News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Agronomy
« on: July 03, 2012, 06:57:35 PM »
 In the past couple weeks I have played 15 or so courses (11 in ireland).
Some were super high end , others as low end as it gets.
Not once did I encounter greens that were anything other than true,
Some were faster than others but all were true enough that putts could be read and made with regularity.
In fact i would say the slower greens required a better stroke and could support more undulation, making them more interesting.
The size of the greens' crews ranged from 30 to as few as one,
I NEVER saw an appreciable difference in green trueness or fun, although one could argue conditions off the green were more variable off the green on the courses with samller crews/smaller budgets.

How did we get here? and is golf more fun with more predictable perfect turf?
Anecdotally, the heat wave has made the unirrigated turf more predictable and more fun on the low budget courses.
as an aside, we recently opened a tee/short game area  with bluegrass turf rather than tight bent and I found it much more satisfying and confidence inducing to hit chips and pitches off a cushier lie than a super tight, hand mown approach (and I've got a very good short game)



Is agronomy making the game less fun, less affordable, and adding a layer we just don't need?
Has agronomy gotten ahead of skill? and is it driving the fun out and the cost up?
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2012, 07:40:04 PM »
Jeff

You thought Cashen's greens were true?  Maybe you lot spiked em up for us.  They weren't bad enough to single out especially, but I thought they were bumpy, fairly slow and inconsistent with speeds.  Nobody in our party was impressed with the greens, but nobody was particularly disappointed with them.  Lahinch's were the best on Sunday, but they weren't special. 

On your broader point I agree.  Its so rare I encounter superior greens that it is almost meaningless.  I think so far this year only once have I played on very well conditioned greens (Sutton Coldfield) and that was in the middle of winter! 

I am happy to go along with less is more.  I don't need pure greens rolling at 11 for premium prices.  What I focus much more on is firmness.  Everything else is for rich folk or wannabe club champions. 

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2012, 05:21:43 AM »
An interesting aside about agronomy. Recently visited two courses handled by the same architect and at the same time; about 10-years ago. One was a redesign of greens, bunkers and tees, a better known course, the other is a new-build, low budget affair.

The redesign of the better known course was in the hands of a company that has done a lot of work and has years of history in the golf business, the other by a local German company that had built a half dozen courses or so. The redesigned course has ample money, and many of their greens are surrounded by trees. The low budget course is in open farmland/moorland (peat), and has an annual budget of about 10,000 per hole. The low budget course isn't a beauty by any measure... but...

Which has the better conditioned greens?

The low budget course, and with far less money to throw at the course, their greens have surprisingly little poa. The better known course has been invaded by poa, and closes its greens in the autumn due to lack of sun and wind. Tells you a little about the importance of those two elements.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 05:26:28 AM by Tony Ristola »

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2012, 06:07:00 AM »
It sounds like the low budget course probably had less resources to throw on to the green like too much nitrogen or phosphorus that will promote poa.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 10:04:03 AM »
It sounds like the low budget course probably had less resources to throw on to the green like too much nitrogen or phosphorus that will promote poa.

That might be the case too, but they certainly get more wind and sun. The other course's greens have the unfortunate life of being cave dwellers, and from September to April, get about as much sunlight as a bear in hibernation.

I was provided an email from a superintendent in Germany that stated no fungicides or herbicides can be used on the course of any variety. It is a nationwide ban. The golf industry in the country obviously needs some type of lobby.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2012, 10:26:56 AM »
Jeff:

I ask the same question all the time at green committee meetings ... is the course any more fun, for all the money that's being spent?

I think we've been driven in that direction by committee chairmen and superintendents who always want to "improve" things, and who thought that adding 7% to the budget every year was not a problem.  And perhaps it wouldn't have been a problem, if the economy had really been growing at 7%, instead of the 7% being the bankers' cut and real growth around zero.

We got here because nobody on the green committee wants to stand up and say anything.  Of course, you could say the same thing for pretty much everything else in the world today.


Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2012, 11:58:23 AM »
Jeff,

Not surprisingly, Tom makes says it with few words and big impact.  "Of course, you could say the same thing for pretty much everything else in the world today."   Screw golf, let's talk big money.  Do 10 minutes of reading on the F-22.  $220M per jet, supercruise, stealth, thrust vectoring, unimaginable avionics.  What's that you say?  The pilots can't breath?  The oxygen system is junk?  Some "progress" huh?

