[Kyle Harris]

Why isn't this debate more public? Or did I miss it?

Very few developers know that there are serious, deep disagreements about USGA specs. They assume the specs are inscribed in stone tablets never to be questioned.

This debate needs to be publicly aired with back and forths from competent people on both sides of the issue. Real world people need to know that USGA specs are not a settled matter.

Bob

Bob:

I think they problem is that what is public for the laymen and what is public for the tradesman are two different things. Various journals, including the USGA's own, outline the positive and negative aspects of the Spec Green, the purpose for using them, etc.

How many developers read the Green Section Record each quarter?

[Ian Larson]

A perched water table is the simple function of water being retained in the root zone for plant use over coarse gravel that could be retaining no water at all...bone dry or at field capacity the roots will always have plant available water in the micro pores while macro pores are draining water.

The native soil around a green could be absolutely bone dry and the super could still have plant available water on his green only. The surrounding native soil could be at field capacity after 20" of rain and the USGA green can be draining more efficiently and independently than the waterlogged native. This is why a hole is dug. This is why a consistent sand and gravel spec is put back in. Independent performance from the surrounding area.

And the key to this is "independent", no matter what the conditions are outside of the green surface...the green will be retaining a consistent volume of plant available water in the root zone as well as evacuating any excess water beyond that. That in itself creates a huge reliance on the dependability of the performance of the root zone which is why people in the industry trust it and would rather put their money and their reputation on a growing medium that is consistent and reliable from day one.


If it is the architects place to determine what and how the greens are to be constructed then he needs to be liable for the future performance or lack their of and sign off on it to be legally contracted. An architect builds a course, gets his check and moves on with little to nothing to do with the day to day issues of the green keeper growing grass in droughts and deluges. Who's ass is it when problems occur with greens?

Kyle,
Yes, there are variables but basically I'm in agreement with Mr. Suny, especially about the "sterile" environment. USGA greens just lead to so much extra cost including maintenance costs. By their very design you have to use more water than the plant needs, because you've got a water table formed between the sand and gravel that you have to break before you actually drain. Not to mention you may not have enough organics or "life" in the sand to break down harmful compounds (I believe this problem is overstated by environmental activists). So now you have to devise all sorts of catchment deals...and on and on. As far as fertility the USGA method has driven a hydroponic approach to fertility where we view the sand as nothing more than a plant anchor. No longer a soil we feed which in turn feeds the plant, no now we have to apply all sorts of specialty products that are "plant available" instead of letting nature do what she does a whole lot better than we can. So, more water, more specialty fertility, more environmental problems...

Don,

Sand that is spec'ed to be consistent in size and shape with the proper amount of organic is hardly sterile and does not require more water and fertility. The water table is nothing more than water sitting in the micro pores of the soil profile....its perched because its over gravel that doesn't retain water. And more water doesn't need to be applied to make it drain. Its a balance between macro pores and micro pores for retaining and draining. How is a sand used for USGA spec any more sterile than a native sandy site? I dont see how anything in that post is accurate.

Kyle:

Our USGA agronomists were very insistent about a number of things.

I do not see your explanation of the merits of a perched water table as a "benefit".  Indeed, I now think less of them, because it just occurred to me that having a system where you keep the green near saturation point, is probably one reason so many courses are overwatered.

And, I think that Armen is also saying there are a lot of variables to turf quality, and the one-size-fits-all approach of USGA construction is just not the best solution to all those variables.  I would not go so far as him as to say that it is NEVER appropriate, but I would make somebody justify to me why spending an extra $300,000 to $500,000 on the USGA method is the thing to do in a given situation.  And so far, you would not have convinced me to part with my money.

Tom,

A USGA green is not kept near saturation point. Its merely retaining water in the micro pores which is far from being saturated. If you really studied what a USGA is and what it does for what you wanted to accomplish you would see that it is no different than what you want to accomplish with native soil. You want to have retaining capabilities while freely draining at the same time.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I know Armen well. He'll be very pleased that his blog article is instigating this type of thought and discussion on a very important topic.

Further to Art's comments, the greens at Sagebrush were constructed with amended sand. The green cavities feature no gravel and no sub-surface drainage, as per Armen's recommendation. For whatever it's worth, I played Sagebrush last September after having a hand in building nearly every green there. They were amazingly good putting surfaces, suffering from no significant problems (granted, 2009 was year one).

Investigating the best green construction method for individual properties - whether it's USGA or an alternative method - is very, very important for many of the reasons already mentioned here, and more. Funny, of the last four projects I've worked on, only one of them - a renovation job, where it was determined to be the "safe thing to do" - features USGA greens.  

[Ian Larson]

No gravel layer under the growing medium means no perched water table....just water.

[Kyle Harris]

No gravel layer under the growing medium means no perched water table....just water.

I don't believe this is completely the case, Ian.

Any differentiated layer will have some aspect of a perched water table due to the difference in infiltration rates. The gravel layer simply affects how much water the growing medium is able to retain over time.

It's all a calculus problem - related rates and such.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

I must admit that when we were building the greens at Sagebrush, (Rod Whitman and) I were immediately concerned about lack of drainage in the cavities. But Armen isn't... at all. He's quite convinced that, under the site specific circumstance at Sagebrush, the greens will be fine, as built, through proper management.

Significant cost-saving was realized at Sagebrush; and, we were presented a lot of artisitic latitude when finish grading... which is nice.

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

The USGA would not like that.  They have defended these specs over time, even as they have tinkered with them a bit over the years.  They certainly never come on TV during an Open and point out that "these greens are not built to USGA specs" ... although they have managed to convince Pebble Beach to change theirs.  And somebody should ask them if their little course around Golf House has USGA greens ... I'll bet they found it unnecessary due to cost concerns.


I always figured that one of the main reasons for USGA specs was to make it easier for contractors to build courses with modern construction equipment.  The principal value of sand greens is not that they are sterile, but that you can run a bulldozer over them repeatedly without worrying about compacting the soil.  If you're building out of native soils that aren't very sandy, compaction is a big issue.  But if you are using Armen's method, it sounds like you're still bringing in the same greens mix, you just aren't putting in a gravel layer and trying to perch the water table.  (That's what we did at High Pointe.)


Ian:

If you're going to rely on the "I'm an agronomist and you're not" argument, then remember you are arguing with Armen Suny, too ... and he is only just now declaring himself an architect.  

I think I have worked for four or five clubs that insisted on rebuilding their greens to USGA specs.  Usually it was the superintendent telling the members this was the solution, backed up strongly by the consulting USGA agronomist.  The last two times, I told the superintendent that we would do the work, but it was probably going to wind up getting him fired ... and indeed it did, because he didn't have experience maintaining those sterile sand greens, and because the members thought that for their million dollars, the greens ought to be perfect right away.

I've also worked for some clubs [including SFGC and Yeamans Hall and Mid Ocean] where we rebuilt some or all of the greens, but not to USGA specs, because the superintendent was on the same page as I am.  In contrast, all of those guys are still happily employed at their clubs.

By the way, I never thought that the USGA greens were really meant to be maintained near saturation point ... it was Kyle's explanation of the benefits that made me think some superintendents might misinterpret it that way.

And also, by the way, if it has just rained 20 inches somewhere, I think it's only natural for the greens to be a little bit wet.  If the greens are firm and fast while the approaches and surrounds are mush, that doesn't really play very well, either.  And if you really want it all to be perfect, for what you spend on the drainage and sub-air for the USGA green, you could probably put good sand out around the green as well.

[Kyle Harris]

Ian,

I must admit that when we were building the greens at Sagebrush, (Rod Whitman and) I were immediately concerned about lack of drainage in the cavities. But Armen isn't... at all. He's quite convinced that, under the site specific circumstance at Sagebrush, the greens will be fine, as built, through proper management.

