[ Post a Response | Putting Green Discussion Forum ]
Posted by Andrew Typical USGA no peat 4-8% Water Holding I would suggest something like a 20%+ might work but quite frankly the cost of installation with the decraese in physical properties would suggest to me that there are little if any gains to be had from the system. My personal preference is to increase air pores to the maximum possible as I cannot regain it later, watre holding is never a real issue as that is far to easy to add at any time. That is why I normally try to steer clear of peat if possible as the negative outway the positives in my opinion. What do you see as the real benefits from subsurface irrigation? Do they recycle the irrigation in sports field systems? Andrew --Previous Message--
on 6/14/2005, 10:01 pm, in reply to "Re: hydro question"
70.93.212.50
Brian,
Typical USGA 10% Peat 8-14% Water Holding
: So, probably not a good idea huh?
:
: --Previous Message--
: All dependent on the amount of fines
: in the greensmix, they create water
: holding pores or capillary pores
: which cause the wicking action which
: would enable the water to reach the
: upper rootzone.
:
: The only problem is the more fines
: you have the more water holding and
: the less air porosity which is the
: most important factor when
: considering the suitability of a
: sand for use as a growing medium.
:
: Andrew
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I have a green thumb, and I am going
: to undertake this putting green
: thing in my newly acquired back
: yard. I was considering adding a
: layer of pvc pipe at the bottom of
: the top rootzone layer to water the
: green from underneath; essentially,
: a hydroponic green. Some football
: fields are created this way. Will
: the sand act as a wick, or must I
: water from the top?
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread