[Mike_Cirba]

From the recent Philadelphia GCA meeting at Tom Paul's house, as filmed and presented by Joe Bausch;

Part 1:  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PHi0L0O5Tcs
Part 2:  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ax8BfvIzpms
Part 3:  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wdLFKAp1o6k
Part 4:  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_c1KbUf3Yts

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Mike.

From what I've read here and elsewhere about Huntington Valley and Scott Anderson, there's no saner and more sensible and more beneficial (in every sense) approach to maintenance practices than Scott's.

Doing more for less -- less water, less fertilizer, more ground game, more fun, a more organic approach.

Scott notes that Huntington didn't have an irrigation system until 1964. That Flynn course must've played great without it, and certainly how he had intended it (since he built it without any idea that it would be irrigated)

What more can be asked of a super than that he is presenting a course the way the architect (and the architecture) intended?

Peter 

[RJ_Daley]

I am officially ADD now.      I'm trying to watch these u-tube vignettes, participate in a routing VS shaping dialogue, and straighten Shivas out. 

But, these u-tube talks are really a wonderful contribution to all of us GCA.com folks.  Thanks for the efforts you folks made to post them up.

[David Stamm]

Thank you so much for this! Very informative! And seeing TEP from the balcony is exactly as I picture him.

[TEPaul]

Wow, I've known Scott Anderson for a lot of years now and over that time we have gone over a lot of what he talked about but I guess always in sort of fits and starts with people around. Maybe I'm a slow learner but not until today watching his entire presentation in the "Barn" last Wednesday on video here has it all become so clear.

Scott, that is some really great stuff. I think there are some very identifiable messages from your talk the other night that have just got to be gotten out to the general public of golf and golf maintenance and perhaps the most important of them all is that if a club and course is going to get into this kind of thing----eg the kind of thing you've been doing for years-----they have just got to buy into it in its entirety and not just pick and choose and apply one component or another of it and forget about the rest.

It sounds like what you are talking about particularly with the natural purity of it is basically sort what the overall symphony of Nature and all her inter-relating ways and means is TRULY all about.

[Jason Hines]

Thanks for this thread Tom.

Both videos of Ron and Scott were very informative, especially on this sub-zero degree Sunday here in Kansas.  Not that this is on the same level as what Scott and others do with a whole maintenance program, but I have just completed my 1st year of an all organic backyard.  The front is still chemical, (albeit as minimal as possible) and is still way ahead in appearance and ease of maintenance.  However, I have two little boys and two dogs that play almost every day in the back yard during the summer which makes the extra work worthwhile.

There are several books and info sites out there and there is a lot of trial and error with said advice.  I would be curious to know what Scott or others use for weed and grub control on their courses, is it ph level, corn gluten or something else?

J.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Where is part 5?
I'd want to hear more about Scott's involvement with the neighboring clubs...

Very good evening.
Thank you for posting and recording.

The Barn looks perfect.
Cheers

[Michael Rossi]

Thanks for the videos they are a good watch.

As a superintendent I do agree with most of what Scott is saying, however some of it I do not.

The generalization that the schools are teaching only a chemical based theory and that the chemical companies are steering this education process, is a little far fetched. I have practiced the organic method in the past, it does give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing I am doing great things for the environment, and those that are playing on it are at less risk as well as me and my staff who are on it daily. Do you think that most supers would choose to endanger their well being daily in order to grow some grass and prepare a golf course? I know that I don't, nor do most of my peers. The organic approach works well in climates where rainfalls are timley and soil temperatures get high enough for a long enough period of time for the microbial populations to do the work Scott speaks of.

The statement that was made by someone in the audience regarding a club can not livng with lossing 5-10% of turf for 3 years... To put this in persepective 5-10% is 5-10 acrea per 100 acres. If your club was to say loose 6 acres would it be acceptable? The turf that would most likley to be lost first would be on the greens and tees, because it is the most heavily managed with the synthetic fertilizers (most course only have about 6 acres of greens and tees).

I do agree that the golf maintenance industry has relied heavily for decades upon synthetic fertilizers and chemicals and this must change. Perhaps the recent events in the global economy will helps us get away from it but I bet that most clubs will squeeze the maintenance budget more leaving the supers to feed the turf only diets of nitrogen and less of the goods that Scott speaks of. The environment needs us to make this change, the clubs are going to have to mandate it, the government already has begun in certain areas. The public players and you the members of the clubs are going to have to demand it. Please spread the word to your playing partners that the course is to green and should have more dormant, thin turf during certain times of the year.

