Does having livestock grazing on your course produce a better playing surface ?

[Niall C]

I ask that question because there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on here of late regarding livestock grazing on golf courses and folk bemoaning that Brora might get rid of the sheep and cows in due course. Many seem to see this as a retrograde step and a sure way of losing visitors. Apparently it isn't the quality of the course that people go to experience but rather its the livestock. Nevertheless it seems certain that members will vote to get rid of the livestock and I strongly suspect that they will do so on the basis that they expect to get better playing conditions.


The intention of this thread isn't to rehash the Brora debate but rather to see whether folks agree that getting rid of the livestock and using machines only will provide a better playing surface. I have my views but interested to see what others think.


Niall 

[Tom_Doak]

I think everyone should be careful what they wish for!

[Ben Sims]

I guess what Tom says is a good point. Whether you want or don’t want livestock on a course, you should know what you’re getting. Like a bunch of other things in golf course maintenance, there’s second and third order affects to consider.


In the broad sense, I’d guess that rough management is probably better with livestock. After rough and native areas, I’d argue that benefit to other playing surfaces is negligible, and particularly bad for green surrounds and greens.

[Kalen Braley]

I can completely understand the novelty of livestock and such roaming the course from the visitor perspective...

But is it safe to say that's worn off for the majority of the locals?

[Niall C]

I guess what Tom says is a good point. Whether you want or don’t want livestock on a course, you should know what you’re getting. Like a bunch of other things in golf course maintenance, there’s second and third order affects to consider.


In the broad sense, I’d guess that rough management is probably better with livestock. After rough and native areas, I’d argue that benefit to other playing surfaces is negligible, and particularly bad for green surrounds and greens.

Ben


I agree that grazing is great for keeping the wide open aspects of a course. The animals get to parts where machines don't go, and generally don't need to go. They also help with blurring the line between the fairway and the rough which is another thing I like. However most golfers tend to judge a course by the condition of the fairways and greens which are the bits that they look to play on. Yes on occasion they will hit a shot 30 yards into the rough and I'm sure they would be delighted if there was a chance to find and play the ball rather than it being a certain lost ball. But I bet they don't take those moments into consideration when judging a course.


Personally I'd like to think I can judge the architectural merits of a course irrespective of condition however there is no doubt in my mind that I enjoy the course more the better the condition. There is also no doubt in my mind that courses that rely purely on machines have better playing surfaces. Ignoring the issues of sheep droppings and cow pats, animals tend to tug at the grass when they graze and then there's the indents their hooves make all of which leads to a more bobbly surface than you get with machines.


If I was a Brora member who played the course on a regular basis I'd also be voting to get rid of the livestock.


Niall   

[Andrew Harvie]

I'm pretty happy with how we maintain golf courses now, but the novelty/uniqueness of having livestock on SOME golf courses adds to the experience at those places. That said, I wouldn't want it on my home golf course unless it was a key part of the culture long before I got there, in which case I would prefer to keep the tradition rather than changing it in search of consistent conditioning.

[Ben Sims]

I guess what Tom says is a good point. Whether you want or don’t want livestock on a course, you should know what you’re getting. Like a bunch of other things in golf course maintenance, there’s second and third order affects to consider.


In the broad sense, I’d guess that rough management is probably better with livestock. After rough and native areas, I’d argue that benefit to other playing surfaces is negligible, and particularly bad for green surrounds and greens.

Ben


I agree that grazing is great for keeping the wide open aspects of a course. The animals get to parts where machines don't go, and generally don't need to go. They also help with blurring the line between the fairway and the rough which is another thing I like. However most golfers tend to judge a course by the condition of the fairways and greens which are the bits that they look to play on. Yes on occasion they will hit a shot 30 yards into the rough and I'm sure they would be delighted if there was a chance to find and play the ball rather than it being a certain lost ball. But I bet they don't take those moments into consideration when judging a course.


