Sprinkler heads, how many is "normal"?

[Ray Richard]

   In the old days we would get a primative plan drawn up by a salesman and we would place the heads based on specified spacing. Now we have golf irrigation architects that insure that every square foot has a defined quantity of water. This has caused a chronic over-design of irrigation systems-- some courses have hundreds of heads they don't use because of labor, water, or aesthetic reasons.
     I asked one of these designers why he was putting a sprinkler head behind a row of 20 foot trees and he said "If a hurricane knocks down all these trees, and they want to start irrigating the turf under the trees,  they will come after me for not designing the system properly."
    I'm a former superintendent and I think a super should get the irrigation system he wants to manage (within the budget), but many systems are designed with too big pipe and too many heads.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Tim, Tim,
  You just made such a general statement. I can make many comment about construction workers and construction superintendents, but its true will all of then, especially the one on site here.  I'm sure you've had your frustrations.
  I have 4 rounds of golf this year (2 rounds being in 1 day) and I dont have to check with the shirt folders. But it's usually near dark when I leave and we dont have lights lining the fairways for my golf game.
  Just dont throw us all in the same boat, though I know what you mean.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

[Tim Copeland]

Tim, Tim,
  You just made such a general statement. I can make many comment about construction workers and construction superintendents, but its true will all of then, especially the one on site here.  I'm sure you've had your frustrations.
  I have 4 rounds of golf this year (2 rounds being in 1 day) and I dont have to check with the shirt folders. But it's usually near dark when I leave and we dont have lights lining the fairways for my golf game.
  Just dont throw us all in the same boat, though I know what you mean.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

Well Anthony ole buddy....this is a comment board....and I made comments based on my experiences with supers that use the hand held too much....therefore they need too many irrigation heads for coverage.

If I am not mistaken you have nailed the reason this board exists.....for discussion and comments

Congrats young lad

[Don_Mahaffey]

Once again, please don't read my post like I was slamming your design. However.....I would think, and it would be a good question for you, wouldn't you agree that even on the same site as Mike's, if you COULD put more sprinklers on tighter spacing (i.e. if budget or time or construction allowed), would that system not be virtually guaranteed to perform at a higher DU, with more precise control in the hands of the super, with less potential for needing handwatering supplementation?

So, lets say your in Asia in an area that gets 100 inches of precip a year, should you spend 2M on irrigation when 500K will do just as well? I know an irrigation consultant who did a project in the jungle. The architect wanted perimeter irrigation even though the native was to think to walk through. Now why would you put heads into the jungle? I'll tell you why…because that's the "right" way based on smaller spacing and perfect coverage always being best...oh, and the fact that the Archie’s firm got 8% commission on construction costs probably didn't hurt.

Here on the gulf coast we get 50 inches a year and irrigation is present only to supplement rainfall. If I can grow good golfing turf with a system I designed to fit my management style, why should I over design to meet some stupid industry standard. And resources had nothing to do with it as we could have put in whatever we wanted...but my boss did ask me to treat the course construction as if I was building it for me, and that is what drove every decision I made.

 

Don I don’t think anyone has attacked your system and what you accomplished. I’m sure you have a great system and it meets your goals both agronomically and financially. However it’s not a crock that tighter spacing always creates more control and more efficiency. Greens have different requirements than the approach, the fairway and the tee. In California I have to flush my greens once a month to create a rain event to manage my salts. When I do that I turn on the heads anywhere from 3 to 6 hours. I wouldn’t be able to do that with full circles around my greens. the surrounds and approaches would get destroyed, completely inefficient and no control. I personally think its important to have site specific control over the different features on the course.

Why do greens and approaches always have different needs? What if my greens and tees and approaches are all the same grass grown on the same soil? Are you telling me I have to separate out every area even though they are all the same grass and soil? Have you ever managed a course like that?
As far as flushing, supers have been flushing greens for years...no make that decades.  I used to flush greens in AZ with full circles and I never destroyed anything...and 2 inches of water was what we used.

The system we designed fits our needs. Mike Young once wrote that if you build something for less than the industry average then the contractors will paint you as someone who does shoddy work. And that is exactly what is being said here, as if because we spent half, or less, than the average cost of a irrigation system then we must either be stupid or broke. We built exactly what we wanted and it works great. Would I have built the same system in AZ or CA, no.  But here it works and I think too often we in this business are too quick to embrace the normal way of doing things (spending gross amounts of money to grow grass) instead of asking why do we need to do that here?  One size does not fit all when your dealing with expectations, grass type, soil and climate.

[Bradley Anderson]

The more sprinklers you have the better you are able to control moisture.

It is impossible however to throw a number out there because every golf course is so different.

By the way, this superintendent has been at work since 5:30 this morning - it's 6:00 PM and he's just finishing programming the sprinklers. It's not all pushing buttons, let me tell you. Irrigation programming is a hell of a chess match between the superintendent, and the soils, and the hills, and the wind, and the thatch etc.

