Good morning, everybody. Welcome to turfgrass epistemology. My name is Trevor Shaddicks. Thank you so much for being here. Monday morning. It is the first Monday of August. Is that right? Today is the day. If you haven't done it by now, you better start prepping for overseeding or for reseeding. I'm spraying lawn today. I'm starting from scratch. Everybody has their own recipe, but my recipe starts with a clean slate, a clean canvas. So I'm wiping out a Heinz 57 fine fescue, probably Kentucky 31, probably some regular turf type top fescue, probably some bluegrass in there. I'm wiping out one of those Heinz 57 lawns today. And there's a process that I do because I want to start now. So three or four weeks from now, everything's cleaned up, dead, clean slate, and I can seed it by the end of August. I actually prefer to seed in the middle of August, believe it or not here in Kentucky. But first of September is a good start date, but you got to start three to four weeks prior. So today is the day. As soon as I hang up on this, I'm eating lunch and strapping on my gear and going and go out and do a non-select spray on some property. So hopefully you have your seed ordered. If you don't, it's not too late. And, you know, be prepared for all those reseeds and interseeds and whatever, however you're doing it. Unless the lawn is already pretty solid in our turf top top fescue is the proper choice for most lawns. Unless it's mostly turf top top fescue already, I recommend just starting from scratch, you know, wipe it out. Start from new. Just, I've had more success with that than trying to put a band-aid on a, you know, broken arm, arms broke, just start from new. So today is the day. Welcome to our Super TA, Joseph Kala, Mason, Chuck Randy. You have a new member, Patrick. Patrick Clippen is a new member. We're almost to 70 members. Internet surfer, you may be in the wrong, if he's online, you may be in the wrong feed. Because the feed that's on the screen right now, I'm actually going to take off because it's for a future feed. I can't get the members feed to show up on the members only channel. So if he's watching, he's not, he can't see this because he's not in the member stream, but he's typing. And so I'm going to remove that because it's for tomorrow's show. Speaking of tomorrow's show, I came across a video, I had a series of videos set for, I don't know, 10 weeks out on soil testing, and then I came across a video that I moved to the front of the line. Or tomorrow. And the reason I moved to the front of the line is, it's sort of like an interview video of a gentleman giving soil test recommendations. And the reason I moved to the front of the line is because the other gentleman in the video, I don't know either one of them, but the other gentleman actually seems genuinely sincere and genuinely interested in knowing what is true, knowing what reality is. And he has fed such an amount of BS by the, you know, I'll call him the antagonist, the villain that I had to move to the front of the line. And then when I did, so that'll be tomorrow. And then when I did, suddenly on my YouTube algorithm stream, all this stuff started popping up from that same person. And so we're going to be going over, unfortunately, content from a similar creator for a while on soil testing. I've just never seen so much misinformation and nonsense from someone who is obviously live on YouTube convincing the person he's talking to that he's correct and to follow his recommendations when in reality. It's all BS mostly anyway, so we're going to go over that tomorrow. I'm rather annoyed by it to be frank so I moved to the front of the line. Anyway, so today we're going to be going over an article on calcium magnesium and. Yeah, yeah, that's it. That's it, Randy. Calcium magnesium and putting greens. And this will be the, this will be one of the last papers I go over on turf grass calcium magnesium. I remember if I remember, if you remember correctly, I was going base cats, maybe back up. If you remember, I was going over base cat on saturation, but it was mainly an egg and I kind of felt like it was kind of getting lost. And so I went to turf grass for a little bit. This is a turf grass article today. On Thursday, I'll go over, in my opinion, the most important paper on base cat on saturation because it includes not only the plant response, but the cost of the process to induce that response. Whether you follow base cat on saturation, feeding the soil or slant method, they'll be on Thursday night show up into the public. And then I'll continue into the ag literature a little bit more in the following weeks and then on Tuesday show it'll be videos on soil testing with turf grass. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, before I get too far down the road, I want to thank a, I don't think he's a member. I don't know if he's a member or if he's a subscriber. I know he's a subscriber, but I saw the coolest little short video from elevated lawnscapes cam over elevated lawnscapes. And I was like, man, how does he do that? That's cool. So I emailed him real quick. I was like, hey, how do you do that? Can you help me when you mind showing me? And of course, he's like, sure, I'm happy. So he showed me some little tricks on some shorts. So I'm looking forward to maybe getting out a little bit more poignant, you know, cogent sort of clips for the short videos that I produce. So thank you to Cam over at elevated lawnscapes. I hope it works out for me. I'm still trying to figure it out, but he helped me out a lot this weekend. Okay. Now we'll go on. So the video, or the article today is entitled effect of acidity and in source on the growth in that accumulation of Tifka and Bermuda grass and on soil nutrient retention. Now, almost all of this article is going to talk about nitrogen sources and their effect on soil acidity and their effect on that accumulation and quality and so forth. And there's going to be a few things I'm going to tease out of there that I think some people might be interested in with regards to intentionally affecting their soil pH and whether they should or shouldn't. But also an underlying objective of this paper was to look at the calcium magnesium ratios and how that affects turfgrass physiology or growth. And that's what we've been going over. As we know, there's a lot of nonsense perpetuated by normally salesman and normally companies that are that are founded on misinformation, such as base count saturation, such as saturated paste extracts, such as calcium magnesium ratios. And they're normally, they normally use soil tests to convince you that you have to apply calcium because your magnesium is too high. And you got to lower the magnesium because your magnesium and their soil is too tight. So for all that's complete piffle, there's no evidence to support it in any practical meaning in practical setting. And so this paper looks specifically like that issue of calcium to magnesium because they'll say calcium magnesium needs to be X or else, you know, some problems going to occur. And in this paper, the calcium magnesium ratios are very greatly, but the turf is fine. There's no difference in the turf at all. And so we're going to look at that specifically today, but along with some nitrogen stuff as we move into what's going to be the upcoming fall application season. For most turfgrass people. Okay. Okay, so this was published, I think in a grown me journal in 1985, so you can join the tri societies and read this paper among many others or you can go there right now to agronomy.org. Search this title or JBSartain the author, and you can find this paper and read the abstract for free. We're going to come back to the closing conclusions in the abstract because he cites it more. He sums it up more succinctly in the abstract than he does in the actual conclusions of the paper. Turfgrass grown on Sandy Highport. Oh, and by the way, I'm going to go over another article right after this. This is a short article and I have another short article that I can't figure out where to put. It's only two pages long. So I'm going to go over this one and then I'm going to go over another one right after this for the members today. The next one has to do with the common melee three phosphorus levels in Pennsylvania lawns. So hang tight towards the end. Don't hang up once I finish this article because there's going to be another one about phosphorus in Pennsylvania lawns at the end. Turfgrass has grown on Sandy Highport soils in the southeast US require large quantities of nitrogen fertilizers to remain a desirable dark green color. This nitrogen may be supplied as a soluble slow release organic or natural organic compound. Slow or controlled release nitrogen sources are generally more expensive than soluble inorganic nitrogen sources, such as ammonium sulfate. Oxidation of ammonium to ammonium sulfate does acidify soils, but it does supply nitrogen in the ammonium form, which is not as readily leached as nitrate. So all he's saying is, is that the slower these sources are generally more expensive. They're per pound of in the natural organic, such as