From Questioning Convention to Changing Practice: Living Turf’s MLSN Story
David had long been dissatisfied with the conventional methods used to interpret turf soil tests. He knew they weren’t right but back then didn’t know the answer. For decades, the industry had relied primarily on Base Cation Saturation Ratio (BCSR) and Sufficiency Levels of Available Nutrients (SLAN). Although these methods had helped guide nutrient decisions, much of their foundation came from agricultural systems, not performance and resilience required of modern turf surfaces. Additionally, Dr Jim Hull gave a presentation at the 2012 AGCSA Conference where he presented proof through trials that Base Saturation ratios had absolutely zero correlation with turf performance.
As sand-based rootzones became increasingly common across golf courses, stadiums, racetracks and sporting fields, the limitations of applying broad, traditional benchmarks became more apparent. David believed turf managers needed an approach grounded in measured turf performance—one that could explain not only what was present in the soil, but what the turf would actually need next.
A Sunday discovery
In 2016, while reading turf research shared on Twitter one Sunday, David came across an article outlining a relatively new approach to soil test interpretation: Minimum Levels for Sustainable Nutrition.
Developed by Dr Micah Woods, Dr Larry Stowell and Dr Wendy Gelernter, MLSN had emerged from the analysis of thousands of soil samples associated with turf already performing at an acceptable or good level. Rather than aiming to raise every nutrient to a conventional “ideal” range, the method established minimum nutrient levels that could sustain healthy turf.
The premise immediately caught David’s attention.
Instead of treating a soil test as a backward-looking report card, MLSN combined current soil nutrient levels with expected plant demand. By estimating turf growth and nitrogen use, an agronomist could forecast the associated use of other nutrients, maintain an appropriate reserve in the soil and recommend only what was required to prevent a deficiency.
On face value, the science and mathematics made sense. But David was not prepared to advocate for a new methodology on theory alone.
Testing the theory against Australian conditions
David first tested the MLSN calculations against historical soil test data from Living Turf clients. The results aligned closely with nutrient changes that had already been observed over time, giving the technical team confidence that the model had genuine practical value.
The next step was real-world validation.
Over the following two years, David worked with clients to assess MLSN across Australian turf environments. Soil test results, nutrient applications, turf performance and changes in soil nutrient levels were monitored over time. Again and again, the model proved highly accurate in forecasting nutrient depletion and identifying when an amendment was—and was not—required.
This was an important distinction. Conventional interpretation could encourage turf managers to apply nutrients simply because a result fell below a predetermined target. MLSN asked a more useful question: is there enough of this nutrient in the soil to meet the turf’s forecast demand while retaining a safe minimum reserve?
That shift made nutritional planning more precise, more accountable and easier to defend.
From technical review to national adoption
Once satisfied that MLSN stood up scientifically and in practice, David brought his findings to Living Turf’s technical committee. What followed was not simply the adoption of another soil test benchmark, but a broader change in the way the business approached turf nutrition.
Living Turf retrained its agronomists to understand and apply the MLSN methodology, building the calculations into the advice and nutritional programs developed for clients around Australia.
In 2017, Living Turf brought MLSN co-developer Dr Micah Woods to Australia for four seminars across Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane. More than 200 turf managers attended to hear how the guidelines had been developed, why conventional interpretation methods could lead to unnecessary applications and how MLSN could be used in practical nutritional planning.
Living Turf also adapted its digital tools to embed MLSN within the Turf Forensics® and myResults® platforms. This made it possible to bring laboratory data, forecast nutrient demand and agronomic interpretation together in a practical system that could support decisions over time—not simply report a set of numbers.
In 2017, Living Turf brought MLSN co-developer Dr Micah Woods to Australia for four seminars across Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane. More than 200 turf managers attended to hear how the guidelines had been developed, why conventional interpretation methods could lead to unnecessary applications and how MLSN could be used in practical nutritional planning.
Living Turf also adapted its digital tools to embed MLSN within the Turf Forensics® and myResults® platforms. This made it possible to bring laboratory data, forecast nutrient demand and agronomic interpretation together in a practical system that could support decisions over time—not simply report a set of numbers.
Looking forward, not backward
The importance of MLSN lies in the way it changes the purpose of a soil test.
A soil test is no longer viewed only as a snapshot of what has already happened. When combined with a turf manager’s planned nitrogen inputs and expected turf growth, it becomes a forward-planning tool that can estimate how nutrients will be used and when supplementation may be required.
For Living Turf agronomists and their clients, this creates several practical advantages:
√ accurate nutritional planning;
√ site-specific nutrient recommendations based on each Turf Manager’s growth need;
√ reduced spending on unnecessary soil amendments;
√ less risk of accumulating nutrients beyond what the turf can use;
√ more balanced rootzone conditions; and
√ healthier, more resilient turf surfaces supported by appropriately targeted nutrition.
MLSN does not mean applying less for the sake of applying less. It means ensuring the turf has everything it can use, when it needs it, while avoiding inputs that offer no measurable benefit. But the biggest benefit became evident once Turf Manager’s used MLSN, turf quality actually improved!
MLSN in practice: Wanganui Golf Club
The experience at Wanganui Golf Club in New Zealand demonstrates how MLSN can translate from scientific methodology into a practical, long-term turf management strategy.
“Since 2020, we have been working with the principles of MLSN and the Living Turf suite of foliar nutrition and soil biology products on our Colonial bentgrass greens at the Wanganui Golf Club.
“Managing greens with a soil pH consistently above 6.5 can present challenges, but the programme has enabled us to reduce our reliance on nitrogen inputs while building a healthier and more active soil biology. By promoting biological activity and improving nutrient cycling, we have been able to unlock existing soil nutrients and create a more balanced growing environment for the turf.
“The results have been outstanding. We are consistently achieving high-quality putting surfaces with strong plant health, improved turf performance and excellent year-round presentation. The combination of MLSN principles and Living Turf’s foliar nutrition and biological products has become an important part of our turf management strategy.”
David Hodge
Course Manager
Wanganui Golf Club
Wanganui Golf Club
The value of asking a better question
What began with David questioning accepted soil test interpretation—and encountering a new idea on an otherwise ordinary Sunday—became a significant change in Living Turf’s agronomic approach.
His willingness to investigate the science, test it against historical data, validate it under Australian conditions and champion its adoption helped move MLSN from an emerging international methodology to a practical decision-making tool for Australian turf managers.
Today, MLSN remains central to Living Turf’s data-led approach to nutrition. It reflects a philosophy David has carried throughout his career: accepted practice should never be beyond question, and the best recommendations are those that can be tested, measured and supported by evidence.