This inquiry came to my inbox:
“I’ve been asked to give a seminar on MLSN guidelines for the [ ]. I intend to keep the explanation fairly simple. Are there any frequently asked questions that you have encountered that I could use in my presentations to help me make sure I’m explaining it clear enough … On a side note…I have been teaching this method of soil fertility interpretations for two years to my [ ] turf students and I can’t quite understand the resistance I get from superintendents….
I saw a list of proposed topics for an upcoming turfgrass conference, and under the heading of soil fertility was included base saturation. I immediately thought of this paragraph from Murray McBride’s Environmental Chemistry of Soils:
When my friend wrote to ask if I could “write a brief description of MLSN,” I thought I might send along the article on turfgrass fertilization from the Green Section Record by Meentemeyer and Whitlark.
I received this question about leaching salts from the rootzone:
“I remember talking to you once before regarding flushing excess salts from the root zone and the application of gypsum or other calcium products before the flush and you telling me it was not necessary.
Not everyone understands how the MLSN guidelines work.
I saw a photo shared by Andrew McDaniel followed by a number of replies from STSAsia exhibiting confusion on the latter’s part about the use of the MLSN guidelines.
One is an article, another is a podcast, and you won’t regret the time spent reading the first and listening to the second.
First, the 4 November 2016 issue of the Green Section Record contains Managing Organic Matter in Putting Greens by Adam Moeller and Todd Lowe.
At first appearance, the demand-driven fertilization of STERF seems almost the same as the growth potential (GP) and MLSN approach. If you are not familiar with this approach from STERF, you can download their Precision Fertilisation – from theory to practice, written by Tom Ericsson, Karin Blombäck and Agnar Kvalbein.