Maintenance Seminar Wk 5 - How low can you go?

[George Pazin]

This week's topic comes courtesy of Charlie Goerges and I think it's a beaut!

One thing that I’m wondering about is the raising of cutting height for fairways, tees, and greens. I know that raising the cutting height generally can mean less water, fertilizer, and other chemicals are required to keep the turf healthy. I got this info from an assistant super. Certainly if the grass is longer, there must be some effect. I’m guessing a bit less spin and perhaps less roll distance for the player with some offset of each of those tendencies by virtue of the grass being somewhat drier, but I really don’t know. So what can be done retroactively to allow a course to use less water/chemicals, and what (if anything) can be done ahead of time (design-wise, turf selection, site selection) to allow for less chemical/water use on a course yet to be built? And obviously the result would still have to be a good/fun course.

There are a lot of interesting thoughts in this - I'll add more later when I get the chance.

As always, the more questions and answers that we get, the better the discussion.

[Adam Clayman]

There seems to be a blurring of terminologies. Grass v. Turf

Won't blades of grass stay greener longer (requiring less input) if they are not cut low low low?
Does that mean the turf is healthier?

There's a Mike DeVries early effort, Diamond Springs (SW of GR) that had all one cut of grass. It was approx. 3/4" without any real rough lines, ala the ANGC most of us grew up watching. (Not the height) I didn't really notice it until reflecting on it afterwards, maybe because I'm accustomed to longer grass fairways here at Bayside? Clearly, the feeling of freedom was refreshing, even if the canvas was being drowned. My sense is under current practices most critics would cry that the lack of penal rough makes the course too easy. So, it's likely a good thing those critics don't play there, but, a firm meld would allow the native areas to see more roll out into them, increasing their effectiveness as a hazard.

[Mike McGuire]

Can rolling make up for higher cuts on the green? What are the issues with rolling?

[Ian Larson]

At a course that demands high quality playing surfaces and playability, IMO would be difficult to raise the heights.

With greens anything over .150" youre gonna be smacking the ball hard to get it anywhere. And when the leafblades are allowed to grow taller its harder to prevent shagginess and promote a trueness to the ball roll. If you raise the heights of greens and roll more in place of mowing youre going to end up with grainy greens where the blades of grass that are layed over by the roller, will be standing back up in the afternoon looking for sun. Thats a recipe for a horrible roll.

Fairways and Approaches, yeah you could get away with it I guess depending on the playability the clientele wants. Higher cut will bring a softer surface with it. Personally I like firm and fast approaches and would never make a personal decision to raise the height. Same with fairways. And with the fraction of an inch that it is raised I dont see any huge savings with water or fert or anything else.

Tees, yeah who cares.

If I ended up at a public or muni that is getting alot of play and its necessary to raise heights as a prevention to plant stress I would do it. But a fraction higher in cutting height I dont see where there would be significant savings to make such a decision.

I feel the loss of playability to the course would outway any savings. And that could end up with a pissed off clientele.


As far as my cutting heights...

greens - .90" with toro flex
collars / apps - .325" with JD walk behind
fairways - .350" JD fairway mower
tees - .400" JD walk behind

poa greens, tiffsport approaches, common fairways and common overseed poa triv tees

[Mat Dunmyer]

At a course that demands high quality playing surfaces and playability, IMO would be difficult to raise the heights.

With greens anything over .150" youre gonna be smacking the ball hard to get it anywhere. And when the leafblades are allowed to grow taller its harder to prevent shagginess and promote a trueness to the ball roll. If you raise the heights of greens and roll more in place of mowing youre going to end up with grainy greens where the blades of grass that are layed over by the roller, will be standing back up in the afternoon looking for sun. Thats a recipe for a horrible roll.

Fairways and Approaches, yeah you could get away with it I guess depending on the playability the clientele wants. Higher cut will bring a softer surface with it. Personally I like firm and fast approaches and would never make a personal decision to raise the height. Same with fairways. And with the fraction of an inch that it is raised I dont see any huge savings with water or fert or anything else.

Tees, yeah who cares.

If I ended up at a public or muni that is getting alot of play and its necessary to raise heights as a prevention to plant stress I would do it. But a fraction higher in cutting height I dont see where there would be significant savings to make such a decision.

I feel the loss of playability to the course would outway any savings. And that could end up with a pissed off clientele.


