[Patrick_Mucci]

the soft fairway in front of the green.

It seems that most irrigation systems at the green water the approach to the degree that it doesn't play in harmony with F&F, the green and the fairway 20 yards short of the green.

How can this be overcome ?

[JESII]

How can this be overcome ?

Turn off the water.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can this be overcome ?

Turn off the water.

JES II,

But, they have.

Didn't you read the part about the fairways being F&F except immediately in front of the green.

Are you suggesting that they stop irrigating the greens ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Good question.

I think a lot of the wet front areas comes from greens that slope to the front, dumping a lot of water out that way.  Add in all the compaction and subtle ruts from all the different mowers turning there - greens, fw, collar, rough, and its a prescription for a wet area.

I try to pay attention, so that on large greens, or ones where any surrounding areas drain across the green, that 2/3 of the green drains off to one side (preferably away from the cart path, to keep those walk up approaches dry)

I used to put separate controls on the approach heads, and I am sure most irrigation designers do, as well as using part circle heads to water the greens, to prevent overwatering the approach.

 At the high dollar projects, frontal approaches are now built of sand and have tile, much like tees are built, to dry them out.

After that, I got nothing!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

In your estimation, what would it cost to convert an existing green irrigation complex/system to half heads for better watering patterns ?

[Grant Saunders]

Pat

Having 2 part circle irrigation heads back to back instead of one full circle is the best way to combat the problem. This configuration gives the ability to water the green more than the surrounding area if this is what is required.

The downside to this setup is increased cost on a new hole as you must double the number of heads, wire and decoders if used. It is also difficult and costly to retrofit and existing green with the additional hardware.

Another contributor may also be thatch. The area directly in front of the green often recieves fertiliser during the greens application and this leads to extra growth and thatch.

Whenever greens are built with different materials (ie sand) they will always have a very different water requirement to the rest of the course. This must be factored into the design of the irrigation system and the ongoing staff numbers that can be utilised for hand watering.

Interestingly many courses I know that have switched to sand greens have had to take on 1 extra staff member to keep up with the increased inputs required for just the greens.  Weekend work times have also increased as the need for hand watering and monitoring becomes necessary 7 days a week in summer. Much to the disgust of the staff.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

That would depend on how big the pump station is, piping, etc.  And, how much room was on existing controllers.  If all those factors allowed simply adding heads, it would be about 90 heads at maybe $400 per head, or $36K.  If more pipe, wire, and controllers are necessary - which is often the case - the cost may double or triple.

[Donnie Beck]

Bigger staff and hand water

[Jon Wiggett]

Gents,

you are all missing the most obvious point. It is not that the surrounds are getting more water than the greens but they are still softer. Maybe thats because they are not the same rootzone, often not the same grasses and don't receive the same maintenance programme. Solution is .... let me think.

Ahh, why not look at making it all similar if not the same.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gents,

you are all missing the most obvious point. It is not that the surrounds are getting more water than the greens but they are still softer. Maybe thats because they are not the same rootzone, often not the same grasses and don't receive the same maintenance programme. Solution is .... let me think.

Ahh, why not look at making it all similar if not the same.

Jon,

In the two courses that prompted this thread, the greens transition seemlessly from the fairways.

It's the same grass.

Yet, the approaches are softer.

Jeff seems to have identified the problem, namely, the throw radius of the green irrigation heads.

Jeff,

Without holding you to the dollar, would you say that dedicating $ 100,000 to that project should be sufficient ?

[Kyle Harris]

Maintain the approaches just like the greens (not H.O.C. obviously) and hand water.

Construct greens that drain to areas other than the approaches and construct approaches such that they drain and not retain.

[wsmorrison]

Managing expectations.  It takes time to reverse years of over-watering and turn a course into firm and fast.  While the grass may be healthier, I'm not so sure the practice saves money in the long run.  The superintendent and his/her crew managing firm and fast has to be on site a lot longer each day and watch for signs that trouble is coming and head it off before it arrives.  If the club wants a light green look and avoid brown, it takes a lot of syringing.  That costs money.   

