usga greens mix in pacificnorthwest

[Greg Cameron]

Hi fellas,first post.As usga mix is a guideline,not set  in stone,is the organic content essential in our local rainy climate(drainage  vs. winter plant energy storage)Opinons?Experience?Thinking of saving$$$,but fearful of shooting own foot and downloading problem to maintenance supt.

[Bob Jenkins]

Greg,

I will pass that on to our superintendant tomorrow.

Bob Jenkins

[Adam Clayman]

Greg, Im no expert, just a guy who has played poa greens and appreciate them for their surface on heavily contoured greens.

Screw the USGA specs. Use what works for your environs.

If your greens are flattish, use the bent and spend years fighting off the poa. Give your members and the crew authority to cut-out every sprig of poa they see. Otherwise call the architect back and have them put some character back into your putting surfaces.

p.s sorry for the intoxicated post, you caught me on a good night.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,

For such an important issue, you need to ask someone more knowledgeable than this board.  Even those of us who have passing familiarity with different green specs would have to know about your local site conditions, sands, etc.

With that disclaimer, I can say that yes, the USGA guidelines are just that.  There are far many courses without USGA greens that ones with them.  Heck, as a gca, I have built nearly as many California (no peat) greens as pure, unaltered USGA spec greens, with no ill effects.  However, virtually every new course builds some kind of sand based greens.  

In very generalized theory, they make most sense in rainy climates and where irrigation water is poor, so I suspect that you might consider them.  

Really, it all depends on how the tests come out for typical green sands in your area.  I alway look for moderate perc rates and moisture retention, which are usually, but not always related.  The USGA suggests perc rates of 6-24" per hour.  Many sands drain slower than that, and I have never seen the wisdom of adding organic just to have a USGA green. Generally, if a straight sand gives me perc rates of anything under 24" per hour, I look further into using straight sand, considering retained moisture, particle structure (round particles have trouble setting up, etc.) and particle sizes, cleanliness, lack of gravel in the sand and what not.

I can only stress that you should hire a good agronomist to come look at your site for a day.  BTW, some are open to other than USGA greens, while some are "by the book."  Since you favor (seemingly) the cost savings of other types, it would behoove you to ask a few questions beforehand, and bring in one who is at least open to the idea, if their research determines that all parameters are met for good green performance in whatever method they recommend.

For that matter, superintendents often fall in the same camps.  Yours would need to be open to the idea as well, and consult others in the area who already have pure sand greens to see what regimens seem to work best.  There are  many superintendents who love pure sand greens.  While initially droughty, long term, their drainage rates are always faster, and all greens slow down over time.  Thus, they believe that if they can manage the early years, the later years will yield better performance.

[Greg Cameron]

Adam'Know about poa reptans?Good night for me  too

[Greg Cameron]

Jeff, thanks so much, words to consider.,Research to be done. tx GC

[Greg Cameron]

Bob, tx, hope Frank has opinion,you play at beautiful course....

[Jon Wiggett]

Greg,

I would tend to agree with Jeff on many of his points. Hire an agronomist who is open to non spec greens and do the same with super.

I personally am not a big fan of all sand greens. It often seems to me that they are used as an easy get out clause for many. I am also no great fan of adding peat into the mix. If the local soil is no good for growing a golfing sward then would you not need to replace the fairway rootzone as well? I disagree with Jeff on the matter of organic matter in so much that plants need organic matter and the biological life that comes with it in order to grow properly and remain desease resisitant. By doing this you will save a lot on long term maintenance costs.

What is important is the drainage and it is therefor important that you get the subsoil underneath the green drained properly and that you modify the soil by adding sand should the perculation rates be to low. What is the point of building a green that over drains and waiting for it to slow down? This only intails installing an over dimensional irrigation system which is not cheap and will not be required after a couple of years.

I have to point out that there are also problems with more natural green constructions which I am sure will be pointed out by others on this thread. It should be noted however that many of the worlds finest greens are of this type of construction.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

You make some valid points. Even the USGA is re-looking at the idea of some soils in the mix for their benefits, after years of recommending no sand, primarily because you can replace irrigation and nutrients artificially, but there are some benefits to doing it naturally.

However, when mixing sands and soils, its possible to come up with a soil mix as hard as concrete (in fact, the various particle sizes fill all the voids similar to a concrete mix) so we are careful there.

Your discussion reminds me of one I had at an Asian golf show many years ago, whereby the Australian contingent was using similar arguments against USGA and sand greens.  Of course, the US guys were defending them, and probably have the most experience in building courses overall, at least in pure numbers.  Sand greens are so engrained over here that there would have to be some consideration to "staying within the norm" that we find here, much as you probably are staying in the norm of what has been found to work over there.  Very few folks want to be the one to push the envelope with what would be considered "new" ideas on an area as important as green building.

Of course, over time, I guess someone has to.  It just may not be Greg!

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,

I am glad my response didn't sting you because it wasn't my wish to do so. I am fully in agreement that 100% sand greens in the right enviroment are the right thing to build but there is a tendency, especially in the USA to create the ultimate 1 size fits all.