As far as my cutting heights...

greens - .90" with toro flex
collars / apps - .325" with JD walk behind
fairways - .350" JD fairway mower
tees - .400" JD walk behind

poa greens, tiffsport approaches, common fairways and common overseed poa triv tees

Ian:

 Good post though I've seen, played, and maintained greens above .150" and still had them rolling 10+ stimp (pencross bent mowed at .175"- Lahontan Golf Club in Truckee, Ca) and rolling as true as any greens that I've seen through heavy verticutting, grooming and topdressing.  I hosted a PGA Tour event for 3 years (Sonoma Golf Club) where our greens mowers were set at .145" on poa annua and were rolling 12'6" on the stimp- made the double cutting and rolling less of a stress and we were able to push the limits of our watering with the higher height of cut. It can be done with agressive cultural practices.

Mat

[Chris Tritabaugh]

At a course that demands high quality playing surfaces and playability, IMO would be difficult to raise the heights.

I have found in two years at my course that the height of cut (HOC), at least on greens, can come up without sacrificing playing conditions.  We roll a lot in the summer, almost everyday.  In fact we are not afraid to skip a mow and roll only, even in the middle of the week.  By raising the HOC on greens and rolling often we are able to keep the greens drier, firmer, and healthier.  All of which results in better putting conditions.  Of course there is a point at which raising the HOC will not achieve a better playing surface.  Our goal is to find that line and go no higher and no lower.  Do the greens have more grain...for sure but I am beginning to believe this is not a bad thing.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

I've been rolling my greens on a regular basis, 3-5 times a week, for about 8 years now. At my present course we roll and spike at the same time and I have no doubt whatsoever that regular rolling allows me to cut the grass at a higher HOC without sacrificing ball roll. IMO, I don't need an ultra low HOC to get speed if I grow some roots and keep the grass groomed and lean.  Deeper rooting means I can irrigate less often and provide a dry surface most of the time.

As far as fwy and approach grass, keep one thing in mind. Dry, firm ground is what gives you the bounce you see on a fast golf course. Longer turf, if managed correctly, will have deeper roots which mean less irrigation. While you may lose some roll with longer turf, it's the bounce off of dry ground that really makes a golf course play fast. Trying to make a course play fast thru low HOC is not the way I would do it.
And yes, a higher HOC does require fewer inputs.

[George Pazin]

As far as fwy and approach grass, keep one thing in mind. Dry, firm ground is what gives you the bounce you see on a fast golf course. Longer turf, if managed correctly, will have deeper roots which mean less irrigation. While you may lose some roll with longer turf, it's the bounce off of dry ground that really makes a golf course play fast. Trying to make a course play fast thru low HOC is not the way I would do it.
And yes, a higher HOC does require fewer inputs.

Thanks, Don - this is exactly the type of insight I was hoping for when I started this series.

Thanks everyone else for the input as well.

[Charlie Goerges]

There seems to be a blurring of terminologies. Grass v. Turf

Okay, we'll call Turf the surface on which we play golf and Grass the material out of which Cheech and Chong's van was built . I definitely am a neophyte when it comes to this type of knowledge.

I do want to thank everyone as well for the responses, and clarify/follow-up on some points. If I understand Don correctly, we first need to distinguish between roll and bounce. If bounce is what makes the course firm and fast, then would it be fair to say that roll mainly affects putts? (at least in the sense that Don is using it) At any rate, if longer turf is compatible with or even desireable for the creation of firm/fast conditions, just how long are we talking? Also, what would be the point at which longer turf would be too long to take advantage of firm and fast conditions (i.e. so long that the ball wouldn't bounce and run very far)?

Edit: Take my last couple of statements to refer primarily to fairways

I have more questions (I have a lot to learn  ) but I'll let others chime in with questions and answers before I continue my barrage.

[Pete Lavallee]

I'm quite interested in the rolling of greens. Here in San Diego I've never seen a rolling machine on  any municipal golf course until I attened the practice rounds at the Open at Torrey this year. I'm sure that many of the privates do roll here in SD, but why don't the munis?

Does it cost that much to dedicate a person to operate the machine?

Does it mean other cultural practices such as verticutting would need to be increased?

Can it help save money by reducing the need to cut greens as often?

Consider the fact that 99% of our munis have Poa Annua greens. Thanks in advance for any replies.

[Duane Sharpe]

Don is a smart man in my opinon. Well stated Don!
Sharpee