search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ROOTED INRESEARCH SOD PRODUCTION ON COMPOST


By Mike Fidanza, PhD


With this issue’s Rooted in Research article, let’s take a look back at a sod study from the early 1990s. Te research was conducted by Dr. John Cisar (Professor at the University of Florida’s Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center from 1986 to 2014), and Dr. George Snyder (Professor at the University of Florida’s Belle Glade Research and Extension Center from 1967 to 2002). Dr. Cisar (cisarturfdoc@gmail.com) and Dr. Snyder (phdlaboratory@hotmail.com) remain active in numerous consultative activities for the turfgrass industry.


Te primary objective of that research was to determine if municipal solid waste compost would be suitable for growing sod over a plastic barrier, and the study was conducted at Ft. Lauderdale in 1990. Te compost was provided by the municipality of Pompano Beach, FL. It started with urban or municipal solid waste that was mechanically mixed and aerated to form windrows for a 21-day period. Te result was a composted material that was passively aged indoors for three months. Further processing included the removal of any hazardous and toxic materials. Glass, plastics, and small metallic components were crushed and included in the compost. However, final processing involved screening through 6 mm (.25 inch) sieves, and the finished compost met Florida’s regulations for heavy metal content. Te final organic matter content was 12 percent, pH of 7.1, and 0.006 percent N, 0.0003 percent P, and 0.03 percent K.


Test plots measured 3 x 10 ft. (approximately 1 x 3 m), and the compost was spread 2 inches (5 cm) thick onto thin polyethylene black plastic. Bahiagrass (‘Argentine’) and St. Augustinegrass (‘Floratam’) were sprigged and bermudagrass (‘Tifway’) was seeded in early May, grown through the season, and harvested in late October. All three turfgrass species were evaluated for visual quality, percent cover, tear resistance (i.e., sod shear strength), and root weight.


So, what were the results of this study? All three turfgrasses successfully produced sod grown in compost over plastic in five months. Initially, the compost had higher than desired soluble salts (EC = 2.85 dS•m-1


[2 H2 O:1 soil extract)]),


but standard irrigation and fertilization practices lowered the salts to 0.34 dS•m-1


by six weeks after establishment.


So, with all three turfgrass species, visual quality and percent plot area covered were not compromised, and in fact improved, when grown in compost over plastic.


Of note, “sod strength” as measured by tear resistance was statistically similar for bahaigrass or bermudagrass grown on compost over plastic or grown conventionally (Figure 1). However, St. Augustinegrass grown in compost over plastic measured higher sod strength compared to conventionally grown sod (Figure 1). It was observed that this increase in sod strength was due to the rooting stability facilitated by the plastic liner.


Figure 1. Tear resistance (sod tear resistance force measured in kg) for sod from those turfgrasses grown on compost over plastic compared to standard or conventionally grown sod; average of three replications; same letters indicate treatments are not statistically different at p < 0.10.


70


TPI Turf News July/August 2023


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