The Downside of Turf Research

[Mike_Young]

JK,
I remember when Toro came out with the 11 blade transport frame for cutting fairways.....it could last 20 years and the parts replacement was small and it could cut at 7/16.....BUT PaulLatshaw at Oakmont had his mechanic place two extra reels on a triplex Toro greensmower around 1985 and the first lightweight fairway unit was born.....mower life went from 20 years to 5 years and parts increased at least 300 percent.....and it continues with everything in the business whether it be primo or small irrigation heads around bunkers.....AND all of these things give better conditions....but the question is slowly hitting home.....How good of conditions can golf afford in most cases....we will see soon....

[RJ_Daley]

Damn Barney, for as frustrated as I can get with your posts sometimes, I gotta admit, you have a knack for saying stuff that gets right to the heart of some matters while breaking the hearts of others that matter...  

This reminds me of why my parents buy plants at Wal-Mart.  They think that because the plants are so mistreated that they learn to live under the worst conditions and won't die just because you ignore them for a day or two.  That is the way the grass is at LCCC...It lives because it must.

The analogy is a bit of genius, I must say.

[Sean_A]

JK,
I remember when Toro came out with the 11 blade transport frame for cutting fairways.....it could last 20 years and the parts replacement was small and it could cut at 7/16.....BUT PaulLatshaw at Oakmont had his mechanic place two extra reels on a triplex Toro greensmower around 1985 and the first lightweight fairway unit was born.....mower life went from 20 years to 5 years and parts increased at least 300 percent.....and it continues with everything in the business whether it be primo or small irrigation heads around bunkers.....AND all of these things give better conditions....but the question is slowly hitting home.....How good of conditions can golf afford in most cases....we will see soon....

Mike

Well stated! To me, the idea of conditioning is to make the course fun - not perfect.  I still can't get my head around million dollar budgets.  It seems such a waste.  If I had to pick an analogy it would be how the Japanese wrap everything.  Sure it looks beautiful and is often greatly appreciated as a work of art, but the packaging is still disposable.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"By the way, we mow our greens 2 to 3 times daily at .065"

JohnG:

Are you serious?

If so, I've never heard of a mow height quite that low.

What's the brand of your green mowers?

How much do you roll them?

How much grass do you take off a green in a mow---about two thimbles? When do you think you'll be able to get the mow height down to say .035?

[Marc Haring]

Well I can certainly believe John G is not using granulars. At that height and that frequency, they'd just be mown straight off again. Are you using liquids John?

Trying to put that 0.065 into english money. Is that around 1.5mm...................Geez, I'd c##p myself at 3.0mm.

Very occasionally I get to go round some old pitch and putt course where they mow the greens once a week and they feed every decade. I love em. Those courses can really get you thinking.

[Kyle Harris]

Wow, you all swallowed the hook and had it set somewhere in the intestines.

What John didn't tell any of you is that he recently converted to oiled sand greens.

[Don_Mahaffey]

While turf research has brought us supers more knowledge at our finger tips than ever before, the down side is that every decision we make anymore is supposed to be science based. Only we’re not scientists, we prepare a playing field for the game of golf, and although science can help us do that, if we lean on it too much, we forget that what we are really supposed to be doing is giving people someplace to play the game. Hopefully with conditions that make the game fun.
If we did everything based on science we’d be irrigating during the day, mowing in the middle of play, and God knows what else…all things that don’t exactly make for a great day at the golf course for our members.
The art of Superintending is marrying the science of turfgrass with the needs of your players to produce a course that is fun to play most of the time. Pretty damn impossible to make it perfect all the time, but it’s possible to get it close if you keep the balance.

[Grant Davey]

As with any industry, research and new products is how it all evolves. If you feel that Greens at .25" and as slow as a blue hair driving a Cadillac is what you like, I would think that you are now positioned in the golfing minority.  

Golfers/Members/Public/Owners drive the industry. They set the expectations, they create the interest and they supply the money. They are the consumers and the beauty of the American model is someone is gonna figure a new want/need and supply it to them.

