Maintenance: American versus Scottish approach?

[Lou_Duran]

Wow, some jump here Joe, from a few mostly benign, targeted chemicals pretty tightly regulated to unenlightened industrial dumping of many decades ago.  What ever happened to the libertarian leaning Joe I met many years ago?

But to your point (I think), dealing with externalities is a vexing issue made more so by the imbalance of supply relative to demand in the legal profession and by the human characteristic of wanting more for less (or better yet, nothing).  The typical overreaction is that I can't even get a few ounces of heavily diluted MSMA to treat the thriving weeds in my yard.  They seem to like all the organics and natural alternatives (but I've played golf with Howard Garrett- "The Dirt Doctor"- and he would say that I am just not doing it right and should buy his book).

I suppose that not being able to control pests is a better option than poisoning my neighbor, but that's not quite what we are talking about here, right?  One of the things I enjoy about playing golf in many different environments is the abundance of flora and fauna often encountered.  There are probably few industries which are as good stewards of the environment as golf.
   

[Martin Lehmann]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Joe,

I think this hits the nail on the head. Besides all necessary 'agronomistical' changes (getting rid of poa, clearing trees, reducing water, raising mowing heights, introducing biological products and other measures to improve growing conditions for stronger and more disease resistent grass cultivars), the real challenge is to change the way golfers look at golf courses. In my country, and most other parts of Europe, the future focus of golf clubs will have to be more on re-educating golfers and on 'management of expectations' than on green keeping...

[Jon Wiggett]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Joe,

I think this hits the nail on the head. Besides all necessary 'agronomistical' changes (getting rid of poa, clearing trees, reducing water, raising mowing heights, introducing biological products and other measures to improve growing conditions for stronger and more disease resistent grass cultivars), the real challenge is to change the way golfers look at golf courses. In my country, and most other parts of Europe, the future focus of golf clubs will have to be more on re-educating golfers and on 'management of expectations' than on green keeping...

+1

[Sean_A]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Joe,
I think this hits the nail on the head. Besides all necessary 'agronomistical' changes (getting rid of poa, clearing trees, reducing water, raising mowing heights, introducing biological products and other measures to improve growing conditions for stronger and more disease resistent grass cultivars), the real challenge is to change the way golfers look at golf courses. In my country, and most other parts of Europe, the future focus of golf clubs will have to be more on re-educating golfers and on 'management of expectations' than on green keeping...

+1

+2

I am not in the least bit worried about how the game of golf will manage with tighter restrictions. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s will recall that courses were often not in the best nick in terms of weeds and dead spots etc in fairways and it didn't seem to matter much.  I play a lot of golf in these conditions today....the solution is to move the ball rather than expect every lie to be spot on.  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a well presented course as much many, but its not the reason I land on the 1st tee.  I accept that courses should follow seasons, climate and budgets, but if a course doesn't meet my expectations I don't return....its that simple.  That said, I am far more likely not to return to a course because of a lush environment of trees and rough or poor drainage than due to weeds and dead spots. 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Lou,


I’m sorry, but every once in awhile somebody slips the soapbox under my feet and I (often unwisely) start sharing my opinion. I just happen to be one who thinks golf tries way too hard (and I understand....it’s a money thing) to do things that is percieved as golfers needs, when really things are done because someone wants to. I just happen to think golf would be healthier AS A GAME if less was done.


As you know, I used to own a daily fee course. Of all the stories I have from those days, my favorite one is this:


I had really dried out and leaned out the course over many years, and one day a group of regulars wave me over. They were having trouble making their wedge shots stop on a particular green, and told me the green needed to be watered. So, I asked for a ball, and plucked a 6 iron out of one of the gents’ bags. Fortunately, my attempt to run the shot in from 100 yards stopped about 3 feet from the cup, and I slipped the club back in his bag with a grin on my face. One of the gents asked me “do you expect us to play golf like that?” He could not have asked a better question, and what an open door to a teaching moment! I replied “I think you guys will have a blast golfing like that. Let’s meet back here in a week and see how it’s going.” One week later, they were having the best time trying shots they never imagined, and accepted what I was trying to do agronmically as a benefit to their enjoyment, which is what all this is really about.

[Adam Lawrence]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Joe,
I think this hits the nail on the head. Besides all necessary 'agronomistical' changes (getting rid of poa, clearing trees, reducing water, raising mowing heights, introducing biological products and other measures to improve growing conditions for stronger and more disease resistent grass cultivars), the real challenge is to change the way golfers look at golf courses. In my country, and most other parts of Europe, the future focus of golf clubs will have to be more on re-educating golfers and on 'management of expectations' than on green keeping...

+1

+2

I am not in the least bit worried about how the game of golf will manage with tighter restrictions. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s will recall that courses were often not in the best nick in terms of weeds and dead spots etc in fairways and it didn't seem to matter much.  I play a lot of golf in these conditions today....the solution is to move the ball rather than expect every lie to be spot on.  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a well presented course as much many, but its not the reason I land on the 1st tee.  I accept that courses should follow seasons, climate and budgets, but if a course doesn't meet my expectations I don't return....its that simple.  That said, I am far more likely not to return to a course because of a lush environment of trees and rough or poor drainage than due to weeds and dead spots. 

Ciao

+3. But I think the most important thing to realise is that this will BE GOOD FOR GOLF. Golf will be BETTER for being lower cost, more natural and having fewer inputs. This is not, or at least should not, be a question of golf vs environment. The truth is that it is win/win -- what is good for the environment is also good for golf. We just need to convince golfers of that

[Kyle Harris]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Joe,
I think this hits the nail on the head. Besides all necessary 'agronomistical' changes (getting rid of poa, clearing trees, reducing water, raising mowing heights, introducing biological products and other measures to improve growing conditions for stronger and more disease resistent grass cultivars), the real challenge is to change the way golfers look at golf courses. In my country, and most other parts of Europe, the future focus of golf clubs will have to be more on re-educating golfers and on 'management of expectations' than on green keeping...

+1

+2

I am not in the least bit worried about how the game of golf will manage with tighter restrictions. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s will recall that courses were often not in the best nick in terms of weeds and dead spots etc in fairways and it didn't seem to matter much.  I play a lot of golf in these conditions today....the solution is to move the ball rather than expect every lie to be spot on.  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a well presented course as much many, but its not the reason I land on the 1st tee.  I accept that courses should follow seasons, climate and budgets, but if a course doesn't meet my expectations I don't return....its that simple.  That said, I am far more likely not to return to a course because of a lush environment of trees and rough or poor drainage than due to weeds and dead spots. 

Ciao

+3. But I think the most important thing to realise is that this will BE GOOD FOR GOLF. Golf will be BETTER for being lower cost, more natural and having fewer inputs. This is not, or at least should not, be a question of golf vs environment. The truth is that it is win/win -- what is good for the environment is also good for golf. We just need to convince golfers of that

+4 +1

[Ryan Coles]

-1


In the UK, poa is indigenous on heavier inland soils. We can all have a big group hug and congratulate ourselves how sustainable we are, but about 40% poa sward is about the best anyone ever achieves in the UK on clay, where the majority of golf is played by the masses. Look at Wentworth first time round, and look at how it will be again in 3 years time. New greens every 5 years is hardly sustainable. You can't beat poa in certain climates on certain soils - No one ever has. Even at 40% poa you're doing a lot of top dressing, overseeding and aeration. You're just swapping expensive inputs for other expensive inputs.


Tea brew all you want, but at heights required for putting, in certain climatic conditions, the poa will become diseased and if late in the year, it won't grow out until the following spring.


I'd rather have a few fungicide apps every year when necessary and keep members and customers happy. The EU are very good at being sustainable with other people's money.


