[Philippe Binette]

I'm no agronomy expert, but I'm just wondering if USGA greens are just an expensive way to built greens for a standard course...

Is it really worth the trouble and money, compare to building a push-up green with good material or a california green?

Do you make an economy of water, chemical or whatever else with USGA greens?

Is it also working fine with any type of grasses?

thnaks

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

There's no real easy answer, push-ups can be fine, it all depends on what is desired by the club.

However the main benefit of USGA spec green is water management. They are designed to be free draining but also 'hold' enough water to help the plant survive. They can be played on pretty much regardless of rainfall, offer more consistant conditions during wet and dry periods and can be kept drier during hot periods due to the perched water table (although that's more due to the ability to grow longer roots in the sandy medium.)

The only real differences between a UGSA green and a California one are USGA spec greens have a gravel layer for drainage that creates the perched water table that 'holds' the water and USGA spec greens usually contain peat/compost throughout the entire profile to help retain nuitrients, whereas California greens are straight sand with admentments tilled into the surface to aid turf growth.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There's no real easy answer, push-ups can be fine, it all depends on what is desired by the club.

Surely the answer is not what is desired by The Club and much more what is desired by The Site.

There is a best-fit and individual answer for every golf course. In fact, you could argue that there is a best-fit answer for every golf hole.

[Bradley Anderson]

Push-up greens are made of native soil, with some amendments added. So the term "push-up green" literally means:

      "inconsistent from site to site green"

You will not encounter consistent native soils from course to course. So every push-up green is going to have different drainage and fertility characteristics.

The USGA has always been dedicated to providing guidelines for uniformity. And it has done an admirable job of providing those guidelines. Is the USGA green perfect? No. In fact it comes with it's own set of problems. But when they are built according to specifications, they can provide great playing conditions for many years.

Additionally, the USGA Green is a very quick grow-in. It is ready for play by June, if it is seeded before September of the previous year. I'm not so sure that that could be accomplished with a push-up green.

The USGA green requires less surface drainage than a push-up green. And at today's speeds that is a significant consideration. For if you built a push-up green at the grades that are required to provide fair pin placements, with today's speeds, the surface drainage of the push-up green would probably not be sufficient to grow healthy turf all around every section of every green on the course. Some areas of some greens might struggle. I myself would be concerned that the push-up green would not be healthy unless I had steeper slopes and grades to shed the water, and in that management schema, the speeds would have to be kept slower.

With the older, original push-up greens, you generally have enough surface drainage to balance health issues, and the loss of fair pin placements were acceptable as the speeds evolved. That may sound contradictory - maybe because it is.  In either case, most all of the older push-up greens now have a nice layer of sand topdressing built up so that they are draining as good as newer USGA greens do.

Actually, an older push-up green, with sand topdressing buildup, is the best of both worlds. You get the drainage and firmness of a USGA green, with the fertility storage and soil chemistry buffering action of the native soil.

If you could build a push-up green, and start sand topdressing it after it is grown in, and not push it to speed too quickly (maybe over a three year period) that would be the best way to go.

Another good way to go is to harvest the layers of sand topdressing and native soil from old push up greens, and then reuse them in the construction of a new green. That has actually been done quite successfully at a few clubs.

[Bradley Anderson]

I would actually like to hear from someone who has built a true push-up green - particularly from someone who has built a push-up green from soil that is more on the loam and clay side of the spectrum.

[Steve Burrows]

As a former Assistant Superintendent at various clubs, I have dragged hoses around in the mornings and afternoons on both USGA greens and push-up soil greens, and even one course where about half the greens were USGA and the other half were soil greens. 

At that particular club, the afternoon syringing was relatively easy; all I had to do was focus my energy on the USGA greens.  Though one of their preferred characteristics is the ability to hold water in the profile, it was clear that they would start spotting and dry out much earlier than the soil greens.  In fact, the soil greens were some of the most resiliant surfaces that I have ever seen, and made it through some otherwise rough days in top form, whereas the USGA greens required constant attention so as to not start losing turf.

As mentioned in a previous post, this resiliency of certain soil greens is likely due in part to the 50 years of soil balance (pH, etc.), as well as topdressing, which allows some water to stay above the clay subgrade, and still be accessible to the plant when necessary.  Obviously, however, the soil greens did suffer in the wet times, as that same clay subgrade was not always able to quicly percolate water after a storm. 

Ultimately, I think USGA greens are the superior choice if money is available, and greater consistency is desired in the short run, but there are many clubs who are able to maintain their soil greens at superb levels of conditioning and get them through all weather conditions relatively unscathed.

[Joe Hancock]

A complex issue, for sure.

On most of the greens I've been involved in building, we've blended on site topsoil with a locally available sand to create our greens growing medium. We always send samples to a reputable lab for analysis and blending ratio recommendations. One of the benefits of doing it this way, in my mind, is the transitions from greens mix to surrounding soils is more seamless, and natural to the site.

One question that came to my mind as I was reading previous posts, especially Brad's:

Does USGA spec greens promote a more unnatural irrigation regime vs. a push up (or modified push up) green? Does that contribute to the oft mentioned problematic irrigation and agronomic tendencies of USGA greens?

Good thread.

Joe

[John Gosselin]

There is no correlation between holding a championship(whatever that means) and building a USGA green. Merion, Bethpage, and Oakmont don't have USGA greens.