Tomorrow I'll go out in the dark and probe hole by hole to see if I got my times right while the rest of you slackers sip coffee and read the paper.

Greenskeeping is dangerous work. 

[Joe Hancock]

To the comment that it is better to have the radios so a cart doesnt have to be driven to the box to turn on water................I thank you for making my point about laziness.  Leave the cart on the path and walk your big butt to the box to turn something on or better yet.....In a grow in situation........drag a hose

Tim,

If you assume all golf courses have wall to wall cart paths with all the irrigation controllers within arm's reach of the path...then, yes, you have a point.

Discussion and comments sure do reveal a lot about a person.

Joe

[Ian Larson]

Tim...

        If the super isnt using his radio to run water hes running the same amount of water from the satellite. Its not fair for you to say for him to drag hose all over the place. If he should drag hose more then you should get on the shovel more.


Don...

       Again, nobody attacked you or your system. You designed according to expectations, budget and topography. Thats a home run! You have well drained soils and a monostand of turf. Most guys in the country cant say that. Your system works well for what you have. Great! But that doesnt mean any other guy should adopt the theory of less is best when it comes to irrigation spacing. I would think the majority of supers deal with slower draining soils and several different types of turf. In that scenario I would NEVER loosen up the spacing!

And yes Don different features require different water requirements. A full circle greens head running twenty minutes is putting too much or too little somewhere, whether its the rough that grows at 2" or the green being cut at .100". And thats where its inefficient. Overwatering one area to get enough for the other area is inefficient. Monostand or not, a plant growing at 2" has a different requirement for the grass growing at .100" to complete its photosynthesis.

I feel better knowing that Im putting down the minimum amount of water necessarry to keep the plant synthesizing. Not only that I like being site specific. The rough gets its minimum, the greens get their minimum and so on. Not only is it efficient and conserving water but it melds perfectly into the playability of the golf course. The fairways and approaches are firm and fast and the greens are happier.

Flushing......2" of water is not a flush. Its a leach. Thats why you didnt destroy anything outside the green. That is if you did in fact have greenside bunkers. An average USGA green with 4 heads that average 20 gpm need at least 6 hours of water to achieve what is technically a flush. 2" of water is displacing the salts on the foliage down to the root system. A true flush takes it all the way through the greens profile out of harms way. An inch or two is what I do once a week for my heavy / infrequent watering on sunday nights to leach the salts.

If you flushed your greens in AZ with full circle heads for 6 hours then you need to take the 3 hours it spent watering the rough multiplied by the number of heads multiplied by the gpm they put out......and theres the amount of water you wasted, and thats not being a steward of the enviornment.

IMO the tighter the spacing the better. The increased control increases effeciency, decreases waste. Gets water only where you need it. Yes the cost upfront may be more, but the savings in water useage over the life of the system can cover that. But, like I said. Each situation is different and loose spacing is working for you.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
My issue is not really with your specific situation as much as it is with the new generation that can only maintain a course if everything is "perfect".

There is no irrigation system or equipment fleet or anything else that can take the place of a super that can think. Tools are nice, but interchangeable. How you use them is what matters. Tim Copeland's rants are a good example. I have a decoder system, no satellites; my radio takes the place of 30 satellites. If I screw up it's me, not the tool.

And my parting shot, who said anything about a 20 minute cycle? The longest cycle on my system is 3 minutes. And I knew exactly how much H2O I put out as not only did I base it on what the math said, I'm also a certified golf irrigation auditor and I used catch cans to measure my use and Brookside labs to work up the math on how much water I needed to use to flush my salts based on my water quality and soil infiltration.

If you don't think a green can be flushed with 2" of water then we have nothing more to talk about.
I'll just agree to disagree with you.

[Pat Brockwell]

Tim C.
     I'm so lazy that I don't use the hand held much at all, for watering.  I go back to my office and sit in my reclining office chair that I customized so I could nap in it.  From there I tweak run times on the computer so all I really need to do is drive the cart path and make notes on dry/wet areas.  What I really need is a better cup holder that will hold the big water bottle and keep it cool until I can get back to my chair.  Maybe if I convert the two small cup holders into one big one... cuz that one cup holder only gets used for the radio.  I can feel my course improving already!
You make it sound like the cause of a dry spot is a lack of a hose, and the cause of a wet spot is a hand held radio.   Do I understand you correctly?  Is it better to drag a hose week after week, year after year, than to install a permanent, automated, calibrated, computer controlled sprinkler head?  Maybe you need a better chair, mine helps me think clearly.

Don,
      I bet you have a nice chair too.  Have you ever spent the night in it?  I'm hoping to find a way to get to WP and see what you and Mike have done.