I have also played plenty of courses that are over watered and play soft, and I agree nothing is worse than soft inconsistant playing conditions. However in some parts of the world the courses are forced to use up thousands of gallons of effluent water daily.

I look forward to being able to treat my course with 85-90% organics in the future and providing the golfing public with the firm and fast we all prefer.

A question for Scott, what turf types are you managing on greens, tees, fairways and rough?

MR

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks for the videos they are a good watch.

As a superintendent I do agree with most of what Scott is saying, however some of it I do not.

The generalization that the schools are teaching only a chemical based theory and that the chemical companies are steering this education process, is a little far fetched. I have practiced the organic method in the past, it does give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing I am doing great things for the environment, and those that are playing on it are at less risk as well as me and my staff who are on it daily. Do you think that most supers would choose to endanger their well being daily in order to grow some grass and prepare a golf course? I know that I don't, nor do most of my peers. The organic approach works well in climates where rainfalls are timley and soil temperatures get high enough for a long enough period of time for the microbial populations to do the work Scott speaks of.

The statement that was made by someone in the audience regarding a club can not livng with lossing 5-10% of turf for 3 years... To put this in persepective 5-10% is 5-10 acrea per 100 acres. If your club was to say loose 6 acres would it be acceptable? The turf that would most likley to be lost first would be on the greens and tees, because it is the most heavily managed with the synthetic fertilizers (most course only have about 6 acres of greens and tees).

I do agree that the golf maintenance industry has relied heavily for decades upon synthetic fertilizers and chemicals and this must change. Perhaps the recent events in the global economy will helps us get away from it but I bet that most clubs will squeeze the maintenance budget more leaving the supers to feed the turf only diets of nitrogen and less of the goods that Scott speaks of. The environment needs us to make this change, the clubs are going to have to mandate it, the government already has begun in certain areas. The public players and you the members of the clubs are going to have to demand it. Please spread the word to your playing partners that the course is to green and should have more dormant, thin turf during certain times of the year.

I have also played plenty of courses that are over watered and play soft, and I agree nothing is worse than soft inconsistant playing conditions. However in some parts of the world the courses are forced to use up thousands of gallons of effluent water daily.

I look forward to being able to treat my course with 85-90% organics in the future and providing the golfing public with the firm and fast we all prefer.

A question for Scott, what turf types are you managing on greens, tees, fairways and rough?

MR

Michael,

You can add about 30-40 acres of fairway in there, as well.

I should also note that the turf loss is more related to the cutback in water usage than it is to organic fertilizers and materials.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

Yes the water would account for most of it, but the microbial populations would have to be built up to do their job. And we are talking a 3-5 year transitional period and I know it is possible. The tone of the conversation in the barn seamed a bit idealistic, but Scott does make some great points.

MR

[Kyle Harris]

By what methods do you guys build up your microbial populations?

[Michael Rossi]

As Scott suggested you must feed the soil, the soils must not be water logged and be greater than 60F. back off the fungicides and insecticides, keep the soils compaction free, gaseous exchange must occur. The carbon based fertility is the key, such as molasses. the hotter it gets the faster the microbes increase in population and, the more there are the quicker they do their work.

[TEPaul]

Michael Rossi and Kyle:

It occured to me that what Scott said the other night just has to be gotten out there in a better way than previously (maybe on here somehow than just a thread like this. I just emailed Ran about it). I think the things he said should go through a real Q&A process from particularly supers out there like MichaelR just did in the last few posts, and I just spoke to Scott about this and he's all for it----he simply said let's come up with the most effective way to go about it. We may need to find a way for people like green chairmen to get on here to read and contribute to a thread on this over-all subject.

I mean I've heard him talk about this for years now but I don't think I got the full impact of it until the other night and it occured to me if people try to do it and they don't fully understand the full package the potential for mistakes might be massive and really unfortunate, and I sure don't want to see the goal of firm and fast get a bad name for reasons that can be avoided.

But what you guys have been doing in the last few posts is what we need to see perhaps on another and really well managed thread that viewers can refer to easily and well.

Do you get my drift?

[Michael Rossi]

TEP

I concur, the word needs to get out to the final decision makers such as GM's, owners, greens chairs etc. If the industry is going to move forward and stay in check with the environment.

MR

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for taking the time to make the videos.  I have found the HVCC maintenence story to be one of the most interesting parts of this web site. 

What other clubs have successfully implemented similar approaches?

[Donnie Beck]

Awesome Video..

[Don_Mahaffey]

By what methods do you guys build up your microbial populations?