Personally I'd like to think I can judge the architectural merits of a course irrespective of condition however there is no doubt in my mind that I enjoy the course more the better the condition. There is also no doubt in my mind that courses that rely purely on machines have better playing surfaces. Ignoring the issues of sheep droppings and cow pats, animals tend to tug at the grass when they graze and then there's the indents their hooves make all of which leads to a more bobbly surface than you get with machines.


If I was a Brora member who played the course on a regular basis I'd also be voting to get rid of the livestock.


Niall

Niall,


That’s a very thoughtful post. I’ll just add one thing, I joined Brora virtually on the spot for several reasons. One is the rarity of the size and use of its naturally perfect 3-8ft contours. But the other primary reason was, in fact, the melded edge from fairway to rough and the almost universal ability to find and play your ball from the rough/native. In some ways I *did* judge the course based on its rough.


One of the parts about visiting Scotland (or really any links courses in the GB&I) no one talks enough about is how often you see people looking for balls. Locals, tourists, everyone. Brora doesn’t have this issue and to an extent neither does Dornoch. Particularly in the roughs between holes.


So now that I’ve waxed about the rough at a course with livestock on it, maybe I seem like a hypocrite. But I also think the qualities I described above can happen without livestock. Or at least I’m told it can. I also think it’s self-evident that the most important aspect of links courses, the greens surrounds, will benefit.

[Tom_Doak]

If I was a Brora member who played the course on a regular basis I'd also be voting to get rid of the livestock.

Well, for sure they will, because they think that the visitor rounds will pay for the extra fairway and rough maintenance.


But what if it makes the course LESS attractive to visitors?

[Mark Pearce]

When I was a member at the Northumberland GC, I would happily have paid extra to have sheep or goats let loose on the rough, which was horribly badly maintained.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Many seem to see this as a retrograde step and a sure way of losing visitors. Apparently it isn't the quality of the course that people go to experience but rather its the livestock. Nevertheless it seems certain that members will vote to get rid of the livestock and I strongly suspect that they will do so on the basis that they expect to get better playing conditions.

I think pristine "playing conditions" are overrated, and while I know this is a minority opinion, I actively don't like the surrealness they create on most golf courses. The only thing I actively don't want is muddy conditions, beyond that, I'm not only fine with utilitarian conditions that are modestly kept, I prefer them.

There is nothing as unforgivable to me as when they chopped down the Eden hole at the Old Course to make the greens "better."

[Ben Sims]

Many seem to see this as a retrograde step and a sure way of losing visitors. Apparently it isn't the quality of the course that people go to experience but rather its the livestock. Nevertheless it seems certain that members will vote to get rid of the livestock and I strongly suspect that they will do so on the basis that they expect to get better playing conditions.

I think pristine "playing conditions" are overrated, and while I know this is a minority opinion, I actively don't like the surrealness they create on most golf courses. The only thing I actively don't want is muddy conditions, beyond that, I'm not only fine with utilitarian conditions that are modestly kept, I prefer them.

There is nothing as unforgivable to me as when they chopped down the Eden hole at the Old Course to make the greens "better."

Matt,


I think you make a significant number of good arguments on this site. But the playing conditions one I struggle to understand your meaning. It seems to me that there are infinite possibilities between the perfection of early April ryegrass in Augusta and whatever is the exact opposite of that. I do understand your point about the jarring effect of conditioning in certain cases. But I also think what A LOT of posters here think is great golf turf likely aligns with your view.

[Thomas Dai]

Without wishing to concentrate on Brora but it will be interesting to see how things there progress over the years to come.


It’ll be a bit of a test case in some ways.


Record keeping and the openness, transparency and accuracy of the record keeping when, sorry to say this but it has imo validity, vested interests in the decision making process are involved and the vested interests potentially may even be the ones keeping the records, will be important in ascertaining any improvement or detrimental effect on course conditions etc. Not just sword etc related data but operating data and member/visitor data too.


If it can be clearly established that course conditions have improved and the member/visitor playing experience has been enhanced without additional significant manpower, equipment etc costs being incurred then so be it. If the opposite is clearly established then so be it too.


