Growth regulators @ Oakland Hills.

[Marc Haring]

Here’s one for the technicians of GCA.

Someone said on a previous thread that the greens at Oakland Hills were improved beyond all recognition (compared to the 96 Open) through a combination of cool weather, that allowed the bent to dominate the poa and also by the use of GROWTH REGULATORS.

Are growth regulators that good on traditional greens and have they been influential on the playing characteristics of golf courses greens?

[S. Huffstutler]

I don't consider myself a technician, I have some technicians who work for me, but I will throw in my two cents worth anyway...

Growth regulators are used for a variety of reasons, seedhead suppression, clipping reduction and tightening of the canopy. They are very valuable additions to the arsenal that the Superintendent has at his disposal. I don't have bentgrass, but I use growth regulators on my bermuda greens to tighten the canopy and I use them on my fairways to reduce clipping yield.

Steve

[igrowgrass]

Cooler weather would promote more poa growth or so it would seem from my experience.  I don't think it is completely fair to compare the greens of Oakland Hills from 1996 Open to the 2004 Ryder Cup.  The whole management has completely changed from only 8 years ago, green speed and the science of it all has changed dramatically since then.

[Marc Haring]

Thanks Guys.
I asked the question for a couple of reasons. Firstly, growth regulators have just started to be used over here in the UK, more so in Ireland and I wondered on how effective they are? Secondly, I played a course not so long ago with a combination of poa and bentgrass greens that were without a doubt, the best surfaces I have ever played on. I recently found out that these greens had been on a programme of growth regulators for the past two years.

[TEPaul]

Fertilization practices and growth regulator practices in the same overall maintenance management?!? How exactly does that work? On the face of it it'd seem that's sort of going in opposite directions. Obviously fertilization is doing one thing to the plant and growth regulation is doing something entirely different. I'd love to hear more about that. Or is it that those two practices are just alternated at different times for different effects?

[Mark Lucas]

Marc,

I believe that growth regulators have had an enormous effect on golf course conditioning in the states over the last 5-10 years.  Their use has been become especially prevalent over the last five years.  One of the benefits of using a growth regulator is that different varieties of grasses can blend better and more consistently.  So I can believe that your asessment of the greens played having poa and bent can be true.

TEPaul,

Fertilization and growth regulators are not mutually exclusive practices.  In fact, growth regulators can actually allow fertilization to be more efficient.  There are many types and classes of growth regulators.  Some are used to discourage upright growth while encouraging lateral growth (i.e. density versus top growth), while others are used for seedhead suppression of Poa annua.  And still others are used for Poa annua control - though this is a constant fight with some success and a lot of failures.

When used for lateral growth encouragement (and top growth regulation), the plant still grows - but more through root and lateral growth (stolons or rhizomes).  This enables the plant to take up the fertilizer and use it for these purposes.  In the final analysis, this allows the manager (superintendent or greenkeeper if you prefer) to:

1. Promote a healthier plant and surface because of higher density and greater root growth.
2. Fertilizer more efficiently.
3. Possibly reduce fertilizer amounts.
4. Encourage more consistent surfaces - even with different types of grasses - or even different varieties of bentgrass.
5. Allow for more intensive management - rolling, lower mowing heights, etc.

All of this CAN (not a guarantee) lead to faster greens speeds, healthier turf, lower fairway heights, less mowing and clippings, and tighter turf.

Mark Lucas

[Marc Haring]

Tom Paul

Seems a bit illogical doesn’t it. I’m not entirely sure but I think growth regulators inhibit the elongation of the leaf but grass being grass it attempts to compensate by increasing tillering. So you get a denser turf without getting higher grass. Applying fertiliser at the same time gives the plant the required nutrients to carry out the tillering but the growth regulators stop the elongation. Other benefits apart from less mowing and finer surfaces are decreased water loss through the leaf, resistance to ball marks and wear and maybe even increased rooting as the grass sends it’s surplus energy into root production.

Clever isn’t it?    

[igrowgrass]

It's never been published as far as I know, but many people believe that over time th plant will build a resistance to the PGR, so it is important to increase your application rate each year.

[igrowgrass]

Plant will build a tolerance to the PGR

[S. Huffstutler]

There is no evidence that the plant will build up "resistance" as of yet. I have been using this stuff for a long time at the same rates and getting predictable results. The plant does seem to become more tolerant of the chemical over time, exhibiting fewer of the less desirable reactions like yellowing and I believe that the plant does undergo some physiological change over time with the use of PGR's, but all of the side effects seem to be good ones; Denser turf, better disease resistance, more resistant to traffic wear and lower clipping yields. University testing is the only way to tell for sure if a particular species is become resistant.

Steve

[Marc Haring]

5. Allow for more intensive management - rolling, lower mowing heights, etc.

All of this CAN (not a guarantee) lead to faster greens speeds, healthier turf, lower fairway heights, less mowing and clippings, and tighter turf.

Mark Lucas

How could you reduce mowing heights when using PGR’s and yet maintain plant health. Is it more a case of maintaining speed but allowing higher HOC’s and therefore putting less stress on the plant?

