[Jon Wiggett]

I wouldn't say that sand greens are wrong in all cases and indeed they will function to a reasonable standard in almost any environment. Its just that IMHO they are very rarely the best option.

I agree that often the local soil is often not good enough but would still prefer a soil base rootzone over a sand based in almost any situation. As I have stated before the USGA specs on perculation rates as well as particle size and shape are good guides to a rootzone the idea of no soil is very questionable.
People should hold no illusions, the days of chemical products are numbered. I for one don't know how it is going to be possible to maintain sand based greens without them.

On the point of push up greens not being able to take the heavy machinery maybe the answer is to only use lighter weight machines. Hand mow, do localised hand forking throughout the year and maybe only load the sander half way up for a start.

[Ray Richard]

We have done several similar renovations in the Northeast as described below.

1. One club had a push up green replaced with a USGA green (by others), somebody botched the green mixture and the green died, we came in and removed the bad mix and installed new quality controlled mix.The new green surface was sodded with relocated sod from the clubs practice putting green, which was built in the 1930’s and it had a composite of Poa Annua, old South German bent and overseeded bentgrass, which is the exact composition of the other 17 greens.  We were looking for uniformity- installing a Penncross green on this fine old Ross design would be a sacrilage. The putting green sod was numbered and installed on the new green in the same order, so that the various strains and textures matched up.  The practice green was resodded with a modern bentgrass.
    The club had 150 women scheduled for a USGA qualifier the following week and the sod was carefully knitted together, the qualifier was a success and the green putted well-1 week after installation. It still plays well.

2. Another club had a new green built but the contours were too dramatic for the members. We removed the sod, saved the green mix, redid the grades, installed most of the old green mix, added some mix to make up the difference, and reinstalled the sod-no problem.

Sod is pretty tough stuff, if you watch the moisture and don't keep it rolled up too long. You can keep it rolled up in the shade for a few days in the summer and it should recover. Or you can unroll it, in six foot lengths, keep it wet, and it will stay for several weeks in the shade.
 In the Northeast, most of this work is done in the late fall and you can go 2 weeks if you keep the sod cool and moist.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

The other option for replicating turf types for greens other than sod is to collect cores from the aerifying process, mix with some bent seed and sand mix, spread, shape and water.

No doubt that the USGA method is to limit liability.  USGA greens do seem to perform better earlier.  It takes 3 to 5 years for a green to mature, the process is alot more palatable with a USGA green than a soil green.

The worst thing one can do is to rebuild a poor turf area (green or tee) and think the construction is going to make it better.  The reason why the green or tee failed has to be looked at such as drainage, traffic, and/or trees.  It will be a disaster to take away the grass types that have adapted to that environment over years and replace it with new turf types that are not adapted to the environment.  Change the environment first.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have done this and done so well on greens and tees, but the basic structure of the 'green' will most likely eventually fail if the methods of construction destroy the internal drainage properties.  

Scott,

If one is adjusting/restoring the internal contours by reworking the subturf soil, with additive soil comprised of plugs from the greens that have existed for 40-50-80 years, how would the drainage properties be destroyed ?

What construction methods could/would lead to destruction of the drainage properties ?[/color]

The sod will take probably just fine assuming at least similar soils are used, but may fail in a few short years if root growth can't penetrate as needed to obtain water and nutrients.  


What would cause root growth to fail to penetrate as needed ?

If the subsoil is the same, the turf the same, the additive soil the same and the club is attempting to restore the green to a former/original configuration with the aid of independent agronomic and architectural consultants, wouldn't a collective calamatous error have to occur in order to produce a failed product ?[/color]

Otherwise, which so often happens, they become stunted, remaining close to the surface relying on surface feeding and succum to cultural pressure, diseases, etc.

If the green was healthy to begin with, and the subsoil structure and function in good order, how would the above occur with the addition or removal of grades/contouring ?[/color]

I would still like to hear from some of the supers out their too re Tom's question...Mr. Hancock what say you??

[Paul_Turner]

Mike

Alwoodley (obviously an important course) changed to USGA spec a few years ago and nobody seemed to notice.  Either, they must have been very careful with mapping the contours beforehand...or the greens are slightly different.

"USGA Spec Greens"  is a real buzz phrase for courses being built in the UK and Europe.  It's like a stamp of approval,  a mark of quality and no expense spared.  Other old UK courses have been changed and I fear that more redo jobs will be sold and the work carried out without the same care as at Alwoodley.

[Steve Okula]

I agree in principle with Michael Stachowicz, that propogating aerator plugs is a fine way to match existing greens turf. I have had good results doing this with Poa annua/bentgrass greens.