Live and learn either way. I doubt however, that at individual course level a significant decision like removing grazing animals will be reversed once it’s been made. But if there’s a learning curve experience that helps other courses or golf in general moving forward into the future that will be something.


Time will tell.


Atb

[Matt Schoolfield]

But the playing conditions one I struggle to understand your meaning. It seems to me that there are infinite possibilities between the perfection of early April ryegrass in Augusta and whatever is the exact opposite of that. I do understand your point about the jarring effect of conditioning in certain cases. But I also think what A LOT of posters here think is great golf turf likely aligns with your view.

Look, I realize my "hottest" takes on these forums generally revolve around prudence and neighborliness in golf culture. I think, especially in high-end golf, there is a large number of folks who want to spend a lot of money playing on golf courses that are, admittedly, a bit better than an honor box course.

To understand what I mean, you'd really have to come play Gleneagles in SF, and see what kind of a dump I enjoy playing, because even though it doesn't have access to enough water, it is still (in my humble opinion) one of the most architecturally interesting places to play golf in the Bay Area, and at one of the lowest price points.

Another example is Sharp Park in Pacifica, who have non-trivial issues with their greens because they can't use any herbicides or fungicides because of the endangered wildlife. Over and over I hear, "well, this and that about the frogs", and "this place needs a complete renovation to make it nice," and yet I still have a great time playing match play there with my friends because it's just golf, and the course is historic, interesting, and welcoming, all while being environmentally prudent. People who care more about the green surface than the history or the endangered wildlife just have different values than I do, and that's fine, but I just don't care that much about the green surface (even if I won't be playing any stroke play tournaments there on account of the greens).

Whenever someone I've met and respect invites me to their higher-end club, the thing that stands out to me is the dozens of (mostly) young men, walking around filling divots in the fairway. So many people working on the agronomy and making an honest living doing it. Every single one of those guys, though, needs to get paid so that the turf looks prettier, even if it plays effectively the same. This is all well and good and makes the course a bit nicer (except when they chase idiotic green speeds on the huge contours of MacKenzie's greens), but I'm not going to play Pasatiempo 10 times in a month to really get to know it, because they want me to pay $360 per round to do that (or whatever the price will be after the resto). I'm not a box checker exactly because I think the best courses are the best exactly because of their replay value.

There seems to be a "money is no object" vibe in a significant chunk of golf culture, and while I'm pretty well off, money is both an object in my life, but also in principal. Other people have different values, and are happy to pay the equivalent of multiple hundreds of dollars per round so they can play on "nice," prettier turf (even as club members). I might end up in a few divots, but that's just why we play it as it lies. Some want to course to be "the best it can be," but I think it's better for the course to just be interesting, memorable, welcoming, and generally affordable for normal people (though not necessarily cheap).

Sheep provide this in spades, as they both (1) make the course more interesting, and (2) non-trivially offset costs that would otherwise be incurred by members or visitors. They also act as a dual use for the course, which is pretty important in my congested part of the world, though I understand rural Scotland has enough land where that doesn't matter.

I understand that I'm not the demographic of the high-spending traveler who fly to Dornoch for the weekend. It's also not lost on my as to why the have a helipad at the club. If that's the demo a club is seeking by focusing on "the best playing surface" then they have my best salutations. I was never going to play Dornoch without an invitation anyway, because I'm quite sure I'd be perfectly happy playing an entire season at Portmahomack for the price of a single round across the firth.

[Niall C]

When I was a member at the Northumberland GC, I would happily have paid extra to have sheep or goats let loose on the rough, which was horribly badly maintained.

Mark


Would you also have happily paid extra for the greenkeeper to be able to make a better job of maintaining the rough ?


Niall

[Niall C]

One of the parts about visiting Scotland (or really any links courses in the GB&I) no one talks enough about is how often you see people looking for balls. Locals, tourists, everyone. Brora doesn’t have this issue and to an extent neither does Dornoch. Particularly in the roughs between holes.