My home course is full of wildlife in the middle of the City. Ban pesticides and fungicides to the extent that maintaining turf fit for play isn't viable and it will soon be concreted over for Tesco and houses. That'll certainly keep the poa out.


The comparisons to the 70's aren't really the issue. When you see the damage worms and birds will do to courses without Carbendazim or equivalent, you're not talking rough round the edges, you're talking playing surfaces being decimated.


Next time you're all in St Andrew's have a look at Granny Clark's Wynd across the 18th. Ask yourselves why there are worm casts all along the edge of the path and none in the fairways at the home of sustainable green keeping.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

I’m sorry, but every once in awhile somebody slips the soapbox under my feet and I (often unwisely) start sharing my opinion. I just happen to be one who thinks golf tries way too hard (and I understand....it’s a money thing) to do things that is percieved as golfers needs, when really things are done because someone wants to. I just happen to think golf would be healthier AS A GAME if less was done.

No need to be sorry.  You opine very well from your soapbox and should not shy from hopping up there more often.

I am a F & F guy myself, but also enjoy variety and options.  Perhaps you live in a different world, but in mine, I most often see operations which try to do more with less and typically underperform.

I don't know what golfers' "need", but most operators are well-advised to learn what their customers want and are willing to pay for.  Me, I prefer that the price/cost system/market economics determine what products are provided than leave it to the dictates of a government entity.  If the good folks in the EU are willing to cede their choices to a bureaucracy and that is good for golf as suggested, it is "Win-Win".  I would not bet the farm on it.     

[Jon Wiggett]

-1


In the UK, poa is indigenous on heavier inland soils. We can all have a big group hug and congratulate ourselves how sustainable we are, but about 40% poa sward is about the best anyone ever achieves in the UK on clay, where the majority of golf is played by the masses. Look at Wentworth first time round, and look at how it will be again in 3 years time. New greens every 5 years is hardly sustainable. You can't beat poa in certain climates on certain soils - No one ever has. Even at 40% poa you're doing a lot of top dressing, overseeding and aeration. You're just swapping expensive inputs for other expensive inputs.


Tea brew all you want, but at heights required for putting, in certain climatic conditions, the poa will become diseased and if late in the year, it won't grow out until the following spring.


I'd rather have a few fungicide apps every year when necessary and keep members and customers happy. The EU are very good at being sustainable with other people's money.


My home course is full of wildlife in the middle of the City. Ban pesticides and fungicides to the extent that maintaining turf fit for play isn't viable and it will soon be concreted over for Tesco and houses. That'll certainly keep the poa out.


The comparisons to the 70's aren't really the issue. When you see the damage worms and birds will do to courses without Carbendazim or equivalent, you're not talking rough round the edges, you're talking playing surfaces being decimated.


Next time you're all in St Andrew's have a look at Granny Clark's Wynd across the 18th. Ask yourselves why there are worm casts all along the edge of the path and none in the fairways at the home of sustainable green keeping.

Ryan,


whether you like it or agree with it the ban on pesticides is coming and you will have to learn to either move with the times or like the luddites of yesteryear be left behind. No one is saying it is all roses but it certainly is not as difficult at you make out. The days of using poisons is happily coming to an end and you can either learn to move with the times or become irrelevant.

[Adam Lawrence]

-1


In the UK, poa is indigenous on heavier inland soils. We can all have a big group hug and congratulate ourselves how sustainable we are, but about 40% poa sward is about the best anyone ever achieves in the UK on clay, where the majority of golf is played by the masses. Look at Wentworth first time round, and look at how it will be again in 3 years time. New greens every 5 years is hardly sustainable. You can't beat poa in certain climates on certain soils - No one ever has. Even at 40% poa you're doing a lot of top dressing, overseeding and aeration. You're just swapping expensive inputs for other expensive inputs.


Tea brew all you want, but at heights required for putting, in certain climatic conditions, the poa will become diseased and if late in the year, it won't grow out until the following spring.