A super is gonna give you what he can achieve with the resources given to the degree of his/hers expertisie.

As far as what has research achieved for Architecture. I dunno maybe given it an opportunity to become more creative. A new lease of life to develop sites which would have previously been undesirable.

Also, being that I do work for Kohler I would mention that our company ethics policy would not allow me or anyone else here to accept a trip to the Ryder Cup or other kickbacks. The only way that would happen is on my own dime.

Grant

[Joe Hancock]

While turf research has brought us supers more knowledge at our finger tips than ever before, the down side is that every decision we make anymore is supposed to be science based. Only we’re not scientists, we prepare a playing field for the game of golf, and although science can help us do that, if we lean on it too much, we forget that what we are really supposed to be doing is giving people someplace to play the game. Hopefully with conditions that make the game fun.
If we did everything based on science we’d be irrigating during the day, mowing in the middle of play, and God knows what else…all things that don’t exactly make for a great day at the golf course for our members.

Bravo, Don...Bravo!

Joe

[Anthony_Nysse]

By the way, we mow our greens 2 to 3 times daily at .065
and our fairways daily at .325. Neither has had a granular fertilizer application applied to them in over 18 months.


Please tell me this isn't true.....

Joe,
  Why is that bad? If that's what the memberhsip wants and provides the resourses to do so, what's the big deal?

  Good for you Josh if you can maintain and keep the turf healthy under tough conditions! I think that it's good to push yourself and your turf as long as your doing it under the right conditions and backing off when stress is seen. Keep pushing the envelope Josh!

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
Trust me...it's all about who holds the smart end of the tape.

[John Kavanaugh]

While turf research has brought us supers more knowledge at our finger tips than ever before, the down side is that every decision we make anymore is supposed to be science based. Only we’re not scientists, we prepare a playing field for the game of golf, and although science can help us do that, if we lean on it too much, we forget that what we are really supposed to be doing is giving people someplace to play the game. Hopefully with conditions that make the game fun.
If we did everything based on science we’d be irrigating during the day, mowing in the middle of play, and God knows what else…all things that don’t exactly make for a great day at the golf course for our members.
The art of Superintending is marrying the science of turfgrass with the needs of your players to produce a course that is fun to play most of the time. Pretty damn impossible to make it perfect all the time, but it’s possible to get it close if you keep the balance.

Just when I think I have lost all faith in every aspect of the game a post like this pulls me back in.  I need to apologize to all the great hard working supers out there who have recently been offended by my questions.  You have to understand how much it hurts to have something you love taken from you just because a guy will not admit he made a mistake.  Now the problems have componded to a point that I see very little hope for the future until I know that guys like Don are still out there fighting the correct fight.

[Brendan Dolan]

Funny that this topic came up today.  Earlier today in my Soil Science/Horticulture 332 class, "Turfgrass Nutrient and Water Mangement", our proffesor lectured on base cation saturation ratio (BCSR).  Basically superintendents can get there soils tested and fert companies will create a fertility plan using the idea of ideal soil.  The problem he said with this is that cation exchange capacities (CEC) are often off, becuase through the process of sumation cations are displaced by salts.  Hope this is making some sense.  

Basically what I got out of the lecture is that CEC levels are not super important when preparing a fertility plan, and that doing so may lead to loss of dollers due to over fertilizing and time.  Hopefully that makes sense, and if I got that wrong my apoligizes.

To any of the supers, how often do you get soils tested and do you subscribe to any such programs?

Brendan
   

[Craig Sweet]

I have never seen my boss do a "soil sample" nor have I ever heard him talk about CEC except when forced into it by me or during a lecture by some turf head from a University...

The other thing I am learning, and I'm not sure I fully agree with it, is we pretty much go with the same "fertility plan" year after year.

[John Kavanaugh]

Funny that this topic came up today.  Earlier today in my Soil Science/Horticulture 332 class, "Turfgrass Nutrient and Water Mangement", our proffesor lectured on base cation saturation ratio (BCSR).  Basically superintendents can get there soils tested and fert companies will create a fertility plan using the idea of ideal soil.  The problem he said with this is that cation exchange capacities (CEC) are often off, becuase through the process of sumation cations are displaced by salts.  Hope this is making some sense.  