Ben


Not intending to be funny here by dredging up the stereotype of the mean Scotsman but I think there is probably a cultural difference going on when you see the locals hunting for balls. I think in this country we tend to look for balls if there is a half decent chance of finding them. Partly that's down to the cost of the balls; partly a "play it where it lies" mentality; and maybe that the rough isn't that bad so that it allows a possibility of finding the ball. Of course it could be that there are just more crap golfers over here.


Niall

[Niall C]

Without wishing to concentrate on Brora but it will be interesting to see how things there progress over the years to come.


It’ll be a bit of a test case in some ways.


Record keeping and the openness, transparency and accuracy of the record keeping when, sorry to say this but it has imo validity, vested interests in the decision making process are involved and the vested interests potentially may even be the ones keeping the records, will be important in ascertaining any improvement or detrimental effect on course conditions etc. Not just sword etc related data but operating data and member/visitor data too.


If it can be clearly established that course conditions have improved and the member/visitor playing experience has been enhanced without additional significant manpower, equipment etc costs being incurred then so be it. If the opposite is clearly established then so be it too.


Live and learn either way. I doubt however, that at individual course level a significant decision like removing grazing animals will be reversed once it’s been made. But if there’s a learning curve experience that helps other courses or golf in general moving forward into the future that will be something.


Time will tell.


Atb

David


Surely you're not suggesting that Brora should have to do all that ? I don't doubt the greenkeeper keeps records anyway and has to work to a budget but who's he got to convince ? The one's with the vested interest as you put it are the members and they are the ones voting for this.


And when you stop to think about it, you already have hundreds and indeed thousands of case studies already here in the UK. I bet pretty well every course that came into fruition pre-1900 and the vast majority between then and the start of WWI would have had livestock for a number of very good reasons. Very few clubs owned the land and were often on short term leases where part of the deal was that they had to share the land with the farmer's livestock. Greenkeeping equipment was also more limited and expensive relative to the clubs income/capital.


After WWI when clubs obtained more security and control by either buying the land or signing leases which gave them control there was a gradual shift from having livestock to not having livestock. The ones that still have livestock must be a very small percentage which I think tells you something. It would be interesting to know of the clubs/courses that still have livestock, how many of them have the option and how many it is forced upon them because a farmer/livestock owner has legal rights.


Niall

[Ben Sims]

One of the parts about visiting Scotland (or really any links courses in the GB&I) no one talks enough about is how often you see people looking for balls. Locals, tourists, everyone. Brora doesn’t have this issue and to an extent neither does Dornoch. Particularly in the roughs between holes.

Ben


Not intending to be funny here by dredging up the stereotype of the mean Scotsman but I think there is probably a cultural difference going on when you see the locals hunting for balls. I think in this country we tend to look for balls if there is a half decent chance of finding them. Partly that's down to the cost of the balls; partly a "play it where it lies" mentality; and maybe that the rough isn't that bad so that it allows a possibility of finding the ball. Of course it could be that there are just more crap golfers over here.


Niall

Niall,


Ha. That was worth a chuckle and a laugh. But no, I was mostly commenting on the supposed stereotype of links golf as this wide open find your ball and whack it again adventure. That platonic ideal exists in golf but I think it’s not necessarily germane to links golf. I find that I am looking for balls for myself and playing partners just as much in Scotland as elsewhere. That said, Brora does live up to that ideal of whack ball, find ball, whack again. As to whether that due to livestock or not, that’s for others to debate.

[Chris Hughes]

Yes.

[Sean_A]

I ask, better than what?

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

I ask, better than what?
Ciao

If I may also ask, which playing surface?
Cheers

[Ben Sims]

I’ll just add, again, that the self-evident nature of the comments by the proponents of livestock on golf courses is wholly bizarre to me.


Collapsing hazard walls (bunkers and water hazards), excrement on playing surfaces, scraped up tees, fencing that must be contended with both by workers and players…all for better managed rough and native. If that even is the case. What am I missing? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.


If a course must have the livestock present due to certain constraints, that’s one thing. But if you have the choice and don’t restrict them to certain times of the year (winter) and or specific areas (rough and native only), I’m perplexed why you would actively *choose* to have them all over the course.