I'd rather have a few fungicide apps every year when necessary and keep members and customers happy. The EU are very good at being sustainable with other people's money.


My home course is full of wildlife in the middle of the City. Ban pesticides and fungicides to the extent that maintaining turf fit for play isn't viable and it will soon be concreted over for Tesco and houses. That'll certainly keep the poa out.


The comparisons to the 70's aren't really the issue. When you see the damage worms and birds will do to courses without Carbendazim or equivalent, you're not talking rough round the edges, you're talking playing surfaces being decimated.


Next time you're all in St Andrew's have a look at Granny Clark's Wynd across the 18th. Ask yourselves why there are worm casts all along the edge of the path and none in the fairways at the home of sustainable green keeping.

Ryan,


whether you like it or agree with it the ban on pesticides is coming and you will have to learn to either move with the times or like the luddites of yesteryear be left behind. No one is saying it is all roses but it certainly is not as difficult at you make out. The days of using poisons is happily coming to an end and you can either learn to move with the times or become irrelevant.

Jon is correct, I think. Golf is a tiny little speck on society's radar, and it isn't reasonable or realistic to expect special treatment. It is for golf to figure out how to deal with society's constraints, not for society to exempt golf from them.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was watching golf on tv long before I ever played the game, and for an unlettered outsider like me it was the Open championship that most taught me what golf was all about, ie what most characterized the game itself and how to play it. I'd tune in (during the always hot and humid Toronto July days) and see, one year, cool wet, windy weather and sweaters and nice green grass, and the next year, under a bright sun, shirt-sleeves and a brownish baked-out landscape with golf balls that bounded along for 50 yards after hitting the ground. Nothing to do with this topic, I suppose -- other than to suggest that to an urban-bound youngster golf seemed the most *natural* of all sports/games, and one in which what the weather did to you and to the golf course actually determined how you *played* the game.
A tougher game that way, played the way it was supposed to be played on courses that naturally changed with the seasons. But sure: if we today can *pay* for whatever it is we want/prefer/demand all of this  must seem like nothing more than sentimental hogwash.
Once upon a time, golf courses used to shape golf games -- ie Trevino had one type of game, playing off Texas hardpan, and Nicklaus from Scioto had another, and Peter Thompson yet another and Gary Player and Bobby Locke still others; nowadays it is *our golf games* that shape/design and maintain the golf courses. Pooh to that, I say. It sure feels antithetical to the very spirit and nature of the game.

[Ryan Coles]

Jon and Adam


I think that is a very coastal / elitist view.


To hell with the masses and the courses they play on, ours will be just fine.


Why should we be complicit and compliant against what is happening? We should be banging the drum for the habitats and preservation we already provide.


Get with the times? Why should we? Who voted for them exactly? We should rally against such nonsense and fight golf’s corner. Not surrender meekly cos we’ll be ok Jack.

These restrictions merely serve to drive up costs and inputs due to the r&d invested in circumventing them.

This thread is a microcosm of what we see all the time. Legislation from those who have no idea of the implications on the ground. The chattering classes, largely unaffected debating the merits. Those impacted and impinged written off as in need of education and not knowing what’s good for them.


No thanks.



The same ‘sustainable’ bods happily advocate taking down dozen of trees and removing the numerous benefits these provide.

Take things to the logical conclusion as set out here and all golf courses would be left to NLE and grassed over.


Some pragmatism and common sense required. Existing Golf courses are a force for good.

[Terry Lavin]

I just wish you folks would speak your minds!


Just kidding. I love it.

[Keith Phillips]

I don't know Ryan Coles, but he has my proxy. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Jon and Adam


I think that is a very coastal / elitist view.


To hell with the masses and the courses they play on, ours will be just fine.


Why should we be complicit and compliant against what is happening? We should be banging the drum for the habitats and preservation we already provide.

Ryan,


I don't think that Jon and Adam are being in the least elitist - merely realistic.


