5 Oct 2008 by x1fan
Out Greens Manager cannot be presuded to cut closer to increase the speed that is being demanded by members. He says there are alternatives which will cause less distress to the grass which is understandable. But we are not told what they are and the greens don't get any quicker. Stimp about 7. Grass 4.5 - 5mm.
Can someone please explain the ins and outs.
don't get carried away by stimp readings as long as there true ,i personally would be cutting at 4mm this time of year at the moment
Hi X1fan,
I agree with Martyn, although green speed can be increased by the following:
- Primo Maxx growth regulator will produce upright growth and a finer leaf texture..... probably the easiest way to increase speed.
- Rolling with a true-level or vibro roller, but I would not recommend this on push-up greens.
- Brushing to discourage lateral growth.
- Top-dressing little and often.
- maintain lower levels of nitrogen input, the emphasis should be to prevent flushes of lush growth, maintaining a lean but healthy sward.
A combination of all the above could increase speed by 2ft - 3ft.
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Replying to a post like this can be difficult as we don't know your exact circumstances and what your greens manager is trying to achieve as he/she's not here to defend themselves. However I'll assume you just want to be educated.
Everything Martyn and Ken said is true. Two other items to look at are the type of mowers (and rollers fitted). Groomers will also help thin out the stand and speed things up.
The bench height setting of a mower can vary greatly than the actual height of cut depending on the weight of the mower, floating head vs fixed head and the rollers used; grooved rollers obviously give a lower cut than solid rollers as they sit 'into' the turf better. 4.5 to 5mm does seem a little excessive either way. Frequency of cut is another factor, daily, twice daily, every other day. The more you mow the faster the greenspeed.
As for the ins and outs, there is some mechanical damage that can be caused by grooming, lowering the hoc and brushing, however, in moderation it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Keep in mind that the more aggressive you do become with cultural practices it makes the plants more susceptable to stress so it costs more to take care of.
Reducing N and/or using Primo (although personally I'm not a fan of growth regulators) are great ways to help gain speed, as like Ken said, they keep the sward lean. The less grass there is the less resistance to ball roll, hence greater speed. Again, this will result in more spoon feeding and an increase in labor costs.
Lightweight rolling has been proven to speed up greenspeed by up to a foot however the next mowing negates it. It has been shown that rolling does not add a lot of stress to the plant and is recommended here in the US during the summers over agressive cultural practices. Again be aware of rolling push-up greens and the added cost of an operator to roll.
Topdressing regularly also is a great benefit as it smooths out the surface and provides less resistance to roll increasing the speed.
I wouldn't recommend in going straight out and doing any or all of these practices as you'll probably do more damage than not. For example dropping the height of cut has to be in stages, if not the greens will scalp and will take long to heal. Just be aware that it may take a little time to see an improvement.
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
6 Oct 2008 by Eddy21 Last edited 6 Oct 2008
Hi X1 fan,
There is a super book called The Superintendents Guide to Controlling Putting Green Speed by Thomas A. Nickolai and can be bought for about £30 on Amazon.
Its a great read for anyone who is interested in the subject and has loads of information and research in it.
Well worth 30 quid of anyones money I say.
Hope this is helpfull
Regards from Dave in Paris.
Learning is there for every man
6 Oct 2008 by x1fan
Many thanks for the information. I am not intending to try and tell the course manager his job but, as was suggested, trying to learn.
I should have said that I am in the UK where we have been having a very wet summer (8" in August). This has meant the top dressing program didn't actually happen.
We have 8 new (USGA spec) greens built some three/four years ago (2nd playing season). Mainly fescues with some bent.
10 old (100 year) clay bowl, mainly annual meadow grass with overseeding of fescues.
The course manager has made a good job of getting the two types consistent but very slow.
Incidentally, I gather that some greenkeepers here are not that enthusiastic about the Turf Iron.
6 Oct 2008 by x1fan
When I said 'here', I meant in the UK.
The problem you have there X1fan is that you have fescue on your greens. This grass cannot be cut low. You will never get fast greens on your clay based push up greens as long as you are encouraging fescues.
Get rid of the fescues, encourage the bents and cut lower. That'll get some speed into your greens!
Greg
Are you actually cutting at 4.5->5mm or is that what the mowers are set at ? If it's the latter, get a prism and measure the actual length of the grass - you'll likely find it's different to that which the mower is set to. Doing this would allow you to adjust the settings on the mower to 'actually' cut at the hoc you're intending - I've no idea if this would increase the green speed or not.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
Hold on there gregevans.... I have never heard of fescues being a problem in greens! Wish I had that 'problem'.
Unless you are referring to tall fescue!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
hi all
like ken i have never heard of fescues being a problem,infact u should strive to achive a high percentage fescue sward! im a links golf man and go by the 3 f's rule firm fast and fescue!! :) in my opinion...if you are still cutting at 4.5mm you have to think about raising your cut at this time of year! we are currently cutting at 5.5mm and will soon be going to 6mm....personaly i dont cut below 5mm!! its all about keeping your fescues happy!! :) if you would like some reference material buy "the care of the golf course" written by p.hayes r.d.c.evans s.p.isaac (stri).
people seem to get caried away with regards to hight of cut being the way to speed up your greens! as kens touched on above those techniques are all good advice.
in terms of the turf iron,do NOT put a turf iron on a soft wet green,but with firm greens i cant see why there would be any reason for greenkeepers in your area to be against them! (they are a quick fix but not the long term fix!)
all the best x1fan.
p.s. keep feeding your brain with knowledge and not your greens with nitrogen!! lol
I did say on his 'clay based push up greens'. On his 8 new us spec greens the fescues will be better but for me he is wasting his time and money going down this avenue on the old greens.