[Sean_A]

I’ll just add, again, that the self-evident nature of the comments by the proponents of livestock on golf courses is wholly bizarre to me.


Collapsing hazard walls (bunkers and water hazards), excrement on playing surfaces, scraped up tees, fencing that must be contended with both by workers and players…all for better managed rough and native. If that even is the case. What am I missing? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.


If a course must have the livestock present due to certain constraints, that’s one thing. But if you have the choice and don’t restrict them to certain times of the year (winter) and or specific areas (rough and native only), I’m perplexed why you would actively *choose* to have them all over the course.

Conversely, I remain perplexed why you cannot accept that well controlled sheep can and are good for golf courses  for reasons already outlined. Visit Kington then tell me that turf is inferior.

I ask again, better than what?

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

I’ll just add, again, that the self-evident nature of the comments by the proponents of livestock on golf courses is wholly bizarre to me.


Collapsing hazard walls (bunkers and water hazards), excrement on playing surfaces, scraped up tees, fencing that must be contended with both by workers and players…all for better managed rough and native. If that even is the case. What am I missing? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.


If a course must have the livestock present due to certain constraints, that’s one thing. But if you have the choice and don’t restrict them to certain times of the year (winter) and or specific areas (rough and native only), I’m perplexed why you would actively *choose* to have them all over the course.

Conversely, I remain perplexed why you cannot accept that well controlled sheep can and are good for golf courses  for reasons already outlined. Visit Kington then tell me that turf is inferior.

I ask again, better than what?

Ciao

I’ve never been to Kington. I have been to two places in the UK that have grazing on the playing field. You’re headed to one of them next summer. The other is Brora. I’ll just tell you, I wasn’t much impressed with the turf conditions of the other place. Brora was pretty good (not great) but as has been mentioned several times, livestock aren’t really managing the fairways and green surrounds as much as traversing it. The best links turf I’ve ever played wasn’t at a place livestock are used to manage the turf.


Also, perhaps it’s time we delineate between places where livestock are present as a matter of necessity due to croft rights and places that are choosing to use livestock as a means of managing the playing surface (not just the rough).


To your point, yes, I agree there are turf swards that play well that also have livestock on them. But this idea that it is somehow preferential is strange. It’s cool and nostalgic and useful when done appropriately. But in my opinion a struggling, sparsely irrigated and fed, poly-stand of links grasses can be managed better without animals present.


PS—I just add that I think I react to this debate because of what I think it implies. To me it says to turf professionals that this career of yours, you’d be better at it if you forgot everything you’ve been taught and let those sheep nibble at the grass while you clean up after them and repair bunker walls. I understand that it’s not what many people are thinking about and indeed that many courses don’t really have a “turf staff.” But it feels that way to me.

[Mark Pearce]

When I was a member at the Northumberland GC, I would happily have paid extra to have sheep or goats let loose on the rough, which was horribly badly maintained.

Mark


Would you also have happily paid extra for the greenkeeper to be able to make a better job of maintaining the rough ?


Niall

Of course.  But I suspect that a moveable pen of sheep/goats is easier to operate, and cheaper to run.

[Mark Pearce]

PS—I just add that I think I react to this debate because of what I think it implies. To me it says to turf professionals that this career of yours, you’d be better at it if you forgot everything you’ve been taught and let those sheep nibble at the grass while you clean up after them and repair bunker walls. I understand that it’s not what many people are thinking about and indeed that many courses don’t really have a “turf staff.” But it feels that way to me.

It doesn't imply that at all.  In fact, that's a ridiculous implication to take from the discussion.  Is Brora with sheep also better with good greenkeeping?  Of course.  Would Brora without sheep be worse for poor greenkeeping?  Of course.


Like Sean, I think that, for golf, Kington is one of the best conditioned courses I have played.  The greenkeepers do a fantastic job.  The sheep help.  Or so it seems to me.  I am less convinced of the benefits of cattle (heavier, more damaging to the ground, less "discrete" faeces) than of sheep.