Re: [compost_tea] (unknown)

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 23:58:09 -0700

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Cowan
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:53 PM
  Subject: RE: [compost_tea] (unknown)


  What application rate were you applying, Ted?


The turf area we were testing was just under 2 acres. The park was bigger =
but we used the rest of the area as a control. I figured the flow for each=
 irrigation station (a station was comprised of 6 to 15 separate heads) bas=
ed on the number of sprinkler heads. This was difficult because the total =
flow for the park was inadequate at 45 GPM. We used to joke that if anyone=
 in the surrounding houses flushed a toilet, the sprinklers would shut down=
 from lack of water.

So I figured the application rate for diluted tea at 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12 per=
cent dilution and how long it would take to get the tea on for each station=
. Then I figured how much actually got mixed with the water based on the i=
njector I used for the project. So we had the injector installed by the me=
ter that monitored the irrigation water feed rate. From this point I had t=
o get tea about 350 yards ways to the farthest turf in my test area. So I =
had to run tests to determine how long it took the water to get from the in=
jector to the sprinklers out there then make a formula to determine how lon=
g it would take to get to other parts of the test area. For these tests I =
used an organic dye that is water soluable and burns off with a combination=
 of UV and water. It is like food coloring in that it is totally nontoxic.=
  Once I had these times, I could figure how long to run each station so th=
at the whole park would get roughly the same amount of tea. So it took 1 m=
inute and 45 seconds for the tea to get from the injector to the farthest h=
ead in the farthest station. It was easy to extrapolate backwards from that=
.

Then I took the station with the largest number of heads and worked backwar=
ds to figure run times. I needed to get the whole mess done in under 45 mi=
nutes because people came into the park from about 7AM on. Normal irrigati=
on for most municipal parks is 10PM to 6AM so people aren't playing in wet =
turf. I kept refining the system and found that I could get the whole park=
 test area covered in just over 20 minutes if no one flushed while I was do=
ng it.

So given all these numbers, I came up with a figure of 15 gallons for the w=
hole park. I usually brewed more but based on my runtime numbers, the 15 g=
allon amount seemed pretty consistent. I made some little test areas of my=
 own in a couple of shrub areas and put any excess tea there. Then I had t=
wo places (a test area and a control) where I could take plant leaves and g=
et tests done to see if the tea had any effect on shrubs. It did.

So figure, based on flow, that 15 gallons for two acres of turf should work=
 OK with a maximum flow of 45gpm. If my max flow was different say 150 or =
200 GPM my distribution would be different because my DU (distribution unif=
ormity) would be different. We ran catch-can tests and found out that our =
DU was about 50% at our best station. The 15 G amount still held. (The res=
ults with this amount were good. I didn't plan a test to determine overall=
 application rates of tea. By this I mean that the test wasn't set up to s=
ee how much tea would work but how little. I probably could have dumped a =
lot more tea but I had to make a system that was practical for the park emp=
loyees who would continute it after I left. I wanted to get as close to opt=
imum as i could so I could use the formulae on any park I went to and the c=
ity who I was working for could use the formulae for other parks in their s=
ystem. And they have adoped the system for the whole city. By the way, the=
 park is Islay park and I sent a draft report to this group. You can proba=
bly find it but if you want another copy, I will send you one. I am in the=
 process of finalizing it now and will resubmit it when I am done then you =
can see why I mean DRAFT.

This was done on turf only and a combination of soil soak and foliar applic=
ation. I say this because even with a DU of 50% some part of the turf got =
more. If I set run times to compensate, some of the area would get 100 or =
150% or more. What do I mean by this? Well, let's say I have two stations=
 running at 50% DU. These stations are side by side which means that some t=
urf where the heads overlap get 100% coverage (50% from each station). If =
there is a third head from another station that overlaps that particular ar=
ea, most of the turf gets 50% but that one area gets 150% (50% from each he=
ad.) If I up the run times to twice a long, I get 95 %+ (It's never 100 be=
cause of ET -- evapotranspiration) So the one area now gets _at_ 95% times 3.=
  

I hope this answers your question. I appologize for the long post but I ha=
ve a few people who compain that I make statements that are too broad which=
 causes them to misunderstand the intent of my content (or lack thereof.) =
If I have stated anything in this post that seems a rash generalization ple=
ase let me know and I will attempt to fix the misunderstanding on your part=
 or miswriting on my part.

Ted Peterson
EW/SOE



Received on Tue May 04 2004 - 12:24:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:15 EST