More of "Nature's Way" agronomic practices....

« **on:** July 29, 2005, 08:50:41 AM »

might be in the offing. In the thread on the Pa Amateur at Huntingdon Valley you can see some descriptions and explanations of what more natural (organic) agronomic practices are all about both actually and what they can create in playability.

HVGC basically created their own practices some years ago simply because there was no one out there as a resources to advise them in a general sense.

Ran Morrissett is thinking of doing an interview with HVGC superintendent Scott Anderson who developed these practices at HVGC (in conjunction with perhaps Linc Roden and Jim Sullivan). It should be an interesting interview as the practices are pretty different from everyone else in many ways.

But I feel HVGC's practices are about to garner some proponents and followers---they already have around here.

One could probably create two lists of what the benefits and perhaps perceived drawbacks may be to this kind of thing in both agronomy and playablity and see which side golfers and clubs might come down on. I might even try to construct those two lists on here and others can add or subtract from them and discuss the ramifications.

But a far more organic "Nature's Way" sort of process is interesting and it sure is different----eg much less artifical irrigation, much less chemicals that apparently over time creates a sort of Darwinian agronomic evolution where only the strong survive.

One clear benefit is if a course goes through a sweltering humid heat wave the way Philadelphia has for the last week to ten days grass like HVGC's seems far better able to handle it than the grass of any of the alternative agronmic practices that are so pervalent today.

« **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2005, 08:55:28 AM »

Tom:

I am sure that HVGC's practices are different from most of the high-end clubs in the Philadelphia area, but I would be surprised if they are very much different from some other places around the globe. There are a lot of fine superintendents who have been maintaining their turf stands by natural selection for many years.

Look forward to seeing the interview.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2005, 09:03:09 AM »

Not to move this thread all over the place but one of the unique practices HVGC has developed over the last decade or so is the actual cultivation of grain in their greens.

In some ways the reaction to this is pretty funny. About five years ago during what's known as the Mason Dixon Matches (a team of GAP's best players against a team of the Mid-Atlantic section's best players) I was playing HVGC with the superintendent of Four Streams G.C. in Virginia that was to host the Mason Dixon Matches the following year.

Just before we teed off I told the Four Streams super to get ready to play greens that had some serious grain cultivated back into them. You should've seen the look on his face;

He said: "What the hell is that all about?? The entire world of golf has worked so hard to get rid of grain in greens and these guys are working to cultivate it back in again??"

That's another example of how unique some of the things HVGC has done are!

(the most evident example of HVGC's grain has always seemed to me to be #15, and you should have seen where the pin was for the last round of the Pa Amateur. If you were in the right position to putt to that pin you were looking at some seriously dark grass all the way up the slope to a pin just over the slope that was within about a three foot area of shiny grass with the slope and the grain going the other way. Talk about complicated to look at and try to play to!

« **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2005, 09:06:40 AM »

TomD:

I'm certain that's probably true but what club or course do we know that's gone from the way most do things in the modern age back to the way they do it now?

What major course and club do you know who's done that kind of "about face" like HVGC did starting about twenty years ago?

« **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:12:27 AM »

If you ask me the only realistic way for a golf club to get down the road on the type of minimal water, minimal chemcial process HVGC did is to come at the issue first from the point of view of playability. I think a club (membership) has to totally understand what they're looking for playability-wise first the way HVGC did. Once they understand that they can work with the super to produce it agronomically. To expect it to happen first from the agronimic side doesn't seem to be realistic.

It's interesting and maybe a little depressing but I'm finding so many American golfers who basically don't even know what firm and fast conditions really play like.

The better players are pretty intuitive and pick these things up fast obviously because they have to to avoid mistakes with otherwise good shots.