If the vastly more powerful agricultural lobby cannot resist the tide of change regarding chemical inputs on the land, what chance does golf have? There is no way in the world that golf courses are going to be made a special case.


The idea that golf courses are a force for good in preserving and maintaining tracts of land for wildlife is an attractive one - for golfers! I'm not convinced that it is a winnable argument with the public at large.


I am sure that the vast majority of Bristolians would be perfectly happy to see Knowle GC become a public open space on the edge of the city rather than a private club for a few hundred relatively wealthy members. Just as most Stopfordians would be delighted to see Reddish Vale GC subsumed by the surrounding Country Park.


And don't even get me started on the growing pressure to find land in suburban areas for house-building. No golf course in such an area is completely safe from the covetous gaze of the developer and planner.


Sustainable golf is the way forward. Our forebears built many inland golf courses on land that was not entirely suitable for golf. As the climate undeniably gets wetter and less extreme, this unsuitability becomes more pronounced. Those clubs with the ability to manage their course to a good standard in a sustainable manner will thrive. Those unable to do so will fall by the wayside.


I'm not sure that is is altogether a bad thing.

The same ‘sustainable’ bods happily advocate taking down dozen of trees and removing the numerous benefits these provide.

Nobody advocates cutting down trees for the sake of it.

However, many of the problems for which chemicals have been used to "resolve" are caused primarily by tree growth blocking airflow and sunlight from the grass. Fuserium rarely occurs on open sunny windswept greens.

Trees are indeed wonderful things which bring immeasurable benefits - so long as they kept in the right place!

[Jon Wiggett]

Ryan,


throw all the misguided names and insults you want. It does not and will not change the facts on the ground (or in the ground). I am truly shocked that anyone working in the turf maintenance industry in Europe can even think in the way you do. Yes there will need to be some adjustments to what players expect courses to look and play like but the VAST majority do actually get it. On a final note it is more than possible to produce very acceptable playing surfaces using no pesticides on inland, clay based courses.




Duncan,


I think one of the most important things the RV has done for the quality of the course has been to remove so many trees. It is not always easy to persuade a membership to remove trees but as you have noticed yourself it does go a long way to improving the course.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ryan,


I saw a thing on Facebook recently about the air ambulance coming out to Knowle. There was a photo of the green in question.


I couldn't believe the trees around that green!  Whoever thought that a horseshoe wall of leylandii was a suitable backdrop for a green?


Jon,


It has been a colossal political battle. However, the majority of members now seem to understand the benefits. We've got contractors in this week clearing trees. I'l post some photos shortly - you'll be amazed!

[Grant Saunders]

While the reduction in chemical inputs is largely inevitable, and in my opinion not a bad thing, I think people are largely mistaken about the impact this will have on the cost of golf.

Don't expect to see a sudden acceptance in reduced quality of surface by golfers. Where once herbicides were common to tackle weed issues I believe there will be a shift to more isolated treatment and therefore hand labour tackling the problem.

For those that think the cost of a few agrichemical applications ramp up the costs, stop and consider the extra $$ in having to hire more people.

[Thomas Dai]

If/when things go a bit pear shaped maintenance wise with the various bans it'll be interesting to see the response of those who've taken up the game since the 'green is good' times started to arrive.

Unlike those of us of a certain age vintage, who may have played back in the day when a lot less maintenance was the norm and colours varied more with the seasons, have these 'youngsters' expectations become so blurred by the greenness and lushness such that they'll give the game up if/when maintenance standards drop back a peg or two or will they still embrace it and carry on playing?


I wonder how TV schedules and viewer numbers will 'see' golf as well. Bright green does look nice on the TV, varied speckled colours perhaps make less enticing viewing.

atb

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,


I saw a thing on Facebook recently about the air ambulance coming out to Knowle. There was a photo of the green in question.


I couldn't believe the trees around that green!  Whoever thought that a horseshoe wall of leylandii was a suitable backdrop for a green?


