowell
    Larry Stowell avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 6:01 PM
    Tim,

    That is some data, thanks.

    I have contacted Nick Christians to see if he ran the stats on turf quality. He states quality was higher In the treated plots, but he did not provide the stats. And no, just saying something is better without providing the stats is not OK. I will give Nick a little grief about that if he did not collect the data to support that claim.

    The ARM spreadsheets are a little difficult to work with. There is no associated protocol to determine what the treatment codes and observations mean. The turf quality data does not look great on a variety of dates, but I may be reading the treatments wrong. Did the researcher provide a written summary of the results and protocol? You have some data, it just needs to be put in more final form. You may be closer to providing the requested data than you think.

    For your other question, yes it is important that your current customers are happy. But, it is not enough for me to recommend the products to my clients, or to convince more skeptical readers here to jump in.

    Your recommendation to give the product a test is a good one. Splitting greens or knockout trials are a reasonable way to go.



  21. Kevin Tansey
    Kevin Tansey avatar
    0 posts
    1/13/2014 8:01 PM
    I agree with Larry's statements. The GenNext product didn't work for us at our club. We made 4 applications of A & B on 9 greens and applied our standard Spring time program of 7-0-0 ammonium sulfae at a .10#N/m along with Mg, Mn, B. After our first two apps of A & B there was a signification color difference between the 9's and not much else. Our check plots stood out as we expected. However by the 3rd and 4th app there was no difference in color and throughout the test there were not enough of a noticeable difference in anything else for us to say A & B was better then what our current program was. Even our check plots showed no difference on the GenNext greens by the 3rd and 4th apps. We tested it. We compared and we could not say that spending almost triple the price was benefical or economical for us to use the product. We did not see the claims in the end that were claimed.

    We lisented to others claims, saw some of the research that was presented and tried it. But to make decisions based solely on others results would be reckless. What works at the course up the street or across the county doesnt mean it will work for us, which we found out. I think its always good to see what worked for others and learn from their succeses and failures but you have to try it for yourself to really know.



  22. Michael Rogers
    Michael Rogers avatar
    2 posts
    1/14/2014 12:01 AM
    Still waiting for research that made you run out and buy something. In fact I have been waiting more than 20 years for some well reasone, well presented research.

    Nick Christians is one of better researchers, not one of the glamour boys. Since grants are cut way back, talk radio is the way to generate revenue and fill lecture halls.



  23. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    1/14/2014 7:01 AM
    I've been using Crest toothpaste for years because it works! And because it was on sale this one time when i had to scratch for change in the sofa and car seats just to buy some. I haven't had a cavity since about 1972. For me to switch to Colgate or Pepsodent I'd have to see some pretty serious research proving either really is better than my Crest.



  24. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    1/14/2014 10:01 AM
    Michael Rogers said: Still waiting for research that made you run out and buy something. In fact I have been waiting more than 20 years for some well reasone, well presented research.

    Nick Christians is one of better researchers, not one of the glamour boys. Since grants are cut way back, talk radio is the way to generate revenue and fill lecture halls.


    Would research on the various methods of aeration, compaction control, o.m.control and reduction, infiltration rates, poa control products, wetting agents, turf varieties, disease control products, mowing heights, mower set-up and the impact on turf health, cultural methods for disease control, etc. suit the bill?

    What is it you have against university research again? I trust it and maybe you think we shouldn't but doing so has worked for me. It's a a snapshot of what's happening at any given time, with any current practice or practices. It may not be perfect and should things change, which they always do, it does not mean the research at that time was worthless. What else do we do? Guess and hope?



  25. Michael Rogers
    Michael Rogers avatar
    2 posts
    1/14/2014 12:01 PM
    Ron, Please post me any research at all that has led you to buy a product. Maybe Larry could do the same for research that has led him to advise his clients to buy a product.

    You both must have dozens of examples if you or Larry don´t try or recommend anything new unless you have oodles of objective university research to support your choice.