Greg
surely you are looking to get a consistency throughout your golf course,8 bent greens and 10 bent/fescue mix greens would create an inconsistency in performance!? wouldnt a soil exchange programme be more advisable!?
regards
campbell.
6 Oct 2008 by x1fan
campbell
The long term plan (cost permitting) is to replace the old greens by usga spec build.
The 8 new greens are in fact new holes on new land. The holes being replaced were very tight and poor golf holes.
I gather we are now cutting to 5mm
How many US spec greens were there 50 years ago? There were plenty of fast firm fescue dominated greens then! Just there was not so many quick fixes in a bottle and no money for Nitrogen and everything was not necessary, 'nice and green'.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Yes Chris........ but 50 years ago, most, if not all those fescue predominant greens were likely found on seaside links..... built on sand.
USGA greens are no different, they are called USGA simply because they follow guidelines bases on years of trial and error in North America. The most important criteria being particle size distribution and its physical properties.
The only difference between today and 50 years ago is technology today verses a naturally occurring environment yesterday...... Money talks and it say's it wants greens built inland that will drain all year round...... and that's what a USGA green will give you.
What grass species and how you maintain those USGA spec greens i.e. whether its creeping bent, colonial bent or fescue or both, is up to the golf club. What you eventually finish up with i.e. how much Poa annua invades the desired species, is the result of the annual management.
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Well put Ken!
Also, Chris the play and expectation 50 years ago is nothing compared to todays environment.
Greg
7 Oct 2008 by turfjack Last edited 7 Oct 2008
Chris
wow what a comment, golf and golf courses are not in the same league as 50 years ago. "There were plenty of fast firm fescue dominated greens then!" compared to what? inland greens 50 years ago. All you need to do is take a look at any old course and see how much more undulating the greens are; the reason was green speed was so much slower than today that you could get away with the contours. Its the same way that championship courses are searching for length and where they can't moving bunkers etc back into the landing areas, equipment and golfers have gotten longer. The game and maintenance has moved way on since then.
I'm not disagreeing that in the past Links courses over inland courses had faster greens as the fescues were thin and the sand dry but it's relative and it's probably the same today. But I've seen plenty of fast push-up greens also it just takes more work and money to get them there than a Links.
I know you're a perponent of sustainable greenkeeping, which is great, however none of what was menctioned by anyone above involved 'quick fixes in a bottle', just sound basic agronomic practices; manage water, fertility (growth), mowing height, topdressing and rolling all of which were available 50 years ago.
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
I do think that the level of play that courses are expected to deal with is a major consideration, especially winter golf. Until the late 60's early 70' golf was a summer sport when any amount of play can be tolerated, the level of winter play seriously impacts on the quality of our course on greens which were designed to collect summer rain before irrigation systems were invented. Unfortunately they now sit very wet in the winter.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Ahhhh greg. We know you really love Fescue
Just a point Ken. If USGA spec greens are trying to emulate those sandy links rootzones how come they cost such a fortune to maintain and they are not predominately fescue. As your know from your experiences, without serious amounts of money and chemical input they end up as poa dominated swards.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Hi Chris, yes, USGA greens can be expensive, "I emphasis can be" If you are maintaining creeping bent. That's if you fall into the trap of maintaining fast greens, cutting below 4mm and throw copious amounts of nitrogen on. All the same will only produce high budget costs, especially on pesticides. All of the above will also suit Poa annua.
But if you start with a bent/fescue sward, not cut below 4.5mm, keep them lean and mean, they can be far cheaper to maintain and provided you follow the recognised maintenance programmes (which would be the same as traditional links management) you can produce good results.
I think the key to this is to know in your heart the sort of grass quality you personally want to maintain, and sell it to your club. I would add that in the current economic climate I think the high-end courses will suffer most, since they run much higher budgets and those budgets are paid for by high membership fees. Something has to give and when you consider that 60% - 70% of most golf course budgets covers the cost of payroll. So the first thing to be reduced has to be staff numbers. That means the Head Honcho has to look at ways of saving money.....
Now we come full circle and start thinking Sustainable Golf!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
I tell you what Ken. I think we have been in this game too long. Remember when things got tight in the seventies after years of piling on the N and using newly discovered chemicals everybody had to cut back. Sustainable golf had to start to be practiced which is was for a number of years.Then came the great golfing boom during the late eighties with money no object. Chemicals for everything, fertilzers for every occasion and enough staff to manicure every blade of grass. Well here we go again back to square one!
I agree with you completely regards to fescue/bent not cut being too short but how many USGA spec greens are there out there that have fescue bent as their grass? From what I have seen, I am quite happy to be put right here if I am wrong, most USGA spec greens in the UK end up as creeping bent/poa with high maintainence costs.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
9 Oct 2008 by Ken Barber Last edited 9 Oct 2008
Right on there Chris,
The problem is that creeping bent was introduced alongside USGA greens from over the pond. Like everything else from over there.... The emphasis on manicured perfection, with the costs attached.... not what anyone could honestly call natural looking.
