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

[Sean_A]

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.

Mark is right. You are reading things which weren’t written.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with the condition of Brora either…except for the rough. I put at least some of that down to being so far north and not yet having the money to throw at the job. That said, Brora has cows…not in favour of this and never said I was.

Again I ask, better than what?

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

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.

Mark is right. You are reading things which weren’t written.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with the condition of Brora either…except for the rough. I put at least some of that down to being so far north and not yet having the money to throw at the job. That said, Brora has cows…not in favour of this and never said I was.

Again I ask, better than what?

Ciao

Mark and Sean,


Okay, I give. I’ll agree that I am arguing from emotion and incredulity if you’ll agree that asking “better than what” and requiring specificity doesn’t invalidate the question. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to wonder aloud why one would *prefer* livestock on the playing surfaces of their golf course.

[Sean_A]

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.

Mark is right. You are reading things which weren’t written.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with the condition of Brora either…except for the rough. I put at least some of that down to being so far north and not yet having the money to throw at the job. That said, Brora has cows…not in favour of this and never said I was.

Again I ask, better than what?

Ciao

Mark and Sean,


Okay, I give. I’ll agree that I am arguing from emotion and incredulity if you’ll agree that asking “better than what” and requiring specificity doesn’t invalidate the question. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to wonder aloud why one would *prefer* livestock on the playing surfaces of their golf course.

Ben

I have already said why.

Sheep help the turf

Rough control

Blurred transition lines

Sheep eaten height of fairways is another which doesn’t get mentioned. We are spending more money for shorter fairways which doesn’t do golf or the turf any favours. The sheep know 😎.

Sheep lower maintenance costs

Multiple use of land…efficiency. I am not sure what makes golfers think they are too good or special to share the land. Grass grows, sheep eat grass, we want to eat sheep. It makes sense.

I ask better than what because I wonder if I agree, what is the cost of producing this better product and what will it cost me. It’s pretty rare that I experience truly exceptional conditions. Most of the time it’s acceptable to good. The cost to move beyond good to great to exceptional tends to rise significantly.

Ciao

[Niall C]

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?

Tom


I'd hazard a guess that the members top consideration isn't whether getting rid of the livestock would bring in more or fewer visitors. My guess is that they are most concerned about the condition of the playing surfaces and they believe from what other courses are like that they can have better conditions without the livestock. That said I'm not a member and I'm sure there will be a variety of contending reasons.


As to the popular notion on this site that club members are concerned about visitor numbers/revenue, again I'd hazard a guess that not many give it too much thought, and if they do I'm not sure it is much of a concern. Fewer visitors ? Great, more tee times for members.


As an example of that I'd cite one Ayrshire club who (allegedly ?) were approached by a tour operator who proposed paying £200K for all the tee times of the week before and the week of the 2024 Open so that they could sell them on to visitor golfers looking to take in some of the Open while playing some local courses when not at Troon. My understanding is that discussions didn't get too far as a significant proportion of the members (probably the active playing members) objected to the idea.


Niall

[Niall C]

Ben

I have already said why.

Sheep help the turf

Rough control

Blurred transition lines

Sheep eaten height of fairways is another which doesn’t get mentioned. We are spending more money for shorter fairways which doesn’t do golf or the turf any favours. The sheep know 😎.

Sheep lower maintenance costs

Multiple use of land…efficiency. I am not sure what makes golfers think they are too good or special to share the land. Grass grows, sheep eat grass, we want to eat sheep. It makes sense.

I ask better than what because I wonder if I agree, what is the cost of producing this better product and what will it cost me. It’s pretty rare that I experience truly exceptional conditions. Most of the time it’s acceptable to good. The cost to move beyond good to great to exceptional tends to rise significantly.

Ciao

Sean


I've omitted Ben's post for brevity. Firstly to answer the "better than what" question, the question is does livestock in addition to machines produce a better playing surface than purely machines ? You seem to think it does and while I find the playing surfaces at Brora and other grazed courses perfectly acceptable, and I'm happy to believe that in agronomy terms the turf is better, it seems to me self-evident that courses like the one we played today provide a better playing surface.


Sheep and cattle don't just gently nibble, they pull and tug at the grass causing the turf to lift slightly and then you have the hoof marks/indentations all of which makes the playing surface noticeably less smooth. That's IMO of course.


Niall

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to wonder aloud why one would *prefer* livestock on the playing surfaces of their golf course.

I agree that it's perfectly acceptable for you to wonder this. I just think people like different things, and the grass can often seem greener, etc.

For me, the best metaphor is with wine. I generally drink Pinot noir (or Zin), and Sonoma County near where I live really has some of the best in the world. If you're looking for very good glass of wine, I honestly don't know if there is a better wine than Pinot noirs from the western slopes of the Los Carneros AVA (and Dry Creek Valley AVA isn't too shabby).