Basically what I got out of the lecture is that CEC levels are not super important when preparing a fertility plan, and that doing so may lead to loss of dollers due to over fertilizing and time.  Hopefully that makes sense, and if I got that wrong my apoligizes.

To any of the supers, how often do you get soils tested and do you subscribe to any such programs?

Brendan
   

Brendon,

I got this from the March issue of the SSSAJ...You might want to question how up to date your professor is on his research.  I see this as a prime example of fooh fooh money being thrown at a problem that may have even been created in a supers mind.

The use of "balanced" Ca, Mg, and K ratios, as prescribed by the basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept, is still used by some private soil-testing laboratories for the interpretation of soil analytical data. This review examines the suitability of the BCSR concept as a method for the interpretation of soil analytical data. According to the BCSR concept, maximum plant growth will be achieved only when the soil's exchangeable Ca, Mg, and K concentrations are approximately 65% Ca, 10% Mg, and 5% K (termed the ideal soil). This "ideal soil" was originally proposed by Firman Bear and coworkers in New Jersey during the 1940s as a method of reducing luxury K uptake by alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). At about the same time, William Albrecht, working in Missouri, concluded through his own investigations that plants require a soil with a high Ca saturation for optimal growth. While it now appears that several of Albrecht's experiments were fundamentally flawed, the BCSR ("balanced soil") concept has been widely promoted, suggesting that the prescribed cationic ratios provide optimum chemical, physical, and biological soil properties. Our examination of data from numerous studies (particularly those of Albrecht and Bear themselves) would suggest that, within the ranges commonly found in soils, the chemical, physical, and biological fertility of a soil is generally not influenced by the ratios of Ca, Mg, and K. The data do not support the claims of the BCSR, and continued promotion of the BCSR will result in the inefficient use of resources in agriculture and horticulture.


Abbreviations: BCSR, basic cation saturation ratio • CEC, cation exchange capacity

[Brendan Dolan]

John,
That is exactly what he was trying to say, that BCSR and CEC hardly matter when designing a fertility plan, and that the idea of "ideal soil" is flawed.  

Craig,
My proffesor suggested getting soil samples once a year from putting greens, to check the levels of Pottasium(K), and every three years for fairways.

Brendan  

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
That is exactly what he was trying to say, that BCSR and CEC hardly matter when designing a fertility plan, and that the idea of "ideal soil" is flawed.  

Craig,
My proffesor suggested getting soil samples once a year from putting greens, to check the levels of Pottasium(K), and every three years for fairways.

Brendan  

Brendon,

Can you get me the professors name and address at the school.  I want to send him a thank you note.

[Jon Wiggett]

John,
That is exactly what he was trying to say, that BCSR and CEC hardly matter when designing a fertility plan, and that the idea of "ideal soil" is flawed.  

Craig,
My proffesor suggested getting soil samples once a year from putting greens, to check the levels of Pottasium(K), and every three years for fairways.

Brendan  

Brendon,

Are you talking about cold season or warm season grasses as this makes a massive difference?
If it is cold season what grasses are you growing and why do you need to know how much K is in there when the answer will always be too much.?

[Jon Wiggett]

IMHO the problem stems from there being to many companies in the golf industry. If you take a look at the club and ball business 25 years ago you had a hand full of companies such as Dunlop, Slazengers, Penfold, Spalding, Wilson and a few others. A set of decent clubs cost around the £300 to £400 mark and lastet for the next 20 odd years. Balls admittedly didn’t last so long but also cost somewhat less.

Now there are literally dozens of major players in the club and ball business. A single club costs several hundred pounds and lasts at the best 3 seasons. It stands to reason though that with so many more companies there needs to be an increase in turnover to support them. The sad thing is that golfers actually believe most of the sales pitch without actually looking at it realisticly. Most people are not playing better golf due to the new driver they have bought and don’t hit it 30 yards further with the new balls.