biosolids or, well, any natural organic like chicken letter or whatever, they're almost always less expensive per ton, but per pound of nitrogen, they're almost always many, many fold more expensive than the synthetic nitrogen sources. And oftentimes what will happen is they'll convince you to use those natural organic because they're natural, or they have other, you know, microbial feeding components in the fertilizer that is somehow beneficial to your lawn or to fairways or whatever. Don't be fooled by those horrible arguments. There's very little evidence and except for in sort of virgin soils or very clean soils that have no sort of maturity to them. There's no really no evidence that applying these compounds are going to somehow provide some benefit that the nitrogen and phosphorus wouldn't provide on their own. So please don't be fooled by those bad arguments. There are cases clearly where natural organics may be more suitable than, you know, whatever ammonium nitrate. But in terms of their cost, the cost to produce a, you know, acceptable turf response is almost always the most efficient or the least cost using urea or ammonium sulfate or synthetic nitrogen source. And I have many articles that discuss that. You can go back and look at the nitrogen playlist and look at those videos. But however you slice that cake, it's almost impossible to beat urea and ammonium sulfate. In terms of cost, I mean, there's certainly value to slower these materials, especially if you have sort of environmental sensitivity or there's some burn potential that you want to reduce. The main value, I think in slower these materials is the reduction of phytotoxicity of the turf, but. So there is value in them, but it's not the cost. You're always going to pay more to use slower these materials. However, you want to slice that up. Okay, I still be leading diarrhea, which is really no longer available for any meaningful sense. It's too expensive. It's a 3100. But you can still get it occasionally. In fact, I have a study with it going on right now as we speak with IBD you. I have some left over from like 15, 20 years ago, and I'm still using it today because it's the only the only nitrogen source that releases the way that it does. No other no other nitrogen source is like less less affected by cool weather. It can still release its nitrogen load by even in cool weather. Whereas so many of the others have a difficulty because when it gets cold, IBD you tends to perform better in those conditions, so I tend to use it sometimes even now. But IBD is a sparingly soluble synthetic organic compound whose rate of nitrogen releases conditioned by soil moisture and particle size. So it's really the particle size and moisture that affects IBD. Of course, temperature is going to affect everything, but within the range is commonly encountered. As you get colder, the temperature is going to have more of a profound effect on things like polymer coated ureas or urea formaldehyde than it would IBD you. But eventually they get so cold that of course it's going to stop even from IBD you, but it has to get way, way low for that to happen. However, cost per unit of nitrogen may restrict IBD use in the turfgrass industry, and that's true. It's a 3100. Instead of a 46.0 from your reach of 31.0, or even a 43 or 42 from polymer coated ureas, it's a 31.0, but it's also more expensive per ton. So it's a double edge sword. It's actually much, much more expensive than many of the other slower these sources. Sewage sludge, which nowadays they use the term biosolids, has been used extensively on turfgrass, but mainly during warm season growth because of the significant reduction of biological nitrogen release from the material during cool seasons. So if you're not familiar, the natural organics require microbial activity to break them down and to release the nitrogen to be able to be taken up by the plant. And all that is mediated by temperature and among other things, but temperature is a major influencer on that. In general, turfgrass growth rate in response to the application of sewage sludge have been inferior to those obtained using synthetic organic slow release materials. So if you've ever wondered, like, well, should I be using, you know, this natural organic, this biosolo, this, you know, melorganite or Jacksonville sludge or chicken letter or whatever. There's many papers right here. He cites Waddington's paper in Vulcan horn in '75 that show that the turfgrass response from sewage sludge tends to be inferior. Now, there are many other papers, including some published by myself, that show that the response is similar. In other words, you're not going to provide a much of a greater benefit, but you probably also won't provide an inferior response from sewage sludge or biosolids. It's generally about the same as many of the other nitrogen sources given the appropriate rate that you applied it, but it will be much more expensive on almost every case per acre. This study was initiated in 1978 involving ammonium sulfate, IBDU and sewage sludge. So these are the three nitrogen sources we're going to look at. And then he evaluated the effect of acidity on growth in uptake and thatched development. And then he observed the influence of nitrogen source and rate on turfgrass quality growth and thatched development. And the last one, which is why we're here, to evaluate the influence of soil acidity on the retention of selected nutrients in the root zone by soil. Now, it's critical that we understand the importance of this last objective because that's the one they're going to look at with calcium magnesium. This is where all the BS lies in base saturation. And as long as those companies keep pumping out videos on their YouTube stream, we're always going to have content to critique on this channel because they just can't get over the reality that calcium magnesium ratios really don't matter to turfgrass. And unless it's no calcium at all or no magnesium at all, and in those cases, it's just the deficiency of that element that's causing the problem. It's not the ratio of one to the other. Okay, they just can't get over that. I don't know if they're just making so much money fleecing the industry from selling that concept or they have such a reputation that if they backed up and recognized that they were wrong and then admitted it, they thought they would lose business or something. I don't know what it is. But the evidence is so overwhelming on this topic. It boggles my mind how anybody could possibly be convinced to use calcium magnesium ratios when managing nutrients apply to turfgrass. So that is the importance of why this last objective is noted on here, and I want to make sure that that's the reason why we're going over this article today. It's really important because there's so much wasted money and effort and resources trying to balance this thing out when there's no need to do that. Okay. The study was initiated in 1978 on five-year-old Tiff Green Bermuda grass, and I'm going to make some points as we go through the five years old. Okay, so it was a five-year-old's stand, and it was growing on a loamy fine sand at the horticulture unit near Gainesville, Florida. This is where I did my work as well, up into northwest side of Alachua County. Data were collected over a five-year period, but only the last three years of data were reported, so they collected data for five years. It wasn't just a once-season or one year, two years, five years. They're only going to report what happened in the last three years because that's what was representative of everything anyway, so they just ran it over the last three years. Experimenting units were two-by-three-meter plots arranged in a randomized complete block design with 12 treatments and four replications. Because of the nature of nitrogen materials employed and desire to establish a relatively broad range in soil pH, an unbalanced treatment design was used. So what he's saying is they wanted to, they didn't go out there and just do things as you would normally do things just to kind of... Here's treatment B, treatment C, they're actually trying to establish a range of pHs, so that they also have a range of effect from calcium anesium or from acidity or whatever the case might be. So the ammonium sulfate, IBDU, and sewage sludge were applied, then I'm going to show the table one. Phosphorus potassium anesium is concentrated, and the case is going to go over that. They applied magnesium and potassium sulfate and so forth. Okay, and then he describes how he applied those and to what specific plots he applied, the magnesium, potassium, and so forth. And it depended upon what ratio he was trying to result in with calcium anesium. Okay, so you can read through that. Micronutrients were applied as a fritted trace elements. Fritted micronutrients are generally oxidized. Micronutrients, I'm not sure why he would apply that, but they all sometimes come in a homogenous granule of fritted iron and manganese and zinc, whatever. And very few, very little of that is ever going to be available, but back then that's what they used, I suppose, to make sure that the micronutrients weren't deficient, but I doubt it would have had any effect on it anyway because they're oxidized. Anyway, sewage leg treated plots did not receive additional phosphorus because obviously it's applying phosphorus with it, but they did receive two, let's see, two fifths and one fifth pound of potassium and magnesium as potassium sulfate and magnesium sulfate every, basically every two months. To establish a range of pH, calcium hydroxide or sulfur were applied every 56 days to plots which had received ammonium sulfate on an equivalent basis such that in an equal amount, an equal quantity of acidity was produced by the sulfur and neutralized by the calcium hydroxide, as was produced by the initial ammonium sulfate application. The same rate of sulfur was also applied to select the plots receiving IVD and sulfur sewage. So to sum all that up, he's intentionally neutralizing acidity on some treatments of the same treatment and neutralizing acidity on part of the treatment and he's increasing acidity on another part of the treatment in the middle, he's going to leave it alone. And the reason for that is because the charlatans and grifters and the dubious companies and salesmen and even scientists who don't understand this, they will rely upon the literature saying, well, calcium saturation is resulting in this. When they're completely forgetting or not even acknowledging that the treatment affected pH, and it was the pH that resulted in the plant response, in many cases it was alfalfa or soybeans back in the literature, but they just didn't believe that pH affected plant growth. In fact, the grandfather of BCSR, William Albrecht, he has it in his books that pH is not that influential, not that important for plant growth. It was written in his book, I'm going to put it on a t-shirt. Okay, it's important that you understand they were indoctrinated and delusional. Albrecht was delusional about soil pH and its effect on plants. He didn't understand that it has an effect on plants. That was the calcium. And so in here, what Dr. Sartana is saying is that he's intentionally making sure that the pH was neutralized or increased or made the same, so he's accounting for the effect of pH. Okay, that's what he's attempting to do is show a range of pH. Visual ratings were taken biweekly on a one and nine scale. It's 5.5 and the minimum acceptable level, I'm sorry, the best was nine and the minimum was 5.5 clippings for dry weight accumulation estimates and nitrogen analysis were collected every 45 days. And the Bermuda grass, I'm going to get through this material, the materials and methods real quick. When the Bermuda grass became dormant, 10, one inch diameter plugs per plot of thatch and, per plot of thatch and soil were taken for thatch accumulated estimates, made like one was used for the extractant for the nutrients. And the grass was irrigated as needed, clippings were removed during each mowing. Okay. So the question from Randy and Bulgaria, I believe, is, is there a difference between. Example, magnesium oxide, just to claim greater percentages value on the label and real value of that element. Okay, great question. So if I understand your question correctly, Randy, is you're wanting to know whether or not there was, there was, I'm, I'm, I'm inferring from what you're saying is that you want to know whether or not there's actual value in magnesium oxide, or they just putting magnesium oxide on the label to increase the magnesium percentage on the label to make it look like there's a lot of magnesium in there. With, strangely enough, with magnesium oxide, it's a little bit different than iron oxide and even manganese oxide. So these metals, they form different, the bonds with oxygen have a different valence strength if you want to call it that charge or not charged, but the ability to retain oxygen and be oxidized, they're different. The redox potential of each one of these elements is different. There can be some magnesium becomes soluble from magnesium oxide, believe it or not, there can be. Okay. But when it comes to iron oxide, there's almost none available. In fact, I did an extraction on that and there was like 0.05% or something iron that was soluble from iron oxide. But when you do it on magnesium oxide, some of the, a greater percentage of that magnesium from magnesium oxide can actually become soluble. So I'm saying all that to say that's if I understand your answer correctly, your question correctly is in almost all cases that I'm aware of with fertilizer blending, oxides are used to artificially inflate, not artificially but to inflate the numbers on a bag to make it look like there's a lot of nutrients in the fertilizer. When in reality, almost none of that's ever really going to be available to the plant. However, you can't say that for every element. The iron, manganese, magnesium, zinc, all these other ones that can be oxidized, they will or at least have the potential to solubilize differently. So that's probably more of a specific answer than you wanted. But you can't just, you can't just across the board say because it's oxidized, none of it's ever going to be available, like the Frida, like I just said. It's unlikely that any of that would be available. It's probably true that almost none of it's available. But there could be some of it's soluble, all used in there. There may be some, okay. But I wouldn't have much confidence in any fritted source of micronutrients, inducing a response. I wouldn't have any confidence hardly at all of any micronutrient resulting in response to that for iron. And in some rare cases, manganese. Okay, most almost all other micronutrients will virtually never result in a turfgrass response under normal conditions. Okay, you're almost never going to be deficient boron or cobalt or, you know, molybdenum. It's lunacy to trace those numbers and try to apply those elements. Okay. So, magnesium oxide is the one that I would say there may be a small chance of some of that magnesium becoming soluble. It's also the one that I would say has the least chance of having a response full stop because the application of magnesium almost a magnesium sulfate, completely soluble magnesium almost never results in a turfgrass response because there's magnesium everywhere. Okay, you already have enough magnesium to soil in many cases. Okay. I hope that answers your question, Randy. It didn't follow it up with a question and I'll try to follow it up with an answer. All right, results in discussion. So, real quick, he's in the he's at the Northwest Alachua County in Gainesville, Florida. They're doing study on a five-year-old stand-up tiff green bermudagrass. They conducted it for five years. They're applying ammonium sulfate. They're applying IBDU and they're applying sewage sludge. And they're also applying calcium hydroxide to neutralize some of the city. They're doing nothing on some of the plot. And they're also applying additional sulfur on another area of the plot to have a range of pH's. They're going to look at turfgrass quality, nitrogen uptake. They're going to look at that development as it's influenced by the nitrogen source and as it's influenced by the calcium magnesium ratios in the soil. Only data from the last three years are discussed because they best represent the true long-term effect of the applied treatments. Okay. Here are the treatment treatments. If you want to see them, they're ammonium sulfate and then with sulfur. So, when you see a ammonium sulfate plus S, it means plus sulfur. Then calcium hydroxide IBDU and they have they applied the nitrogen sources at either two pounds every month or I'm sorry, maybe I could. Yes, two pounds every month or one pound every two weeks. So, if you've ever wondered, in fact, there was a there's a member. I don't know if he's here today. But there's a member in California who was saying, well, I can only apply nitrogen every three or four months or whatever according to the California recommendations. Why can't I just apply it more frequently? What would be the difference? Less less rates more frequently. And what I recommended to him was follow the law in California, follow the recommendations from the university if that's the law. But if it's not the law and you can apply it however you want within a given total amount per year, then you can break that up. You can break that up in his location because the seasons the temperature in the rainfall doesn't fluctuate that much where he's at. It tends to be the same all year long. So, if that's the case, then break get the total and then break it up over the growing season, whatever the growing season is and apply less amount more frequently. And part of the reason why I would say that is because of papers like this because you're going to see what will happen between those two regimes applying large amounts less frequently or applying small amounts more frequently, but having the same total amount per year. That's what you're going to see in this paper. Acidity. Because the nature of nitrogen material separation of the effects of acidity and nitrogen source on the