BTW at Black Mesa we have about 1200 heads on 80 acres, including 16 ac of practice area.  Every day I calculate how many fractions of an inch of water is applied, track monthly rates and compare to seasons past.  I do this task in my chair.  I'm going to start tracking the number of minutes I spend in my chair, all I need is a sensor under the seat...

Cheers, Pat.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Tim C.
     I'm so lazy that I don't use the hand held much at all, for watering.  I go back to my office and sit in my reclining office chair that I customized so I could nap in it.  From there I tweak run times on the computer so all I really need to do is drive the cart path and make notes on dry/wet areas.  What I really need is a better cup holder that will hold the big water bottle and keep it cool until I can get back to my chair.  Maybe if I convert the two small cup holders into one big one... cuz that one cup holder only gets used for the radio.  I can feel my course improving already!
You make it sound like the cause of a dry spot is a lack of a hose, and the cause of a wet spot is a hand held radio.   Do I understand you correctly?  Is it better to drag a hose week after week, year after year, than to install a permanent, automated, calibrated, computer controlled sprinkler head?  Maybe you need a better chair, mine helps me think clearly.

GCA POST OF THE YEAR.....

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

[Tim Copeland]

I was speaking of grow in guys in my original post.  I am a grow in super and that is what my experiences have been.  I am sure yours is a fine tuned course that has no problems...that you cant solve from your chair

[Greg Chambers]

Tim,

With all due respect, I'm sure you've done some great work in a position that is very difficult.  However, I have done four grow ins myself, and have yet to use a hand held for the job.  I get off my lazy ass and walk over to the clock.  I have dragged hose around.  The ability to punch buttons on a hand held has nothing to do with the number of heads on a course.  Your analysis is at best off base and at worst just plain rude.

[Ian Larson]

Don,

This statement....


"Ian,
My issue is not really with your specific situation as much as it is with the new generation that can only maintain a course if everything is "perfect"."


....is about as broad as it gets, its just as off based and curmudgeonly as Tim Copelands. Id love to hear some examples where everything is "perfect". Does "perfect" exist in this business? And what does generation have to do with anything? The same can be said for, (and this is why your statement is broad and off-based) the older generation.


This statement....

"There is no irrigation system or equipment fleet or anything else that can take the place of a super that can think. Tools are nice, but interchangeable. How you use them is what matters. Tim Copeland's rants are a good example. I have a decoder system, no satellites; my radio takes the place of 30 satellites. If I screw up it's me, not the tool."

....is absolutely true. However, if this is based off of your first statement your again off-base. The age or generation of a super is irrelevant. There are plenty of guys spanning all ages that think and dont think. Dont stereotype.


And finally this one....

"And my parting shot, who said anything about a 20 minute cycle? The longest cycle on my system is 3 minutes. And I knew exactly how much H2O I put out as not only did I base it on what the math said, I'm also a certified golf irrigation auditor and I used catch cans to measure my use and Brookside labs to work up the math on how much water I needed to use to flush my salts based on my water quality and soil infiltration.

If you don't think a green can be flushed with 2" of water then we have nothing more to talk about.
I'll just agree to disagree with you."

....20 minutes was merely an example. Flushing.....so many supers dont understand what the difference between a true flush and a leach is. A leach is only a larger volume of water moving salts off the plant and away from the roots. A flush not only achieves that but it cleanses through the entire greens profile and most importantly creates an immense suction drawing down a ton of oxygen.

Im confident talking about this stuff because Ive spent alot of time and money doing my own research on flushing and its effect on nutrients taking dozens and dozens of soil and water samples that were analized by Brookside and interpreted by Dr. Larry Stowell. http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34030.0.html

I cant get specific about what you do without knowing your greens profile, the volume your heads put out and the perc rate. But what I can get specific about is that if after putting the 2" down and you dont have a full pipes worth of water instantly surging out of the drain outlet, you havent accomplished a true flush. And if you are using the full circles around the green, youre spending double the time and water to do it.

[Pat Brockwell]

Tim C.
I've solved a lot of problems from my chair.  I think it has to do with stepping away and thinking instead of reacting.  Another way I've solved problems is to leave and say, have supper with my wife. I can come back with a fresh perspective and do a better job.  It can take some discipline to go beyond dragging hose until you have to lock yourself in the office and curl up in the corner, all because someone else thinks that's the way to do it.  That approach is unsustainable and leads to burnout.  It is better to work with your mind and save your back, or maybe you would rather go back to quick couplers and a night waterman.

As far as your rant on hand held radios; it's a poor workman that quarrels with his tools. 

I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed about dragging hose vs installing heads, because if you're having to drag hose all day, you don't have a very good irrigation design. Think about it.

OK enough of this silly snarking and back to the original question, which I would like to rephrase;  When does irrigation design go over the top?  I think I'll start a new thread.