I have had the sand verses soil conversation many times and it is funny that two questions are usually left unanswered by people arguing sand. Is it that 100% sand greens always produce better results than soil greens? No absolutely not. The long term condition of the green has more to to with the maintenance program than the build.

The second is 'if the danger with soil based greens is that you may have to dig them back up if it all goes wrong, then one must assume you never have to dig up sand based greens? Again, most pro sand green people automatically assume that no controls what so ever are carried out on soil root zones. This is not the case and it is possible to get soil based one performing inside the guidelines. It should also be mentioned that there is alot of sand that don't fit the bill. But with soil if you get it right then chances are with the right maintenance you can leave the green alone for the next 100 years or so. Not so with sand, as I understand it even the USGA are beginning to recommend digging them up after 15 years or so.

As I said I am all for sand greens in the right place but I get the impression that they are so popular because they are safe and not because they are always the best.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

Yes, USGA specs started as a way (in 1968) to use local materials to build a better green than simple topsoil, and in the US morphed to a one size fits all, which I have always tried to discredit to a degree.  

Mostly I do this because in the US if the greens fail there is a tendency to file lawsuits.  There was a desert course that put in mix that (after a year) perc'd 0.1" per hour slower than the minimum printed spec, and the Owner considered it faulty, didn't pay, sued for damages, etc., when in fact, a bit slower drainage in the hot climate actually made lots of sense.

So, many are afraid to go against the USGA "standard" even though the USGA actually hates the fact that its come to this.  They are trying to help courses with their research but sometimes it seems as if they are a shining example of "No good deed goes unpunished."

[Jon Wiggett]

Quite agree with you Jeff. Unfortunately the sueing laws have gone daft and common sense seems to play no part in it. I read of one case where a guy won sueing on the grounds the phrase 'auto pilot' could lead you to believe it was safe to leave the steering wheel of your mobile home, while traveling at 50 miles an hour down the interstate, to go and make a cup of coffee. I mean please I would be to embarressed to tell anyone I could be so stupid. Or the woman who did not know her coffee might be hot.

Fortunately we are not so far down that road here in europe but I am sure we will get there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

BTW, in rereading your posts, many higher end clubs in the US are going to at least a 4" sand cap and tile drainage on fairways to get better turf - not unlike how tees have been built for the last decade here.  Probaby not a trend you like and it sure makes golf courses even more of a built environment in the name of turf perfection.  Should we not have expected this?

And, as I am sure you know, the general theory on sand greens is that all 30K (or whatever) golfers end up on each green, whereas only a portion will traverse any sq. yard of fw.  Add in dailey vs. three times a week mowing, and compaction becomes as big an issue as drainage in greens construction, with sand generally compacting less than soil, leading to the sand construction recommendations of the USGA.

[Mike_Young]

Greg,
 IMHO USGA greens are many times used as a crutch or an excuse for problems with greens.  
I have found one common thread in all good greens whether they be USGA spec, soil or sand.  A good supt.  In my experience one will have much better luck spending money for the best supt he can attract and letting him grow the grass vs a USGA green spec with a less expensive supt.  A good one can grow it on concrete.  And a good one can advise you how to save money on greens construction for your area.
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

You echo my sentiments almost exactly, and well said.
 
One of the low points of my career was being asked at a presentation to golf contractors why new greens typically failed, with the questioner obviously concerned with the blame being laid at his feet as a Contractor. I answered about like you did.  Of course, I had to note the flip side of that - If new greens rarely fail because of soil or construction, then the mesh of maintenance practice for the soil conditions is often the problem, and I have seen that happen. Hence, my recommendation to Greg that his super get comfortable with what he is about to face with new greens, which might be very, very different in their needs than his existing greens.

A gentleman who was allowed to write "advertorials" for a golf publication was there, and in his next month's column, he made up a quote attributed to me that "90% of superintendents don't know how to grow grass."  My phone was ringing off the hook that week and I needed to damage control.  The good news is that right after that presentation, I had breakfast with the GCSAA directors, and am pretty sure it would have been a topic of discussion had I actually said that!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Funny but had been sitting here in Managua discussing the different types of greens and what to do using avaialble materials when I read your thread.  Process of asking for an American supt for at least first 3 or 4 years....

[Jon Wiggett]

Agree totally with Mike's first post. Jeff good point about the compaction, clearly sand preforms better in this department. It does beg the question what is better on course for 50 000 rounds a year costing $1m to run or two courses for 25 000 rounds a year costing $500 000 to run. Of course where there is a lack of land this is not an issue but many clubs would be better advised to expand.

[Forrest Richardson]

Greg — We typically do not use any organic in greens. Just sand. The simple reason is that, when decent sand is available (and "decent" must be worked out based on water, natural rainfall, grass types, etc.) there is no good reason to begin with organics.

Organics can be added to the upper layer of rootzone as needed/if needed. Also, about 1/3 of the plant dies per year. The green is creating its own organic content year after year after...

100% sand greens require some special care in the early years. But, as someone who has seen them endure, I can attest that they rarely fail. On the other hand, I have seen "USGA" greens fail in a few years...usually due to poor mixing of peat and sand.