However, my cousin, who was the wine buyer for a boutique shop back in Austin, introduced me to the natural wine movement about a decade ago, and man... I really like natural wine. It's so weird. You never know what you're going to get, and sometimes it's terrible, but it's always entertaining. Admittedly, it might just be nostalgia for a previous era, but the idea of wine makers stepping away from modern science, and simply throwing grapes in a vat with only the ambient yeast to start the fermentation process... I mean it can be really special. The irony being that the variance in the yeasts means that an amazing bottle with be only one of a couple hundred that will every exist. There are plenty of folks who have chalked it up to a trend, but I think it's here to stay, even with it's inherent imperfection.

I see the same parallel in market differentiation. Golf, as an experience, can be excellent in both types of scenarios, both with maximizing effort on the agronomic side of things, or by letting a bit of nature throw things for a loop.

[Simon Barrington]

"Ben
I have already said why.
  Sheep help the turf
  Rough control
  Blurred transition lines
Sheep eaten height of fairways is another which doesn’t get mentioned. We are spending more money for shorter fairways which doesn’t do golf or the turf any favours. The sheep know 😎.
  Sheep lower maintenance costs
Multiple use of land…efficiency. I am not sure what makes golfers think they are too good or special to share the land. Grass grows, sheep eat grass, we want to eat sheep. It makes sense.
I ask better than what because I wonder if I agree, what is the cost of producing this better product and what will it cost me. It’s pretty rare that I experience truly exceptional conditions. Most of the time it’s acceptable to good. The cost to move beyond good to great to exceptional tends to rise significantly.
Ciao"

This entire discussion strikes me as being about the soul of the game.

Debates that have persisted on many facets of the game for centuries.

The essence of golf (and its playing surfaces) for some is; chance, adversity, unpredictability, imperfection, and overcoming these and an opponent (sometimes, but not always) with "mastery". (Characterised by a preference for Matchplay over Card & Pencil etc.)

For others it is; consistency, fairness, perfection, smoothness, and the desire to reduce all semblence of chance so their "skill" gets elevated above others. (Akin to Strokeplay and Cards over Head-to-Head etc.)


"Modernisation" (whatever that really means) is a powerful force in the game and has always been so.

Sometimes the seeking of such can come at a real cost, most often financial and in other important ways.
Just because one can change something, it doesn't mean that one should.

I have found that (well-meaning) modernisers arrive at Clubs (they tend to be newer golfers) having been attracted to what is there and its unique aspects (some of which they may not even realise why)
Then after a while they agitate to make things "better" (supposedly, as that is a wholly subjective word and personal judgement) taking the course/club away from the very things that attracted them in the first place (knowingly or otherwise) and that made it unique and special.

As Tom (Doak) said earlier on this thread "I think everyone should be careful what they wish for!".

I think from the subsequent responses, some may have interpreted this in the opposite way than I do...

[Thomas Dai]

Sheep help the turf
Rough control
Blurred transition lines
Sheep eaten height of fairways is another which doesn’t get mentioned. We are spending more money for shorter fairways which doesn’t do golf or the turf any favours. The sheep know 😎.
Sheep lower maintenance costs
Multiple use of land…efficiency. I am not sure what makes golfers think they are too good or special to share the land. Grass grows, sheep eat grass, we want to eat sheep. It makes sense.
I ask better than what because I wonder if I agree, what is the cost of producing this better product and what will it cost me. It’s pretty rare that I experience truly exceptional conditions. Most of the time it’s acceptable to good. The cost to move beyond good to great to exceptional tends to rise significantly.

This is a nice summary from Sean.

I’d like to add that imo grazing animals are very visual way of highlighting to the anti-golf brigade, politicians, statutory authorities and society in general that golf, nature and the environment can co-exist and can do so in a harmonious manner. And golf needs all the help it can get to preserve itself on a finite sized planet with an ever growing and more demanding population yet a planet with limited land and water etc resources.
Atb

[Ben Sims]

I suppose I should give up the ghost. I remain shocked that this many people would argue that not only are livestock grazed courses acceptable, they are actually preferable. Re-reading some posts, everyone seems to be making some large assumptions about each others’ position. I thought and somewhat still do think that wanting a golf course to *choose* to have livestock is a bit of a ridiculous thing to foist upon turf professionals. I was told that isn’t the case and I can only nod my head and say okay, I apologize. But conversely, my position has similarly been twisted to mean that because I am not necessarily in favor of *choosing* (massive emphasis) to have livestock, that means I am somehow in favor of the unattainable green and lush modern “ideal” and attempting to tug at the very soul of golf. Woof, that’s a bit harsh too. And couldn’t be farther from the case.


All of this started for me when an extremely well-respected turf manager made the convincing case that management of livestock on the course he manages had become too much. He had provided the absolute best he could provide. I have no reason to disagree and what’s more, feel that deference to his expertise and years on that specific property mean more than any agronomy expertise I may or may not have.

[Mark Pearce]

All of this started for me when an extremely well-respected turf manager made the convincing case that management of livestock on the course he manages had become too much. He had provided the absolute best he could provide. I have no reason to disagree and what’s more, feel that deference to his expertise and years on that specific property mean more than any agronomy expertise I may or may not have.

Where was this? 

[Sean_A]

I don’t recall mentioning introducing sheep to a course which isn’t grazed. But I wouldn’t have an issue if it was done at one of my clubs. I don’t think it’s necessary or wise at the other club. Loads of dogs are walked on the course. Dogs and sheep don’t mix. Plus, the entire course would need to be fenced to retain the sheep. The course flows freely into town and surrounding land with loads of access points. All that fencing and gates would look dreadful. It would be a laugh to see sheep roaming the streets and nibbling front gardens 😎


Ciao

[Chris Hughes]

A flerd offers real benefits in terms of:


(i) plant health
(ii) organic soil health
(iii) physical/mechanical soil health
(iv) control/eradication of unwanted plant species
(v) the ability to minimize the use of chemicals/poisons/toxins and the negative impact from their runoff
(vi) parasite control
etc...

I don't buy the "hoof mark" or "bunker wall" arguments, at all.

I do buy living up to what you promised to do...

[Sean_A]

You should buy hoof marks on greens and fairways. It is common with cows. Many courses with livestock don’t have many bunkers partly because of animal damage. That said eroded and damaged bunkers are often the most attractive.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Another reason for not having a lot of bunkers is that the landowner might not allow it as it cuts down on the amount of pasture. That was certainly an issue back in the day and one reason why clubs were keen to buy their course so that they weren't constrained in what they could do. I think it was Tom Simpson had a quote about Victorian golf course architecture and about it being the dark ages of golf course design.


I suspect that was as much a reference to having to play over walls/fences/hedges as it was to the repeated building of cross hazards. The golden age of architecture in this country at least would have been partially stymied if clubs hadn't managed to remove the livestock and the fences/walls that went with it. Just my opinion.


Niall

[Simon Barrington]

Another reason for not having a lot of bunkers is that the landowner might not allow it as it cuts down on the amount of pasture. That was certainly an issue back in the day and one reason why clubs were keen to buy their course so that they weren't constrained in what they could do. I think it was Tom Simpson had a quote about Victorian golf course architecture and about it being the dark ages of golf course design.

I suspect that was as much a reference to having to play over walls/fences/hedges as it was to the repeated building of cross hazards. The golden age of architecture in this country at least would have been partially stymied if clubs hadn't managed to remove the livestock and the fences/walls that went with it. Just my opinion.

Niall

Interesting thought & possibly at the margin, although the transistion to more strategic use (or no use at all) was pretty fast TBF.

They we able to remove (physically) the walls and fences (if allowed by those with grazing rights), but hedges were far more difficult as there were no mechanised stump grinders nor heavy excavators to remove stumps & roots.

As I discussed in Episode 2 of my "Cookie Jar Podcast" on James Braid (which I hope you'd enjoy, especially on a cold snowy day, as it specifically mentions Simpson in this regard), they simply chopped down the hedges in situ and buried the stumps etc. hence "steeplechase" or "Cop" ridges were often utilised in place (with sand bunkers, open ditches or streams on one side or other of these linear features)

Now, one can use these features in routing strategically if; they only extend partially across a playing corridor, or if at a diagonal (which is preferable). But, the Dunns and others started to use these across the entire hole in a penal perpendicular fashion repeatedly (sometimes even building/copying them even when not a boundary)...that was the issue, the repetition, lack of imagination, and their belief in Penal constructs of "fairness" etc.

Happily John Low, Simpson and others (including Braid, as per the Podcast) saw there was a better way

[Niall C]

Simon


Whether it was removing a wall; a fence or a hedge, it would have been done largely by hand with the help of horses or tractors. And it wasn't just hedge stumps that got buried, they did that with walls as well eg. Colt on the Eden course, and Ben Sayers Jnr on NB West links.


However there would have been very little chance of being allowed to remove internal boundaries of whatever hue, if there was still livestock on the course. These days an average field for livestock is about 30 acres (?) and might possibly have been less back in the day. Given an 18 hole course was c.100 acres give or take, it would have been fairly difficult not to have to play over a boundary at some point.


As an aside, the lack of outright ownership of courses is often why the clubhouses are located on the periphery where the land could be bought. That and the ease of access to services.