Kyle,
Can't speak for anyone else, but IMO, #1 way to build up the right kind of microbial population is doing whatever it takes to get plenty of air into the soil. There are all kinds of bugs in a bottle and carbon/sugar products that will claim to build up microbes, but it all starts with soil that can breathe. 

[Michael Rossi]

Don

If we have a sand based growing medium, sand being sterile and compaction resistant, you can have gaseous exchange but without a food source for the microbes you will have a small population. If the soil was high in OM or more soil based I would agree with you. Like anything else we do to maintain turf all things have to be taken into consideration, it is not often that one thing is the cause or solution of a problem.

MR

[Don_Mahaffey]

MR,
Read it again, I said it STARTS with soil that can breathe.

I've seen too many guys go for the organic bug in a bottle deal and forget the basics. You can throw all the compost tea or other microbe source you want on a compacted piece of ground and you’re still not going to get what you want if the soil is anaerobic.

You need air and food, and IMO, too many think the organic approach is a substitute for solid cultural programs. They go hand in hand.

Compaction is the #1 enemy of good golfing turf…use a good holistic approach that includes basic cultural practices and good golfing turf can be had on almost any ground. Sand will always be better, but good turf can be grown on heavy soils as well.   

[Michael Rossi]

Don

Scott has stated in his address to the group that sand is not the best choice and he does not understand why todays supers are using it.

As for reading it again, if the growing medium is sand what are you proposing we do to get more air? To much air is as detrimental as compaction.

And yes good turf can be grown on all types of material, sand, clay, silt, rocks. I agree it takes good sound cultural practices, not just one thing.

MR

[Kyle Harris]

Don

Scott has stated in his address to the group that sand is not the best choice and he does not understand why todays supers are using it.

As for reading it again, if the growing medium is sand what are you proposing we do to get more air? To much air is as detrimental as compaction.

And yes good turf can be grown on all types of material, sand, clay, silt, rocks. I agree it takes good sound cultural practices, not just one thing.

MR

MR,

Scott is questioning why supers use sand on soil greens.

Square peg, round hole...

[Don_Mahaffey]

MR,
My point is I think too many in our business underestimate the effect of compaction, or think they can eliminate basic cultural practices by using programs that claim to increase microbial activity.

I think we’re running in circles here as I don’t disagree with you. Everything we do is integrated and has an effect. How well we balance all our activities determines how well our courses play.  

[Michael Rossi]

Scott was talking about using sand not just on greens he spoke of approaches and fairways as well. I got from his statement he was concerned with creating a sand layer and having the soil below the layer drawing the nutrients and moisture down. He was also concerned with the heating of the sand.

I like the use of sand for many reasons and agree with Scott that a layer is undesirable however using sand and incorporating it into the profile is a sound practice.

At TOC the use of sand pure sand over decades has proved very beneficial, both for turf health and the architecture.

Would TOC be held in such high regard without decades of topdressing, the greens, surrounds and approaches would not have the character or accept the ground game without it. Nor wold the surfaces be raised as much.

MR

Just read the post you made while I was typing, and yes we agree there is no single solution bugs in a bottle or any single remedy.

[Bradley Anderson]

Don

Scott has stated in his address to the group that sand is not the best choice and he does not understand why todays supers are using it.

As for reading it again, if the growing medium is sand what are you proposing we do to get more air? To much air is as detrimental as compaction.

And yes good turf can be grown on all types of material, sand, clay, silt, rocks. I agree it takes good sound cultural practices, not just one thing.

MR

MR,

Scott is questioning why supers use sand on soil greens.

Square peg, round hole...

Actually I think Scott was questioning the use of sand topdressing on fairways. I don't think Scott was questioning sand topdressing of greens.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I concur, the word needs to get out to the final decision makers such as GM's, owners, greens chairs etc. If the industry is going to move forward and stay in check with the environment.
MR"


Michael:

I certainly do think the word on a more environmentally friendly approach needs to be gotten out there but that is not exactly what I meant to say about Scott's talk.

For the first time listening to him (I've heard him speak a number of times before) it occured to me that if and when clubs and all their people decide it is time to go down this road they really need to be very careful in how they go about it. Scott sort of implied if anyone tries to do this partially or in something less than a fully informed manner going into it that it could spell real disaster for a golf course.

My concern is that there are clubs who do want to do this but they might think it will be easy or they might think they can just do it quickly.

I don't think so and if that's the way they approach it the potential consequences really concern me. The last thing I want to see is for F&F and an environmental friendly (organic) approach to get a bad name because people go into it without understanding the whole package.

I think you can see that Scott sort of said this in his talk over here. I don't know if he meant to stress that but that's what I heard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()