What are the maintenance downsides of less water, less chemicals, more organics?

[TEPaul]

I'd rather not discuss this subject from the perspective of golfers' discontent with THE LOOK of browner grass etc, etc. I'd rather discuss it from the perspective of any added obstacles and problems supers and maintenance departments may run into by transitioning from programs that have been high irrigation/chemical dependent programs over to less water, less chemicals and greater organics.

I think most of the participants on this site endorse transitioning to firmer and faster maintenance programs for a number of reasons including they really do seem to be more interesting and fun to  play. But many of those participants on here who aren't in the golf agronomy business may be overlooking a potential laundry list of unexpected maintenance problems.

So what else could they be? I'd like to see particularly supers who both endorse this direction and certainly those who don't get real honest about what-all really needs to be considered.

Here's just one question and example----what about worms? Would a less irrigation, greater organic program basically increase and exacerbate that problem, and to what general degree?

If some of us who promote this kind of new direction to others don't go into it pretty fully prepared and knowledgeable about potential downsides we're going to get killed by those who need to be convinced. I think you all know that's true.

Let's all get much more familiar with not just the upside but the potential downsides.

So what are some of the potential downsides we've not considered or discussed? Let's even try to construct a list of them if they seem real enough and important enough!

Be honest!

[Jed Peters]

Dead grass? 

[TEPaul]

Jed:

What I'm thinking about and trying to talk about is not some less water, less chemical and greater organic program that is poorly concieved and poorly executed! I'm talking about the potential problems of that kind of program that is well conceived and well executed! If you really think about it I'm sure you might be able to tell there is a difference! 

[Kalen Braley]

A bummed out golf maintaince products supplier??

[TX Golf]

You would have to assume that there is always going to be less room for error when it comes to avoiding Jed's scenario. That is assuming the line from brown-dead is a fine one.

Also, I am not exactly sold on the cost savings of the entire process. Yes, you will obviously save $$$ on water, fertilizer, and pesticides as less are being used, but the need for PROPER irrigation has significant costs. Hand watering and an irrigation system that is capable of accurately distributing limited amounts of water isn't cheap.

I know nothing about running a golf course, so I guess those are a couple questions I have on the issue. (Even though I never asked a question... sorry)

Robert

[TEPaul]

Why are the chemical products used on golf courses generally salt-based? That is generally the case, right?

What is that supposed to accomplish from the perspective of plant biology or performance or whatever?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Shouldn't Maidstone, Fishers Island and Newport  be the poster boys for that scenario.

Why can't clubs:

Adopt the cultural headset, then, adopt the playing conditions in evidence at the trio above ?

The question is, how long does it take a club to adopt that cultural headset and, how long does it take the course to adapt to the change ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -

I'd imagine that achieving uniformly good results would be more difficult if dealing with a variety of grasses, i.e. one type for the fairways, another for greens, a third for everything else.

Peter

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The "cultural HEADset???"

Where do you come up with these terms? Do you happen to mean "mindset?"

Nevertheless, after some experience it occurs to me that it probably helps things immensely if the details of a program like this can be developed and explained as comprehensively as possible to any membership going into the creation of this kind of program and direction!

Cultural HEADSET?!??

Should you and I go into a side business whereby clubs can get their members to like listen to MP3 players about this stuff while they're asleep at night? The next morning they should be totally into it without even understanding how they became convinced!!! Or how about if we advertize this program on MP3 players whereby if one endorses Firm and Fast golf maintenance programs completely their sex lifes will improve measurably?!

[Bruce Leland]

Surely we have some superintendents on this site that can contribute from their experience in moving their respective clubs in this direction.  What say you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The biggest impediment to implementing your ideal program is TELEVISED PGA TOUR GOLF.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Shouldn't Maidstone, Fishers Island and Newport  be the poster boys for that scenario."


Pat:

I think they probably should be. In some ways perhaps they are but one does wonder why they aren't more than they are. Those clubs you mentioned are just about the ultimate in America in what once was and probably still should be termed "Shabby Chic" and they really are chic in my opinion, and they always have been. Clubs like those have the type of memberships who could doubtless afford most anything at all if they really wanted it but in this way and others, they just don't and never have. There definitely is a sort of old world mentality in those clubs that I think very much is and always has been reflected in the way they maintain their courses.

But why are they that way and why didn't those clubs get into the immaculateness and excessive maintenance costs of many other clubs? You want to know why I think they never did and probably never will, Patrick? It's because the people who basically make up most of those particular memberships just don't feel any need to try to impress anyone; basically they never have. For some reasons, that are probably explainable, they apparently just don't think they need to! 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The biggest impediment to implementing your ideal program is TELEVISED PGA TOUR GOLF."