Niall

[Simon Barrington]

Simon


Whether it was removing a wall; a fence or a hedge, it would have been done largely by hand with the help of horses or tractors. And it wasn't just hedge stumps that got buried, they did that with walls as well eg. Colt on the Eden course, and Ben Sayers Jnr on NB West links.


However there would have been very little chance of being allowed to remove internal boundaries of whatever hue, if there was still livestock on the course. These days an average field for livestock is about 30 acres (?) and might possibly have been less back in the day. Given an 18 hole course was c.100 acres give or take, it would have been fairly difficult not to have to play over a boundary at some point.


As an aside, the lack of outright ownership of courses is often why the clubhouses are located on the periphery where the land could be bought. That and the ease of access to services.


Niall

Aye

[John Emerson]

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.

As a turfgrass professional, I think animal grazing is awesome and I wish it was more common. I do not see it as a knock on the turfgrass industry as I would.be willing to wager that most turfgrass managers would be in favor of animals and welcome them openly. I do not have data to support my thoughts, just 20+ years in the industry amongst my colleagues

[Marty Bonnar]

I’ve seen some truly horrendous poaching by cattle on poorly-drained clay soils. It’s dangerous, ankle-breaking stuff! Just be careful what you wish for…
https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/soil-compaction-by-livestock

[James Boon]

I actually feel quite lucky to be a member at 2 courses that (currently) have sheep on the course, but both in totally different ways. Brora has already been well discussed, but let me mention the sheep at Hollinwell as a comparison...


Last summer, when most courses in the UK were struggling with heavy rough due to the amount of rain, I hit a terrible tee shot on the 13th at Hollinwell (long downhill par 3) well out to the right. This went over an internal fence, to an area that was in play. I went over the sty, and my ball was easily found and sitting reasonably well, allowing an up and down for par. Anywhere else on the course that wasnt fenced off and I'd have probably struggled to find it, let alone make a par!


The fences are there as we have a herd of sheep kept at the course by the Notts Wildlife Trust, but this is helping with our heathland management and not necessarily for golfing or agronomy reasons. There are quite a few of these areas around the course, mostly around the edges or out of the way, but the one on 13 is the main one in play, and its clear the sheep help keep the rough in a condition in there that is sensible and not brutal.


We also recently temporarily fenced off an area for sheep around our waste area / scrape / bunker on the par 3 5th. This was because the decision was made to make the waste area more natural, and the sheep did an excellent job of breaking up the more manufactured edges (technically damaging bunker edges, but that was the natural effect desired in this case) as well as thinning out some of the lusher grasses around the edges.


After the work on the 5th I did mention to the course manager we should do this elsewhere on the course, but the brief discussion was along the lines of the members are okay with the sheep out of the way but wouldnt go for it closer to the playing areas, but in theory he would be happy to have more sheep as long as they were just in the rough. And I think thats the crux of it, the sheep at Hollinwell are small numbers and out of the way, so the issue of their droppings isnt a problem.


I mentioned on the other thread that as a Country Member at Brora, I didnt get a vote. However, I have played it enough to understand that while there are lots of wonderful reasons for having the sheep, be it agronomy (some mentioned above as at Hollinwell) or spirit of place, it doesnt matter how much time the greenstaff take shovelling sh*t to make the fairways clear, your ball or shoes are going to come into contact with it. And while as a visitor that may only happen occasionally and be a novelty, I can understand why a member who plays regularly, would vote to not have to wipe sh*t off their shoes or golf balls.


Cheers, James

ps with so many people apparently travelling all the way to Brora just for the sheep, perhaps if we ever need to increase visitor income at Hollinwell we just need to change the marketing strategy to focus more on pictures of the Herdwicks! 

[Chris Hughes]

I’ve seen some truly horrendous poaching by cattle on poorly-drained clay soils. It’s dangerous, ankle-breaking stuff! Just be careful what you wish for…
https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/soil-compaction-by-livestock

Aren't links courses typically built in and around sand dunes?

[Niall C]

Chris


Presumably your point is that the article highlighting the issue of compaction was mainly referring to inland clay courses while Brora is a links ? That is true but I think it also true to say that you can get compaction on links as well but maybe not the issue of "poaching" which is a new term to me.


However the discussion has moved on beyond Brora and is about grazed courses in general and if you look at the list of courses on the other thread which are grazed you will see the majority are inland course with different types of soils.


Niall

[Niall C]

James


You are indeed fortunate at Hollinwell in that it seems you have a large degree of control over where the sheep are allowed to graze. Presumably the Trust take care of all of the animal husbandry issues as well ? I can't see many clubs in the UK, if any, having the scope or desire to run a flock of sheep themselves which makes them largely dependant on farmers if they wish livestock on the course and the farmers are going to want to decide where and when their sheep graze. That's one of the reasons a lot of clubs got rid of livestock in the first place.


Niall