You think of any seaside links course around the U.K and 95% would bring nothing but positive thoughts and admiration to how simple they look, but how tough they play.... regardless the weather!
Mill Ride is the only USGA spec course that comes to mind which was sown to fescue. I believe dear old Jim Arthur was involved with that project. I don't know how well the greens have faired? I haven't looked at them since it was finished, but they sure looked nice then.
Whatever your views on USGA spec greens, they are playable every day of the year, which means those clubs have the upper hand when it comes to possible revenue and surviving the current climate.
As for the 70's Chris I was a good old, genuine Groundsman and didn't move into greenkeeping until 1980!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Ken, your wearing well! 
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
I have read this thread with intrigue, and something that Ken has just commented on ( Revenue) has promted me to add my tuppence worth.
I appreciate the sustainable Greenkeeping drive, and that USGA greens may be expensive to maintain, but if they allow all year round play to recoupe this expenditure then surely that is good business sense?
I dont know how many courses could survive without Society Golf or general Green Fees, ( i would guess that membership fees would increase!) but if a course costs £10000 ( for example) to maintain with USGA greens, amd allow all year golf, and they can recoup £15000, then great- this to me is good business.
if an "non USGA" course costs £10000 to maintain, following the sustainable golf initiative, but the greens are not USGA spec ( ordinary push up type greens) and they struggle with all year round golf, and the revenue from The Course is only £8000, then wouldnt the sustainable golf argument be pointless - unless the members want to top up the shortfall?
Surely "sustainable " golf in the first instance has to be wether the Golf Club itself can continue to operate as a financially viable organsiation within the market?
If they feel they have a market to reach by providing all year round golf, but there budgets increase as a result of this, but then the increase in revenue allows them to run the club like this then that has to be the main priority?
It is all very well building USGA spec greens, biut if the fairways, tees and bunkers are flooded it becomes a mute point, our course, with push up greens closes because the other areas are unplayable.
It really depends upon the courses infrastructure as to whether sand greens are a step forward.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
The sustainable argument!!!!
There is no argument, if you are not sustainable you have no future.
If you are striving for speed and your only option is to lower the cutting height to then you have a problem.
If you are gaining a little thatch every year then soon you will have a problem.
If your only answer to a problem is the bottle, then you have a problem
If your greens require more feed, chemicals and water every year ,then ,again you have a problem.
If you are always looking for the quick fix then you have a problem.
USGA sand greens, great!!! Free draining infertile etc. However if they are placed between trees and are infested with the hungry, thirsty, disease ridden Poa then you will always have a problem.
Get your environment right, get the maintenance practice right and your chosen grass species will prosper.
X1fan
My I suggest you support your greenkeeper, he sounds like he is heading in the right direction. He may have difficult times ahead but it takes a brave man to firstly change practices, identify a problem, fix the problem (long-term) and resist the temptation of detrimental practices, ie cutting low to please
I wish you luck
X1fan
I am presuming you are on committee or a member who is willing to learn.
May I also suggest you go to the R&A website www.bestcourseforgolf.org. get your club to register (if not already) and benchmark your course. This way you will see the progression as time goes by
Neil..... Your post confuses me! Unless I am misreading your post... you appear to be of the opinion that USGA and Sustainable golf are not compatible? I hope I didn't give you the impression they do not.
In my personal experience, covering 30 years as a Head Greenkeeper/Course Manager, I have maintained push-up and USGA spec greens, as well as every combination of grass species in both types of green construction. I have come to the conclusion that USGA spec greens and colonial/fescue grasses is the cheapest and best way forward..... using sustainable methods!
Steve.... you state the obvious to which there is no quick fix! But at least USGA spec greens give you the opportunity to produce good greens 360 day of the year. Tees can be improved by drainage, top-dressing and increasing tee areas where needed, I hired the immants and a verti-drain this year, costing less than £3,500 total. My fairways are dense, healthy and firm.... No course closures this year to date.
Paul..... A man of few words and lots of sense!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
9 Oct 2008 by Mike Last edited 9 Oct 2008
Hmmn, I would just like to post a short reply to the original message and in particular, this comment ""Out Greens Manager cannot be presuded to cut closer to increase the speed that is being demanded by members. He says there are alternatives which will cause less distress to the grass which is understandable."
I won't go into the sustanable/USGA spec as there are already several well thought out opinions above.
At a nearby golf club the long standing Head Greenkeeper retired some 5 years ago. His very capable deputy was promoted to the position of Head Greenkeeper, and given time and support, he would have progressed into a first rate greenkeeper. Cut a long story short, the first few months of his tenure went very well, that is until the committee got their teeth into him. Some of the golfers weren't happy, as is always the case when your opinion of your game is exponentially greater than your actual ability. A number of unsupportive and uneducated committee members bowed to the pressure of the golfers and gave the blossoming Head Greenkeeper a specific set of instructions on how he should maintain the course. A liitle while later the effects of this were becoming apparent, the course was getting into an unplayable condition and the the real quality golfers who's input was usually not too far off the mark started to complain. A this point the Head Greenkeeper was demoted.
Golfers will always have opinions. The Head Greenkeepers job is to present the course in the best possible condition within the structure that has been set by the committee. Therefore, for the long term benefit of the club and it's members, it is imperative that a committee supports their Head Greenkeeper to the hilt.