I would think it takes time to adjust the maintenance practices for greens that require long aerial approaches to function properly.  If the hole requires a long approach shot, the green cannot be so firm that all approach shots cannot hold the green.

[Jon Wiggett]

Gents,

you are all missing the most obvious point. It is not that the surrounds are getting more water than the greens but they are still softer. Maybe thats because they are not the same rootzone, often not the same grasses and don't receive the same maintenance programme. Solution is .... let me think.

Ahh, why not look at making it all similar if not the same.

Jon,

In the two courses that prompted this thread, the greens transition seemlessly from the fairways.

It's the same grass.

Yet, the approaches are softer.

Jeff seems to have identified the problem, namely, the throw radius of the green irrigation heads.

Jeff,

Without holding you to the dollar, would you say that dedicating $ 100,000 to that project should be sufficient ?

Patrick,

you ignore the most important fact, are the ROOTZONES the same???

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

I also identified a (modified) sand based root zone for fw areas as a cure.  Right now, that is a cost obstacle, but probably in ten years, it will be a standard practice, much like bunker liners are becoming.

Patrick,

See above. If you really want to solve the problem, and have the money, improving the rootzone of the approach and any chipping areas, in addition to controlling the sprinklers is the way to go.  Even considering just the sprinklers, it can be so variable that its hard to pinpoint a cost.  Your system would either have enough open control space, or it wouldn't.  Most actually don't have enough controllers to spare.

Then, the cost of adding controllers, and in some cases, piping to accomodate the new heads varies with each system.  So, I can envision a project spiraling up over $100K easily, should the club really want to do it right.

[Grant Saunders]

Pat

If its a decoder based Rainbird system:

Per green based on 6 sprinkler heads you would be looking at something like this (all approx prices and guesses without seeing the site):

-6 sprinkler heads @ $400 ea  $2400
-6-way decoder @ $500 ea      $500
-Control wire @ $1.50 pm         $450
- Pipe fittings, swing arms etc   $500
Total for hardware                    $3850

-It will require trenching the control wires from the nearest main control wire to each sprinkler.
-Each existing sprinkler will have to be dug out and new pipe fittings attached to accommodate the second sprinkler.
-IF the existing sprinklers are not adjustable arc then you will need to replace these as well so this may require a further $2400
-There is a good chance that the existing pipework should support the new heads as most computer control systems will not allow excessive sprinklers to run in the same area. Also, the new sprinklers should be running as a different program and not simultaneous with the greens. This cant be confirmed however without knowing the details of the existing system.

I think it would take approx 1-2 days to outfit each green with the new components. This will involve a trencher and 2-3 labour units. This cost would be determined by the local contractors rates. Doing it in-house wouldn't be very realistic unless you have a very large staff with extensive irrigation knowledge.

If its a satellite based system, the requirements are similar but you will not require the decoder. You will however need to run the wires to the nearest satellite box would could be up to 200 metres away so the cost of extra wire and trenching would need to be factored.

[John Moore II]

Without getting into the dollars, which I have no clue about, I had this conversation with my former Asst. Superintendant before I left the club. He would like the half-rotation heads so you can better control the water flow to the green and to the approach/rough. Different strands of grass need different amounts of water and full turn heads do not let this happen. But I would say the approach area is certainly the most difficult area to keep firm and fast, without proper irrigation techniques and enough money in the budget.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I also identified a (modified) sand based root zone for fw areas as a cure.  Right now, that is a cost obstacle, but probably in ten years, it will be a standard practice, much like bunker liners are becoming.

Patrick,

See above. If you really want to solve the problem, and have the money, improving the rootzone of the approach and any chipping areas, in addition to controlling the sprinklers is the way to go.  Even considering just the sprinklers, it can be so variable that its hard to pinpoint a cost.  Your system would either have enough open control space, or it wouldn't.  Most actually don't have enough controllers to spare.