I could see they picked things up fast on the last day at the Pa Am on #15. The course was drying out and I saw a lot of good shots coming into #15 green in two landing well back in the fairway as they're supposed to with the firmness HVGC likes to have. Those guys might've been 230-240 out and they were hitting things like 6 irons and flying the ball maybe 190. That's challenging, interesting and fun just to calculate and it's great when the ground cooperates and it comes off.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:25:44 AM »

Sorry my brains are getting old and I don't readily remember, but didn't we have a thread about a controversial fellow in Great Britain that advocated for a very lean "natures way" program of cultural and non-irrigation and very low natural fertility and beach sand top dressing practices at TOC and other links courses? What was his name?

And the cultivation of grain on the green is interesting. I'm assuming you are speaking of the super developing a turf nursery from cores from the greens, to maintain the naturally progressed blend of cultivars and such that evolved over the years. A process of replacing scalped areas, or small problem turf areas on the green with hex plugs from the nursery then introduces the same blend that doesn't have uniform grain. Then the turf sward gets a sort of motteled look with the grains going in diverse directions displaying interesting textures.

A super in these parts is a whiz at that, and he worked with Bruce Hepner on presenting that maintenance meld on North Shore CC in Menasha WI, in the most impressive manner I have ever seen. Although, they haven't to my knowledge gotten the membership to cross the rubicon of fertility and irrigation on the nature's way-lean and mean side, as of yet, I don't think...

« **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:44:08 AM »

RJ;

I'm still trying to find those English articles for Micah Wood. That was basically about the naturally acidic soils of the linksland and heathlands and how the old agrostis (bent) and festuca (fescue) grass prosper in it since there was so little competition from other strains that can't survive in that kind of acidic soil. I believe his point was that lyming screwed that up big-time on some of the older courses in naturally acidic soils.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2005, 03:59:37 PM »

The R&A has a Best Practices site that has info on having a sustainable course using minimal water,ferts, and pesticides.

https://www.bestcourseforgolf.org/images/fescues.pdf

« **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:05:55 AM »

I would have to say most UK courses are following this road in one form or another, mind we needed to. A few years back it was very common to see ludicrously over watered and over fed courses with all the consequential thatch and disease problems. Nowadays nearly all the courses are firm and fast with the odd hideous and out of place exception.

My own course has not sprayed fungicide on the greens for 6 years and this year we have applied just 7Kg N per hectare, which is frankly nothing.

« **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:56:39 AM »

Marc Haring:

Good show and good to hear! At least you all in Europe are capable of figuring out how to turn around, go back, and go down the right road after taking a wrong turn and the wrong road as we did over here about 60 years ago!

Some good things are exportable from America and importable into other countries but that is definitely not one of them.

That essentially was the point of those fine articles from Europe that I can't seem to find in my own office---eg get these over-watering and over fertilizing chemical dependent American maintenance practices the hell out of our European courses so we can get them back to "Nature's Way".

« **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2005, 10:16:34 AM »

TEPaul, I am reminded of a thread back awhile ago when Donnie Beck said he used something like 36,000 gals. of water last year at Fishers. That started a series of posts about deep and infrequent irrigation.

I don't have any doubts that if done properly deep and infrequent is best for the plant's (grass) health. You have a deeper rooted, stronger,hardier plant when all is said and done. You have a plant that will be less susceptble to stress, insects, and disease.

Plants are obviously living organisims and they respond to "conditioning" just like any other living organisim. And sadly, just like the weight lifter that feels the need for steriods to reach a certain level of "conditioning", we have people who feel plants also need more chemicals and more water to reach a percieved level of conditioning. Unfortunately, the steriod fried weight lifter is delusional and has a "false" sort of conditioning and so does the golf course that has utilized excessive water and chemicals to achieve a certain level of "green" conditioning. Short term both look "pretty" but over time they will both collapse under the weight of maintaining that "look".

« **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:21:17 PM »

"TEPaul, I am reminded of a thread back awhile ago when Donnie Beck said he used something like 36,000 gals. of water last year at Fishers. That started a series of posts about deep and infrequent irrigation."

Craig:

Fishers is one of the few major league courses in America that has no fairway irrigation system but I doubt Donnie could've possibly used as little as 36,000 on his tees and greens. 36,000 gallons is about the same amount Tom MacWood uses each year flushing his toilet!