Jon,


It has been a colossal political battle. However, the majority of members now seem to understand the benefits. We've got contractors in this week clearing trees. I'l post some photos shortly - you'll be amazed!

Duncan


I’m not sure. They’re older than I am. There’s a picture in the Clubhouse before they were planted and I think the hole looks much better without them.


I’m not against tree removal either. I believe in helping the turf.


I merely highlight trees, which you deem perfectly ok to remove thus destroying the habitat and food source they provide.


Yet on the other hand you’re holier than thou about pesticides and fungicides which due to costs are used very sparingly anyway by the majority of Clubs.


You don’t see the irony of boasting how sustainable you are whilst at the same time the contractors are in ripping out trees during nesting bird season?

[Ryan Coles]

If/when things go a bit pear shaped maintenance wise with the various bans it'll be interesting to see the response of those who've taken up the game since the 'green is good' times started to arrive.

Unlike those of us of a certain age vintage, who may have played back in the day when a lot less maintenance was the norm and colours varied more with the seasons, have these 'youngsters' expectations become so blurred by the greenness and lushness such that they'll give the game up if/when maintenance standards drop back a peg or two or will they still embrace it and carry on playing?


I wonder how TV schedules and viewer numbers will 'see' golf as well. Bright green does look nice on the TV, varied speckled colours perhaps make less enticing viewing.

atb

Dai


I don’t really think green keepers are that upset about weeds and keeping things lush and green. The main impacts are when surfaces are destroyed by worms and crows. Day after day.

The elite will be able to experiment with the best agronomic advice and innovation such as nematodes which is hugely expensive and hit and miss.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,


throw all the misguided names and insults you want. It does not and will not change the facts on the ground (or in the ground). I am truly shocked that anyone working in the turf maintenance industry in Europe can even think in the way you do. Yes there will need to be some adjustments to what players expect courses to look and play like but the VAST majority do actually get it. On a final note it is more than possible to produce very acceptable playing surfaces using no pesticides on inland, clay based courses.




Duncan,


I think one of the most important things the RV has done for the quality of the course has been to remove so many trees. It is not always easy to persuade a membership to remove trees but as you have noticed yourself it does go a long way to improving the course.


Jon

Jon


I’m glad I’ve given you a different view. It’s one that many do indeed share. You should be no more insulted than I was about your Luddite reference.


Just because it’s happening doesn’t mean we have to like it.


You’re truly shocked? Really? that someone is sick of politicians meddling in issues such as earth worms when they can’t get the basics like housing and shelter right?


There are lots of really skillfull Greenkeepers around who given time, I’m sure can be an exception to the rule.


Can you give me a couple of examples of the inland clay courses you reference who produce acceptable surfaces without any pesticides and fungicides?


I don’t doubt they exist, but it would be good to know who they are and where they are for future study.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't know Ryan Coles, but he has my proxy.

For us turf nerds considering the topic:

This is a rather HILARIOUS pun.

[Jon Wiggett]

While the reduction in chemical inputs is largely inevitable, and in my opinion not a bad thing, I think people are largely mistaken about the impact this will have on the cost of golf.

Don't expect to see a sudden acceptance in reduced quality of surface by golfers. Where once herbicides were common to tackle weed issues I believe there will be a shift to more isolated treatment and therefore hand labour tackling the problem.

For those that think the cost of a few agrichemical applications ramp up the costs, stop and consider the extra $$ in having to hire more people.

Grant,


I think you are correct but only if you go on the understanding that expectations will remain the same in the future as they are now. Taking into account that expectations always have changed and therefore almost certainly will continue to I would suggest that it is more a question of what expectations will become in the future. If the golfing customer comes to expect a good quality playing surface as been one which is relatively consistent rather than to do with colour, speed and in the US monoculture swards then maintenance practices can indeed be different to todays. I agree that for high end clubs this will move the costs from spraying across to wages but the average club will see a reduction in the costs.


Jon