measurement parameter is difficult. For immunograss growth was not negatively influenced by acidic soil medium. I've got to go out there and throw some lime. This company I'm buying lime from says I've got to go out there and apply the question is how do you know why? Because in this study on this soil, the turfgrass group grew best at those low PHS. It depends on more than just your PHS five. I had I watched the video might be tomorrow's video for the pH was 5.9 in this, you know, grifter was recommending to apply lime at 5.9. I'm like, why, why, what is the purpose of this besides fleecing the custom, the person you're talking to blew my mind in this. Here's an example on this soil where extremely low pH is resulted in the best turf. In fact, the maximum growth rate and nitrogen uptake was observed at the lowest pH for each of the three nitrogen source materials. The lowest growth rate was associated with treatments resulting in the highest pH. I'm going to show you those values in a minute. The sandy soil contained very little aluminum and manganese. Thus hydrogen ions may be the single most prominent ion influencing plant growth. So what he's saying is in this particular soil, there really wasn't much aluminum and manganese. And why is he saying that is because at those low pH's, it's the aluminum and manganese at low pH's. That can become more soluble and in turn result in a reduction in turf grass growth because they become toxic at those pH's. But when you don't have much aluminum and manganese in the soil, then the low pH's really isn't an issue. Okay, that's what he's saying. That's what's important to understand. There's more moving pieces than just a number of called pH. Yearly average biweekly visual ratings for turf grass color and density were not significantly influenced by treatment. But individual biweekly ratings near the end of each growing period were lower on the more acidic plots because of the discoloration caused by excessive thatch build up and mower scalping. Tif green bermunigress appears to be highly tolerant of acidic soil conditions. So all he's saying is that the low pH is the thatch tended to be greater. And that tended to cause a little bit of reduction quality at the end of the growing season. But it was the thatch build up that resulted in that and he's going to talk about thatch build up being a result of the low pH because the low pH likely resulted in a reduction in microbial activity that would break it down. Arnond and Johnson in 1942 have reported bermunigress root growth at pH of 3 in solution culture and Lunden Lundberg. 77 reported that certain cultivars of bermunigress could tolerate a soil pH of 3.4 without significant growth reductions. Soil acidity generally encouraged thatch accumulation, approximately twice as much thatch accumulated below pH of 4 as was accumulated at pH above 5, except where calcium was applied. I'm going to show this table in a second guys and gals. If thatch accumulation can be maintained at acceptable levels under acidic conditions, soluble inorganic nitrogen materials can be used without excessive leaching losses due to nitrification because nitrification of ammonium ions is slowed significantly below pH 5. So what he's saying here is that if you can manage thatch at the lower pH, you can apply these ammonium source nitrogen sources like ammonium sulfate and likely have no concern with leaching. Why? Because at those low pH, the microbes necessary to convert the ammonium into nitrate, their activity is greatly reduced, meaning the nitrogen will remain in the ammonium form longer. And because it remains ammonium form longer, it tends to be retained in the soil because it's positively charged, whereas when it gets converted to nitrate, it will be negatively charged and easily be leached through the soil. So there's again a lot of moving pieces here. What he's saying is the problem with low pH was the thatch. There was the actual benefits outweigh the disadvantages. As long as you manage the thatch, then you're good to go. Okay. Treatment influenced the incidence of weeds on plots, particularly during cool season growth data not shown percentage coverage of the plot by poa annua during the cool season range from 0 to 63% at pH 5 to 5.8 in the top 5 centimeter section. Additionally, the stand of overseeded ryegrass on soils tested below 4.5 was not acceptable during the over during I'm sorry, during the one cool season growth period that the plots were overseeded. It appears that the incidence of stallaria media in poa annua during the cool season growth period can be minimized by maintaining the pH between 4.5 and 5 and that acceptable overseeding with ryegrass can be achieved. Okay. Let me go to this tape. Oh, he's gonna talk about table two right now. Okay. Nitrogen source. So we're going to talk about nitrogen sources and then application frequency and then we'll tell them we'll show the data in the table. Application of IBDU and sewage sludge resulted in an overall average soil pH of greater than 5.5 ammonium sulfate characteristically acidified the soil more than other materials. Average turfgrass quality was not significantly influenced by nitrogen source, but the rate of growth in total in uptake by Bermuda grass on plots receiving ammonium sulfate and IBDU was statistically superior to sewage sludge. The rate of decomposition of sewage sludge may have not been sufficient to maintain the rapid growth rates of other nitrogen source materials. Now, if you've heard me say this before, the nitrogen the turfgrass response to nitrogen sources generally is kind of split in hairs a little bit, assuming that you apply the nitrogen source at the appropriate rate and everything's balanced out correctly. There's not going to be, I mean, there can be, particularly in cool season weather, there can be differences, but in general when things are growing well, the differences between nitrogen sources are minimal. The plant doesn't know the difference between what source the nitrogen came from. Okay. However, in cool season environments when the nitrogen requires microbial breakdown from say sewage sludge, you have to actually break it down in order to become ammonium and then to nitrate with the forms that the plant can take up. That can be delayed significantly in cool weather. Okay. But if you, if you remember the nitrogen paper that I went over and cost that I published, the cost was greatly different. But the longevity of response was, I mean, there were differences, but it wasn't that much. In other words, the nitrogen sources all resulted in acceptable turfgrass quality. They all, they're all, whatever nitrogen source you're using, assuming you applied at the right rate and the right time on the right turf and all these things, it's going to result in probably perfectly good turfgrass. The question is not that. The question is, how much does it cost to result in that? Okay. That's where the differences lie. And yes, occasionally you're going to see differences between ammonium sulfate or calcium nitrate. You're going to see all those differences occasionally. But in general, it's fairly, you know, usually it's in the middle. Usually everything kind of falls in line in the middle and most of the nitrogen sources result in the same response. And yes, I know all there's many, many, many occasions that would prove that to be wrong. I get that, but in general, that's what I'm talking about. Sewage sludge applications induced a soil reaction equivalent to that of IBDU, but the quantity of that accumulated on plots receiving sewage sludge was significantly greater than on IBDU. Total oxidizable organic matter from the added sewage sludge amounted to less than 3% of the total organic matter oxidized. Therefore, that accumulation, as estimated by oxidizable organic matter, cannot be attributed to the organic matter of the added sewage sludge. That sounds like a reviewer asked him to put that in there. And that sometimes the reviewers will say, "Well, how do you know you need to provide something?" That sounds like that sentence was added because the reviewer said, "How did you know it did not come from the bile solid?" Maybe I'm wrong. Okay, nitrogen application frequency, application of 1 pound of nitrogen as ammonium sulfate every 14 days resulted in a lower pH than an application of 2 pounds applied over 28 days, table 3. In addition to its effect on pH, ammonium sulfate applied 1 pound every 14 days promoted a significantly higher growth rate in uptake and that accumulation than a sewage sludge applied at the same frequency. So there were differences based upon the rate that they applied it. They applied it less frequently, but at higher rates or more frequently at lower rates, there were differences occasionally. Let's go up here and actually look at some of these before I get too far down the road. So we're going to look here at the average effects of treatment on soil reaction of immunograss growth, that accumulation and in uptake parameters over 3 warm seasons, warm season growth periods. So we're looking at treatments here, ammonium sulfate, and then you see