« **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2005, 01:46:16 PM »

Perhaps, but the number was very low. Considering we put over 650,000 gal. on our course every evening in this weather, it wasn't much water at all.

I am very curious as to how far you could push this, and how long it might take to reach a similer balance in the Rocky Mountain area with such low rainfall and arid conditions. Believe it or not, I don't think 650,000 gal. is excessive for an 18 hole course, especially in this climate. But, I am pretty sure if we cut back our irrigation right now by 10% we would have some major problems.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2005, 08:12:43 AM »

Craig:

Just for you information, HVGC uses around 8 million gallons per year---and that's on a 27 hole golf course. As a counter-point Pete Galea was telling me of a course he's aware of that used just about 1 million gallons PER DAY!!

« **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2005, 08:17:48 AM »

By the way, with a minimal annual per gallon water usage like HVGC's someone on here will probably say that HVGC will be up the creek if this region gets hit by water restrictions (since some presume a golf course around here is cut back on a percentage of what they have used before the drought).

I asked Scott Anderson about that and he said not at all, that's not how it worked with them in the last drought restrictions of around 30% cutback we had around here a few years ago. He said irrigation usage around here was cut back on somewhat of a regional average and when HVGC was given the cutback restrictions it was almost double what they regularly used anyway!

« **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2005, 08:35:01 AM »

Hey, Scott Anderson, if you happen to be readinng any of this stuff, since some of us seem to be glorifying you and HVGC so much on here, and rightly so, for your organic and mimimal water usage practices, i got to ask you something.

On the final day of the Pa Amateur, after the cut, the first group of the day was approaching the sixth green and we had a rules official out ahead of that group checking their pace. That rules official was down near the 6th green around 9:15 and----BOOM----all the irrigation heads on #6 green went on! He got on the radio asking what the hell that was all about and who could get in touch with you like immediately to turn them off.

I called the maintenance building on my cell phone and that nice lady down there said she would take care of it immediately. For a minimal water outfit like HVGC obviously is---what the hell was that all about? Did some little mouse down at the maintenance building walk over the on/off switch on #6 or something??

« **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2005, 09:44:05 AM »

Tom,
Here at Hotchkiss we almost have all our tees and greens irrigated with pop up sprinklers but nothing on the fairways, lots of brown. A few greens still get watered with hoses and portable sprinklers. We don't use much water, that's for sure.

Just as a side note, 8 mil. gals per season is roughly equal to 55 year round households of four people, a 6.25' deep 4 acre lake or 445 swimming pools measuring 15' x 30' x 6' deep.

« **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2005, 12:22:10 PM »

As of this morning I broke the 9 million gallon mark for total use so far this year on 18 holes. Not quite as good as HVCC. Not so sure how smart I am either as I have some sick looking Poa and my rough is weak. But the balls are bouncing out there today and the bentgrass is doing fine. Time will tell if my Members appreciate it or not.

« **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2005, 12:24:02 PM »

TEPAUL...I searched for the post where Donnie Beck said how much water he used in 2004...again, I recall 36,000 gallons, but it might have been more. I remember at the time thinking it was next to nothing because we put down 650,000 gal. every night.

Here in the arid rockies, at 3200ft...we receive about 13 inches of precip. per year. April,May, and June are reseaonably wet, perhaps 2 1/2" (2.5") each month....that would be one nice afternoon thunder boomer in Massachusetts! However, July and August generally are very dry...less than 1" for the month is not uncommon.

On top of that we lose water quickly to evaporation from wind and sun...humidity is typically less than 15% on a summer day.

We don't have anywhere near the problem with disease that more humid and wet climates have.

« **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2005, 03:12:56 PM »

IMO,
To me there are two methods of golf course management relative to growing good golf turf. The first, and the method most often taught by our institutions of higher learning, is a hydroponics approach to growing good turf. The hydroponics approach is based on the idea that the soil is primarily used as an anchor for turf and we will supply the plant with whatever it needs to prosper. We regularly monitor tissue nutrient levels and supply nutrients in the ratios that science tells us grows healthy turf, and we will apply water based on ET numbers that our weather stations tells us the turf needs. We will use whatever chemistry is needed to keep the plants alive and healthy and we will use whatever cultural methods (topdressing, slicing, spiking,…) to manage thatch levels and keep the soil anchor open and breathing. Some very good golf courses are managed like this (of course I generalize here, but you get the picture) and I don’t necessarily see this type of approach as a negative, especially in areas where quality golf turf doesn’t grow easily.