    I put out N P K at about 2 - .6 - 2.5 or 223 lbs acre N 67 lbs of P2O5 and 279 lbs per acre of K2O

    These equate to 5.1 lbs per M of N, 1.54 lbs of P2O5 per M, and 6.4 lbs of K2O per M.

    Watch out, our esteemed Cornell univ. says luxury K

    Our esteemed Univ Nebraska has a grad student that says that hollow-tining does not reduce thatch more than solid tining. This hit several important blogs

    Our esteemed Michigan State after inventing black layer by waterlogging his experiments for the last 20 years says sulfur is the cause of black layer. For your information calcium and magnesium are not plant available long before bacteria begin to reduce sulfur.

    Now after seeing aa ab aa ab bb bc ab aa r = .76 Spit it out, what are they trying to tell us.

    I create some of the most complex soil and water chemistty models in the business and my head is spinning after reading these articles with circular reasoning, ridiculously low quality control programs, and an absurdity of non realistic conditions to insure objectivity.

    This esteemed professor from Michigan State replied to my question as to what is his control program : The test area gets the product and the control area does not. A couple of years later I explained, what products do you put on the control area. He said, I bung on whatever anyone gives me for free, sulfate of ammonia or urea. My point is, why not try for instance Gennext or whatever against your full program of macros, micros, growth regulators, sea weed, the whole kit and see if it makes this BIG difference that they claim.

    Got to go, another 14 hour day. All the talk radio professors are readily available for viewing at the GIS

    Do you just bung a bit of urea or sulfate of ammonia on your greens. I eagerly await these examples of thrilling research with my finger on the spend button.


    Saludos Michael



  26. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    1/14/2014 2:01 PM
    Michael,

    You do make a good point about what is used on control plots, and maybe the consistency of what is used. That to me is really back on us as end users and universities for not providing funds that allow researchers to keep the control plots managed the same year after year.

    Mel

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

  27. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    1/15/2014 8:01 AM
    Michael Rogers said: Ron, Please post me any research at all that has led you to buy a product. Maybe Larry could do the same for research that has led him to advise his clients to buy a product.

    You both must have dozens of examples if you or Larry don´t try or recommend anything new unless you have oodles of objective university research to support your choice.


    I eagerly await these examples of thrilling research with my finger on the spend button.


    Saludos Michael


    Why bother? I'm the consumer here. If I would like to see research supporting a product's claims before I take the bait, as one part of my decision making process, so be it. It's not upon me to prove anything. It's on the seller.

    Are you saying when you make a decision on how to best combat a pathogen you don't reference any research whatsoever? So you don't take a look at a number of research studies on the efficacy of various fungicides, for example, and how they rate against other fungicides and other methods of control? You don't take a peak at the NTEP trials when selecting seed types? Or when developing a program and considering your future course of action say for Poa reduction, or even management of Poa, you don't reference research on the most effective methods and products? Are you saying what you do instead is set up separate tests plot for every aspect of your cultural program? Or do you rely simply on experience? Or a colleagues recommendation?

    I take everything I can into consideration. I want all the information I can get before jumping in on a specific product. Asking to see the research is part of my decision making process. If there is no, or limited research, what's wrong with waiting a few years while the rest of the industry tests it out? I'm in no hurry to be the first to have the latest, greatest leap forward in a business which has been sold these products many times before, only to see them fade from use because they really weren't all that. If Gen Next becomes what the sellers claim it will become, and I'm late to the party by a couple of years, so what? You won't miss me.

    The research is out there, and everyone reading this knows it. I'm too lazy right now to google it. You do the work. You're the one trying to do the convincing. Please post all the flawed research you do not rely on to help make an informed decision.


    Best



  28. Larry Stowell
    Larry Stowell avatar
    0 posts
    1/15/2014 8:01 AM
    Ron summarized his perspective well and I would hope that his approach to selecting products and practices is common. The more research support, the faster the adoption of new products and practices.

