Somervell County Demonstration
Contact Information:
Mr. Joe Geistweidt
somervell-tx@tamu.edu
(254) 897-2809
Location: City soccer field, Texas Drive, Glen Rose, Texas
Plot map: 10' by 10' plots with 3' alleys
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
Treatments (Rep 3 times):
- Untreated
- Inorganic fertilizer
- Compost @ 20 tons per acre applied once plus Inorganic Nitrogen @ 20 lb N per acre applied 4 times
- Compost @ 20 tons per acre applied twice plus Inorganic Nitrogen @ 20 lb N per acre applied 4 times
Procedure:
Twelve plots were established on a city soccer field in Glen Rose, Texas. The four treatments were replicated three times and randomly assigned to the 12 plots. Compost was weighed and applied using a basket spreader.
Treatment 1 plots were not treated with compost or inorganic fertilizer.
For treatment 2, inorganic fertilizer was applied to the plots on October 18.
Plots in treatment 3 were applied with compost at a rate of 20 tons per acre, followed by inorganic fertilizer at a rate of 20 lbs N per acre 4 times.
Treatment 4 plots were treated twice with compost at a rate of 20 tons per acre followed by inorganic fertilizer at a rate of 20 lbs N per acre 4 times. Treatment 4 plots received second compost application on September 16.
Results:
Plots were evaluated for turf color, density and quality. The presence of weeds was also evaluated and compared across treatments. Data is presented by assessment value and treatment. Standard deviations between means are also listed to show significance difference.
Color, density and quality are rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with a higher number representing better color, density or quality. A good rule of thumb is any rating of 6 or higher represents a turf that would be acceptable in the average yard. Weed presence is also rated on a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 represents no weeds present and 9 represents excessive weed growth within the plot.
In all rate timings presented, plots treated with inorganic fertilizer and compost had significantly better color than the untreated plot. Turf density displayed similar results with the exception of the June 16 rating. The inorganic fertilizer treatment yielded significantly better turf quality than the untreated at all three ratings. However, compost treated plots had variable turf quality results compared to both the untreated and the inorganic fertilizer treated plot.
Finally, as expected weed presence was variable across all four treatments. While these treatments should not have an immediate affect on weed presence, the consistent use of any nutrient amendment can potentially provide weed control over time. Essentially, turf density and quality responds to the nutrient inputs and out competes foreign species. The limited evaluation period for this demonstration, however, does not allow these benefits to be seen.
| Turf Color | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | StDEV | |
| May 18 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 7.7 | 7 | 0.98 |
| June 16 | 5 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 0.74 |
| July 13 | 5 | 7.3 | 7 | 7 | 1.07 |
| Turf Density | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | StDEV | |
| May 18 | 7 | 7.7 | 8 | 7.7 | 0.42 |
| June 16 | 7.7 | 8 | 7.3 | 7 | 0.43 |
| July 13 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 8 | 7.7 | 0.27 |
| Turf Quality | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | StDEV | |
| May 18 | 5 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 5.3 | 0.57 |
| June 16 | 5 | 5.3 | 5 | 5 | 0.17 |
| July 13 | 5 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5 | 0.19 |
| Weed Presence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | StDEV | |
| May 18 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 3.7 | 0.58 |
| June 16 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 3 | 3 | 0.32 |
| July 13 | 3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 0.57 |
Plots received over six inches of rain after the second compost application on September 16. Further, plots receiving the second application of compost were notably greener than those plots receiving only inorganic fertilizer and one application of compost.
Mouse over a link below to view an image.
- Untreated plot
- Inorganic fertilizer plot
- Single compost application plot
- Double compost application plot
Treatment 1 Soil Analysis
| N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | S | Salinity | OM | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | % | |
| 13 | 31 | 381 | 13,810 | 521 | 223 | 24 | 301 | 4.41 | 7.8 |
Treatment 2 Soil Analysis
| N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | S | Salinity | OM | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | % | |
| 10 | 24 | 425 | 14,992 | 649 | 271 | 33 | 285 | 4.19 | 7.7 |
Treatment 3 Soil Analysis
| N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | S | Salinity | OM | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | % | |
| 12 | 29 | 410 | 14,655 | 594 | 232 | 28 | 271 | 4.46 | 7.7 |
Treatment 4 Soil Analysis
| N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | S | Salinity | OM | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | % | |
| 17 | 37 | 481 | 15,376 | 624 | 259 | 29 | 294 | 4.67 | 7.9 |