Opinions are like you know what. The sooner that the Head Greenkeeper is given the respect that he probably deserves, the sooner the golfers will get their wishes.
Mike
Ken, sorry to confuse you, i just read my post and it confused me, and i'm not saying they are incompatible. I just dont quite understand how they are compatible, so perhaps you, Chris or Paul could shed some light.
I understand the whole sustainable golf issue, what i dont quite get is the USGA Spec and how this supports sustainable golf greens - sand based = better drainage = increased irrigation and more nutrient input = increased costs =Sustainable Golf? or is sustainable golf more to do with the good cultural practices rather than reduced running costs? or am i missing something?
I appreciate the grasses being used require very little Nutrient Input and reduced irrigation, and that good cultural practices will be needed, but just by definition a sand based green will need more irrigation and nutrient input than a soil based green, resulting in increased costs and fertiliser use, no matter how small, so going against the sustainable golf drive?
In my initial post i was trying to draw a comparison to a USGA spec green being played on all year, resulting in an increase in running costs(?) but with more income(from year round golf) to support this increased cost so could be "justified", Perhaps not by Greenkeepers but by the bean counters, so apologies if it confused you.
9 Oct 2008 by Eddy21 Last edited 9 Oct 2008
X1 Fan,
Paul has suggested using the Benchmarking service provided by the R and A and I think this is a good option if you do decide to go down this route, as you can monitor your progress and personally I think it is a good tool for all involved at a club.
I’m interested to know if your club use the advice of a professional agronomist to help you with your decision making at your club.
Personally I think a lot of the above posting provides some good information (there is some stuff in there that I tend to disagree with, so ill take a backseat and not get involved.)
Back to the agronomist, at my club we use an agronomist from the STRI. This maybe an option you look at, as I feel that by having an outsider looking at your course, setting achievable targets, and pointing you in the right direction is good for everyone involved. All the points above about reducing this and reducing that, increasing this and increasing that is very good, but it cannot be achieved over night, it is a slow process with great results to be seen in both the short term and even better in the long term.
Rushing this process on the other hand can lead to all sorts of problems, trying to achieve these goals to quickly can be bad news, so I really feel it is worthwhile contacting a consultant and taking his/her advice. In doing this you will hit your desired targets of firm, fast greens that require little input.
You also stated in your original post that you are finding it hard to get reasons for certain ways and methods that are being carried out at your club and I feel you were stating that you were not being told everything by your Course Manager, even though he is doing a good job. My last bit of advice would be to up the communication within your club, ask the questions to your guy and all sing from the same hymn sheet, as you will all know what is trying to be achieved and reasons why this is being done or not being done. I’m sure it will be beneficial to everyone. You could even organise a question and answers evening, this will allow the members to voice their concerns with your CM and him to reply accordingly. This kind off stuff is all good!!
Bonne chance
Dave
Ps- you state that the greens are about 7 on the stimp and you gather that the HOC is 5mm. This seems very vague to me and im interested to know if this is correct, actual and recent information obtained?
Learning is there for every man
Neil
"but just by definition a sand based green will need more irrigation and nutrient input than a soil based green, resulting in increased costs and fertiliser use"
That comment contradicts the earlier part of your sentence. By the definition of a Links, isn't a Links green sand based also? A USGA spec green is a modified sand based growing medium. It is designed as a perched water table to minimize the need for water and maximize drainage. When managed correctly they don't actually require lots of water, although the watering regime itself may be a little different to push-up greens.
I'll agree to a point that they do require more fertiliser due to the lower cec of the sand and there usually isn't enough amendment to fully ofset it; however when managed properly and spoon-feed so the plant only gets/uses what it needs then the fertility input is actually very low and the only down point in the extra cost is in the labor of applying it. Of course a push-up green can have plenty of fertility already in the soil and possibly require no fertility over a period but I certainly wouldn't consider spoon feeding as over fertilising.
I'm not too sure how this topic went from green speed to UGSA vs sustainable greenkeeping. It does't really matter what the growing envirnoment is (although drier helps), green speed is directly related to good turf management (the basics, which I guess could be called sustainable) and what resourses the particular club have to be able to achieve their goals.
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
"There is no argument, if you are not sustainable you have no future.
If you are striving for speed and your only option is to lower the cutting height to then you have a problem.
If you are gaining a little thatch every year then soon you will have a problem.
If your only answer to a problem is the bottle, then you have a problem
If your greens require more feed, chemicals and water every year ,then ,again you have a problem.
If you are always looking for the quick fix then you have a problem.
Get your environment right, get the maintenance practice right and your chosen grass species will prosper. "
Paul I agree with all that but maybe I completely misunderstand sustainability as to me this is common sense good maintenance practices that as qualified greenkeepers we should be doing anyway, no matter what type of course, soil or budget you have
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
You may have misunderstood sustainability… or I interpret it differently.
For me, sustainability is exactly what you said, common sense, good maintenance practices no matter what type of course, soil or budget you have.
Call me lazy, lol, but also, sustainability can be interpreted as doing less (on the course) and achieving more!
Many times I have had discussions with greenkeepers who are apposed to ‘sustainable ways’ yet when we get down to the practices they work in a very sustainable way. They just hate to admit it.
Its nothing new, Its very common and its basic common sense and understanding.
