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

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
I really didn't answer your question did I?
What are the potential hurdles in making the transition from an over managed course to a leaner, "greener" course?
First, you going to kill your wimpy grass. I really don't think your going to take your weak turf and make it tougher as much as your going to favor tougher grass which will, in time replace your wimpy grass.

Second, someone already said it, but you may have to live with a few weeds, at least until you fill in all the thin spots you've created by killing weak grass.

Third, you may have some disease you'll have to live with. Just remember, more than likely, it's attacking the poa, if your serious, let it take it out.

That all may seem a bit extreme, but I do think it goes like that, just a question of how fast you want to make the transition.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,
I really didn't answer your question did I?
What are the potential hurdles in making the transition from an over managed course to a leaner, "greener" course?
First, you going to kill your wimpy grass. I

Don,

I'm sure you will agree: you also want to identify how the wimpy grass got there in the first place.

In the west I guess it is different, but here in the northern states, the "wimpy" grasses are germinating in the fall, winter, and spring, when there is no heat stress to control them. So you can be brave and let wimpy grass die in July only to have it return when things cool down in the off-season. 

Here is a list of things to check:

Shade
Compaction
Drainage
Sprinkler performance - this one is HUGE (I change out all of my nozzles every 5 years)
Thatch
Overwatering
Overfertilizing
Underfertilizing
Using the wrong kind of fertilizers
Particle size analysis of topdressing - huge Huge HUGE!!!!
Height of cut - too low, too high etc
Salt accumulations

Any of these factors could be severe enough to favor wimpy grasses. This is why I have never been a fan of killing off the grass and reseeding.

My philosophy is to correct the problems, and then manage the turf to what I expect it to produce. In time it will adapt to what you expect of it.

Wimpy grasses are opportunistic by nature. They move in to areas of pathology and weakness. They have the ability to self-propagate. Fix the problem and the tougher grasses will prevail.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bradley,
I agree with what you've written.
Basically, deal with the cause not the symptom.
I'm helping a local muni learn how to manage their course. They have been reactive and spend most of their time dealing with symptoms and not causes. Shade, compaction, and poor irrigation control head the list of their problems.

However, I still think we can sometimes be forced to overdo things to get a certain look even on a well managed golf course. If we are forced to present a lush turf, we are on the way to "wimpy " grass. Managed properly,  focusing on the cause of our challenges, and with some tolerance for an off color look  with a few blemishes here and there and I think you can take a "greener" approach.

[C. Squier]

TEPaul,

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

Doesn't the climate advantage of those clubs have a distinct influence on their lack of water/chemical dependence?  I'm sure many supers would love to import the ocean to help irrigate their courses. 

[Bradley Anderson]

If we are forced to present a lush turf, we are on the way to "wimpy " grass. Managed properly,  focusing on the cause of our challenges, and with some tolerance for an off color look  with a few blemishes here and there and I think you can take a "greener" approach.

Don,

In 25 years of being a superintendent, at three different clubs, I have never been "forced to present a lush turf", nor have I ever met a superintendent who was put in that position. Have you, or anyone that you know of out west ever truly been forced to produce a lush turf?

I don't deny that there is lush turf on a lot of golf courses, but those guys are just doing that because they want to, they don't know any better, or they don't have the rescources to manage the problems - they have to water more than they would like to to keep the grass from failing completely.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bradley,
Tom's question was about "transitioning from programs that have been high irrigation/chemical dependent programs over to less water, less chemicals and greater organics."

When I read about a course that is high irrigation and heavily chemical dependent, I'm thinking it may be a bit lush.

In 25 years...never...good for you?

Yes, when I see overseeded golf courses where every square inch is glowing and everything is stripped perfectly, yeah I think it's lush and I think its the look the supt is required to present. I've played golf courses in the midwest that were wet, lush, stripped enough to give me a headache and told by everyone working there how great it all looks. Maybe you don't get out much, or more likely we just have a different definition of lush. I see a lot of lush golf courses all over this country and if we're not being asked to do it then why in the hell is it being done?

[James Bennett]

Tom

your initial post asked about worms.  My experience has been that the more severe worm problems result from worm casts being brought to the surface, and that this has occurred when the fairways have been waterlogged, admittedly from rainfall during our (mild) winters.  However, keeping the fairways drier going into the rain season reduced the severity of worm problem when it did rain.

Worms seemed to be more of an issue in areas where thatch was also an issue.  I suspect the lack of oxygen under the surface really riles those worms into action.  Any program that maintains a healthy air/nutrient/water balance in the soil will promote better turf conditions, and probably better conditions for worms without the impact on the surface of the grass.

James B

[Bradley Anderson]

Don,

In the areas of the country where the warm season turf goes dormant and you spend all of that money on seeding the turf, I think you pretty much have to water to keep that investment in seed from going to waste. So I would not be critical of my fellow superintendents in those situations because their golf courses are green. As far as "striping" goes, that's just the look that you get with the newer mowers.

[JSPayne]

TEPaul-

Here are just a very few things to consider when moving towards less water, fertilizer, and chemicals:

- Trying to use less water means two things: trying to maximize the efficiency of your irrigation system and, in turn, use less total water. Moving toward this presents a couple problems. If your irrigation system is old, in disrepair, or overall just inadequate, you're never going to get the best possible efficiency. The quality of your irrigation system, once you start dialing back the nightly water, will directly correlate to the frequency of the sudden appearance of LDS (localized dry spot). These "hot spots," in order to maintain uniform playing conditions and keep the grass alive, need to then be handwatered, which require sometimes immense amounts of labor hours. Most lower budget courses can't afford either a new system to make up for their inefficiency or the manhours it takes to handwater. So they end up watering enough to keep everything alive, and on an inefficient system this often equates to watering the dry areas just right, but being forced to overwater all other areas.

- Maximizing water control only works well when you have a relative monostand of grass types. The more grasses your throw into the mix often equates to difficulty in watering. For example, the last course I worked at had probably 50% bermuda, 25% rye and 25% poa. The bermuda grew great in the middle of fairways and some roughs where sunlight was abundant. The rye would hold on anywhere it could from the winter's overseeding. And the poa would persist in the shady areas under trees and in low lying areas. Bermuda doesn't need much water, but rye and poa need a ton. Trying to get the amount you put out just right is very difficult. If you water the bermuda to be fast and firm, the poa and rye start dying out all over the place. If you water enough to keep the poa and rye alive, the bermuda sometimes drowns in soggier conditions than it would prefer.

- Bradley made great points about fertilizers. Generaly, organic fertilizers aren't high in nitrogen content, the main nutrient the plants need to thrive and recover from damage and injury due to traffic and high play. As a result, you end up having to put out organics either more frequently then synthetics, which require labor hours in application, or more heavily, which as Brad stated can leave an undesriably large amount of material on your turf. Also, it's not ALWAYS true, but many supers I know who have used organics have to be careful because the fertilizers often have a distinct odor that is not often pleasant and can generate many complaints from golfers.

- Less chemicals, in my mind, is easier achieved. A good super working to alter his irrigation, nutrient and soils program, and trying to create an envrionment conducive to healthy growing turf and NON-conducive to pathogens and pests will provide a greater natural resistance to disease and pest problems. Golfer expectations also play a role. Sometimes it may be ok to have some disease in your fairways or roughs, as long as the super thinks he has it's spread under watch and control. Greens you have to be more careful with. But even when I visited Cypress Point, the super there was able to educate his members on not being overly critical of a little disease. If they could accept a little outbreak here and there without forcing the super to spray, they can save money and future resistance problems.

There is MUCH MUCH more to this discussion, but that's all I have time for tonight. Hope this little bit of insight helps. I may chime in again later if I can find more time! )

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom

your initial post asked about worms.  My experience has been that the more severe worm problems result from worm casts being brought to the surface, and that this has occurred when the fairways have been waterlogged, admittedly from rainfall during our (mild) winters.  However, keeping the fairways drier going into the rain season reduced the severity of worm problem when it did rain.

Worms seemed to be more of an issue in areas where thatch was also an issue.  I suspect the lack of oxygen under the surface really riles those worms into action.  Any program that maintains a healthy air/nutrient/water balance in the soil will promote better turf conditions, and probably better conditions for worms without the impact on the surface of the grass.

James B

I had forgotten about this issue of earth worms and organics.

At University of Wisconsin the plots that were being fertilized with Milorganite had much more Poa annua. Those plots had much higher concentration of earth worms. Apparently there is a connection between the use of Milorganite and earth worm counts. The earth worms were bringing Poa annua seed to the surface in a wormcast, where it could get sunlight, and good rich soil for germinating in.

So if I were going to go organic, I definitely would not use Milorganite in my program because it encourages earthworm counts, and earthworms encourage Poa annua increase, which in turn increases water requirements.  

Does anyone else out there on a organic program, see an increase in earthworms?

[Kyle Harris]

JSPayne,

Overnight irrigation isn't a problem if you're not watering overnight. Though I take it from the rest of your post that you're talking about a southern climate?

[TEPaul]

Woo-woo-woo, it looks like from around post #18-20 on the supers and agronomists arrived on the scene and started dealing with this subject as I hoped they would.

Thanks and good info and even better food for thought. I'm probably more confused than ever but, that's OK, and I hope after I go through it all carefully I can think of a few additional semi-intelligent questions on this over-all area from a club member or just golfer's perspective. You guys are the agronomic experts and I'm not much more than a good representation of a club member who has a minor leg up on this stuff! 

Scott Anderson, I know you don't contribute on here directly but you're probably reading this, and this is what you asked for on here and wanted to see, right?-----questions, answers, even disagreement, but greater and more comprehensive discussion on the subject of less irrigation, less chemicals and more organics! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

JS Payne,

You raise an interesting question.

Do dry spots need to be hand water ?

Do you need to exercise TLC in the context of agronomic precision ?

Isn't that one of the problems with American golf courses, the need for wall to wall consistency ?

To a degree, that's an element of the "cultural headset" I mentioned earllier.

Why is there a perceived need for perfection and uninterupted consistency within the playing surfaces ?

It would seem to me that this phobia places undue pressures on Superintendents.

I would think that there's an acceptable margin when it comes to the presentation of the playing surface.  Unfortunately, TV is the biggest enemy when it comes to anything less than a perfect presentation in the minds of the members.

[RJ_Daley]

At University of Wisconsin the plots that were being fertilized with Milorganite had much more Poa annua. Those plots had much higher concentration of earth worms. Apparently there is a connection between the use of Milorganite and earth worm counts. The earth worms were bringing Poa annua seed to the surface in a wormcast, where it could get sunlight, and good rich soil for germinating in.

Bradley, that seems ironic to me.  Isn't the biggest grant money or founding grant money at the OJ Noer turf center at UW, a Milorganite enterprise.  If so, who was the brave research guy that published that? 

[Bradley Anderson]

At University of Wisconsin the plots that were being fertilized with Milorganite had much more Poa annua. Those plots had much higher concentration of earth worms. Apparently there is a connection between the use of Milorganite and earth worm counts. The earth worms were bringing Poa annua seed to the surface in a wormcast, where it could get sunlight, and good rich soil for germinating in.

Bradley, that seems ironic to me.  Isn't the biggest grant money or founding grant money at the OJ Noer turf center at UW, a Milorganite enterprise.  If so, who was the brave research guy that published that? 

That was Dr. Wayne Kusso - not a graduate student, but head of the Wisconsin turf program.

I don't want to pick a fight or anything, but I must say that I am kind of concerned by this notion that the academic side of my profession is bought or preassured by the agrichemical companies. I'm not implying that you think that RJ, but it is a notion that you encounter on this site.

[C. Squier]

I would think that there's an acceptable margin when it comes to the presentation of the playing surface.  Unfortunately, TV is the biggest enemy when it comes to anything less than a perfect presentation in the minds of the members.

I agree that the TV is the enemy.  But what are we doing to counteract that?  How many memberships ever hear directly from the Super?  Is the message being sent from the club/Super extolling the virtues of a little brown?  From the conversations I've had at my club, one of the best things our Super does is he emails the membership every so often just to let people know what is going on.  A little communication goes a long way.  Communication builds trust.  Trust allows a Super to do their thing.  

People don't understand agronomy.  When you don't understand something, you make your own assumptions.  A basic assumption is that watering grass, makes it green, which makes it healthy.  You can't win that battle if a different view is never given.  

You may not win everyone over, but you will win over the people who are open to hearing what the Super has to say....and that's a great start.

[Bradley Anderson]

Woo-woo-woo, it looks like from around post #18-20 on the supers and agronomists arrived on the scene and started dealing with this subject as I hoped they would.

Thanks and good info and even better food for thought. I'm probably more confused than ever but, that's OK, and I hope after I go through it all carefully I can think of a few additional semi-intelligent questions on this over-all area from a club member or just golfer's perspective. You guys are the agronomic experts and I'm not much more than a good representation of a club member who has a minor leg up on this stuff! 

Scott Anderson, I know you don't contribute on here directly but you're probably reading this, and this is what you asked for on here and wanted to see, right?-----questions, answers, even disagreement, but greater and more comprehensive discussion on the subject of less irrigation, less chemicals and more organics! 

I really hope to learn something from Scott, and I would love to meet him and talk about his program. Some questions that I have for Scott are:

What is your irrigation source, and the salt content of your irrigation?
The organic products that you use, and at what rates, and timing?
Do you spray fungicides, what products, and what rates, and timing?
Do you use growth regulators?
Do you use any non-organic fertilizers, or are there any non-organic fertilizer amendments added to the organic products that you use?
Aerification schedules?
Topdressing materials?

[TEPaul]

You know Bradley, you can ask Scott Anderson all those questions and he might even try to answer them but unless and until you two guys actually go look at each others courses and what they and the details of them are all about I doubt either one of you are going to get as much as you could or should outta your answers on here.

Scott Anderson sure does believe in Firm and Fast and less water, less chemicals and greater organics and I've heard him say that twenty times but the other day over here when he gave that speech I heard another message which is the reason for this thread.

If anyone doesn't understand what I mean by that I'll say it again, and then again, until they do. Failing that we are going to try to put an interactive interview with him on here in a way this site has never seen before. 

The hope is EVERYONE can participate even if by email rather than this DG.

[RJ_Daley]

Bradley, please don't take my repetition of other conversations I have had with people in the turf industry regarding a "notion" of agrichem co.s pressuring turf managers and turf science programs as a throw down.  I haven't the least standing to make that case.  I surely don't wish to make that 'notion' a confrontational one.  But, wouldn't you agree it is a 'notion' that is expressed from time to time?  If you agree it is a notion that is expressed or suspected, and you don't agree, or if it even makes you upset that such is a notion out there, would you care to defend or put that notion to rest as spurious and unfounded?  Seriously, I have no ability or desire to debate the issue.  I am however throwing it out for discussion.

I'll just say in a very general way that such a notion of a supporting commercial sector of a particular field of science (say the pharmacuetical companies) have always been accused or suspected of pressuring their academic research med schools and med practioner partners of influence to use or promote their products.  Why would it be any different in turf science when it comes to big grants and such to turf schools?  

Why aren't turf schools more into organic sustainability?  Or, are they?  Where, if there are such programs, is natural organic practices being taught or promoted over a more agri-chem orientation for the management of various turf species and cultivars.  Is there no merit in such study and cultural practices to not warrant some greater academic effort and research to find new and environmentally naturally conservative ways to manage turf?  Like Tom Paul has asked, what would be the down side to academia taking up this study more intensively?

[Bradley Anderson]

If you agree it is a notion that is expressed or suspected, and you don't agree, or if it even makes you upset that such is a notion out there, would you care to defend or put that notion to rest as spurious and unfounded?

RJ,

I only care about what works best. Historically I have used organic products where they worked best. But I have also used synthetic products where they work best. I think that is where most superintendents are on this issue. I think we should be careful to allow superintendents to retain their creditability using what works best for their club.

I don't know how to prove or disprove any of this. I just happen to know a lot of people at the academic and business level where all of this collusion would have to be taking place in order for the "notion" to be true, and none of those people are the kind of people that they would have to be in order for the "notion" to be true. Does that make sense?

I also know that my profession is made up of some pretty sharp guys who would eventually figure out that there was some kind of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes. So the "notion" hits me in a deeply personal way because of what it says indirectly about our collective wisdom and discernment.

When I jumped in to the Merion debate, I came at it from this very same angle. You may recall that I kept hammering on the fact that in order for the theory about the missing white faces to be true, a lot of people would have had to be acting in a false way. And things just don't work that way in real life. Theories like that may appeal to our personal sense of self-righteousness, but they are rarely more than that.

We all feel that "the man" is out to take advantage of us, and then we find out the "the man" is a guy who goes to Mass on Sunday, fly's remote control airplanes for a hobby, and he has three kids that he reads bedtime stories to.

[Joe Hancock]

Woo-woo-woo, it looks like from around post #18-20 on the supers and agronomists arrived on the scene and started dealing with this subject as I hoped they would.

Thanks and good info and even better food for thought. I'm probably more confused than ever but, that's OK, and I hope after I go through it all carefully I can think of a few additional semi-intelligent questions on this over-all area from a club member or just golfer's perspective. You guys are the agronomic experts and I'm not much more than a good representation of a club member who has a minor leg up on this stuff! 

Scott Anderson, I know you don't contribute on here directly but you're probably reading this, and this is what you asked for on here and wanted to see, right?-----questions, answers, even disagreement, but greater and more comprehensive discussion on the subject of less irrigation, less chemicals and more organics! 

I really hope to learn something from Scott, and I would love to meet him and talk about his program. Some questions that I have for Scott are:

What is your irrigation source, and the salt content of your irrigation?
The organic products that you use, and at what rates, and timing?
Do you spray fungicides, what products, and what rates, and timing?
Do you use growth regulators?
Do you use any non-organic fertilizers, or are there any non-organic fertilizer amendments added to the organic products that you use?
Aerification schedules?
Topdressing materials?

Bradley,

Good list, and I would also add:

What is the mowing regime, including heights of cut and frequency?

I'm appreciating all the comments and interest. I've been down this maintenance road, and unfortunately all that is left of my efforts are pictures, but you guys are articulating things very nicely and I'd just muddle things with my unpolished attempt to add to what's already been said.

Important stuff.

Joe

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

To me that’s a good and realistic post and I think it addresses a pretty basic fundamental of this kind of thread.

You say:



“I don't know how to prove or disprove any of this. I just happen to know a lot of people at the academic and business level where all of this collusion would have to be taking place in order for the "notion" to be true, and none of those people are the kind of people that they would have to be in order for the "notion" to be true. Does that make sense?”



That makes sense to me, Brad. That the American or world’s agronomic industry devoted to golf is involved in some kind of nefarious conspiracy or collusion to totally rip off the over-all economic of golf is probably a real stretch but I guess that does not mean there isn’t a lot of “fat” or unnecessary product involved in it somehow. It’s probably no different from a lot of other things that go on in other industries around the world which one may honestly say are not as conservationist as they could be or even should be. Obviously energy generally may be that way but it’s not as if a lot of people aren’t aware of it and attempting to address it.

When it comes to the basic subject of less water and greater organics compared to more water and more synthetic chemicals with golf maintenance it probably just gets back to trying to match product to expectation of golfers. For the product to change maybe the expectation needs to change first and not the other way around even though given these times now and apparently coming it may end up being a bit of both.

My concern here is if it is going to happen a lot more in the future that people can and will know what to expect going into it instead of after the fact. I’m just trying to minimize surprises because if we can it sure will make a transition smoother and inevitably more successful all the way around.





“When I jumped in to the Merion debate, I came at it from this very same angle. You may recall that I kept hammering on the fact that in order for the theory about the missing white faces to be true, a lot of people would have had to be acting in a false way. And things just don't work that way in real life. Theories like that may appeal to our personal sense of self-righteousness, but they are rarely more than that.”



That’s another example and analogy that makes sense to me too, Brad. About five years ago a few guys on here wanted to know more detailed information about who exactly came up with the design of various holes and whatnot at Merion East. When they asked that on threads on here we told them that kind of detailed information doesn’t exist in our opinions because that kind of thing is almost never recorded in the first place. It should’ve ended there but it didn’t. What is recorded in meeting minutes and the club’s history is who did what in a general sense and who advised them and made suggestions along the way. The Club has never hidden or dismissed any of that. That a couple of guys on here would continue to insist the club, the men responsible for the course and its history such as Hugh Wilson’s brother Alan must have been mistaken or exaggerated events, engaged in hyperbole in an attempt at some general cover-up with numerous others to glorify Wilson at the expense of Macdonald or Whigam or even HH Barker is not only insulting to those men from Merion, it’s just really bad analysis, bad history and wrong. One can slice it and dice it every which way to Sunday but they’re never going to get around that fact.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

It is my sense that Scott is a great grass man who has made some wonderful discoveries. I am totally on board with integrating his discoveries into what I do.

[TEPaul]

Bradley and Joe:

I'd like to see Scott Anderson answer those questions too but I don't think he's registered on here and he says he's no typist anyway. Maybe Kyle Harris can answer some of those questions if it's OK with Scott. Kyle knows better than anyone on here as that's where he worked.

Personally, I think a lot of this stuff should be approached first from a "playability" goal which could certainly be defined in detail. But that's the kind of thing the green committee and hopefully the membership could get on board with first. Once that's defined it becomes a matter of the super explaining how it can happen agronomically and maintenance-wise including all the upsides and downsides.



"It is my sense that Scott is a great grass man who has made some wonderful discoveries."


I'm sure he is but recently I've heard him described as a really good soil man. I guess the two pretty much go hand in hand though, right?


This is a good thread so far but I do have a few more general questions coming which I think are pretty important for people to see on here.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
Actually I think you could add a lot as your course was a lab for the low input approach for years. I wish you'd share your experiences.

Golf course management has always been a marriage of science and art. But most of the tasks that we do that involve applying something to the golf course are science based. Take irrigation for example. In the old days you would irrigate when the grass started to show drought stress. When newer systems became available we learned you could irrigate before stress was seen and that led to over application of water. Systems got better, the science improved and we started to use math, things like ET, weather stations, precipitation and infiltration rates, to schedule irrigation. Fact is, in today’s golf course management environment, there is very little excuse to over water. Some still blame poor systems, but even the bad systems are miles ahead of what we had 30 years ago. An irrigation system does not have to be perfect to be used appropriately. There are still a lot of large turf area managers who apply irrigation without using science to help them schedule.

The next big step in science based irrigation scheduling is the use of in ground moisture sensor. Moisture sensors have been around for a long time, and the old soil probe has always been a good substitute. But the new sensors are better and the data you get from them is very helpful in determining how much and how often you need to apply water. These things are in use at some of our best golf courses and I think they are proving their worth. In New Orleans this Feb. one of my top goals is to learn more about their use and start to use moisture sensors to schedule my irrigation. There are so many bad things that happen to turf when the soil is saturated all the time, or allowed to dry down to far. Decreased rooting, increased disease and pest pressure to name a few. The downsides of an overwatered golf course are staggering. I really believe the transition to firmer and faster starts with irrigation management. Some still believe the best way is by eye and with a soil probe. I would not discard that approach, but I'd add in the use of all available technology. That includes knowing your system by conducting regular audits. If you think your putting out .15 inches, be sure you actually are. Know your infiltration rates so you can cycle properly. Know your weather and know what percentage of ET your grass needs to perform like you want. And know what's happening to your water when it's in the ground, things like at what depth and at what moisture level is the soil bank of water still available to your grass. The link below is one brand of soil moisture sensors available.


http://www.toro.com/irrigation/golf/turfguard/index.html

One additional benefit to the science approach is it may give you the ammunition you need to start the transition to firmer and faster. If a super does feel pressure to keep it green, the science can help him when he makes his case for a leaner and meaner golf course. Arguing with people is easy; arguing with hard science is a lot tougher and arguing to over water is not an argument that will often win among sensible people.