Significant cost-saving was realized at Sagebrush; and, we were presented a lot of artisitic latitude when finish grading... which is nice.

I think it'd be constructive to discuss Sagebrush and those variables, if you're willing and able, Jeff.

Are the greens designed for surface drainage? What sort of soils are used for the growing medium? What is the fertility program? What disease pressures are present?

What sort of climatological data is available?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

Point of clarity. I meant to say the USGA Spec allows us to know the point of saturation, not that they are to be maintained at that point.

When the soil is at saturation point, the water is not plant available. Field Capacity is the maximum point at which the water in the soil is plant available. Saturation is when 100 percent of the macropore space is filled with water.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Point of clarity. I meant to say the USGA Spec allows us to know the point of saturation, not that they are to be maintained at that point.

When the soil is at saturation point, the water is not plant available. Field Capacity is the maximum point at which the water in the soil is plant available. Saturation is when 100 percent of the macropore space is filled with water.

Kyle:

Why is it important to know what the saturation point is, unless you take the greens to it every so often?  Why would you ever want to be there in maintaining a course?

Indeed, doesn't the USGA recommend periodically "flushing" the greens, which means saturating them?

Do you not think there are some superintendents who water their greens more than the turf needs, because players want the greens to "hold"?  And is not the USGA green a system where you can get away with overwatering the green?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

Point of clarity. I meant to say the USGA Spec allows us to know the point of saturation, not that they are to be maintained at that point.

When the soil is at saturation point, the water is not plant available. Field Capacity is the maximum point at which the water in the soil is plant available. Saturation is when 100 percent of the macropore space is filled with water.

Kyle:

Why is it important to know what the saturation point is, unless you take the greens to it every so often?  Why would you ever want to be there in maintaining a course?

Indeed, doesn't the USGA recommend periodically "flushing" the greens, which means saturating them?

Do you not think there are some superintendents who water their greens more than the turf needs, because players want the greens to "hold"?  And is not the USGA green a system where you can get away with overwatering the green?

Are you growing the greens in a bubble or is knowing they got an inch of rain in the past week and could only take another half inch not useful?

[Ian Larson]

Tom,

Im not relying on the "I'm an agronomist and you're not" argument at all. Armen's article is ridiculous and way tooooo easy to debate. I don't care who he is or what top 100 club hes been at because it doesn't matter. Soil science is soil science.

"Flushing greens" is not a USGA thing either. Its a broad agronomic function that I would still do to your greens if they were in an area with little rain and salts being a factor. The reality is I would have no reservations at all about flushing a USGA green. If I were mainatining one of your push-ups...its alot more difficult.


Kyle,

The gravel layer has zero affect on the water holding capacity of a growing medium. The gravel layer acts as an equalizer in the water pulling pressure across the greens soil profile. And then it is there to quickly evacuate the water away from the growing medium and into the drains. Its not meant to hold water nor does it dictate water held in the growing medium. Sand that is spec'ed to a consistent size and shape with a percentage of organic is what dictates the water holding capacity of the growing medium.

A water table can only be perched when a higher volume of water is held in the rootzone above a lesser volume of water below. A USGA green retains plant available water in the micro-pores above a coarse gravel that does not retain water.

Whats the rule of thumb for how water flows through soil? It always travels the path of least resistance. It will always go to pockets of air...the gravel layer is that pocket of air that it will always travel towards through the profile.

When you have a push-up green where is the water table? How deep? And where does the water want to travel when its in the soil? Where is that air pocket it wants to find? It could be anywhere. And chances are it will be inconsistent.

[Mike_Young]

Well..so far this topic still allows my old theory to hold up....
Hire the best supt you can and he will grow the grass on the parking lot....
There is too much propoganda out there on this topic and it is amazing to me how many really fall for it....

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
I read enough of your stuff to know there is very little you and I will ever agree on and I have no problem with that at all. We have two different approaches to golf maintenance. Maybe you couldn't or wouldn't do it my way, but I, and others do. And please no name dropping or list of courses where you are an expert and know all the practices that go on to prove your point. Let’s just agree to disagree.

It is my opinion that USGA greens have very little buffering capacity, especially when they are young. Because of that we are constantly doing things to try and get them to act like a soil green. The converse is, with soil greens we sometimes are always trying to get them to drain like a USGA. It’s a complex problem and not easily solved especially by being close minded and dismissing someone like me who has been at it for a while.

[Kyle Harris]

Ian,

I don't believe you understood my complete sentence.

over time being the qualifier.

The problem I see with your explanation is that it does not explain the phenomenon that occurs when water attempts to flow through two different layers of media. With or without the gravel layer, the rate of infiltration between two different layers will be different and water will be suspended due to this change. This is amongst the reasons why black layers are so good at causing hydrophobic conditions - the water can't penetrate the different layer of organic matter! This is also why one must be very careful with top dressing media as different types of top dressing will ultimately cause layers through the profile - hampering the consistent infiltration of water through the profile and playing hell with the rootzone.

Isn't the above essentially why the choker layer was removed from the spec?

Tom,

There's another advantage of a spec green (or at least something we learned from the USGA Spec). We know what material to use when top dressing!

[Tom_Doak]

Are you growing the greens in a bubble or is knowing they got an inch of rain in the past week and could only take another half inch not useful?

If it rained an inch in the past week, why are you even thinking about watering the greens?  


I'm retiring from the thread.  Ian is back to "soil science is soil science" and Dave Wilber probably has better things to do than get involved here.  Thanks to Armen for bringing it up, though.

[Ian Larson]

Don,

Believe it or not you and agree with more than what we lead on to in posts on here. Well, Ill speak for myself say I agree with you more than what you think. If i have a sandy site with native push-up greens what is the difference compared to a USGA? You've got sand and organic. You want to retain nutrients with some water and drain excess water. I dont think its accurate to just say USGA greens require more water and nutrients and are an environmental concern because of it.

Everybody always gets a hardon at GCA when sandy sites are mentioned and how the greens are pushed up and shaped with the native. How is that sand any more or less sterile than a USGA? How is it any more or any less permeable by water than a USGA? Is nutrient retention and water holding capacity not a concern on a sandy site but it is for a USGA spec? If so why?

USGA or native soil...the nutrient buffering capacity is up to how much organic and clay is present. A native sand / soil can very well have a less buffering capacity than a USGA.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I read enough of your stuff to know there is very little you and I will ever agree on and I have no problem with that at all. We have two different approaches to golf maintenance. Maybe you couldn't or wouldn't do it my way, but I, and others do. And please no name dropping or list of courses where you are an expert and know all the practices that go on to prove your point. Let’s just agree to disagree.

It is my opinion that USGA greens have very little buffering capacity, especially when they are young. Because of that we are constantly doing things to try and get them to act like a soil green. The converse is, with soil greens we sometimes are always trying to get them to drain like a USGA. It’s a complex problem and not easily solved especially by being close minded and dismissing someone like me who has been at it for a while.

Don,
Another thing about using and recommending USGA greens....you can wear all those ribbons on your blazer at the GCSAA show....remember the associations stick together....they perpetuate...and do you ever see those ribbons on blazers of supts that don't push USGA greens...
Note:  I also saw where the new Gucci loafer has a Vibram sole to wear when speaking at your next turf conference

[Jim_Kennedy]

The USGA came out with their method of green construction fifty years ago, and not for any nefarious reason.....

http://www.hort.usu.edu/PLSC4800/resourses/jan23/USGAGreenHistory.pdf

.....so why does Armen feel the need at present to rip the USGA a new one? .....and when he proceeds to tell us the 'concept' behind the USGA method he gives us this disclaimer: "What I am about to expound upon is part conjecture and all opinion on my part"

Armen's not an anarchist, he's just trying to present his method of greens construction as better than the USGA's. Maybe it is better, I don't know, but it seems like the USGA's method is pretty portable and can be used most anyplace you wanted to construct a green, produce similar results in any of those places, and be maintained in a more standard fashion which might make it easier for superintendents.

[Ian Larson]

Armen...

"High Performance Push Up Green Method

Core Out Green to 8-10 inches below grade
Rough up or rip subsurface
Install drainage, Herringbone and smile drains in all runoff areas
Fill Drainage trenches with pea gravel
Install green mix or sand, amendments can be tilled in.

This method of construction will perform very well under adverse conditions. The tighter the subsoil, the more rainfall received and the poorer the water quality the closer the drainage spacing.

Lesser environmental demands will require less intense construction methods. I have built greens nurseries on native soils and then topdressed them. They always performed better than the USGA greens. I have seen greens built on native soils which were ripped and then capped with a few inches of sand that have out performed USGA greens in the same region. Every agronomic situation is different but in my opinion none of them need USGA greens.

Green mixes need to have life in them. The sterile environment that the USGA has dictated for too long is just bad agronomics. It is reductionism and the application of an engineering solution that is silent and even disdainful of the life that soil must have to be productive. It is hydroponics. We create a sterile soil with no nutritional reserves and then wonder why we have odd patch diseases for the first three years. If we add life and nutritional reserves to greens mixes through the incorporation of composts, natural organic fertilizers and inoculants, we will have healthier turf and need less pesticides.

Has anybody ever considered the pollutants in the leachates from USGA greens compared to pushup greens? We should voluntarily mandate that we won’t put this contaminated leachate into drainage ways.

Now that you’ve read this, shouldn’t the Emperor put on some clothes? Shouldn’t we as responsible professionals use our expertise and experience to design region and site specific green construction methods that perform better, cost less to build, and pollute less? Perhaps the USGA can worry about square grooves and leave the greens construction methods to us. We won’t cause the average golf round to cost $6 more per round."


Yeah, that sounds like high performance to me. Its sounds exactly like a USGA green without the gravel.

"Core Out Green to 8-10 inches below grade
Rough up or rip subsurface
Install drainage, Herringbone and smile drains in all runoff areas
Fill Drainage trenches with pea gravel
Install green mix or sand, amendments can be tilled in."

So he is still calling out to core out the green and filling it with green mix or sand. What exactly is he doing different than the USGA? And what does HIS green mix or sand consist of in size and shape that the USGA is missing? Does he use a "high performance mix"? And when he uses the word "sterile" is he forgetting about the peat and organics that are added to greens mix? Or is his different? I'm sure I can remember using greens mix that had roughly 15-20% peat mixed in every time I've done a USGA green. And I'm sure we also added the amendments and tilled as well.....has he ever built a USGA green?

Will this get the job done? Yeah.

Is it higher performance than a USGA spec? No....he needs to work on his marketing.


Armen's method will work. But without the gravel layer and a shallower profile more time is needed for water to be evacuated and become a non-issue to the root-zone. Doing the standard herringbone system without a gravel layer in between means that water needs to find the drain lines all by itself and take more time doing it because it will travel a longer distance until its evacuated. Some will scoff at that but in a USGA the water only has to travel downwards 12" until it is evacuated and a complete non-issue to the root zone. Armen's method is calling for the water to travel down 10" and then make its way across the subsurface plain until it hits a drain line. A USGA gravel layer eliminates that which speeds up the process. While the first line of water is finding its way another rain event could occur and just pile up on top of that and fill the tub. This method is more prone to saturating the root zone quicker than a USGA. The lack of drainpipe is just another element that slows it down. Drainpipe in a pea gravel trench is just another big macro-pore that creates the biggest air pocket in the system to increase water hydraulics. A 4" drainpipe will increase the hydraulics more than with just pea gravel...it will also evacuate water quicker than water running through pea gravel in trench. This method will be cheaper and get er done but its certainly not a "higher" performance than a USGA spec.

[Ben Sims]

Are the new Champion Bermuda greens at Old Waverly, USGA spec?  I know Atlanta Athletic Club, East Lake have also changed to Champ 'Muda.  

Curious to know given the supposed reasons they scrapped their Bent....

[BCrosby]

I have nothing to add to the substance of this debate, but it seems to me that there is a philosophy 101 confusion going on here.

USGA green specs might be a sufficient condition for good greens. But they are not a necessary condition.

There's been a lot of confusion about USGA greens - particularly among laymen. My guess is that the root of that confusion is that people think a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.

Ergo, people think you gotta build to USGA specs. That is, they think that if USGA green specs are a sufficient condition for good greens, they must also be a necessary condition.

Which, of course, is just wrong. I'd also guess is that the USGA green section does not go out of its way to clarify that confusion among laymen.

Bob

[Ryan Farrow]

If it is the architects place to determine what and how the greens are to be constructed then he needs to be liable for the future performance or lack their of and sign off on it to be legally contracted. An architect builds a course, gets his check and moves on with little to nothing to do with the day to day issues of the green keeper growing grass in droughts and deluges. Who's ass is it when problems occur with greens?

Ian, I don't see how you can blame an architect for choosing a construction method when the supers and agronomists can't even agree on the "science".

[Mike_Young]

I have nothing to add to the substance of this debate, but it seems to me that there is a philosophy 101 confusion going on here.

USGA green specs might be a sufficient condition for good greens. But they are not a necessary condition.

There's been a lot of confusion about USGA greens - particularly among laymen. My guess is that the root of that confusion is that people think a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.

Ergo, people think you gotta build to USGA specs. That is, they think that if USGA green specs are a sufficient condition for good greens, they must also be a necessary condition.

Which, of course, is just wrong. I'd also guess is that the USGA green section does not go out of its way to clarify that confusion among laymen.

Bob

from the USGA REcord...nothing scientific about it  

These Guidelines encompass a method of green construction in which the Green Section has the utmost confidence. Greens built according to this plan have been widely accepted by golf course superintendents nationwide. More important, though, is the praise these greens are receiving from golfers. That is ample reward for the scientists and superintendents who have worked toward this goal during these 30 years.

This article is adapted from an article first published in the Green Section Record, May/June 1990.

[Mike_Young]

If it is the architects place to determine what and how the greens are to be constructed then he needs to be liable for the future performance or lack their of and sign off on it to be legally contracted. An architect builds a course, gets his check and moves on with little to nothing to do with the day to day issues of the green keeper growing grass in droughts and deluges. Who's ass is it when problems occur with greens?

Ian, I don't see how you can blame an architect for choosing a construction method when the supers and agronomists can't even agree on the "science".

Ryan,
I meant to respond to Ian earlier re this....
I call BS on his entire statement.....for those of us that build and leave an no control over some owner hiring an incompetent supt.  You have a lot on the line as an architect....I had one owner who kept the same supt for 10 years..he sprayed beer and pepsi on his greens every monday and told the owner the greens had no drainage....and the owner was so protective of the guy because he had been at his private club in ATL as the guy in charge of flower beds...so could not argue.....greens would die every year.....we would get the blame and it continued for 10 years....when the owner finally had to ask me an opinion after the supt left....I showed him 18 green outlets that had been sealed/covered/stopped up and other things.....when we opened them up the water that escaped was unbearable smell wise.....greens were fine in two weeks....
So don't give me that crap about the archie going on down the road...this business is like all others ..the guy who has the boss's ear the most will always rule in most cases....and sadly that is often someone that has no clue....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()