Then, the cost of adding controllers, and in some cases, piping to accomodate the new heads varies with each system.  So, I can envision a project spiraling up over $100K easily, should the club really want to do it right.

Jeff,

yes you did state

I try to pay attention, so that on large greens, or ones where any surrounding areas drain across the green, that 2/3 of the green drains off to one side (preferably away from the cart path, to keep those walk up approaches dry)

 At the high dollar projects, frontal approaches are now built of sand and have tile, much like tees are built, to dry them out.

and you are actually partly correct. The Problem encountered in the surrounds is often that sand based rootzones move the water not just downwards but also sidewards and when said water hits the non sand rootzone at the edges which do not move the water as well it tends to stop in the egdes of the surrounds saturating this soil. The subsequent compaction that occurs due to the traffic moving over this soil only increases the problem.

Your solution of improving the rootzone at the approach is of course the right direction but I would propose only a part solution as the surrounds and thus affected playing areas also include the other three sides.

That Patrick picks up on the irrigation solution you gave as the real answer is for me symptomatic of why this problem is often not solved. The problem starts in that the rootzone requires more water than the surrounds due to its different draining properties. It also is something that affects the area in the first few feet of the non sand rootzone and the last few feet of the sand rootzone.

As no irrigation can distrobute water so acurrately as to water only the sand rootzone areas (especially taking wind into account) it is a solution that looks good on paper but doesn't work on the field. It is however better than nothing so should be considered.

Also as the problem is also due to water being transported laterally through the rootzones it won't irrigation won't solve the problem entirely (also you would still have the other irrigation system, the natural one, to deal with).

The answer then is to make the surrounds and the putting surface rootzones the same. The immeadiate response from most to this, and the reason I believe why Patrick missed the main point of my first post is the dogmatic attitude to what makes a good rootzone. If you want your surrounds to play the same as your green you have to make the rootzone similar but this doe not mean USGA specs surrounds.

[TX Golf]

Does anyone have a copy of an irrigation plan??.. i.e. drawings or however it is planned out. I have no idea but am curious as to what a plan looks like.

[Steve Okula]

Apart from irrigation, how are the approaches being maintained?

I always aerate, verticut, topdress, spray, water, and fertilize the approaches on the same program as the greens. The only thing that varies is the height of cut. This does a lot to firm up the approaches.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

you ignore the most important fact, are the ROOTZONES the same???

I believe they are.

When we extended some of the greens forward, simply by mowing fairway to green, within a short time the newly incorporated areas were in perfect harmony with the existing areas, as if they had always been that way.

Core sampling doesn't reveal any substantive difference.

The likelihood is that it's irrigation system related.

If it wasn't, then the cost to modify the approach and the surrounds (laterally) would drive the cost up significantly.

I wonder, if the costs go up so high, whether the project would be deep sixed, especially in the current and future economic environment.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

if your green and surrounds have the identical rootzone, grasses and maintenance but the approaches are softer than the greens then the only logical reasons can be either the surrounds are drained differently (easy fix) or your irrigation delivers more water to the surrounds than the greens and needs resetting. In either case changing the system is not necessary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

[Kyle Harris]

Half circle heads are only useful if the heads are placed correctly. They need to be on the corner of the green so they only need to throw perpendicular to the line of play, or else they'll need to be adjusted to throw into the approach anyway.

[Adam Clayman]

Managing expectations.  It takes time to reverse years of over-watering and turn a course into firm and fast.  While the grass may be healthier, I'm not so sure the practice saves money in the long run.  The superintendent and his/her crew managing firm and fast has to be on site a lot longer each day and watch for signs that trouble is coming and head it off before it arrives.  If the club wants a light green look and avoid brown, it takes a lot of syringing.  That costs money.   

I would think it takes time to adjust the maintenance practices for greens that require long aerial approaches to function properly.  If the hole requires a long approach shot, the green cannot be so firm that all approach shots cannot hold the green.

This sounds like the start of the slippery slope and why so many places over water in the first place.
 
Long aerial approach shots should dictate the functionality of a green? Isn't it the other way around?     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()