I think we agree!!
Paul,
Sustainable? or traditional? like you say, there is is nothing new.
I would just say that you can sustain anything if you have the resources behind you, good greenkeeping practices do not need huge resources, although they can help!
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Alan, thanks for your response and sorry to hijack this thread, i know i may have contradicted myself but i just couldnt get my head around how sand based greens could contribute to sustainable greenkeeping. Your reply has helped me understand a bit more.
I do think that the naturaly occuring links and heathland sandy soil are a bit different from those involving selected sand and peat in a USGA spec green. The links sands are basicaly a dirty sand with little or no peat in them.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
Sustainable to me (as a non greenkeeper) means being able to keep the surface in the condition required regardless of what laws (pesticide, fertiliser, irrigation etc) changes are brought in in the future.
If you're reliant on being able to apply fertiliser (or pesticides or whatever) at current rates then when the rules are tightened up (as they likely will be in future) you're going to be up the creek without a paddle - assuming of course that the rates you apply at will be above whatever regulations are brought in.
There will be sustainable ways of maintaining practically any surface - you've just got to work out what they are.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
I know what your saying Chris but, both USGA and traditional links will have a predominance of inert material (sand) in its make-up. Both will also be low in CEC (cation exchange capacity). So unless you intend in continueing to be pedantic, there is no real difference!
Although, it would be interesting to hear from a few managers as to what the CEC is in their traditional links greens.
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
Ken do you not think there is a difference between what has naturaly built up OM wise, compared to what many traditionalists is a poor peat substitute used in USGA spec. After all it is the OM content that allows structuring of the soil and the buffering of both moisture and nutrients. Even high clay content soils can have a very free draining structure but without of the right OM to cement the sand particles into aggregates a very poor draining, structured soil is formed.
Chris
You will never see a statue in honour of a committee.
14 Oct 2008 by turfjack Last edited 14 Oct 2008
Paul/jlawrence/Neil
Paul I like your version of sustainability the best especially since my interpretation was more like jlawerence's version, ie all organic, minimal inputs etc, the what if type senario. There are plenty ways to do it but by keeping our current inputs to a minimum then I don't think it's an issue no matter where there course is or what kind of soil it is.
Chris
I think I was a little general in saying isn't a Links green sand based also. I'm fully aware that due to the age of most and the differences in location that the OM content is far greater than a man made one, however a Links green still has a large percentage of sand in it's make up, dirty or not. Remember a USGA spec green is a perched water table so the OM content isn't really there for water retention but mainly to help with some nutrient holding.
As I said the main difference between the two is fertility input, the main difference being how/when it's applied. With higher OM you can get away with less frequent (and in some cases no) fertilisations. However the turf still needs the same amount of NPK to grow no matter how it gets it. I spoon feed my USGA greens and only give them what they need, no leaching, no runoff, no loss and no damage to the surrounding envirnoment, so isn't the end result the same.
If a sudden ban on all sprayable fertiliser came in tomorrow, yeah I'd have to scramble and change my ways and start dumping on organic fertilisers, build up OM, which in my eyes is way worse than what I'm achieving right now and certainly not contributing to anything sustainable.
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
Chris, I am not disagreeing with you, what I said earlier is that a USGA spec greens are the nearest man has so far got to mimicing a naturally occuring links green.
If you look at USGA recommendation for construction it not only talks about peat but many other types of organic material that may be available in your part of the world. After all its only added to up the CEC.
I remember about 10 years ago.... I ordered 100 tonnes of top-dressing to the same spec as used in construction, which was 80% sand and 20% spagnum peat. when I used some of it to top-dress my greens, I noticed bits of glass spread over the greens and the supplier admitted he hadn't used spagnum peat but green compost. I won't tell you who the supplier was but I stopped using him!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
14 Oct 2008 by Barry Pace Last edited 14 Oct 2008
Blimey, nowt like a bit of passionate views to get a good convo going...... apologies like others to x1 fan for the latter part of this post but firstly...
I am sure from the tack of your thread that you are a member/commitee and want either reassurance or argument as to your Course Managers current program and all I can comment on is my experiences over 20 odd years of building or altering courses.
Non of us can comment here as to the rights and wrongs of what he is doing, there are so many variables, type of course, age, location, microclimate, usage, budget, etc etc he obviously has a plan and I think it would do all parties well to ensure the members are aware of this, its intentions and aims and how it is to be implemented.
All I will say is I have spent many hours looking at greens that have had poor or knee-jerk management and (without wanting to sound rude but its a fact in many situations in the past) pandering to the whims and game of a few often vocally or politically powerful members who want this and that because they think they know better without any thought for the long term implications and have earnt good money in the past ripping these up.
In many cases the golfers holy grail of speed without an integrated maintenance regime of aeration, dressing and healthy plant management has resulted in good greens going bad just as the augusta look grail has often created long term or terminal problems. Often even a few months of misguided or directed maintenance has taken the equivelant in years to put right culturally and the results from any positive change in management will never have over night results.
I suggest that your man would benefit in a little PR and as many of the greenkeepers I have had the pleasure of working with let enough but not too much info out as to what he is trying to achieve and broadly how.
If you are still as a club uncertain as to the way then a GOOD agronomist should reaffirm this but if you go this route choose your advice well there are some excellent experienced and qualified people out there but also some who will be more interested in earning some nice fees off you or who are too led by books or their Professional Indemnity.