ammonium sulfate with calcium hydroxide or with sulfur or without. And then you can see with ammonium sulfate or with sulfur, with my BDU and so forth. So you can see how he balanced out the effect of acidity, or had a variation in acidity by applying either calcium hydroxide or sulfur or ammonium sulfate with IBDU. Okay. So in cases where you're looking at the effect of these nitrogen sources on soil pH, now I've had this statement by a bizarrely ignorant person say, well, you can't apply enough ammonium sulfate to actually influence soil acidity. It's not possible. You have to apply tons and tons. I don't know where this person would get this information from, but clearly it's probably from you too. That's probably, I don't know, or the internet, he's not bothering reading the literature because ammonium sulfate will have a massive influence on soil pH if applied at high enough rates for a long period of time. And it doesn't take decades, just a year or two is all it takes. And you will see the pH drop, not 0.1 or 0.2, but sometimes one or two full points down as it acidifies the soil. In this case, we see ammonium sulfate alone resulted in a 4 pH in the top 5 centimeters. And when it was applied with sulfur, it was at 3.6, but when it was neutralized with calcium hydroxide, it went from a 4 to a 4.5. So you can see you can fidget with the pH by simply knowing what you're applying to the soil. And when you applied sewage sludge, which is really more of a product that we would apply in nowadays, when you applied it with ammonium, when you applied just sewage sludge, it was 5.6. But when you applied it with ammonium sulfate, it dropped to a 5.2. When you applied it with sulfur, it would drop to a 3.5. So you can see the influence over these three growth periods of just applying sewage sludge, where you'd be a 5.6. And then you're applying ammonium sulfate or sulfur. You will, over time, reduce that pH down. There's no question about that, okay? But look what happens. If you have the belief that, well, I need to apply natural organics, or I need to apply sewage sludge because it's natural and it provides an additional carbon source for the microbes, or maybe you have the opposite effect. I need to apply ammonium sulfate because ammonium sulfate will acidify the soil, and that's going to result in whatever desired outcome. Okay, there are cases where that can be true. That's true. And particularly when you have sulfate deficiencies, ammonium sulfate would be a source you want to rely upon. Or you say, I need to apply a slow release material, IBDU, that would be slow, it wouldn't be quick, and you have more of a prolonged response. Well, look what happens with the visual pH. I'm sorry, the visual rating, the turf ratings. There is absolutely no difference between any of these. There's an NS down here. Okay, it was a 7.4 from ammonium sulfate, whether you applied calcium hydroxide or sulfur or none, and it was a 7.4 from IBDU, and it was a 7.4 from sewage sludge, whether you applied ammonium sulfate or sulfur with it or not. IBDU with ammonium sulfate or with just sulfur. It didn't make any difference. There were no differences in the visual quality over these three growing periods. Okay, so there's just not much going on in terms of visual quality, but what will happen when you lower the pH is down. Remember, we're here. We're applying from calcium hydroxide to ammonium sulfate to sulfur. We're reducing the pH down as we go down this column. Look over here, when it says thatch accumulation and thatch thickness, look at the thatch thickness as we go down in pH goes up in thatch thickness. We went from 18, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, thatch thickness as you went from 1.5 centimeters to 2.5 centimeters in thatch thickness. It went from, I don't know what dagg is, what's dagg? Dry accumulated grain, I don't know, but this is accumulation of thatch. Went from 18 to 57 as the pH went down. The same thing here as the pH goes down with IBDU, the thatch goes up. As the pH goes down with sewage sludge, the thatch goes up in all these cases. While the visual quality didn't change from the nitrogen sources or from the pH, the one thing that did change and probably not in a good way in all cases was the thatch. The thatch development was greater at lower pH's. In earlier, he stated, if you can control the thatch, then just stay at those lower pH's because the quality was fine. Nitrogen uptake was highest. You can see the nitrogen uptake and growth rate was highest. It was 25 kilograms per hectare per day at the higher pH's and it was 30 at the lower pH's and it was the nitrogen uptake was 1,998 grams per hectare per day and it was almost 1,300 at the lower pH's. In other words, the grass is growing faster at those lower pH's and as a result, it's actually developing thicker thatch. The quality was all the same. If you don't have the ability to control thatch and you're not going to control the thatch, then that would be a good reason to not necessarily stay at those lower pH's. Keeping the pH up to the higher pH's would likely result in less thatch and the quality would be the same one way or the other. If you're looking for maximum growth rate, maximum nitrogen uptake and all these things, then you'd want the lower pH's but you'd have to account for the additional thatch development. Regardless of the nitrogen source. Now we're going to go to the next table, table three, average effect of N. I might be able to get this on the screen. I never know what these way this is set up. Sometimes I can get these things on the screen. Sometimes I can't. Let's see if I can get it on the screen here. The average effect of in source and application frequency. This might be interesting to people who like our colleague in California who was wanting to know, can I, instead of applying once every two or three months, can I just apply it more frequently at lower rates, whether it be advantage here? This might be more interesting to someone in that situation. Where we see ammonium sulfate applied at one pound every 14 days, or two pounds every 28 days, or the same thing, I'd be to you in sewage sludge. They're applied at different rates and the frequency change, but the total amount was the same. You see the pH when you applied at heavier amounts, so two pounds less frequently had a more of an effect on, I'm sorry, had less of an effect on soil pH. In other words, applying ammonium sulfate more frequently at lower rates resulted in a lower pH, then applying it less frequently at higher rates. You went from 4.1 at the high rates less frequently to 3.8 at low rates more frequently. Look at the visual quality, none changed. It was 7.8 and 7.4. There was no statistical difference between those two. You might be able to pull that out with the eye, but it's unlikely biologically. This is probably insignificant as well. Look at the growth rate. If you applied ammonium sulfate at one pound every two weeks rather than two pounds every four weeks, the growth rate went up and the nitrogen uptake went up. In other words, the plant is being supplied with nitrogen more frequently. The ups and downs in terms of the nitrogen supply to the plant are lower. There's not as many highs and not as many lows. It's being supplied more frequently and we see the growth rate and the nitrogen uptake increase because we're applying it more frequently at lower rates. We see the pH decline because we're applying it more frequently at lower rates. So that may be of interest to you all if that's what you're aiming for. The IBDU and the sewage sludge had essentially no effect on pH regardless of how you applied it. They had no effect on visual quality regardless of how you applied it. They had no effect on the growth rate regardless of how you applied it. The solar resources did not have much of an effect at all regardless of how you applied it. The nitrogen uptake also had very little effect regardless of how you applied it. That accumulation was greatest when it was applied less frequently at lower rates with ammonium sulfate, but you really didn't see that from IBDU. You didn't see that from sewage sludge as well. It was a soluble in source that had the most profound influence when the regime of application was changed from high rates less frequently to low rates more frequently. So there can be a difference depending on how you applied that source. So that would go out to, I think Mike Conroy, who's out in California, I think that was more in his will wagon. That's one reason why I recommended it. You could easily lower the rates, apply it more frequently, and have the same or better response. So again, how do I know that? I don't know that 100% sure, but this paper along with many other papers is why I'm convinced that you can do that. Okay, nutrient retention. In general application of acidifying agents to the soil reduced the level of malic 1 extractable potassium phosphorous calcium and magnesium in the soil sampled to a depth of 20 centimeters, or about 8 inches or so. Application of 1, 2, I hate to convert these to English, 1/5, 2/5 and 1/5 pounds of phosphorous