    I want to affirm that good science is essential for development of sound management programs. Casual field observations are valuable. Including check plots and keeping records of results firmly moves casual observations into the realm of research and science. I'm going to link to the PACE guide to conducting your own research here again in case someone is interested.

    http://www.paceturf.org/index.php/journ ... practices/

    I am trying to not get sucked into the flame abyss that can appear when research results do not support a beloved product or practice such as core aeration and high soil potassium. I hope we can get back to a positive discussion about turf performance and product testing.

    There is an abundance of great turfgrass research that has guided turf management recommendations that are in current use (check the Turfgrass Information File TGIF http://turfweb.lib.msu.edu/starweb/login.htm). Sure, you can produce good turf with high soil potassium and more aeration, but why waste the money and resources if they are not needed?

    Earlier in this thread, I presented an example of a fairy ring trial that helped me to decide to recommend Heritage or Prostar in combination with Primer for fairy ring management. There are several additional trials on this topic that support that recommendation. The research isn't that difficult to understand, but it takes some thought to pull the recommendations out of the research. Some of the research trials have been used to help define product label recommendations. Without research trials, how would anyone determine the rate of application of a product - hopefully based upon performance, not simply on desired corporate profit.

    I used to think Rossi was crazy with his low K recommendations until I started looking at the data more closely in cooperation with Micah Woods at the Asian Turfgrass Center. As it turns out, it looks like we need less fertilizer than conventional soil interpretation methods would suggest. It is easy enough for you to test these new (Minimum Levels for Sustainable Nutrition MLSN) guidelines because you don't have to apply anything if your soils report more than the guideline values. Nitrogen applications are based on growth potential and all other required nutrients are based upon nitrogen applied. Are these guidelines controversial? Probably, but the data is solid and I have been using the method for a couple of years. Lots of money has been saved not chasing calcium and potassium soil test values. If these guidelines are not challenged by other researchers, I would be very surprised. Micah and I continue to challenge the guidelines ourselves to be sure we are providing the best data to our clients.

    http://www.gcsaa.org/_common/templates/ ... gType=1033

    Growth potential spreadsheet to calculate nutrient requirements:
    http://www.paceturf.org/ipm/f_climate_e ... 131025.xls

    Same thing in metric:
    http://www.paceturf.org/ipm/f_climate_m ... 131025.xls

    Here is an article that describes what we do at PACE. It is important to review the background, education and experience of the people who provide you with recommendations or who provide product reviews. I'm not embarrassed to have a Ph.D., even though it seems like I should be based upon the negative comments regarding researchers in general scattered throughout this thread. You don't need a Ph.D. to read research publications. You don't need a Ph.D. to conduct your own research. If you don't understand the research, contact the researcher and ask a direct question. It just takes a little time to get comfortable reading the research. If you have a specific question about a research report, ask me and I will provide my opinion.

    http://www.turfnet.com/page/news.html/_ ... ience-r103



  29. Schlagetter David B
    Schlagetter David B avatar
    1/15/2014 11:01 AM
    Larry:

    Since this thread has taken a turn toward research. I have a question, or observation.

    I'm fascinated by how the PoaCure people have conducted their product rollout. I'm not paying attention to everything, but has this been unique for our industry?

    Having existing Superintendents conduct research with such high profile to in the end profit his business is genius. Or is this just similar to what bigger companies have done through university research?

    Is the PoaCure research much different than other product research?

    Do you have an opinion on this type of research and product rollout and can you express it here?

    Dave Schlagetter



  30. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    1/15/2014 1:01 PM
    Dave I would think that the PoaCure rollout is very little different any other. I'm sure some of their foreign data and research would be accepted by US authorities but much of it would have to be meet US standards.
    I know up hear some guys are offered products to test well before they actually come to market



View or change your forums profile here.