Now for the really controversial bit..... Sustainability, USGA etc etc..
I think its is only a matter of time that as others have stated ''Sustainability'' is forced on the industry as a whole and it makes little difference if you have USGA or Push-up greens as to its impact.
We will have further restrictions imposed on the levels and choice of chemicals available and at some point how much nutrient and water is allowed will also be restricted/regulated well below what we currently are allowed, its the way of this government and its pandering to Europe to control us all in the blinkered way it regulates everything it can.
Add to that the potential economic situation and many courses just will not be able to afford to do much more than mow and if they do not integrate changes accordingly the surfaces will fail very quickly being addicted to past practices, stimp readings will be the last of their worries.
The way I see Sustainability its a bit like going on a diet and working out, you can get more out of the surfaces in terms of health and strength but there is a lil pain along the way.
A well managed healthy surface be it Bent, Fescue, Poa of whatever proportion is more resilient and will be more consistant.
Can you provide Sustainable on USGA greens depends on how they were built and what with, too many courses were and are being built with percolation and Prof Indemnity being the deciding factors and these droughty hungry sterile deserts will be as difficult to adapt as a poor anaerobic compacted clay based toxic build up laden push ups.
Shallow rooted soil based greens will take just as much water, feed and fungicide to keep as USGA greens with low OM contents, its all about balance of maintenance.
My personal opinion after building a few to both good and bad specs and looking at many more with problems is a good USGA or amended UK spec is the way being manageable, predictable and will provide good surfaces once established, percolation is over rated but drainage ability isnt. The same goes for old greens, get them draining well and the rest comes as a result of a good regime.
In the same light I have watched top specification greens with the best materials be totally ruined in under 18 months by misdirected or lacking maintenance.
In terms of the Links/USGA sand similarities I am yet to see many agronomists/architects brave enough to spec something that resembles links sand, One rebuild where the choice of rootzone raised even my eyebrows due to its fineness of range and makeup has actually turned into one of the best I have seen but it would fail miserably on every test in terms of complying with USGA, other rootzones I have used or seen have passed every test you wanted being the perfect material but was actually in one case totally unstable due to restricted particle range and would rut under a mower even with 4-5 inches of dense root I know of another course that burns up in 2 or 3 days of sunshine but every test was passed but not a drop of perching occurs.
Many problems with USGA are not the actual specifications but are the reliance on materials passing these without the practical adaption of our climate and grasses. IMHO
A poor and confused contractor....................
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
I think you have said it all there Barry.
Well done mate!
KB
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under who’s shade you do not expect to sit.
15 Oct 2008 by turfjack Last edited 15 Oct 2008
Barry, great post, especially your last line 'Many problems with USGA are not the actual specifications but are the reliance on materials passing these without the practical adaption of our climate and grasses'
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
Hi Barry,
A good post.
Am i missing some thing here, either a green is U.S.G.A specification green or it is not.
Once you start to adapt the specification,out of the guidelines it can no longer be called a U.S.G.A spec green or am i wrong ?
Are we now saying the specification is not specific enough ?
Maybe i have been lucky, i am now growing in my 3rd set of U.S.G.A greens and have found them all to be fairly similar, even though they have been in 3 different countrys, i find with them the hardest part is there establishment, they do take a lot of fertiliser and water to get going, but once you are up and running with them, i have found a light spoon feeding programme will sufice, with regard to amount of fungicde applications, i feel that is as much to do with climatic conditions,as build specification,as long as the surface is free draining.
Ian
A few daft questions;
Why are USGA spec greens reccomended in new Golf Course construction so extensivley in the UK? is it because there was / is , no suitable / alternative spec from any Uk based sources?
Are these greens specs still at the leading edge of greens construction, despite being many years old?
Has the current spec changed much from it's original specification? or is that the whole point - the spec is the same as it was 20yrs ago- which is why it is so popular as it is tried and tested ?
15 Oct 2008 by Eddy21 Last edited 15 Oct 2008
Hi Neil,
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.usga.org/turf/course_construction/green_articles/green_index.html
Dave in Paris
Learning is there for every man
One of the big problems with newly constructed sand based greens is that the turf from the old soil push up green is often used to speed up the process. Therefore right from the start you have a lot of the inherited problems of the old green. The turf is cut too thick, it is often a predominately poa sward that has been growing on soil for the last 100 years. Then you are expecting it to be happy on a sterile sand with low CEC levels. Fertiliser and water is overused just to create a respectible surface. Thatch levels go through the roof if not kept in check. Trying to be sustainable in the first few years of the greens life is pretty tough with this background. I would try to seed every time. Its worth the wait. Just started at a club whereby half the greens have been reconstructed over the last 10 yrs using the old turf and its no fun!!!
15 Oct 2008 by Barry Pace Last edited 15 Oct 2008
Glad that came over right lol....
Couple of points to help understand from my perception....
The problem with 'interpretation' of the USGA RECOMMENDATIONS is that they are basically a guidline, when you get down to the nitty gritty materials have to sit between A and B on particle size breakdown to interact between each layer to create the 'perch' effect, be it a single layer of gravel or gravel and Blinding layer, the interaction between these and the rootzone are the crux, add to this there are recommendations as to the rate of percolation of water and percentage of air & capillary pourosity but in a very generalised way this is all there is to it, simple you might think.