Pat:

That answer really doesn't relate to the subject of this thread. I'm not asking why some clubs don't want to do this; I'm asking what else some of us and the clubs that do want to do it need to think about if they try it. I'm asking what some of the potential downsides are for either maintenance depts or memberships that have not been considered or discussed before if a club does it fairly comprehensively?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The point I was trying to make is that it's an upstream swim/fight to get a club's cultural headset to adopt the "lesser" approach when the members see just the opposite every week on TV.

As to how to go about it.

I think you have to use Maidstone, Fisher's Island and Newport as Exhibit A.

I think you have to build on their success and use them as an example of how a club can thrive, "golfwise" by adopting their maintainance practices.

You're probably at close to the optimal time for the second reason to adopt those practices........ finances.

Now more than ever clubs want to reduce costs.
Let me rephrase that.
Clubs are desperate to reduce costs.

Amalgamating the two, Exhibit "A" with reduced costs may be the key to producing the necessary cultural headset.

Just a thought.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, after a while, if this post doesn't generate a great deal or any comments by supers and turf professionals to identify real downside arguements and consequences of going green, or going lean and mean (however you wish to identify that practice and movement) then perhaps THAT is the best arguement FOR moving in that direction.

Honestly, I can't think (not that I have any turf science credential) of any real downside consequences.  Maybe, a super who is actually familiar with green and lean and mean practices who worked in a traditional lush and green environment, can spell out if labor costs are increased with a more organic and manual labor intensive focus on green cultural practices... I have no idea.

But, I wouldn't discount the influence in terms of $$$ that the entire fert, chem, and irrigation industry (to a lesser extent) has on turf science schools and their top profs.  Grants from these industry leaders keep the turf schools going, I think.  So, the whole "headset"  is from the very start, green, lush, and applications driven or biased, but I could be wrong... 

[Adrian_Stiff]

The use of water and chemicals is to produce a better surface quickly and to sustain that quality over an elongated period and help recovery. The principl is that the plant is never put into a stressed situation and is always healthy, so by using less the same theory would be akin to 'takin a risk'. I don't think there is a definitive answer for all golf courses and every situation is dependant and weather and prospective weather (often unknown). A super intendent / greenskeeper has to make certain calls, no one can get them all 100% right.

less water could mean higher cutting heights, or less frequent cutting, the use of fertiliser could be reduced for similar reasons, some fungicides have to be used, some preventive fungicides could be lessened or resisted but in general if you have 40,000 rounds per annum, perhaps even 30,000 the course probably needs to be in a best condition for as long as possible, it all depends on the budget and expectation of the golfer.

[BCrosby]

Smaller maintenance budgets, fewer maintenance personnel, less maintenance cap ex, less water, conversion of empty maintenance sheds into ping pong halls? Or something.

As noted, the predicate to any of that, however, is a pretty profound cultural shift.

As long as people perceive brown as a sign of (a) bad maintenance, (b) disease, (c) negligence or (d) inadequate funding, nothing much is going to change.

Bob 







 

[TEPaul]

Adrian Stiff:

Thanks for that post; it does address the question---ie potential downsides to less water, less chemicals etc.



"The principle is that the plant is never put into a stressed situation and is always healthy, so by using less the same theory would be akin to 'takin a risk'."


Would you say that remark could be considered an actual agronomic principle or is it theory? Some of the supers really into less water, less chemicals and greater organics seem to say that kind of program certainly over time provides the healthiest most durable grass. Do you disagree with that or disagree with it in part?

Thanks

[Greg Chambers]

TEPaul,

The biggest impediment to implementing your ideal program is TELEVISED PGA TOUR GOLF.

this is exactly the downside of such a program...if your course doesn't look like the courses on teevee, and we all know what they look like, save for the euro events, then your membership thinks you're failing at your job

[Lyne Morrison]

TEPaul - a read of these articles will provide additional perspective.


http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2006/jul_aug/anorganic.html


http://www.mvtimes.com/2008/06/26/news/vineyard-golf-club.php


This is a worthy discussion.

Cheers -- Lyne

[Mike Salinetti]

WEEDS

[Bradley Anderson]

Why are the chemical products used on golf courses generally salt-based? That is generally the case, right?

What is that supposed to accomplish from the perspective of plant biology or performance or whatever?

Tom,

The salt index of animal waste based organic products is about 50% of the salt index of synthetic products, however you must apply much much more than double the amount of organic material to accomplish anything substantial. Therefore organic products can actually add more salt to the soil than synthetic products.

But in either case, most golf courses are getting way way way by far their biggest salt inputs from their irrigation water, that is unless they have a surface water supply, or a city water supply. Water that is being drawn from ground wells to supply irrigation (that's generally where almost all golf courses get their water) is going to carry a lot sodium. All of the earth's underground aquafiers have sodium in them. Thats where guys like Scott Anderson might really be reducing soil salt inputs - from reducing salt applied by irrigation water, and not by actual reductions of salt applied by fertilizers.