potassium and magnesium every 56 days was not sufficient to maintain recommended extractable levels of potassium and magnesium in the more acidic soils. How are based on the growth rate levels of these nutrients in the soil, based upon the growth rates, low levels of these nutrients in the soil did not appear to influence the overall growth of the brominograss. In other words, even when the amounts in the soil were low, it didn't appear to have any influence on it at all. Okay, the ratio of extractable calcium and magnesium in soil has been shown to be important to the growth of certain agronomic crops. I haven't gone over this Jackson paper, but I will if necessary. It appears though that tiff green brominograss can tolerate a wide range of very wide soil calcium magnesium ratio without any apparent reduction in growth rate. In fact, the highest growth rate occurred on plots having an average calcium to magnesium ratio of 100 to 1 in the top 2 inches. So they'll say that that's way too high calcium and magnesium 100 to 1 is too high. That's where the highest growth rate occurred. Again, I wonder how the grifters argue that. You know, that's what the results were. The calcium and magnesium ratio didn't really matter. And we're going to show all the calcium and magnesium ratio right here in this table. In fact, a treatment on soil reaction retention of nutrients by depth, and you can see it has 26 to 1 calcium magnesium, 120 to 1 calcium magnesium, 122 to 130 to 1 calcium magnesium, 149 to 1 calcium to magnesium. As low as a 13 to 1 calcium in these, the ranges, in other words, his treatment plan resulted in what he was going for was a range of calcium to magnesium ratios. Okay. And the nitrogen sources, whether they were acidified further or they were neutralized further, didn't have an effect, remember, on the turf quality. But it had an effect on the calcium and magnesium ratios. Look at all these differences in calcium and magnesium ratios in the top two inches. Okay. 67 to 1, 32 to 1, 51 to 1, 43 to 1, 120 to 1. And then look at the effect of visual quality on all these treatments, none. There was no difference right here. No difference on any of these. They're all very acceptable above 5.5, and even all of them, like I said, were all above 7.2. They're all 7.2 or greater. So all this concept where you see on these soil test reports calcium magnesium and potassium magnesium, well, you can just go to literature and see. It's right here, calcium magnesium. All these differences, none of it resulted in a difference in turfgrass quality. Last part we're done. In summary, a high-quality, rapid-growing, tiff-green brominographs can be produced under-putting green conditions using soluble inorganic ammonium sulfate as an end source. The primary long-term disadvantage of using ammonium sulfate are excessive fetch accumulation and leaching of plant nutrients. Addition of calcium in the form of calcium hydroxide reduced that's accumulation and nutrient loss significantly. Now, I don't like that summary too much. But I do like what he wrote in the abstract, which you can read for free. At the end of his abstract, they also have the conclusion summarized. And it says, "The frequency of application had no effect on the thatch accumulation on plots receiving IBD and sewage sludge." Maylick won extractable nutrients, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, in the top two inches of the soil, declined with increasing levels of acidity. Turfgrass growth rate was not reduced in the presence of a 100 to 1 soil extractable calcium to magnesium ratio. And that's why we're here today talking about calcium magnesium. Growth rate was not reduced. We saw that turf quality here in this table here, where turf quality was all the same, didn't matter. Okay. So again, among how many papers I've gone over at this point on base concentration and on calcium magnesium ratio, here's another paper among many that shows they don't really have an effect. As long as there's enough calcium in the soil, sufficient level of calcium, but not excessive, sufficient level of magnesium, but not excessive to the point of being toxic or something, doesn't matter. Okay, so please protect yourself by using this evidence. Don't be fooled by dubious companies that are selling the stuff on soil test reports and you get convinced I need to apply magnesium because my calcium is too high. You should apply magnesium when you have a magnesium deficiency or the magnesium of soil is too low. You should apply calcium if it's calcium is too low, but not because the magnesium was too high. What was that guy the other day on the video? He said, none of the salesman said balancing soils like this is a never-ending process. That's fantastic because that's absolutely true. That's absolutely true. It never ends. In the case of slant, you will almost always have sufficient levels of calcium, almost always, not always, but almost always. You almost always have sufficient levels. So it does end, basically, when you fall a slant, you have enough. Don't worry about it. But with base concentration, the salesman always have a hook because it never ends according to them. It never ends. You're constantly trying to do this, and that is the hook. That is why they do what they do. They're trying to convince you to follow that method because they know they can always have a hook or a way to convince you that you need to apply something when in reality you don't. Now, what I want to do here, answer a couple of questions. I'm going to go over one more article that's super short. It's only two pages long. Let's see. Joseph Collis asks or says, "My soil test from Yukon have all had a target pH of 6.6, and they will continue to recommend lime up to that point." When it comes to soil tests, the report, even from universities, I would say that the general recommendations, particularly for lime, the general recommendations are in the ballpark of evidence-based, but not always. I'll give you an example on this next paper that I'm going to show. They have a limit whereby when the soil test phosphorous level gets below this limit, they recommend applying phosphorous, as in the same limit existed here at University of Kentucky, in the same limit existed at the University of Florida. But those limits are set by committee that are suffering notoriously from the -- what's it called the -- can't remember the name of it now. There's an effect where the generation in charge is resistant to change, and then things don't change until they retire or die off. In other words, progress moves forward one funeral at a time, and they won't change it. Regardless, you could throw all the evidence at them in the world, and they're extremely resistant to changing that. So what I'm saying that is, at the University of Connecticut, I don't know who governs their soil test recommendations, but what I can say is, in the literature, which is what I always recommend people go by, there's almost no reason to apply lime if you're between six and seven, or greater than six. There's no reason to apply lime for turf grasses. Are you going to see a benefit from applying the lime when your pH is 6.1, 6.2? Almost never. You probably won't see a benefit to applying lime even in the high fives in some cases, okay? So it depends on the soil, it depends on the grass, it depends on a lot of things. So they're -- I don't know Yukon, I can't speak for them, but I can't speak for the evidence in the literature, and the evidence in the literature does not support applying lime when it's 6.5 on a turf grass. Okay, so that's the reason I say follow the literature. You can look at the recommendations on a soil test report and kind of get a general idea or concept, but it almost always says apply 50 pounds of lime, whatever, 5.8, 5.9, 6.0, 50 pounds of lime. Meanwhile, you go out and apply 50 pounds of lime, and maybe you see a response, maybe you don't. Most of the time, you probably don't. So I would not recommend just unilaterally following all the recommendations on a soil test report, even if it comes from university, because those reports are not always based on evidence. I'm sad to say that, but that's the reality we're in. I'm going to talk about that in the next paper as we get to it. Okay, ammonium sulfate from Valerio malert merli ammonium sulfate pH change depends on free carbonate and soil and type of soil. I think long rich is carbonate. Long rich in carbonate change slowly than sand. Right. I think what you're hitting at is the buffer pH of soils. Valerio, the ability or the likelihood of a soil to change his pH. It depends on the soil's ability to buffer that change. And that's where the buffer pH kind of comes into play. You can get an idea as to the soil's ability to resist that change. Sandy soils generally have very little buffer capacity compared to the more clay loamy soil. So yes, you're correct about that. The clay organic loamy soils generally are much more resistant to pH change than the sandy soils. Okay. Now let's get to a very short paper. I just don't know where else to put this. So I'll put it in right here