The problems can occur when you look at the way sands and gravels are produced and the 'bands' of particle size that is used for testing these. The vast majority of aggregates are produced for and to meet the specifications of either construction or industrial needs, a lot of the best sport materials are actually the by-products of these or produced on much smaller and significantly less viable basis compared to the aggregate industries main customers.
The 'bands' of testing of suitability of USGA sand are below and to someone who is not familiar with aggregates it looks concise but you would be surprised at just how much variation it allows.
Fine Gravel 2.0 - 3.4 mm
Nowt
Very coarse sand 1.0 - 2.0 mm
Not more than 10% of the total particles in this range, including a maximum of 3% fine gravel (preferably none)
Coarse sand 0.5 - 1.0 mm & Medium sand 0.25 - 0.50 mm
Minimum of 60% of the particles must fall in this range
Fine sand 0.15 - 0.25 mm
Not more than 20% of the particles may fall within this range
Very Fine Sand 0.05 - 0.15 mm
Not more than 5%
Silt 0.002 - 0.05 mm
Not more than 5%
Clay less than 0.002 mm
Not more than 3%
Total Fines Very fine sand + silt + clay
Less than or equal to 10%
Where this has and can provide a weakness is the standard grading tests do not show you is how the main part, the minimum 60% is distributed between 1mm and 0.25mm. if the particles are not evenly distributed as a percentage (shallow rising and falling crest as a grading curve) between these points and say it is 'bunched' (a steep rise and fall at any point) then the sand can be classed as almost 'single size' and not enough 'range' of particles to help stabilise and structure. This can lead to a very unstable rootzone which can move under load and have bad retentive characteristics which might not be spotted in a lab by any test, Pourosity and percolation tests will look great from a passing the RECOMMENDATIONS and backside covering point of view. How it performs on the ground is another thing.
This can only be seen by breaking each of those bands in half to see how even the distribution is, it costs more but if you go USGA it makes a grading curve/percentage range much clearer but when I was buildng to ''USGA'' I never saw one until I asked for it to prove a point.
Other variables of quarried material consistancy within the wide production spec range (good sand wont vary much over short term but can bounce amongst the BS range limits depending on changes in seams/faces/depths etc over time and quality and consistancy of production of the final mix all add more.
At the end of the day contractors, architects, agronomists & Rootzone producers know exactly which sands are suitable where and it doesnt take a genius to look at a history of PSD (particle size distribrution) to know a sand is consistant or not yet if 20 courses were built tomorrow within 50miles of each other there would be tens of thousands spent on testing to choose the mix at each, which in one way I can understand because in these days of litigation no one wants grief if something goes wrong and that bit of paper saying it should fall into USGA recommendations covers the toosh however I wonder just how much reliance is put on percolation and broad grading curves rather than looking at the practicalty of what works......
Other Points:
USGA RECOMMENDATIONS have had slight modifications over time the last being 2004
If you go to their site there is a wealth of info...
There was several years ago movement to produce a BS for Greens but this apparently was too difficult to nail due to risk, interpretation and ego clashes so it failed (alledgedly!!).
There is however a 'modified USGA spec' which is difficult to find as a defined info but the STRI have their Guidelines For Golf Green Construction In The United Kingdom available as a book or spec if you employ them.
Again my personal point of view (and what do I know eh) is the basis of the recommendations are sound but the adaption of this to a slightly more retentive medium is more practical for the vast majority of UK courses.
Do you need perching? not with a 60:40 over a minimal grit carpet and drains but then I would never get PI cover for that even though it works.
Robbo....couldnt agree more... its been a disaster on many courses where rebuilds have tried to mish-mash between the need to improve a surface going USGA or part of the way whilst trying to keep some consistacy with the other greens and re-using turf. Blimey they even struggle to keep custom grown turf on rootzone laid to new greens.... what chance has a nice organic laden poa dominated bit of turf cut at about 40mm thick cos any deeper is below the rootbreak and any shallower it falls apart... you need to hammer the hell out of it as soon as it knits in coring like mad and no one does and you need to forget about putting it on a USGA rootzone its just not compatible..... what it has been topdressed with for the last 10 years plus, as a 60:40/70:30 rootzone not dressing over a small grit layer and drains has a chance with the right amount of TLC and no rush to get back to 4mm by the 5th of April cos its the first competition blah blah blah...!!!
It is impossible to get total compatibility with old greens but you can get a resemblance that is more maageable and predictable.
food for thought eh....
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
15 Oct 2008 by Eddy21 Last edited 15 Oct 2008
Hi robo,
I feel for you in your situation and I suppose its not the best one to walk into. It beats me how somewhere can spend all that money on new constructions and re use the sod taken from the old greens that are 100 years old, probably to save on a few quid.
Not an ideal one really, as I presume it has created a layer straight away, which in turn will take some time to rectify through aerification and frequent topdressing.
I feel a major problem with greens reconstruction is that clubs are in such a rush to get the things open for play. In return we apply more ferts and water to help the greens stand up to daily wear and tear, leading to organic accumalation that needs attention to rectify the problem sooner rather than later.