[Mark Lucas]

Marc,

By regulating top growth, mowing lower is not as much of a "shock to the system" than without.  What I mean by this is that you wouldn't be mowing as much leaf tissue off when under regulation - even at lower mowing heights.  This can allow (every situation is different) for healthier turf even at low mowing heights.  Anytime the turf is aggressively growing, mowing more than a third of the leaf blade off can damage the plant.  Under regualtion, you don't have to worry about this.

Mark

[TEPaul]

This is wonderful stuff for us non-agroomists to know and for those of us who sit on green committees. It's one thing to be aware of the things superintendents do but it's another thing to be fully aware of all the reasons why. I  think our course uses growth regulators this year and our putting surfaces on this new A-4 grass is unbelievably good, five times better than it's ever been before.

All this stuff that golf agronomy is coming up with does seem a bit like "weird science" to me though, although the effects seem undeniably positive to the playing of golf. Where do you guys think the science of golf agronomics will be in 20 or 50 years? What do you think it will or could produce and finally do you agree with it or should things cycle back to the more natural happenstance of grass growth and evolution?

Thanks so much for the information.

[Mark Lucas]

TEPaul,

I love to discuss agronomy, but I love to read about and discuss architecture too.  Believe me, I love to read the topics discussed in this forum.  And I think I know a lot about gc architecture - having been around golf courses and architects for so long.  But many, including you, on this forum astound me at their knowledge of architecture.  Anyway, I'm much more in my comfort zone discussing agronomy.

That being said, the ceiling on developments in agronomy is basically limitless - just like any other type of science.  It's not going to slow down, that's for sure.  Membership and golfer demands and expectations only increase from year to year, so we have to stay ahead of the curve and the competition.  Now, it seems this forum has many that would love to see it pulled back a bit.  I lean with this camp.  Because even though things might appear to be a little easier with technological advances, it only raises the bar for conditioning that much further.  Some of the things we now do, would have seemed crazy five years ago.  Where it stops or goes, I only wish I could predict.

I however, don't see the return of natural happenstance of grass growth because that is what Americans have come to NOT expect. And because of other reasons like competition amongs clubs and courses for the golfer's dollar.  And, of course, because of televised golf.  Anytime Johnny Miller, or anyone else for that matter, mentions things like "Bethpage's greens are rolling 13 to 14 in the pouring rain" (sorry, but I just can't believe that one), expectations and demands only increase.  And so the cycle continues.

Mark

[TEPaul]

"Believe me, I love to read the topics discussed in this forum.  And I think I know a lot about gc architecture - having been around golf courses and architects for so long.  But many, including you, on this forum astound me at their knowledge of architecture."

Mark:

I could be wrong about this but I think most of the contributors on here who aren't in the business of golf architecture, golf architecture construction or contracting or golf agronomy are pretty knowledgeable but only in the sense of sophisticated golf architectural appreciation and some perhaps in what I call golf architectural "concept". I've been studying that side of it everyday for about 6-7 years now but what I really don't know much about is the actual business of golf architecture, the nuts and bolts of golf architectural construction and the entire realm of golf's agronomy.

The latter few things I'd like to know a whole lot more about. I seem to know a pretty good amount of architects now so getting out on projects under construction, grow-ins or the entire area of architectural restoration is one way to go about learning those areas. I must have the tel numbers of at least 50-60 good supers around the country I call or go see from time to time and that's always a great on-going education. The best way to learn about all this stuff, obviously, is to get out there and visit and see for yourself and talk face to face but in the interim finding out about such things as those from people like you on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is a very good way to do it too.

I know I shouldn't say this on here but this kind of thread, to me anyway, is far more interesting than some thread such as "Should the Masters move to Sand Hills if something catasrophic happened to ANGC?"

On threads such as this one you can actually learn something that may be useful on one's own golf course or on others.

[Steve Okula]

I gather you're all talking about Primo, the most widely used PGR on golf courses today. I've been using it the past three years, and I have found it a useful tool.

Primo inhibits cell elongation, but doesn't otherwise alter the plant physiology. So there are more cells in less leaf, the plant is able to tolerate a lower height of cut because there is just as much physical capacity to process food and energy and respiration in the leaf blade as at the higher cut, so we get away with increasing green speed at no cost to the plant's health.

I found it to be very useful also in my 50/50 bent/poa greens. As they elongate more slowly, the difference in the growth rates is less noticeable resulting in a smoother, truer green.

Altogether more dense and upright growth habit, as well. It's sort of like discovering dwarf varieties of the same grasses.

[S. Huffstutler]

Personally, I think that it will not be too long before we start going backwards with regard to the tools (chemical) that are available to us. I am willing to predict that we will continue the trend of losing labels and be subject to more and more pressure to maintain turf without chemicals. This is not neccesarily a bad thing, but I suspect that golfers expectations will not go down with regard to turf conditions (green and lots of it). That being said, it may open opportunities for more R&D into environmentally friendly pesticides and fertilizers.

Steve

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: