PUSHUP GREENS--preserving them with XGD

« **on:** March 11, 2009, 03:59:20 PM »

I cant believe I forgot to bring up the XGD system in the "Will push-up greens make a comeback" thread. Im sure some of you already know about this system and how it works, but for those who dont here it is.....

As discussed in the other thread, water drainage is THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in a greens success or failure. Some may think that I was a freakin USGA spokesman in that thread pushing for the USGA method. I just want to clarify my stance was purely about achieving drainage through the greens soil profile. And doing it from the position of understanding the raw materials used and how they perform. I dont care what the greens soil profile is made up of, but I do care if it drains well or not. One cant argue that sand drains better than a heavier soil. Greens with heavy soil are incorporating sand and sand greens are incorporating organic. All to find that happy medium with water drainage and nutrient retention.

One of the concerns in the push-up green thread was preserving the original push-up that has been there for 80 years. The XGD system does just that. It preserves the original integrity of the greens while improving surface and sub-surface drainage dramatically, therefore improving turf quality and performance dramatically.

I wont spend any time lecturing about the system and what it does. Ill let the XGD web page speak for itself. I think many of you will be surprised by its portfolio not only because of the list of clubs that have it, but also because many of you will see your club has it and you never even knew it.

My one example of who uses it would be Oakmont. Remember watching the US Open saturday and sunday when the greens were so dried out they were looking like they were close to death? Remember seeing the herringbone shaped brown lines on the greens? That was the XGD system. The sand used in XGD was obviously draining quicker and drying out faster than the native soil around it, so the XGD was so appearant. Even on TV.

What I will say about it is this....

1. Easy and quick to install on all 18 greens.
2. From what Im told very economical, especially compared to reconstruction.
3. Results are instant

With that heres the link.....

http://www.greensdrainage.com/index.html

« **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:09:08 PM »

Oops, nevermind. That was the eighth fairway at Spyglass I was remembering. Similar dealie though.

« **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2009, 07:05:05 PM »

Ian:

If I may make a suggestion.

Why don't you redo the title of this thread to something like:

"PUSHUP GREENS--preserving them with XGD."

I bet this thread might get more play that way. I'm afraid the way it's titled too many may think it's the first thread on pushups making a comeback to the first page.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2009, 09:03:17 PM »

Thanks Tom....done.

« **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2009, 07:06:00 AM »

Ian:

I've heard about XGD for some years and have seen the herringbone lines in some greens (ex. right 9th at PV) but other than a basic drainage fix for old greens I don't know anything else about it.

Couple of questions;

1. Is it basically for old pushups where drainage has become problematic?
2. What are some of the common reasons drainage on old pushups generally becomes problematic?
3. Does drainage on USGA spec greens become problematic for mostly the same reason as pushups?
4. Has the XGD system been used on old USGA spec greens?

« **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:34:14 AM »

All right I'll bite...

Haven't read the other thread yet so forgive me if I recover something in that.

The XGD type system is a great tool and an option instead of rebuilding. Basically on poor draining old greens you have three options; leave them alone, add an XGD type drainage system and modify the rootzone or rebuild. Obviously cost plays a major part in the decision. Leaving the current conditions results in battling the weather and dumping a lot of money into maintenance to manage around a poor draining green. Of course you also cannot be guaranteed a quality putting surface all year. Rebuilding is obviously the best way to go, with either a freer draining push up medium or especially with a USGA spec green which will result in better, more consistent conditions all year. The downsides to rebuilding are cost, the course will be out of play for a season, there’s the argument that the contours etc will not be exactly as they were and lastly some people feel that regrassing with bentgrass takes away something (as poa is arguably the better putting surface although only for a short period each year). So based on that the XGD system seems like a great compromise.

I have installed these type drains in the past and the results were immediate, however they are not a be all to end all and ultimately are not as beneficial as rebuilding.

It does cost less but I believe its a false economy as over time the other practices to enhance them will add up and add a lot of inconvenience to play. The two biggest problems with XGD systems are related to the same issue. In any drain system the limiting factor of drainage is the worst draining medium in that profile (usually the sod). The new drains only drain the immediate area around the drain line and the since the sod is replaced it still surface drains at the same rate as it always did. That is why it is essential to aerate the sod line and create freedraining channels in them to prevent this (the added benefit of the aerating is helping to smooth the drain lines out afterwards) .

As for the internal draining; the XGD drains are usually 4ft apart which means water has to travel 2ft in either direction to get to a drainline, which is an improvement but still not ideal. The best way to work around this issue is to modify the rootzone to a sandier medium so the water can travel this distance more easily. Unfortunately a soil needs to be 70-80% sand to have sandy tendencies so that’s a lot of aerating, vertidraining, drill &filling, Dryjecting or whatever type or combination is used to modify the soil profile. These practices are costly and inconvenience to play and unless it is approached aggressively will a long time to change the profile, however getting aggressive with this process for a year or so essentially means taking the course out of play and you may have possibly been better off rebuilding...

In summary I don't want anyone to think that XGD is a bad process it certainly isn't and it does provide immediate benefits. It is the best way to preserve an existing green (both contours and turf). It is a great short term fix and cost effective vs. rebuilding however to get the full potential out it the soil profile need to be modified also which takes time and money.

« **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:49:56 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 12, 2009, 07:06:00 AM

Ian:

I've heard about XGD for some years and have seen the herringbone lines in some greens (ex. right 9th at PV) but other than a basic drainage fix for old greens I don't know anything else about it.

Couple of questions;

1. Is it basically for old pushups where drainage has become problematic?
2. What are some of the common reasons drainage on old pushups generally becomes problematic?
3. Does drainage on USGA spec greens become problematic for mostly the same reason as pushups?
4. Has the XGD system been used on old USGA spec greens?

Tom Paul

To answer your questions
1. Basically!

2. The short answer is it all depends on how they were originally constructed and what soils were used. The biggest issue was back in the day most greens were designed to 'hold' water due to the lack of irrigation, as we all know the requirements and expectations of modern golfers were unimaginable in those days so now the greens can't easily cope with the added stresses we now add to them.

3. Again the short answer is no, it is usually due to bad management. Poor water management is a big issue as is thatch control (or more approtiately the lack thereof....).

4. I don't know anyone who has, however depending on the problem it might not make sense. If a USGA spec green fails to drain or locks up (and assuming the drain-tile underneath is still working) it is possible to drill and fill through the profile creating free draining channels into the stone which would be better than adding drains. However if the gravel is blocked (an example being if the specs were not met and the sand migrated into the gravel, blocking it) then there is no reason an XGD type system shouldn't work and depending on how good the USGA mix still is, it actually might work better than adding to a push-up green as the water can get to the drain lines easier.

« **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:00:21 AM »

I can't stand how on the website in the link entitled "About Us," it shows an image of a corrugated drainage pipe outletting an ENORMOUS volume of water into the basin, stream, or otherwise. I understand that they are only trying to be suggestive of how much water the system can remove from a given green, or series of greens, but this image is completely ridiculous, and perhaps irresponsible. I don't know where this image is taken from, or to where this water is outletting, but the implication here is that this system is capable of handling such volumes (to which I cannot accurately speak), and moreover, that there are zero downstream consequences when water is so quickly collected, channelized, and released.

I can appreciate the desire to quickly drain a playing surface (for reasons of turf health, playability, and even safety), but, unfortunately, the faster that water is collected and channelized, the more likely is the risk for downstream flooding, which is a concern for all of us. Many on board here might say that the golf is most important, but any of you whose golf courses are downstream from urban or suburban areas might understand the risks and further damage that can be done to a golf course by adding to the watershed during a rain event on account of impermeable surfaces.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:11:06 AM »

Steve,

Thanks for that. Very well put.

Joe

« **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:27:06 AM »

Steve Burrows:

That is a good post subject, but fortunately most who operate and administer to golf courses and their surrounding communities (certainly not necessarily the same people) understand that the one does not operate in a vacuum to the other when it comes to the movement (speed and volume) of water. If they don't realize that I'm quite sure either Mother Nature or the Army Corps of Engineers will inform them of it rather quickly.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2009, 12:25:24 PM »

XGD will take on that amount of water, if that amount of water is applied. That picture probably is an actual picture of an outlet with actual runoff from an XGD system. Im sure they wouldnt just use a stock photo that exagerates what they accomplish.

Regardless, its not irresponsible for them to use such a photo and its not irresponsible for them to be a company that drains water from greens. Everybody in this world is downstream and at the mercy of the upstream. But to get upset about that picture and shed the light of irresponsibility is brash and extreme. Water happens, and it gets drained. And after working with city and state officials on several golf course construction projects, golf courses are very responsible and held to a high standard with how they are designed to drain and where.

In SoCal flushing greens is a way of life for a superintendent. At LACC I experimented with several methods of flushing greens accompanied by thousands of dollars spent on water testing before it goes into the green and when it exits the drain. Creating an artificial rainfall with the same volume of water as depicted in that picture is not irresponsible and not polluting water going into the LA drainage system that gets processed and dumped into the ocean by the LAX. My reports showed no increase in phosphorus or phosphates, no increase in nitrates or heavy metals. They was however an increase in salts, which is exactly what I was trying to accomplish with the flush.

Like I said, water happens. And it gets drained. The drainage system on a golf course is no different than a drainage system on anything else. drainage systems are necessary. Golf courses are no more or no less irresponsible than the next guy with how they are drained and to say that picture is irresponsible is very presumptuous and inaccurate.

The reality is that in normal circumstances water that drains daily on golf course from irrigation is very minimal and not a threat to society downstream and shouldnt be looked at as a threat.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2009, 12:52:52 PM »

Alan, I have not seen this system. What size are the pipes, how deep, and what is placed over them? You stated that new sod is used. Is this washed sod or just grown on sand?

I would worry that the 2 different mediums would produce a varied putting surface with drier and wetter regions.

I agree that one must look at the tributary area to assess the system. Perhaps if this system was couple with that of a Blec Groundbreaker w/sand injection (a verticle slicer) runnning perpendicular (the blades are 10"oc.) it would greatly enhance the system and provide for a more uniform playing surface.

Much like the old Cambridge systems but without the little lateral tubes.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:30:24 PM »

Tim,

The same sod is used, not new.

No pipes are used.

Its just channels filled with sand.

Its tied into an existing drainage system in the green surrounds or day-lighted with an outlet at lower elevations.

A tributary would not have to be assesed for the system anymore than a standard USGA green or natural runoff design.

Something like your blec groundbreaker would not enhance the system nor provide a more uniform playing surface. The playing surface is as uniform as it was before the system is installed. A green is playable within days after installation. 18 greens can be done in a couple days.

Are you saying Merion and Oakmonts playing surfaces are not as uniform as they should be because they have XGD?

« **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:33:32 PM »

Do you have to handwater the drain lines at times?

And for folks with experience, are Oakmont's or PV greens better now that it's been in a while?

« **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:44:03 PM »

Ian, I was referring to the tributary are between the channels. By cross-slitting them, it would allow for a more uniform drainage pattern. By extrapolation a more consistant surface. I am not familar with Merion's greens but have played Oakmont's (though just before this occured). They were hard and fast - scariest greens I ever played. I realized the push-ups were a heavy clay soil and don't recall what the depth of topdressing was. I would hazard a guess that like most all push-ups, there is probably a pretty deep layer (otherwise why would they re-use the sod) - so this might mitigate a less than consistant subsurface moisture. However, I would still expect to see it drier over the channels that midway between them. The taner grass in the photo bears that out.

So, will a ball landing on a channel act the same as one landing midway between? I don't know.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:04:34 PM »

Tim,

"I would hazard a guess that like most all push-ups, there is probably a pretty deep layer (otherwise why would they re-use the sod) - so this might mitigate a less than consistant subsurface moisture. However, I would still expect to see it drier over the channels that midway between them. The taner grass in the photo bears that out."

...what do you mean there is probably a deep layer? Deep layer of what? Soil? Of course there is. With a push-up there is a deep layer of soil going all the way to China. The sand channels are not just a couple inches deep. Im pretty sure they go down as far as 12 inches. Thats all the deeper they need to go. Anything deeper than that is irrelevant.

Could a diiference in moisture levels be possible? Yes.

Would it be dramatic enough for a golfer to worry about? Absolutely not.

Is that difference in moisture going to effect playability with the ball? No.

You pointed out the picture at Oakmont with Tiger and the tan, visible XGD lines on the green....

Do you realize that picture is in the Sunday round of the US OPEN when the greens have been purposefully starved of water for over a week. Do you realize that the poa you are seeing has basically checked out? That picture is about as extreme of a circumstance you could ever get. Of course you are going to see that line when the ENTIRE green is dried completely out! The picture is in no way a good case for a bad example.

I think XGD's resume speaks for itself. Its not rocket science. Its simple french drainage. Its easy. Its quick. Cost effective. Shows instant results. And most importantly saves and preserves the old push-ups that suck at draining.

Im kind of shocked there has been more skepticism than praise about this on here....

« **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:16:32 PM »

...in reference to me being shocked about the skeptic responses....

My point with this thread was to compliment the original "Will push-up greens make a comeback?" thread.

Lets just take a look at the list of clubs on the portfolio of XGD.......

XGD™ - Projects Currently Under Construction

* Westchester Country Club,Rye,NY
* Turf Valley Resort,Ellicott City, MD
* The Toronto Golf Club, Mississauga, ON

XGD™ - Partial List of Clubs Completed, March 2009

NORTHEAST

Alpine Country Club,NJ
Ardsley Country Club, NY
Bonnie Briar Country Club, NY
Canandaigua Country Club, NY
Canoe Brook Country Club,NJ
Cochecho Country Club,NH
Cold Springs Country Club, NY
Connecticut Golf Club, CT
Easton Country Club, MA
Edgewood Country Club,NJ
Foxborough Country Club, MA
Glen Ridge Country Club,NJ
Hackensack Golf Club,NJ
Hopewell Valley Golf Club, NJ
Inwood Country Club,NY
Knollwood Country Club,NY
Ledgemont Country Club, MA
Little Mill Country Club, NJ
Meadow Brook Club, NY
Mendham G & TC, NJ
Navesink Country Club, NJ
Nissequogue Golf Course, NY
North Hempstead Country Club,NY
Oak Hills Park Country Club, CT
Oak Hill Country Club, NY
Old Oaks Country Club,NY
Orange Hills Country Club, CT
Orchard Park Country Club, NY
Park Club of Buffalo, NY
Pautipaug Country Club, CT
Pequot Golf Club, CT
Pine Orchard Y& CC, CT
Pine Valley Golf Club, NJ
Piping Rock Golf Club, NY
Quaker Ridge Golf Club, NY
Ridgewood Country Club,NJ
Rockrimmon Country Club, CT
Sands Point Golf Course, NY
Shaker Ridge Country Club, NY
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club,NY
Taconic Golf Club, MA
Tavistock Country Club, NJ
The Apawamis Club,NY
The Stanwich Club, CT
Tam O’Shanter Club, NY
Tuxedo Club,NY
Wheatley Hills Golf Club, NY
Winged Foot Golf Club, NY
Woodcrest Club, NY
Wolfert’s Roost CC, NY
Woodmere Club, NY
Worcester Country Club, MA

NORTHWEST

Pinehurst Country Club,CO

MID CONTINENT

Bellerive Country Club, MS
Bryn Mawr Country Club, IL
Calumet Country Club,IL
Chicago Golf Club,IL
Edgewood Valley CC, IL
Flossmoor Country Club, IL
Glen View Club,IL
Indian Hills Country Club, KS
Milburn Golf & CC, KS
North Shore Country Club ,IL
Pinnacle Country Club,AR
Twin Orchard Country Club,IL
Spring Lake Country Club,IL
Westmoor Country Club, WI
Wichita Country Club,KS
Village Links of Glen Ellyn, IL

NORTH CENTRAL

Barton Hills Country Club, MI
Battle Creek Country Club,MI
Beechmont Country Club,OH
Cascade Hills Country Club,MI
Camargo Club,OH
Chagrin Valley Country Club,OH
Edgewood Country Club, MI
Fairlawn Country Club, OH
Grosse Ile Golf & CC, MI
Idle Hour CC,KY
Lakewood Country Club, OH
Manakiki Golf Course, OH
Meadowbrook Country Club, MI
Oakland Hills Country Club, MI
Pepper Pike Club, OH
Pine Hills Golf Club, OH
Portage Country Club,OH
Scioto Country Club, OH
Western Golf & CC, MI
Westshore Golf & CC, MI

MID ATLANTIC

Aronimink Golf Club,PA
Baltimore Country Club,MD
Butler Country Club, PA
Chambersburg Country Club, PA
Chartwell Golf & Country Club,MD
Congressional Country Club,MD
Country Club of Culpepper,VA
Country Club of Scranton,PA
Fountain Head Country Club, MD
Fox Chapel Golf Club, PA
Greene Hills Country Club, VA
Guyan Golf & Country Club, WV
Maryland Golf & CC, MA
Meadowlands Country Club, PA
Merion Golf Club,PA
Norbeck Country Club, MD
Oakmont Country Club, PA
Parkersburg Country Club, WV
Philadelphia Cricket Club,PA
River Bend Golf & CC, VA
Rolling Hills Country Club, PA
Rolling Rock Club,PA
Saucon Valley Country Club, PA
Spring Haven Club, PA
Sunnybrook Golf Course, PA
US Naval Golf Course, MD
Westshore Country Club, PA
Woodmont Country Club, MD

SOUTHEAST

Chester Golf Club, SC
Fort Mill Golf Club, SC
Lancaster Golf Club, SC
Shipyard Golf Club,SC

SOUTHWEST

Del Monte Golf Club, CA

CANADA

Barrie Country Club, ON
Upper Canada Golf Course, ON
York Downs Golf & Country Club, ON
Cherry Hill Club, ON
Islington Golf Club, ON
Weston Golf & Country Club, ON
Essex Golf & Country Club, ON
Dalewood Golf & Curling Club, ON

......pretty impressive list of customers if you ask me.

Obviously the push-up greens at these clubs were not performing as well as they could be. Drainage was obviously a problem. Imagine for a minute that these clubs went the other direction and did complete rebuilds to a sand based green. This forum would blow up!

This just proves that this is an almost perfect option for the super to achieve good drainage in his greens and the original contours are preserved for eternity.

Im still shocked....

« **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:18:05 PM »

I also find it interesting that courses built on sandy sites have even used it. Pine Valley.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:21:01 PM »

Quote from: Ian Larson on March 13, 2009, 12:25:24 PM

XGD will take on that amount of water, if that amount of water is applied. That picture probably is an actual picture of an outlet with actual runoff from an XGD system. Im sure they wouldnt just use a stock photo that exagerates what they accomplish.

Regardless, its not irresponsible for them to use such a photo and its not irresponsible for them to be a company that drains water from greens. Everybody in this world is downstream and at the mercy of the upstream. But to get upset about that picture and shed the light of irresponsibility is brash and extreme. Water happens, and it gets drained. And after working with city and state officials on several golf course construction projects, golf courses are very responsible and held to a high standard with how they are designed to drain and where.

In SoCal flushing greens is a way of life for a superintendent. At LACC I experimented with several methods of flushing greens accompanied by thousands of dollars spent on water testing before it goes into the green and when it exits the drain. Creating an artificial rainfall with the same volume of water as depicted in that picture is not irresponsible and not polluting water going into the LA drainage system that gets processed and dumped into the ocean by the LAX. My reports showed no increase in phosphorus or phosphates, no increase in nitrates or heavy metals. They was however an increase in salts, which is exactly what I was trying to accomplish with the flush.

Like I said, water happens. And it gets drained. The drainage system on a golf course is no different than a drainage system on anything else. drainage systems are necessary. Golf courses are no more or no less irresponsible than the next guy with how they are drained and to say that picture is irresponsible is very presumptuous and inaccurate.

The reality is that in normal circumstances water that drains daily on golf course from irrigation is very minimal and not a threat to society downstream and shouldnt be looked at as a threat.

Ian,

My original point honestly has very little to do specifically with golf courses and their inherent runoff volumes, whether by way of natural precipitation or through irrigation/flushing, but rather with the notion that the speed and force by which the website suggests their product actually works is representative of the larger, more global problem of storm water management. I have participated in flushing greens in Southern California (which is clearly an appropriate way to manage turfgrass in that area, and I will certainly concede that the chance of harmful pollution on account of this practice is negligible, as your studies prove), but I have also been witness to the potentially destructive powers of rain water in an urban area (I am speaking specifically about the winter of 2004-2005 in Los Angeles, when I used to live there).

Golf courses are hardly the real problem, as they are but a small fraction of the urban fabric and, moreover, consist mainly up permeable surfaces that tend to allow water infiltration, whereas the bulk of runoff is collected in the city, but my contention here is that most stormwater management systems, including the XGD, are conceived and built as a means to increase, or speed up, the time of concentration of water during a given rain event. A truly responsible stormwater management system would actually attempt to SLOW down the time of concentration, whether by decreasing the amount of impermeable surface, attempting to keep more water on site, increasing soil percolation rates, by lessening, or completely eliminating the time and distance that water spends in a pipe, or by some combination of all of these factors (and surely others).

Unfortunately, most, if not all stormwater managment systems are well within existing city codes and standards and we therefore assume that everything is OK, that we are doing what we can and that floods are bound to happen. Part of this is true. Floods will happen naturally, but we are not doing everything we can, and further, every new construction and every new pipe that goes in the ground will potentially increase the possible damage, and should therefore be given even greater consideration as to their necessity in the landscape. Moreover, the codes and standards are often antiquated (in relative terms), and have not fully factored in the increase in urban growth and the subsequent addition of impermeable surfaces that often leads to inadequate stormwater management drainage systems. And again, I am not in any way singling out golf courses or even this product, but am instead trying to hint at the larger problem. These issues don't just concern individual parcels of land, or areas within city limits, or states; they concern entire watersheds, which is a concept that transcends these previously mentioned boundaries.

So yes, day-to-day irrigation drainage (and even the practice of flushing) is minimal and does not significantly impact potential downstream flooding, but a golf course, like every other square foot of managed land, must do it's best to decrease the amount of water that it releases out into the larger watershed, and that begins by way of more responsible stormwater management, even beyond whatever positive steps one might be currently taking.

« **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2009, 03:18:15 PM »

alright!

Ian Why are you shocked? I'm not sure what the skeptic responses are. What is your experience with it?

The system does work as is proven by the list of course you have posted, all I'm saying is that on it's own it is not a replacement for rebuilding. You are correct in that it preserves the existing putting surfaces while improving drainage and saves us from the issues of rebuilding classic greens, however to be truely effective it needs to be enhanced by improving the remaining soils also. As for PV, it is a sandy site, however the greens were not simply constructed of the native soil, remember they were built in a time where water retention was the goal.

Ian/Tim
When I saw it done there were pipes added (If I remember correctly they were 2"). The greens almost immediately turned around, again some drainage is better than no drainage.

Tim is correct in that it basically is a Cambridge system. The best way to make a Cambridge system work is to either add a sandy medium over the native soil (not really practical on a green) or modify the existing soil to drain better. As Tim said the Groundbreaker or any similar machine (again although probably a little too agressive for a green) would greatly enhance the system. This brings me back to my original point, while adding the drains is relatively indisruptive, improving the entire system is not easy, taking a long period or causing much disruption.

The reason for reusing the existing sod is all part of the preserving the existing putting surface. Most of these greens are poa or poa/bentgrass and a nice strip of fresh bentgrass every 4 ft is not very consistant...... Again reusing the existing sod is not ideal as it does restrict surface drainage necessitating the need for additional aeration on the drain lines.

As for seeing the lines as they dry out; of course this will happen, sandier soils dry out quicker than clayier soils, however it really is under the driest of times and it does require extra handwatering to help mask the difference. As for playability, unless you were putting directly down one of the drain lines no-one should notice any difference inplayability.

Jeff,

I can only refer to PV but their greens are greatly improved over their pre XGD conditions. If I remember correctly 14 green there took forever to dry out and now it is consistant with the others.

I'll say it again XGD (and these type systems) are great for adding drainage while preserving old greens, but should be remembered it takes more time, money and inconvience to play to make them as effective as possible.

« **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2009, 04:34:14 PM »

Alan,

Youre right they do use 2" pipes. I have never personally had this done or worked on a course where it was installed. Ridgewood had it done after I worked there. Ive got friends that work at alot of these clubs. The difference has been HUGE with the XGD.

But I have to disgree with XGD not being a replacement to rebuilding. It is. Most of the clubs on that list are not hard pressed for money. You know that they did their homework before going with this option versus rebuilding. XGD probably costs less than 25% of what a rebuild would cost. Hell, probably less than 10% of a rebuild.

If clubs are going the other route and using XGD, and the greens are very successful while costing less, you wouldnt call that a replacement?

I call that a homerun and a win/win situation for everyone involved...

« **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:03:28 PM »

We just put the XGD system into our greens last year.
14 were done last spring the conventional XGD way (sod removed, trenched, pipe placed, back fill w/7-2-1, sod replaced.
They started mid April and finished before Memorial Day weekend.

4 greens were rebuilt last summer. They were completely dozed and reshaped. After they were reshaped the XGD crew came back in and did a modified installation of their system. They trenched the channels and then the entire green was covered with the 7-2-1 mix. I think this was the first time they had done this.

So far the system on all the greens has worked really well and we're happy with what we are seeing.
We did see the lines last summer and had to hit them with water a few times. After the greens were fumigated and reseeded we did continue to see the lines during grow-in. Not that big of a deal.

It will be important for us to continue to aerate in the form of dryjecting, deeptining, etc to provide additional "channels" for water to migrate to the XGD system. This can not be overlooked.

Side note: As soon as the XGD crew was finished with a green, we double rolled and opened it for play. The members could hardly tell they were there. They do an incredible job putting the sod back perfectly. I was worried at first, but they were seriously top notch professionals about it.

I have great pics.....how do I get them on here?

Bryan Bergner
Assistant Superintendent
Westmoor CC

« **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2009, 11:19:43 PM »

Seem's to me all it is a fancy french drain system. Does anyone know what they charge for it. Just curious how much they charge for a "french drain system". I'm sure they chatge an arm and a leg for something that can be done really cheap.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 14, 2009, 09:49:29 AM »

Derek,

I don't know off hand what we paid for the installation.

I assure you that its not easy. These guys are good. But go ahead and try it yourself. Good luck

« **Reply #24 on:** March 14, 2009, 09:50:32 AM »

Alan FitzGerald:

Thank you for your good answers in Reply #6 to my questions.

News:

Ian Larson

Brent Hutto

TEPaul

Ian Larson

TEPaul

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

Steve Burrows

Joe Hancock

TEPaul

Ian Larson

Tim Nugent

Ian Larson

Jeff Goldman

Tim Nugent

Ian Larson

Ian Larson

Ian Larson

Steve Burrows

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

Ian Larson

Bryan Bergner

Derek Dirksen

Bryan Bergner

TEPaul

An Error Has Occurred!