At a club I once worked at, we reconstructed all the greens to USGA spec over a 5 year period and to tell you the truth it was an absolute nightmare. We had to force them a little in order to get any kind of putting surface and they were tanned from day one, unrepaired pitchmarks everywhere!!! (despite putting up information signs etc)
No guessing what started to happen our lovely Bent/ fescue turf started to get ingressed with Poa, not rapidly but enough for the eye to see especially with high amounts of desirable species surrounding it. A patch here and there really stands out in that kind of situation.
The thing that really made me laugh about the situation was that as soon as we started coring and going on a regular dressing programme we had comments such as "they must not be doing their job right if they are having to do that" it was a loose loose situation really.
Personally, I think USGA greens are great if they are maintained properly, but I feel some clubs do not know what they are letting themselves in for with regards maintenance costs, maintenance that needs to be carried out. If this is the case, there will be problems.
You have pleased me Robo with your comments about young Sand based greens being Sterile, as I now will post an link that contradicts this alot. Its one of my favourite pieces of research that I have on my PC.
http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2001/010510.pdf
I hope you all find it interesting, because I certainly did the first time I stumbled across it.
Bonne chance
Dave
Ps- This has turned into a great discussion, after another week we will all probably be talking about greenspeed again lol!! Well done to everyone involved!!! Keep up the good work!!
Learning is there for every man
Hi again Barry
I agree with you that there are perfectly good greens in many different countries that perform well, and are not U.S.G.A specification; in fact I would say that some of the best greens I have played on are not U.S.G.A greens.
What I have a problem with, is people calling greens U.S.G.A spec when they are not. Is this the fault of developers using the name for sales purposes? Is it the architects selling the course to the developer? Or and I am including myself here, are we doing these greens an injustice by not spending enough money doing the right testing, this seems to be what you are saying please correct me if I am wrong there.
I have every sympathy with you as a golf course constructor, if you do have to spend tens of thousands on testing there would be no money left in the kitty for when the poor old greenkeeper gets on site to buy any machinery lol.
Ian.
16 Oct 2008 by turfjack Last edited 16 Oct 2008
I think Barry is correct in saying that the USGA guidelines are a little vague in the 60% range. I've always broke mine out further, like he said, to see how the distribution is, which can vary, from not only quarry to quarry, but within the same quarry. I know of a construction where every load was checked as the sand was borderline and a number of trucks were turned away. I know that these trucks were sent directly to (at least two) other constructions that were not checking. Needless to say you can easily guess which course never had an issue. Remember also that the shape of the sand plays a large part, the more angular the better it locks together.
I agree with Ian that a USGA spec green is not a USGA spec as soon as one of the guidelines is amended for what ever reason, site, sand availability, cost etc. I think they are commonly specced in new constructions as the main benefit over push-ups is the fact they can be played on no matter what the weather. I know someone earlier had an issue with that comment but no matter how wet a course is, if golfers are walking, the only real area they can do serious damage is on a green, hence if it drains well, then there shouldn't be an issue. Other than that and being able to reopen a closed course sooner after a rain I really can't see a major reason to have a USGA spec green over a push-up (I guess compaction can be an issue depending on cultural practices, but that also relates to drainage.) I really can't fathom anyone that would use old push-up sod (and even new sod can cause issues) on a USGA spec green. The limiting factor in any rootzone is the slowest draining medium, which in a USGA spec green is usually the mat layer and why the percolation rate goes down over time as the thatch/mat builds up, so old sod is crazy. I really feel for you roboliozo inheriting those greens.
The specs for USGA greens have been around for 30+ years and are continually updated as they learn more about them. For example, the USGA agronomists are starting to shy away from the plastic membrane as there have been a number of issues recently of them holding water in, so I'm expecting that spec will change next time around.
USGA spec greens usually fail due to bad agronomic management and/or the simple lack of resources to maintain them as needed. They actually only require some very simple practices and most of them depend on the turf grown. I honestly believe that one of the biggest issues with USGA spec greens failing in the UK is the climate (assuming of course that they were built properly in the first place). If you think about how they work it'll make sense; with the perched water-table they are designed to retain water and once there is enough hydraulic head they 'flush'. Much of the rain over here is heavy and infrequent. Irrigation practices are usually deep, heavy and infrequent to mimic this (and to help rooting). I've struggled with my USGA greens during wet spells due to them not draining fully. Flushing them is one answer, it seems crazy to 'flood' an already wet rootzone, but it is amazing to see it in action. I've seen a puddle form on a green only to disappear once the drainage 'flushed'. Another great practice is needle tineing, especially since Toro came out with the 648, and you get the added advantage of extra air movement.
As for growing them in, I'm a firm believer in low N and grew my last set in with less than 3lbs/n/1000. I did use an organic amendment to assist in getting the seed started but still avoided the dreaded establishment thatch build up, again helping set them up for success down the road.
Another thought I'm gonna throw out there is, is a poa green in the UK such a bad thing? Don't flame me but some of the best courses over here are poa. Yes there is a push to change to bentgrass, but the climate is completely different here, one where poa really struggles during the summer. The only other issue is seedhead control, which now is relatively easy with growth regulators. If poa is managed properly it is a far superior putting surface to bentgrass, however, unfortunately due to to weather here that's only for a short part of the year. (I haven't putted on a fescue green so I won't comment on them). The climate in the UK suits poa so why not try manage it, or does it go back to the marketing blurb of the club to say they have USGA spec bentgrass greens etc?
Alan FitzGerald, LedgeRock Golf Club
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