I'm going to research this some more at the show in New Orleans. I might be wrong on this. But sincerely I don't think that the sodium issues on golf course soils are product related, rather they are irrigation related. Maybe 40 years ago when guys were applying huge amounts of fertilizers to golf courses, but all of that pretty much went out in the 1970's.



 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian Stiff:

Thanks for that post; it does address the question---ie potential downsides to less water, less chemicals etc.



"The principle is that the plant is never put into a stressed situation and is always healthy, so by using less the same theory would be akin to 'takin a risk'."


Would you say that remark could be considered an actual agronomic principle or is it theory? Some of the supers really into less water, less chemicals and greater organics seem to say that kind of program certainly over time provides the healthiest most durable grass. Do you disagree with that or disagree with it in part?

Thanks

TEP- I am not sure I can say for certain those things are facts because location is key. Firstly I am from the UK and personally like to use as little as possible, I like to treat the irrigation system as just a supplement, but I think in 2008 we maybe used the pop ups for say 20 days in the year! Are UK worse for having so much natural rainfall? probably not. When we get continued dry weather we need to water quite a lot tho, I much prefer to give the greens a good soaking say 30 minutes, every 5 days rather than 10 minutes every day..to my mind thats working more with nature... effectively thats a 40% saving on water and to me that encourages deeper rooting. HOWEVER most courses, have a good % of POA ANNUA and thats a grass that needs lots of water and a lot of fertiliser. If you are in the Uk and have upwards of 30,000 rounds you will have poa. I don't think you will keep creeping bent in the UK if you play on it below 12 centigrade (Dr James Beard says you can). I am guessing this figure but maybe we only have 150 days over 12 centigrade, so unless you want to closed for half the year you cant keep those grasses. Currently the new strains of creeping bent are more agressive than Poa provided temperatures are high and they probably need to be around 18 -20 to get to the stage where it will really outcompete the poa. No other grass cut at less than 4mm will really outcompete poa although maybe the answer will be found with dwarf ryes eventually, you in the USA certainly produce reasonable surfaces in transission zones when you overseed.
So, I think most super's are kinda caught in a tough place especially if they have poa and in support of the super's I think they want to be minimal as much as they can. As to agreeing what is best practice, I would say if greens were at 5 or even 6 mm then that is in the best interest of the turf, but the golfer will prefer 3mm as they are at the moment mainly.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bradley,
My experience in the western and SW US confirms what you are saying. The amount of sodium and bicarbs we apply to our golf courses in the irrigation water, be it groundwater or recycled, is a lot more than what we apply with fertilizers. Managing irrigation in concert with your fertility and cultural programs is how you combat the salts.

Tom,
As far as the downsides of reduced inputs. First, let’s be sure not to assume that all courses apply too much water, fert, and chemicals. A lot of supers work very hard to try and keep their inputs to a minimum. I know I do and I'm fortunate to have a boss that appreciates how I do things.

The Northeast US is where a lot of the active posters here play their golf. That is basically poa country. When you decide that poa is your grass of choice, then you’re going to water more than you would with a deeper rooted turf, probably use more N, and most likely use a lot more chemical remedies than you would if you favored other grasses. To me, this is the real deal here. If you don't want to favor poa, then you’re going to have to learn to accept a dry, firm, somewhat inconsistent looking golf course. We all think that's great, until our golf course supt  decides to try and favor a tougher grass, then we ask, what happened? As long as poa is the grass of choice, I think an organic approach will be difficult to pull off.

Golf courses can be maintained with fewer inputs and honestly I don't think it’s all that tough to do. It doesn't take more money or more people, it takes golfers, members, and owners that are willing to accept a different look. That is the hard part.

[Bradley Anderson]

So what are some of the potential downsides we've not considered or discussed? Let's even try to construct a list of them if they seem real enough and important enough!

Be honest!

As I said in my last post, much more material is applied to the golf course with organics. For instance, I apply urea on my fairways seven times per year at the rate of .10 lbs of nitrogen per thousand square feet. Urea is 46% nitrogen. So to achieve .10 lbs/k I am only applying .21 lbs of material. Whereas most (true) organic products are around 8% nitrogen. To apply .10 lbs of organic nitrogen I would be applying 1.25 lbs of material. That's 5 times the amount of material.

Also, the organic products wouldn't accomplish anything at .10 lbs/k, rather they should be applied at at least .50 lbs/k but perhaps only four times per year verses my 7 times per year at .10 pounds. To apply .5 lbs/k you are putting a lot of material out. And I don't know, but my concern has always been the playability of all that material on the surface. And what happens when it gets hot and you have all that material out there?

With my .10 lbs/k of nitrogen spoon feeding, the plant is going to get a lot less N than it would with organics, and I can control the release of the product. I only apply it if I need it. But with organics there is a residual that will carry on for a long duration of time, and it may release when I don't want it to release.