Too often, transplanting sod to a newly constructed green leads to layering problems that inhibit the percolation of water. It can be impossible sometimes to get a close enough match to the old sod/thatch layer and the under layer.

I differ with Michael that I would not add in any new seed, if you want the cores to mature exactly as they are found on other greens.

[Bill Brightly]

1.  I believe we saw evidence of a drainage system that they put in the greens at Oakmont some time prior to the Open - does that allow for some of the professed benefits of USGA greens without rebuilding them?

I would say that the XGD drainage was designed specifically so you do NOT have to tear up great old greens like Oakmont. It is fantastic process to observe.

[Scott Witter]

Pat:

"If one is adjusting/restoring the internal contours by reworking the subturf soil, with additive soil comprised of plugs from the greens that have existed for 40-50-80 years, how would the drainage properties be destroyed ?

What construction methods could/would lead to destruction of the drainage properties ?"

The thread is focused on rebuilding greens, not just softening, or reworking the subturf soil as you note and my comment therefore is a response to rebuilding.  In any case, if one was to rework minor contours in the manner you describe, I can see no reason why the drainage properties would be compromised.  Seems you could easily do this with hand tools and or small equipment with limited time on the surface to avoid compaction.

"What would cause root growth to fail to penetrate as needed ?

If the subsoil is the same, the turf the same, the additive soil the same and the club is attempting to restore the green to a former/original configuration with the aid of independent agronomic and architectural consultants, wouldn't a collective calamatous error have to occur in order to produce a failed product ?"

I never said the subsoil would be the same.  Again, we are talking about rebuilding push up greens and my comments are related to rebuilding, USGA soil profiles and the potential pitfalls of building with large equipment, less than ideal subsoils, etc.  Nevertheless and even if the subsoil was the same, this doesn't necessarilly mean that a good performing green can be built, case in point is building a green to USGA specs...there is more to it than using the 'right' materials.  This is another subject for another time.

Your description, though very different than rebuilding, sounds solid and I would agre that with consultants assisting where needed, I suspect you would have the best chance if getting it right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

That's my fault, I was referencing amendments to the greens, not bathtubbing them out and rebuilding them from scratch.

My first question on a total rebuild would be:
What's causing the owner to consider a total rebuild ?

Is the issue performance, agronomics, blandness or a combination of any of the above.

If the greens AREN'T failing agronomically, wouldn't amending them be preferable to replacing them ?

[Scott Witter]

Pat:

Heck there are many concerns, issues, etc., that would cause and owner to rebuild and you have picked the most obvious.  Unfortunately and IMO, many owners don't exhaust all of the agronomic possibilities before they call in the excavator.  They need to better understand the growing environment by listening to their supers instead of listening to their golf buddy at the bar.

On your last statement I would agree, though 'amending' may have different meanings depending on who you are talking with and their level of agronomic understanding.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

What hasn't been discussed is the almost inherent softening of the contouring on the USGA spec greens that replace push-up greens.

So, I go back to my question, if the greens aren't failing agronomically, what's the reason to replace them ?

Especially when you consider that it will be difficult to impossible to replace highly contoured greens.

[SL_Solow]

I am clearly not an agronomist.  At our home course, as part of a sympathetic renovovation, we expanded several greens out to original fill pads using turf from some others that were being rebuilt form scratch.  It worked just fine.

On a related topic, we are considering regrassing some of our greens that have become almost entirely poa after 86 years and also have thatch issues.  We built 2 new practice greens using nonUsga specs, some amendment to native soils but none of the perched water table etc.  The grasses appear to be doing fine and the root structure is impressive.

[archie_struthers]

 


Mike's initial question obviously had an agronomical bent (lol) , in that the majority of USGA spec fixes occurred due to disease presures on old, poa bent surfaces.  In the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, the ravages/fear of anthracnose on these older greens has caused many a superintendent to go prematurely grey, or in some cases lose their jobs.

Many clubs in our region sought to re-grass their greens, cauterizing the poa annua that is prevalent, removing the infected soils, and regrowing more disease resistant strains in the replacement greens. The though process makes sense at first blush, as it was thought to be a necessary insurance policy against potential huge turf loss on greens. Over the last few years the weather has not produced the heat and humidity that trigger rapid turf loss in our area, and superintendents continue to learn more about managing their greens to prevent same.

At present , it appears the jury is still out as to the efficacy of these programs.

Again to Mike C., it appears that disease has changed some architecture, at least in our region.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()