I haven't found much info regarding Silica on KBG turf and the results. The retail description usually paints a fairytale best case scenario. What were your results?
3oz/k Every two weeks?PompousPilot said:I have put down 2 apps of it but haven't really seen any results. Maybe I'll see more when I lower the hoc down to 3/4in
Do we really care if it needs it or not?g-man said:I don't think there is a single study that proves si is a nutrient the plant needs.
Stay tuned, we'll see if this is white lighting for turf. Good thing it's cheap, I'll spend the money and share my results so we can all learn.g-man said:If it doesnt need it, it is likely not going to have a response. If there is no response, then why waste the money?
If you want to try it, find one that is only Si (no nitrogen or iron or anything else). Then apply it to half the yard or place a large card board in an area to have a control plot. This will avoid confirmation bias.
I politely disagree with this statement. Does a plant "need" kelp, peptides or foliar applied iron as a baseline for plant survival? Of course not. Arguably they do improve plant performance and/or aesthetic of the turf. If foliar applications of Silica works in the same capacity as that "extra" to improve leaf stiffness and structure, so be it.g-man said:I don't think there is a single study that proves si is a nutrient the plant needs.
I noticed a marked difference in 3oz/k on 3.5" TTTF. After first application areas of turf that previously felt overly succulent and wispy had a positive response in standing straighter and making the area appear to be thicker/fuller. Perhaps some grasses depending on soil conditions respond more favorably to Silica? Or maybe there's a threshold where the grass won't take in any more, perhaps based on growing conditions? I have no idea. 😂 But a fun experiment none the less. 👍TheCutShop said:No difference that I can tell. I have looked closely and compared to the control and they feel and look the same. I went crazy with rates on a section and still no difference. Now we know.
I dont know of any study or research that a plant needs kelp or peptides. I do know of plenty of research around the need of iron in the production of chlorophyll and how foliar iron help when the soil pH is high.drummereef said:Does a plant "need" kelp, peptides or foliar applied iron as a baseline for plant survival? Of course not. Arguably they do improve plant performance and/or aesthetic of the turf. If foliar applications of Silica works in the same capacity as that "extra" to improve leaf stiffness and structure, so be it.
I agree with a controlled experiment being a suitable method to see a visible response of SI, not sure one exists. However, justifying the use of a product based solely upon a University study is... meh. They have little to no interest in "ornamental" use of grass. Ag, golf and sports turf - follow the money. I could care less about golf greens and football fields. They are ugly IMO, I don't want a playing surface as my home lawn. My yard is an integrated part of my landscape, along with the other plants I've chosen (trees and shrubs) - that's the way I like it. So I use products that enhance that aspect, not ball roll or mitigating an ACL injury. Lol! 😆g-man said:I dont know of any study or research that a plant needs kelp or peptides. I do know of plenty of research around the need of iron in the production of chlorophyll and how foliar iron help when the soil pH is high.drummereef said:Does a plant "need" kelp, peptides or foliar applied iron as a baseline for plant survival? Of course not. Arguably they do improve plant performance and/or aesthetic of the turf. If foliar applications of Silica works in the same capacity as that "extra" to improve leaf stiffness and structure, so be it.
If foliar SI can help make the lawn look better, then I'm interested to see images of a treated area and one not treated next to it. The treated area should only get SI and no other product to be able to compare the effects of foliar SI.