The Australian Method of greens construction

[AStaples]

I'm interested to hear what you all think or know about this topic since my knowledge is limited at best.

I understand one method of greens construction developed and still practiced in Australia is a straight sand greens mix with out any organic or drainage, similar to our California method.  However, what they do is pick a local sand from the area and have it tested to find what the depth of the green basin should be to grow turf.  Depending on the physical makeup of the sand and the drainage characteristics, the depth could be inches or feet.

Can anyone expand?

Andy

[Don_Mahaffey]

There is no reason that kind of method wouldn't work as long as the mix was deep enough to cut a cup. The USGA method has been touted as the best method and a whole generation of supers has been trained to work with the USGA system, but in the end it's just a system for growing turf. A system tailored to local conditions, water quality, turf species would work as long as the super who built it also managed it. Problems might arise with the learning curve of new supers. One of the benefits of the USGA system is the consistency from course to course.

[Steve Okula]

A "straight sand" isn't a "mix".

Don's rigth again. (You must be a good super, I agree with everything you say).

Whatever the material, I don't see any advantage to ever going beyond a 12" (30 cm) root zone depth, though it could be less. The Sports Turf Research Institute (STRI) in England recently published some test results which suggest an 8" depth is actually ideal, except for getting the putting cup in.

The main thing is that whatever the depth it must be uniform, or you will have inconsistent wet and dry areas.

[Brian Phillips]

Don and Steve,

The USGA recommend a 30 cm depth at the moment but I know that architects in Britain at the moment are going for 25cm firmed.

What I have decided to do when a sand is just outside the USGA rec. is that I will send the sand to Ann Murray at European Turf Lab. in Stirling, Scotland (the only lab at the moment to give USGA rec. in Europe...STRI are applying now) and she will then give me the best depth to get the correct perc. rate etc..to USGA rec.

That then is recommended to the client.

I have used a pure sand greens in Norway but added a peat substitute called Fytofoam.  We built up the greens to USGA rec. but added this foam instead of peat and the results up now have been remarkable.

Admittably we also used the new A4 which also hepled.

The other thing with a pure sand green is the leaching.  I think it would cost more in watering and fertiliser but Don can probably answer that better than me.

I am now at the Oslo airport on my way to Helsinki to talk about it at a conference with constructors and greenkeepers in Finland..

[Neil Crafter]

Working here in Adelaide, Australia, we have our own little sand belt, along the coast stretching from Riverside in the north to Glenelg in the south, with Grange, Royal Adelaide and Kooyonga inbetween. Having built greens at all of these courses at one time or another (currently at Riverside and Glenelg), the method used is essentially push up greens of native sand, although at Riverside the super there uses an imported sand as the top 500mm. There is no drainage under the green at all and the depth of sand, depending upon the topography can be anywhere from 1m to 10m. No amendments are made to the sand, except for some preplant additives before sowing. Works pretty well agronimically and is very enjoyable to build this way compared to modified USGA with all its layers. However, outside of our sand belt its a different matter....!

Although I'd say that this could hardly be called an Australian method! Wherever there are sand based courses throughout the world chances are they have been built with sand push up greens.
cheers
Neil

[AStaples]

Don.

I'm curious then, why do you think more supers are not more proactive on trying different typres of greens construction?  I think I know your answer... I understand the USGA is ready to revise their specs for greens construction to, among other things, acknowledge that specs which vary from theirs do actually work, depending upon the area.  It just seems to me when there is such a push for affordable golf, the superintendents would be the perfect group to find new ways of doing things.

Andy

[Don_Mahaffey]

AStaples,
I doubt supers have much of a say most of the time. The Arch. and his consultants are usually the ones making the sand selection and choosing the construction methods. If a super does have input, he/she may not be willing to take the risk of going against the grain. But, does it make sense that a green built in a high rainfall area with warm-season turf has the same drainage characteristics of one built in an arid region with cool-season turf? To me, it doesn't. And if I can save money using less drainage, shouldn't I be recommending that? There are people who frequent this site who can share on this subject better than I, but, to answer your original question, I think it all comes down to assumption of risk and responsibility

[Michael Stachowicz]

Don.

I'm curious then, why do you think more supers are not more proactive on trying different typres of greens construction?  I think I know your answer... I understand the USGA is ready to revise their specs for greens construction to, among other things, acknowledge that specs which vary from theirs do actually work, depending upon the area.  It just seems to me when there is such a push for affordable golf, the superintendents would be the perfect group to find new ways of doing things.

Andy