by Peter Landshoot and Wolf in Jeremy Schwink. And this was in applied turfgrass in 2000 and 2014, I think. Okay, the title of this is summary of mainly three phosphorus data from home lawn soil tests in Pennsylvania. Okay, I'm going to read this because it's extremely short, but it gives you an idea as to the likelihood of encountering a soil that is deficient in phosphorus. And you can see a similar data set up in many of the phosphorus and potassium papers that I published at the University of Kentucky, their extension office. You can go type in phosphorus for Kentucky soils or potassium for Kentucky soils, and you can kind of see the same concept in some of those extension boltons. Indiscriminate use of phosphorus containing fertilizers on runoff prone turfgrass sites is thought to contribute to contamination of ground and surface water. Consequently, several states have enacted laws restricting the use of phosphorus fertilizers and others on considering similar legislation, a bill restricting phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer on turfgrass was recently introduced in Pennsylvania and implications of the proposed legislation are currently being discussed with stakeholders. Remember, this is in 2014, although soil tests me back this up, although soil testing is primarily performed to assess nutrient status and crop and turfgrass system. Some researchers have used soil test summaries to examine trends and nutrient management of practices and the status of soil phosphorus and crop land and lawns and regional scale. So sold out in petrovic stated that a little published data on trends and soil phosphorus concentrations exist for turfgrass sites. And such information would be beneficial to validate predictions made for lawns and other turfgrass areas. Yeah, I agree completely. And if the editors of journals would stop suffering from publication bias or be more published because I've tried to publish data and they keep rejecting it because they say it's not novel or whatever. And the reason it's novel is because they say right here in the literature, there's not a lot of information about that phosphorus trends and soils and turfgrass locations. So trying to get it published is difficult because there's, again, suffering from publication biases is difficult to get through sometime. The objectives of this study was to determine soil test phosphorus concentrations in Pennsylvania homelands based on unsolicited soil samples submitted to the Penn State soil testing lab. Data from Pennsylvania homelands soil samples submitted to the soil testing lab between January and December of 2004 to 2009 were assembled into a spreadsheet and summarized samples were submitted by homeowners and professional lawn fertilizers. fertilizer applicators via test kits distributed from county extension offices in Pennsylvania. The distribution of test kits was on a request basis and no templates made to solicit soil samples from homeowners and professional applicators for the study. Instructions for collecting soil samples are included in the kits and call for a sampling done between between two inches and three inches. 12 or more cores per sample for each sampling site and discarding all the graphs and that's of course they give an example of instructions on how to collect the sample. All soil samples were processed through the lab. Phosphorus was extracted using like three and now that's all the introduction in methodology and then there's only two three paragraphs for the results but I'm just going to show it in this graph. What this graph is is it's the number of samples or the probability distribution or the distribution of samples on a histogram. Maelik 3 is on the x-axis and they have each histogram bar separated between 0 and 15 parts per million, Maelik 3, Phosphorus and then it goes to 16 to 30, 31 to 45, 46 to 16. You see bars on here and it goes all the way out to 100 and excuse me like 1400 Maelik 3 Phosphorus. And what you see here is that around 2500 samples came in between 0 and 15 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus in Pennsylvania. And around a little less than 6000 came in between 16 and 30 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus. And then a little less around 5500 came in between 31 and 45 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus. And then it declines in this sort of this tail it tails off all the way out to 300 400 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus. And the reason I want to show this is is that where do you cut draw the line off? Where do you draw the line when you when you're a soil testing lab and you have to draw the line somewhere. And it's okay below this point we'll start recommending Phosphorus. But above this point we will not recommend Phosphorus. Okay, at the University of Pennsylvania he states down here he says the home lawn samples having less than 45 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus receive a fertilizer recommendation from the soil testing lab. So they draw the line right here on this third bar. They say any of these samples are going to receive a Phosphorus recommendation from the soil testing lab. At the University of Florida as recently as last year they drew the line at 50 parts per million. At the University of Kentucky as recently as 2001 they drew the line at 50 parts per million Maelik 3 Phosphorus. In fact I think I have a teacher right here. Let's see what else. Let's see the University of Kentucky. I'm just looking at a cheat sheet here that I use between all these different labs or universities. So on Wisconsin apparently they draw the line at 30 for Maelik 3, 50 for AP1, A&M. I don't even know where it is. They have 50 to 200 North Dakota is greater than 29. So you have to draw the line somewhere. Okay, if you're going to be a lab and you're going to recommend a certain amount of Phosphorus be applied. At the University of Florida I tried for years to get them to follow the evidence and this goes to the gentleman that I asked about UConn, Joseph Kala here. When I was at the University of Florida I presented to them paper after paper after paper from the University of Florida faculty, Turfgrass faculty showing that the amount of Phosphorus required in soils in Florida is nowhere near 50 parts per million. It's probably more like 15 to 20 parts per million. From their own published, you know, refereed papers and they still wouldn't change it. Their arguments are horrible. They would not change it. Finally, this last year, University of Florida by a faculty member who is much more politically correct than I am, he was able to convince them. We were liable for recommending the application of Phosphorus on Turfgrass locations that don't need it. I think through that argument, the lawyers or whoever decided, "Okay, let's lower it down toward the evidence says it should be." And so finally they lowered it down to 20. At the University of Kentucky I had the same challenge. It was set at 45 or 50 and they wouldn't lower it down. But when I went in there I made two different arguments to the committee. One of them I lost, which was a horrible argument. They have a horrible position. One faculty member had a horrible position, but I'm not going down that road right now. But I made two arguments. With the knowledge that I failed at UF, I made two arguments on two different topics. And I knew probably I would lose one, but probably I would win one. And I did. So the Phosphorus-leveled University of Kentucky, the critical limit, went from 50 to where the evidence says it should be closer to 20. But these committees are highly resistant to change even in the face of their own evidence. I don't know why. It's just they're very resistant to that. So if you look back on this paper and it says they drew the line at 45, I don't know what evidence they're using to say phosphorus levels of 40. You should apply phosphorus to turfgrass that has phosphorus levels of 40 or 30 or 35. I don't know what they're using. Perhaps Dr. Landshoot has data in Pennsylvania that shows indeed you should be applying phosphorus on these soils that have 40 parts per million phosphorus. Maybe that's the case. Maybe it's not. I don't know. I'm not aware of any papers in the literature that show 40 parts per million phosphorus is too low. You need to apply more. I'm not aware of any papers that show that. But you can see even if they say 45 indeed is the limit and then maybe that is evidence space, you see the vast majority. I think it's 50 something percent. The other remaining samples, 53% were between 46 and 200. Okay. So well over half the samples, even if I think 45 is probably too high, but again, I don't know Peter's evidence. Maybe he's published on that. But let's say it's not too high, 45 parts, maybe 3. Over half or way above that. Over half should not be received. Don't receive any phosphorus recommendation from the university. Half don't. But how many lawns are receiving of these lawns are actually still receiving phosphorus applications from either big box store fertilizer, blends, or salesmen or whoever the case is or