The second approach is a soil based approach and is more commonly associated with a natural or organic approach. This method is based upon the assumption that a healthy soil will grow healthy turf and most of the processes used are geared toward keeping the soil healthy and well balanced with the by product being healthy golf turf. I think the main difference between this method and the previous is that long term thinking determines most all the processes developed to grow turf in this manner. I believe the manager who uses this method tends to view his turf as more resistant to stress and is very hesitant to use band aids when the turf appears to be under stress.

Most good turf mangers I know actually use a combination of these two methods but I believe the majority of newer turf managers use the first method because it is what is taught in our universities and it is the method where you get the feeling that your doing something about your turf problems. Letting your weaker turf check out is just not acceptable in many cases and the patience to really manage a course using method number 2 is just not available to most turf mangers.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2005, 03:42:18 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on July 31, 2005, 08:35:01 AM

Hey, Scott Anderson, if you happen to be readinng any of this stuff, since some of us seem to be glorifying you and HVGC so much on here, and rightly so, for your organic and mimimal water usage practices, i got to ask you something.

On the final day of the Pa Amateur, after the cut, the first group of the day was approaching the sixth green and we had a rules official out ahead of that group checking their pace. That rules official was down near the 6th green around 9:15 and----BOOM----all the irrigation heads on #6 green went on! He got on the radio asking what the hell that was all about and who could get in touch with you like immediately to turn them off.

I called the maintenance building on my cell phone and that nice lady down there said she would take care of it immediately. For a minimal water outfit like HVGC obviously is---what the hell was that all about? Did some little mouse down at the maintenance building walk over the on/off switch on #6 or something??

He missed... he told me about that later that day

« **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2005, 04:49:40 PM »

Quote from: Don_Mahaffey on July 31, 2005, 03:12:56 PM

Letting your weaker turf check out is just not acceptable in many cases and the patience to really manage a course using method number 2 is just not available to most turf mangers.

Don,

Nice synopsis. The above quote is one of the few benefits of being a self employed superintendent. I have come close to firing myself for turf loss, but I wouldn't be able to face myself in the morning......

Joe

« **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2005, 04:59:54 PM »

Don Mahaffey...I like your observations and the conclusion that a combination of the two methods is probably best.

When I was in the nursery business I spent a great deal of time experimenting with potting mixes for bare root trees and shrubs until I eventually found one that produced the results I wanted. Everything from rooting in and root growth,bud break, and final leaf out and plant quality, started with the soil. The types of soil, the size of the soil particles,the amount of sand,leaf mold and other organics in the mix were very important. In fact, they were just about everything. A little fert. and life was good.

You're pretty dry down there in Bend. How much water are you putting on your course if I might ask?

« **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2005, 06:15:08 PM »

Ran's interview with Linc Roden in December 2001 should shed some additional light on the way HVCC maintains their wonderful golf course.

The remainder of the interview is also pretty educational and I recommend anyone who has not yet read it to do so asap.

« **Reply #24 on:** August 01, 2005, 12:34:02 AM »

Craig,
Through the green we are blue/rye/poa so we don't have the most drought tolerant grass around. We have high temps averaging about 95f for the last three weeks and it looks like we will be 100+ this coming week. So far we are averaging about 500k gallons a night. It varies because of our scheduling, some nights 650+, others <400. Hope that helps.

News:

TEPaul

Tom_Doak

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

Marc Haring

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

Jim_Kennedy

Sean Remington (SBR)

Craig Sweet

Don_Mahaffey

Kyle Harris

Joe Hancock

Craig Sweet

Geoffrey Childs

Don_Mahaffey