It happens everywhere.  Pat Mucci has some good threads going about growing maintenance expectations driving turf conditions in a negative direction.  I have argued that he is ignoring some basic aspects of climate classification, but the ideas are sound.  It also has cost implications.  I know Don is busy in Nebraska, but I wish he would comment on how much it costs to be efficient with turf inputs.  I've heard more than one super say that it costs money to know exactly what the grass needs to both look good and play good (like NGLA or Ballyneal).  For every course that really gets it though, there are 20 that relatively blindly throw inputs onto the turf to either promote an aesthetic, or keep it alive during harsh conditions.

Think of it like beef.  I see alot of "Kobe" turf out there. There aren't many guys promoting "longhorn" turf anymore.  Is it progress?  
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 12:01:27 PM by Ben Sims »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2012, 12:02:45 PM »
Ben,
Since I don't know what "Kobe" beef is, I'll stick to burgers and Goat Hill for my own recreation
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2012, 02:22:47 PM »
Ben,
Since I don't know what "Kobe" beef is, I'll stick to burgers and Goat Hill for my own recreation


Probably only a couple dozen on GCA do know, since you can only get Kobe beef in Japan, despite the lies of a bunch of supposedly high starred restaurants in the US.  Whenever I see a place with Kobe beef on it's menu, I instantly rate the restaurant (and chef) lower, just as one might downrate a course if you see it advertised as "heavily wooded". ;D
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Agronomy
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2012, 02:48:52 PM »
Ben,
I'm home for the weekend but heading back tomorrow. Can I comment on how much it costs to be efficient with turf inputs? Not really as there are just too many variables to give any meaningful answer. I do think the simple question to ask when maintaining or building a golf course is, "does this expense make the golf better?". Its not always going to be an easy answer nor will everyone agree. If I spend the money on a foilar application that makes the course greener, some will say that makes the course better, others will say no. Same with building larger turf areas to hide mowing lines or more bunkers or bigger greens. There has been plenty written about the golf experience, the walk in the park, about playing the game across a beautiful landscape, so we know that is very important. But, when that beauty becomes forced, and adds great expense, does it make the game better? As a superintendent, or architect, or owner/member, that's the question that needs to be asked most often, at least its the one I'd be asking if I was writing the checks.
 
The only place I've ever been able to ask and answer that question by myself with almost no collaboration (in respect to maintenance) is at Wolf Point. And I think we get it right, but I doubt I'll ever have that sort of control anywhere else.  

Chris Tritabaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 11:26:06 AM »
This is a very interesting topic. Here in Minnesota golf courses have some type of winterkill just about every year. Some years it is devastating, some a minor annoyance. In the years when we see wide spread devastation to putting surfaces the course who are almost always suffer the worst of it are the private clubs. Why? Its pretty simple, they have always had the resources to do, do, do to their turf. Name a practice or a product and there is a good bet its been implemented at some time on the playing surfaces of the private clubs. Over time the result is Poa. The infiltration started slow many years ago and as technology improved, both mechanical and chemical, it lead private clubs down the road of a complete transition to Poa. Years ago any Poa that may have crept into surfaces was likely killed by the winter or a hot dry summer. As products and equipment became available it made keeping Poa alive achievable. The populations grew and with each passing year it became more and more important to nurture the Poa because it was the primary turf.

Now compare this with the low budget courses around Minnesota. Most of these courses are nearly all bentgrass (putting surfaces) and they generally survive the winter very well. Most of these courses have never had the means necessary to implement practices or use products which support and keep Poa alive. The greens have generally been "left alone" using fairly basic cultural and nutritional practices thereby keeping the bentgrass intact and the Poa at bay.

Turfgrass research and education programs are incredible but the downside is we slowly but surely became an industry in which do, do, do was the measuring stick of quality. I am not blaming the turf industry for what golf course management is today. It was a multi-faceted change with happened very slowly as turf management advanced and golfer demands increased. One of those changes that happens without anyone realizing what is going on.

The irony now is the number of products the turf industry is bringing forward to control or eliminate Poa. In my own opinion we need to get closer to the basic agronomic principles of years ago. Obviously golfer demands are never going to accept the playing conditions of those times but we can meld old-school agronomy with current technology to help us satisfy golf demands. This can make the maintenance of courses cheaper and again in my opinion, better.   

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2012, 01:08:21 PM »
Chris T,

winter kill is usual due to one of two things in my experience. Either the ground is thawed (often just the top inch or so) but waterlogged with an ice sheet on top leading to stagnation or excessive nutrients in the root-zone during the winter. The first is avoided by braking the ice on a regular basis. The second by low feeding programmes hence low budget courses being less effect. I worked at several alpine courses that had severe winter weather and rarely had any problems

Jon

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 01:54:41 PM »
Ten years back, here in DFW we had a winterkill problem of a different kind.  All the high end courses sprayed roundup to kill weeds while the bermuda was dormant (a pretty common practice) but there was a warm streak, the bermuda wasn't really dormant, and many of the high end clubs lost or had discolored turf the next spring, while the mid levels and low end were in great shape, albeit, with some weeds.

Point is, sometimes you do cause more problems in the pursuit of perfection.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Agronomy
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2012, 02:38:53 PM »
Jeff,

How old were the greens you played ?

Did their ages vary much ?

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2012, 01:41:34 PM »
Chris T,

winter kill is usual due to one of two things in my experience. Either the ground is thawed (often just the top inch or so) but waterlogged with an ice sheet on top leading to stagnation or excessive nutrients in the root-zone during the winter. The first is avoided by braking the ice on a regular basis. The second by low feeding programmes hence low budget courses being less effect. I worked at several alpine courses that had severe winter weather and rarely had any problems

Jon

I just spent an afternoon with the superintendent (Norbert Lischka) of Colt's Falkenstein in Hamburg. I met him the first time 17-years ago, and he had been at the club for about a year. He explained his ideas about managing the greens (and fairways) then and he's been able to carry these ideas through with tremendous success.

The greens are 85-year old push-ups (a few are 50) and have no drain tile, and the club was contemplating rebuilding them because they weren't performing. Norbert offered them another path, and lucky for architecture aficionados, they went with it because he saved the greens from being altered. I have little belief they would have been rebuilt faithfully, not today and certainly not 17-years ago. You just have to look around at what has been done to the few German classics.

Norbert had the greens deep drilled (40 to 50cm) and patiently filled each individual hole with a large, coarse sand. A couple shaded greens he drilled 5 times. He stopped verticutting. He stopped aerifying. He slices and spikes. He never uses a steel mat or synthetic brushes on the greens to work in the topdressing (every couple weeks or so), opting instead for dense but soft coconut mats. All the common practices have been halted because the are poa inducing agents; he puts a meager amount of Nitrogen on his greens a year, and he's been paintakingly converting the soft poa greens towards firm bent surfaces. There is no thatch. For that he thanks this program and a product called GreenSaver; he swears by it.

It had rained pretty heavily the night before and the greens were firm under foot.

I asked him about the need of agrostis to have ample nitrogen... myth he said. It's difficult to argue when the evidence is staring you in the face. His greens are healthy and the agrostis is taking over the poa. At most courses it's the other way around. The soil profile shows deep rooting, and the soil is devoid of compaction; it's like fresh European rye bread. It smells healthy too. I'll post pictures in a few days; in one of the photos you can clearly see where he stopped aerifying; about 12-years ago if I recall correctly.

He doesn't use chemicals on his greens. So my concern posted earlier was blasted out the window.

He has been actively reducing the amount of lumber on the course... allowing sunlight to get to greens and tees that were once shade stricken and paid the price for it. This has helped tremendously as there had been virtually zero tree management since the course opened.

Bruce Hepner was quoted years ago in Golf Course News saying (paraphrasing), that a good superintendent could make topsoil greens perform well. I questioned this, especially with heavy traffic, modern maintenance equipment and smaller surfaces. Norbert proved Bruce 100% right.

Norbert's once poa fairways are agrostis too. They're lean, not puffy, wet and soft.

Norbert is a real gift to German golf. He is showing the way forward; how to maintain courses cost effectively, but it's a bit of an uphill battle. His program and saving Falkenstein's greens from being rebuilt; those are two valuable contributions. The first green chairman who decided on letting Norbert pursue this path has to be given a tip of the hat too. The club surely had the resources to rebuild the greens if they wanted to.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 01:46:37 PM by Tony Ristola »

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2012, 04:38:45 PM »
Tony,

interesting story! I plan to play Falkenstein on August 27th, so I will be on the lookout for the things you mentioned.

Do you think this practice could also work on a low-budget course with 3-4 greenkeeping staff? Let's say something of the quality of your Artland course, but as a daily-fee course with more traffic?

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2012, 06:22:17 PM »
Tony,

great story and it should be highlighted. I do not think it will be however as there is no profit in it for the companies and therefore the various education institutes, researches and industry magazines.

Ulrich,

although you asked Tony I would suggest it should be possible if the playing area to ground condition ratio is correct.

Jon

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2012, 02:40:21 PM »
Hi Ulrich,
I think this would help ease some burden on courses with limited staff, and it does reduce expenses. I'll say this for Artland; the superintendent is a guy named Josef offers, and I'd love to have a guy like him at any course. He's done a fine job with a modest budget, and in the beginning a less than modest budget.

Jon,
I agree. It's not in the interest of some... though...

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2012, 02:54:30 AM »
I was shown an email some months ago about a ban for using chemicals on golf courses but have I've been informed/corrected both by one of our German Lurkers :) and a superintendent last week that the laws for using chemicals on German golf courses was altered, and there is usage permitted.





Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2012, 05:56:12 AM »
Tony,

I think you will find that in Germany it is a dwindling list of chemical pesticides that can be used. I suspect most of Europe will go the way of Denmark where the last I had heard so few chemicals were licenced that it was an effective ban. The result of this has been a rethink of greenkeeping methods in Denmark.

Jon

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2012, 04:41:15 AM »
Tony,

I think you will find that in Germany it is a dwindling list of chemical pesticides that can be used. I suspect most of Europe will go the way of Denmark where the last I had heard so few chemicals were licenced that it was an effective ban. The result of this has been a rethink of greenkeeping methods in Denmark.

Jon

Jon,
My German Lurker friend also cited Denmark.

How does one combat clover without a chemical application?

As an aside, farmers spray, and right up to the edge of ditches and wetlands, and often these products are consumed by humans and farm animals. Golfers walk on the grass, they do not consume it. The applications are minimal compared with farming... as is fertilizer. It's not used to provide spurts of growth but to keep the plant healthy.

If I owned a golf course I'd want minimal chemical and fertilizer usage too (cost reduction; lean turf), but there are times when the use of medicines in small quantities may become necessary. Not having that option seems a wee bit drastic. Compared to farming, land usage for golf in Europe must come close to a statistical zero. The golf associations need do a better job informing the public and politicians... don't you think?

I read about 10+ years ago that a University of Florida study revealed that if a person played golf everyday for seventy years, his chemical exposure level would be one-third below federal ‘no-effect’ levels! Now I'm sure Florida courses use more chemicals than European courses.

Golf courses are covered in a fibrous mat of grass, and the microbiological activity in the top layer of the soil breaks down much of the chemical. Then there is the root mass to clean the remainder.

For the reasons above it is no surprise that water quality improves when a golf course is built atop it. In Bavaria I built a course bordering a Wasserschutzgebiet (protected watershed). The golf course property was previously farmed, and they did regular water quality testing before and after. The locals were surprised to discover an improvement in water quality. This opened the door wide for the project to be expanded.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 04:44:13 AM by Tony Ristola »

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2012, 04:50:09 AM »
Environmentalists are very strong in Germany and I think in the grand scheme of things this is a good thing. Of course it is a bit of a hassle for golf course builders or operators, but there have been some encouraging projects. The environmental benefits and drawbacks of golf courses are beginning to be known.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2012, 04:55:19 AM »
Tony,

I would also like to know how to control clover without chemicals so if you find out let me know. On the other side I don't see a problem in having a certain mix of turfgrass and weeds in the playing areas on a golf course.

Jon

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2012, 10:21:14 AM »
Tony,

I would also like to know how to control clover without chemicals so if you find out let me know. On the other side I don't see a problem in having a certain mix of turfgrass and weeds in the playing areas on a golf course.

Jon

Nor do I, but I'd like to know what do you do when clover starts invading greens? Left to its own, it will surely move into the greens; I've seen it... creep from fairway to apron to green. I'll take a photo next week.

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Agronomy
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2012, 10:40:15 AM »
If it's not widespread, you can cut the clover out. If it is, then you can put a plastic sheet on top of it. Clover needs more light and air than the grass does, so you can basically suffocate it and keep the grass barely alive. Might take about four weeks. Verticutting is good for clover prevention.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back