from landscape applicators or fertilizer applications through professional services or whatever. The point is that phosphorus or through data like this, even the best case scenario where 45 is indeed, you do need to apply it, which I doubt you do. But if you do, well over half the lawns in Pennsylvania on this study, at least, don't need any phosphorus at all. And the question is how many are actually still receiving phosphorus? Probably a huge percentage. Okay. This is why we need people to publish data like this and why the editors need to stop being stubborn and let data go through like this in the top tier journals. Just because it doesn't fall into your strategy or your mindset of how paper is supposed to look doesn't mean it shouldn't be published. Intent and link week. Okay, so, so the results of this study show that the majority of soil test phosphorus concentrations from home lawns soil samples submitted to the soil test lab are adequate for turcrest growth. And that some lawns having phosphorus concentrations high enough to present a risk of phosphorus runoff. Educated efforts should be directed towards individuals engaging in practices leading to excessive phosphorus in home lawns. Legislators and stakeholders should also consider that a significant percentage of Pennsylvania lawns may benefit from phosphorus applications. And that's true, especially when you get down here, you're looking at 2,500, which is probably around 10%. How much was the total? How many samples did they take total? I don't, let's see. It took about 2634, okay, 34,000. And around 2,500 were 2,500 divided by 34,000. So about 7% for under my, under my, in my opinion, at least 7 or 8% are certainly low enough that they would likely result in a turfgrass response to applying phosphorus. And that's not even though it's a low percentage, but still a huge number of lawns, 2,500 lawns in this study, which almost certainly benefit from the application of phosphorus. Okay, but the vast majority are probably receiving phosphorus when they don't need it. That's the point. Summaries of soil test data from Pennsylvania can be monitored in the future to determine if educational efforts in nutrient legislation influences trends in soil. Good God, I keep screwing this thing up. Can be monitored in the future to determine if educational efforts and nutrient legislation influence trends in soil phosphorus concentrations. What he's saying is, if we can do this again in five years or 10 years and see if there's a movement upwards or a movement downwards and phosphorus concentrations in turfgrass locations, you can see the influence of these different legislations. And the soil test database, University of Kentucky has data for since 1990. I can't get the last 10 years. I don't know if they've documented that yet or put that in the database yet, but you can see the phosphorus trend in the soils of Kentucky is slightly going up in turfgrass. It's not going straight up. It's not curving, you know, up greatly, but there is a slight movement upward in the phosphorus concentrations in turfgrass locations in Kentucky. So that's what Dr. Lenshey was talking about. If you can monitor this over time, you can actually see, okay, now we instituted a legislation here. We instituted a policy or we changed our recommendation in the soil test lab and then we can see two or three or four years later. Do we see the numbers stay the same or go up or go down? And that can be great information in terms of educating and informing our elected officials to, you know, make the proper rules if we even need any rules. Okay. Tomorrow we have a video that we're going to go over on how word salad and BS can really seem convincing. And we'll see how that goes tomorrow. Any other questions? Oh, follow up question from Randy. If on the label it's listed calcium oxide and magnesium oxide, for example, cow mag on ICL fertilizer. But in SDS, there is nothing about their sources. Does that mean this elements are from the filler like dolomite? The SDS sometimes doesn't have what you're looking for. Randy, ICL fertilizer. Let me see if I can see the, let me see if I can find it real quick. ICL C1 says green master ICL liquid cow mag. Let me see if I can find, here's the guaranteed analysis. What are so I see water soluble magnesium oxide water soluble calcium oxide potassium oxide. Oh, well, that's the potassium phosphorous. That's just the oxide label equivalent. Let me see here if I can get the label. Let me see if it has the derived from on the label. It should unless it's. Yeah, Randy, I don't see on this, this must be sold outside the United States only or something because on the label they're required to have a derived from statement in the United States. I don't see one on this label, maybe I'm missing it. I'm looking at the liquid 15.00 with 20% calcium oxide and magnesium oxide. I don't see a derived from on this label. What I will say is that the oxide, the pentoxide and the oxide on phosphorous and potassium is not actually oxide. That's just the way they're required to label it. But the calcium and magnesium is not required to be labeled as the oxide equivalent. It's not required for that. I don't know why they labeled it calcium oxide and magnesium oxide. At least as far as I know it's not required to be labeled as the oxide equivalent for calcium and magnesium. What I'm going to speculate here, Randy, is that it's possible that they labeled it as the oxide equivalent similar to potassium and phosphorous to simply show on the label there's more calcium in the blend. In this example, there's no potassium in this fertilizer. But the potassium oxide is not the amount of potassium. Let's see what you can click on the limit. On their webs, let me pull this up. See if I can get this on the internet. Sometimes it screws up. Yeah, it screws up. Hang on. How do I, I can't get this on the, let me show you real quick, Randy. Okay. I'm going to put this on the screen. I can't get it on the screen. I'll do this. Hang on. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a screenshot of this and then put it in. I'll explain this real quick, Randy. I think I'll help you out here. I think I got it figured out. I think it could be wrong, but I think I might have it. Okay. So let's see if I can get this on the screen. Okay. And oh, I got to do this. Okay. So what you should, yeah, what you're seeing on the screen here is the, oh, I got to do it again. But you'll see the guaranteed analysis of that product, Randy. And it says up here, oxide. And then next to it, it says elemental. If you click, the oxide says 20% calcium oxide and 5% magnesium oxide. And for some reason, I can't get the internet to show up on my screen right now. I'm pretty sure I can't do this. No, I can't. So what you can do is click on, this will just take me a second, you can click on the elemental, which I'll do, I'll put it back, I'll put it on the screen here. And you can click on the elemental button and it will show you, if I can get it on here, it'll show you the actual, the elemental part of it. And that should be, let's see, I think it'll be on the screen right here. Yeah. Okay. So here's the oxide. It says 15% nitrogen, 00 phosphorous and potassium, then calcium oxide 20, magnesium oxide 5. But if you click on the elemental button, it'll actually show you the elemental component, which is 14.3% calcium and 3% magnesium. So this is the amount of calcium magnesium that's actually in there. I don't know why on this oxide screen, they're labeling it as calcium oxide, magnesium oxide. Maybe that's the rule or law or they're at, and I don't know. But I would say that, and there's no derived from, so I can't say what it's from, but it's highly likely that this calcium and magnesium is from a soluble source like calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate, or it's probably soluble. It's probably just fine to use if you're looking for soluble calcium and magnesium. I don't know why you'd want to be applying calcium and magnesium soluble. I'm not sure, at least to turfgrass, I'm not sure. But because of what it said, when the oxide, and then you click on the elemental, it lowers it, meaning that there's some reason just artificially labeling as calcium oxide because of the labeling requirements, I don't know. If I had the derived from statement that I would tell you exactly what's in it, but they don't list the derived from statements anywhere on here, I can't find it, and the label, I can't find it on anything. So I would be very confident that that calcium and magnesium is soluble. It's probably, I don't know, I don't know what source it comes from. I have no idea, but it's very likely a soluble source, and I don't know why they don't have it on a derived from. No clue. Okay. Good question. Interesting. I didn't know that was the case on that ICL product. So okay, guys and gals, I'll be back tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, we're going to go over a video and then Thursday nights for the open public access show and tomorrow I'll be open to the public too. Okay. See you guys. Bye. [BLANK_AUDIO]