With the golf course maintenance it is partly the same thing and partly this perverse idea that the golf course should look perfect wall to wall and the even perverser idea that every shot should be rewarded fairly. This situation has come about because of the advertising that gives the impression a better golf = newest equipment on a pristine course.

The following questions and the average golfers/supers answers to them should give an indication to the problem:

1.   Is golf an exercise in fairness of result or a sporting persuit?  
2.   Do cool season grasses need irrigation in cool season grass climate in order to survive and provide an acceptable playing surface?
3.   If the grading of the first and second cuts of rough is done so as to punish a shot that is off line in relation to how far it is off line then why aren’t fairways the same width the entire length?
4.   If the answer to question 2 is for stratergy doesn’t this go against the fairness argument?
5.   Why do we rake bunker? If they are suposed to be hazards why is it necessary to have the perfect lie in the perfect sand that at some courses is even irrigated?
6.   Why do players dislike blind and semi blind shots nowadays when 100 years ago it was thought a positive thing?
7.   What is the main goal of greenkeeping to present the best possible sward or the most interesting golfing challenge?
8.   Why am I asking these questions?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Just when I think I have lost all faith in every aspect of the game a post like this pulls me back in.  I need to apologize to all the great hard working supers out there who have recently been offended by my questions.  You have to understand how much it hurts to have something you love taken from you just because a guy will not admit he made a mistake.  Now the problems have componded to a point that I see very little hope for the future until I know that guys like Don are still out there fighting the correct fight.

John, I'm touched that I helped pull you back in...But I think you love the game a bit too much to go away because of one tough summer at your course.

Concerning soil sampling and nutrient management techniques...IMO,
There is no "one size fits all" approach that works. In AZ with bad soils and lousy water, I believe that using the base saturation approach is the way to go, not so much that you might get everything in line, but to let you know how and why things are happening.

In OR, with a shorter growing season and much better water, I used more of a sufficiency based approach as the soil drained well and I didn't have to worry as much about screwing things up as I did about supplying the plant what it needed. But, I still used BCSR testing as an indicator of soil behavior.

Whatever the case, I think it's a very good idea to know what's going on in the soil and what your program is doing to make it a better, or worse, growing medium.

[Brendan Dolan]

Jon,

I am talking mainly about cold season turf grasses.  I am currently a turf management-soil science major at the University of Wisconsin.  So we tend to focus on the species of turf we see up here, although we do cover warm season turfs as well.  

At the end of the discussion I asked is it worth getting your soil sampled and he gave me those numbers (once a yr. for greens and every 3 years for fairways).  I assume that he would use it to monitor K levels in the soil even though they are ussually quite above the needed amount.

Brendan

[Brendan Dolan]

I just wanted to correct myself real quick.  My proffesor suggested testing soils mainly to see the Phosphorous or P levels in the soil, but it is not a bad thing to know what else is available in the soil.

Brendan

[Craig Sweet]

Brendan....have you dug much irrigation on a golf course? I would think Wisconsin soils are a lot like Montana's....a big mixed bag....I can take you out on my course and we can dig six holes and come up with 6 different soil types that would probably all test different...

[Pat Brockwell]

The downside to turfgrass research is threads like this.  Soil tests are to cover your behind.  Fertility "programs" are developed and adjusted over time as a result of constant and careful observation, and experimentation with (for me) more economical fertilizer options and application methods and timing.  I won't buy expensive slow release coatings when I can use very inexpensive liquid N and release it the way I want via my injection system.  Don't get me wrong though, I am a big supporter of research.  It has given me some great information on wetting agents, localized dry spot, cultural practises and their effects on green speed, irrigation methods (New Mexico State has an acre of greens that are irrigated with three different sub-surface systems!) just to name a few.  I just think it's important to bring it to a practical level and not get into counting angels on the head of a pin.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat..when you inject ferts into your irrigation system, how do you know they are being evenly distributed?

[Tags:]

Tags: