The 'Failure' of Greens

[Ryan Coles]

In an agronomic sense, what does this actually mean?

I've seen it said that a USGA recommended construction has a life of about 25 years. What happens in say year 30 etc?

Ditto many course agronomic reports describe old push up greens as failing due to age. What is it at 80 years old that wasn't prevalent at 50 years old?

What are the symptoms of failure and can these not be overcome / mitigated with maintenance practices?

[Mike_Young]

Ryan,
My gut says people have backed off the USGA green a little.  In the south an old USGA green is perfect for the new ultradwarfs since the bermuda likes water closer to the top.  In the past some supts used "worn out USGA green" as an excuse and some archies used USGA spec as a way of professing better perceived quality than the ones not specifying such.  But the way I see it if a USGA green is not built with parallel layers then it doesn't work anyway and there are plenty where guys adjust in the final top layer thus destroying the theory.

[Ian Andrew]

I've seen it said that a USGA recommended construction has a life of about 25 years

The lifespan chart - was put out by more than the USGA - is one of golf's worst documents
I think there's enough great examples to suggest greens don't have a lifespan.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ryan,

with USGA the problem is that fines tend to block up the rootzones ability to drain and because of the lack of micro-organisms there is nothing to combat this. In my opinion ( and many disagree) USGA build is so flawed for the UK climate that it is always doomed to fail. I would add that in the right climate, with the right grasses it might be a perfectly good choice however.

Much better is building with so called dirty sand. As long as the percolation rates are okay it will provide a far superior growing medium. Its long term performance I suspect is dependent on the climate on the one hand and on the long term maintenance on the other. There is no reason why it should not work just fine much longer than 80 years though this is thought to be the maximum age fescue plants will last with regular overseeding it is irrelevant. 

Jon

[Doug Siebert]

I know absolutely nothing to comment on how long USGA greens can or should last, but the idea that the organization that claims to want to "grow the game" would recommend a construction style for greens with a lifespan that short is utterly criminal!  Talk about ways to make the game unnecessarily expensive....how much would it cost to have to replace greens every 25 years, including the opportunity cost of lost business?  Sheesh! 

[Steve Okula]

Ryan,

with USGA the problem is that fines tend to block up the rootzones ability to drain and because of the lack of micro-organisms there is nothing to combat this. In my opinion ( and many disagree) USGA build is so flawed for the UK climate that it is always doomed to fail. I would add that in the right climate, with the right grasses it might be a perfectly good choice however.

Much better is building with so called dirty sand. As long as the percolation rates are okay it will provide a far superior growing medium. Its long term performance I suspect is dependent on the climate on the one hand and on the long term maintenance on the other. There is no reason why it should not work just fine much longer than 80 years though this is thought to be the maximum age fescue plants will last with regular overseeding it is irrelevant. 

Jon

The USGA green construction recommendation is specific about limiting fine particles in the mix to less than 10%. A correctly constructed USGA green will not have drainage problems. Here is a link to the specifications:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/course-care/2004%20USGA%20Recommendations%20For%20a%20Method%20of%20Putting%20Green%20Cons.pdf

That is not to say a USGA green is necessarily the best method for all situations.

This is the first I've heard of micro-organisms "combating' fine soil particles. How does that work?

I would say a green "fails" when it is incapable of sustaining plant growth sufficient to provide an acceptable playing surface. There is no fixed period of time for the lifespan a green, USGA or otherwise. A poorly constructed or maintained green may fail the first year, or a green may be good for a century or longer.

[Tom_Doak]

I've seen it said that a USGA recommended construction has a life of about 25 years

The lifespan chart - was put out by more than the USGA - is one of golf's worst documents
I think there's enough great examples to suggest greens don't have a lifespan.

Absolutely.


Wasn't the genesis of the lifespan chart to set an accounting standard for depreciating certain portions of a golf course construction project? 


Only after that did it morph into an agronomic "standard" so that contractors or architects or superintendents could tell a green committee that the feature was past its sell-by date, to try and twist their arms into spending more money on reconstruction [and consulting fees].

[Bill_McBride]

We built our new course in Pensacola in 2005 after Hurricane Ivan with TifDwarf greens. Last year, ten years later, we replaced them with TifEagle.  I suspect this is a lot more common than 25-30 years which was the old paradigm. 

[Jon Wiggett]

The USGA green construction recommendation is specific about limiting fine particles in the mix to less than 10%. A correctly constructed USGA green will not have drainage problems. Here is a link to the specifications:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/course-care/2004%20USGA%20Recommendations%20For%20a%20Method%20of%20Putting%20Green%20Cons.pdf

Steve,

the fines come from outside sources not the original mix.

Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

This is a timely thread as I've been reading around this very subject. I found this interesting...

http://aggca.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/usga-greens-and-emperors-new-clothes.html

[Kyle Harris]

Ryan,

with USGA the problem is that fines tend to block up the rootzones ability to drain and because of the lack of micro-organisms there is nothing to combat this. In my opinion ( and many disagree) USGA build is so flawed for the UK climate that it is always doomed to fail. I would add that in the right climate, with the right grasses it might be a perfectly good choice however.

Much better is building with so called dirty sand. As long as the percolation rates are okay it will provide a far superior growing medium. Its long term performance I suspect is dependent on the climate on the one hand and on the long term maintenance on the other. There is no reason why it should not work just fine much longer than 80 years though this is thought to be the maximum age fescue plants will last with regular overseeding it is irrelevant. 

Jon

This is the first I've heard of micro-organisms "combating' fine soil particles. How does that work?

And it won't be the last time you hear it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

USGA spec can varie. I still use the 87 Spec for all the greens I have built, though we have gone off tangent a bit at Greys Green.


As long as the materials conform there should be no problems...Ever. A USGA green will compact far less than a traditional one and the principle of a USGA green will work the same where ever you are in the world. 25 years is BS.


As long as you top dress regularly with straight sand (using the same sand as the rootzone component) you will dilute the decaying matter on the same basis as the rootzone. Use rogue sand and you will get into problems.


USGA and heavier sand constructions require different methods and skills from soil greens, but I would need to type 200 plus pages to tell you.


If greens fail then I can only see extreme toxic levels of chemicals or compaction or thatch build up so bad that the most sensible way is re-construction. On the other hand if your greens are wet and retaining moisture ie; soil greens they can be changed to a sand construction green in about 160-200 working hours,strip turf, remove the soil, replace the drains, replace with a new rootzone, then returfing with the same.

[Ben Lovett]

If you are almost USGA specifications you are not! USGA specifications!
I'm in a situation where we are close to USGA specifications but not exactly, I'm of the belief that the root zone we have and grasses planted would perform better without the 2 gravel layers installed
I have no complaints of current performance I just think it would be better

[Adrian_Stiff]

If you are almost USGA specifications you are not! USGA specifications!
I'm in a situation where we are close to USGA specifications but not exactly, I'm of the belief that the root zone we have and grasses planted would perform better without the 2 gravel layers installed
I have no complaints of current performance I just think it would be better

I think the most important thing is a conforming rootzone mixture but that relates mainly to percolation rates, which in turn relates to particle size and perhaps even particle shape and stabilty of. It obviously works at many golf courses throughout the world where they use what they have, so I think its just degrees of perfection having a full USGA conforming mixture. It is going to drier if you sit the mix on gravel and it also works quite well with herring-boned drains spaced at 5 metre intervals. I don't know why the gravel and grit layer should worry you Ben- What is the spec of it?

[Jaeger Kovich]

Jon

This is the first I've heard of micro-organisms "combating' fine soil particles. How does that work?

And it won't be the last time you hear it.

I'll bite. This is one of the most interesting topics to me right now. I'm totally buying the concept, but I have so many questions. I feel like I keep getting the 100 level class.

[Ben Lovett]

Adrian
It doesn't worry me, I just feel we would have better performance without it.
Our sand is fine and holds moisture where I need it when you add in a gravel layer and a perched water table it holds too much water.
It seems that by adding a gravel layer to the Belek native sand you are actually slowing down the drainage

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian
It doesn't worry me, I just feel we would have better performance without it.
Our sand is fine and holds moisture where I need it when you add in a gravel layer and a perched water table it holds too much water.
It seems that by adding a gravel layer to the Belek native sand you are actually slowing down the drainage

Ben - It strikes me that is more of a problem of the fine sand. The gravel will speed the water away quicker than if it was just on the sub-base. Do you know what the Dvalues are of three layers?

[Grant Saunders]

Infiltration rates of a sand green will only ever be as fast as the slowest layer of the profile. In pretty much all cases this is the top 50mm where organic matter accumulates.

I suspect most greens fail through management practices that create a rapid accumulation of organic build up which in turn limits both air and water movement into the profile.

Also interesting is the fairly recent work exploring the solidification that can occur in the sand layer immediately above the gravel carpet. Early thoughts point to ferrous sulphate as the possible cause.

[Ben Lovett]

Adrian,
Sorry i don't have any of the values.
Belek is pure sand, all my greens are are sieved native sand on a gravel layer.
We have no sub base its just the same sand thus the addition of the gravel layers is actually slowing down drainage.
Even with the gravel layer the drainage performs extremely well
Its just my feeling that due to the published USGA spec people are driven towards installing gravel layers, sometimes when not needed!
For me I would always err towards a dryer root zone when working with bent grass in warm climates which goes against most peoples logic

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben if you think logically that water will pass quicker through a large hole versus a small hole it can't be the gravel or grit. If the gravel or grit is failing it has changed. That can only be clogging, bearing in mind Belek is new. If your diameters between the rootzone and grit are wide that could be it. Original Diameter sizes between the layers were recommended at 6-10 with the 87USGA spec but they have widened this I think to 5-15 in the latest spec. If your percentage of fine sand is more than 20% of your rootzone mixture it may be the sand.


The perched water table should work as 1 drop on 1 drop off. You should use less irrigation water with a USGA green, but you should still pass large quantities of water quickly. It seems something is wrong if using the same sand for a non USGA green would pass water quicker.

[archie_struthers]

 




It was quite a long time ago thatUSGA green section first theorized that old/ push up greens had a shelf life of x and were ultimately doomed to failure. In the last thirty five years superintendents and I'm guessing the USGA section have modified their doomsday beliefs dramatically. 


The reason in part at least has been the green guys ability to modify the soil strata of these greens without impacting play as much. Whether it be by drill and fill, use of various small and deep tining , improved drainage methods etc, etc, , our guys have achieved spectacular results .


Better still we're not just talking plastic surgery but real overall health of the plants they cultivate . My hats off to them , one and all!


Perhaps the bureaucracy that is the USGA just moves a little slowly in changing positions that could dry up some dollars flowing into the coffers. Don't get me wrong they have definitely been at the forefront with the superintendents , but might just be lagging in communicating a previously inviolate postulate .


But of course Tom Doak said this earlier but framed it differently .

 






 

[Peter Galea]

Infiltration rates of a sand green will only ever be as fast as the slowest layer of the profile. In pretty much all cases this is the top 50mm where organic matter accumulates.

I suspect most greens fail through management practices that create a rapid accumulation of organic build up which in turn limits both air and water movement into the profile.

Also interesting is the fairly recent work exploring the solidification that can occur in the sand layer immediately above the gravel carpet. Early thoughts point to ferrous sulphate as the possible cause.

Grant nailed one cause: Iron layering




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHT43mt2rLo

[Ben Lovett]

Adrian,
The courses here drain incredibly well, even after several inches we will be open within half and hour of rain stopping and even let buggies out.
This is from a research paper out of Penn State
 
 
 
 "The placement of the coarse sand layer beneath the finer sand particle root zone mix disrupts the continuity of water flow and promotes a perched water table. The root zone layer must become entirely saturated before gravitational drainage occurs."
With a straight sand push up green there would be no disruption to the water flow and thus no perched water table and I believe a drier root zone
For bentgrass greens there would be some sort of logic to believing you will get more consistent moisture over the whole green and would be suited to the very hot summers we get here
For the other courses here which are mostly Bermuda grass the greens are completely over engineered!
   

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

As mentioned above, the 25 year life span was mainly an accounting age for depreciation. USGA greens can fail for a multitude of reasons, however, most, if not all failures can all be traced back to bad maintenance practices.


If a USGA green is built and maintained properly it can last indefinitely.


Aeration is key. Regular physical soil tests by companies like ISTRIC will ensure that the amount of organic build is known. Using this information core aeration & topdressing can be adjusted to keep organic build up under control so the green drains as it should.


Water and soil chemical testing will ensure that salts and mineral build ups are kept in check and not at toxic levels. Regular flushing helps remove mineral build ups.

Lastly the drains and outfalls need to be checked to ensure the water can get out and that 'sewer' gasses can't don't get trapped and build to toxic levels which can also lead to turf loss.


As for USGA greens not performing well in the UK. I think there are two reasons on why a lot of them haven't performed well over there - one is(was) a lack of understanding on how they work and the second is the climate. The greens are designed to get rid of large amounts of water while still retaining some moisture for turf growth. IMO there isn't enough heavy rain in the UK to naturally flush them and clean out the system which results in them not working properly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Years ago, I recall a USGA rep who surveyed all the courses with massive green failures (dead greens) in the country.  It averages 1-2% of all courses, and in nearly every case, there is a correlation to weather (excessive drought, flood, heat or cold). 

There was little correlation to green construction type. (sometimes, new USGA greens are droughty and a new maintenance regimen might be part of the struggle, as would some other factors on push up greens, but they are rare in both cases)

There were also very few instances of superintendent error (accidently spraying round up instead of some other chemical, etc.)  But, there was a higher incidence of clubs firing supers for just that, but they were probably looking to fire them anyway, and used that excuse to do it, regardless if it was fact......