I am wondering if anyone has built a push up green in the last 40 years other than truly ideal or predomitly sandy sites?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is it true that building to the USGA recommendation just becomes the "easy option" in many cases?

[Joe Hancock]

Is it true that building to the USGA recommendation just becomes the "easy option" in many cases?

Maybe the politics of going with USGA greens would be easier, but the actual construction of USGA greens is anything but easy....and certainly not an inexpensive option.

Joe

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is it true that building to the USGA recommendation just becomes the "easy option" in many cases?

Maybe the politics of going with USGA greens would be easier, but the actual construction of USGA greens is anything but easy....and certainly not an inexpensive option.

Joe

The politics is what I was referring to...

[Joe Hancock]

Is it true that building to the USGA recommendation just becomes the "easy option" in many cases?

Maybe the politics of going with USGA greens would be easier, but the actual construction of USGA greens is anything but easy....and certainly not an inexpensive option.

Joe

The politics is what I was referring to...

My experience is that when dealing with an individual owner, they are usually all about being frugal and not having to make politically correct choices. Maybe that's one reason you see USGA greens at some of the Championship-hosting courses more so than the courses built for different aspirations. The courses built with the idea that they want to host some sort of Championship, they want every marketing tool available to them before they even start.

Joe

[Greg Chambers]

John,

I was part of a contruction project that built push up greens out of silty loam in 2000/2001.  Compaction on these greens was a serious issue the first couple of seasons.  A regular deep tine program has helped to alleviate the issue.

I have also managed USGA spec greens and currently am at a course with California greens.  I have not noticed much, if any, difference in performance between the two, the only difference being California style are cheaper to build.

[John Gosselin]

John,

I was part of a construction project that built push up greens out of silty loam in 2000/2001.  Compaction on these greens was a serious issue the first couple of seasons.  A regular deep tine program has helped to alleviate the issue.

I have also managed USGA spec greens and currently am at a course with California greens.  I have not noticed much, if any, difference in performance between the two, the only difference being California style are cheaper to build.

 

I wander how long will the savings in construction be eaten up by all the extra maintenance and the lost revenues do to the resulting downtime for the greens to recover. Not to mention the lost revenues to reputation.

I agree. I have seen both, if built right, work. They are about the only option in many cases.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

We've had this discussion multiple times before.

USGA greens are the "easy" option from a LIABILITY standpoint.  If I build a course with push-up greens, and Mr. Gosselin takes it over and has trouble with keeping the grass on the greens, he's going to suggest that I am liable for not building the greens in the "accepted" manner.

I've built greens from native soils at several courses where we had good sandy loam soils, and I do not lose any sleep over their potential for failure.  I suspect that according to Bradley's first post, you could build them out of any decent loamy material (not heavy clay) and start aerifying and topdressing them right away, and you would be fine, too.  But there would be so much yelling and screaming from experts in the field that most architects don't want to subject themselves to that.

Incidentally, over the years, I've asked three great agronomists who do USGA soils testing how they would build greens if it was THEIR money.  Two of them suggested they would just build the greens from native sandy loam soils.  The other said he would prefer loamy soils.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Does USGA spec greens promote a more unnatural irrigation regime vs. a push up (or modified push up) green? Does that contribute to the oft mentioned problematic irrigation and agronomic tendencies of USGA greens?

What's an unnatural irrigation cycle? It's easier to dry out a USGA green if it is managed properly. As another poster said he was watering the USGA spec greens sooner than the push-ups, yeah, because they're dryer. The USGA spec greens lend themselves to deep infrequent watering cycles (is that unnatural?) that theoritically lead to longer roots, and hence better stress (be it drought, heat, traffic etc) tolerance. Of course if they are managed properly, near the 'end' of their watered period they will start to wilt and need syringing and the cycle can occur again. As for problematic irrigation and agronomic tendencies, it's probably just bad management.

Push-up greens do work and can be kept dry, but to maintain firm push-ups (and again it depends on soil types) constant hand watering (and I don't mean syringing) and minimum overhead irrigation is necessary, and you have to live with any precipation you don't have control over.

As for Bradleys contention that a USGA spec green is a faster grow-in, personally I feel it doesn't matter the medium in which the grass is sown, they can be grown in at the same rate.

USGA spec greens are not perfect, Mr. Doak beat me to it, but push-up greens are a liability from a new construction and maintenance standpoint; you spend x million constructing a new course, it's easier to use something that you know will definitly work.

[Joe Hancock]

Alan,

What I'm thinking as far as an unnatural irrigation cycle would be having a plant on a soil that requires irrigation in such frequency that you can't to some extent mimic the periods of dryness that sometimes happens in nature. On USGA greens, the drying happens so fast you can't ever really do the deep and infrequent irrigation that Mother Nature sometimes provides, IMO.

Bear in mind that some of what I'm saying is based on personal preference, just as someone who's vast amount of experience maintaining grass on USGA greens might lean the other way in this discussion. In other words, I'm biased and want to be up front about it.

Joe

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Joe,
Now I get what you mean, and to an extent I agree with you. Generally I figure around 5 days before a USGA spec green needs water so based on that, a push-up green might last longer before it need water, but I'm not sure 5 days is something I'd call drying so fast its unnatural

I'm biased towards the USGA specs so....
I've dealt with all types of greens over the years (native soils, USGA, California and some modified type crap that was supposed to be USGA spec!) and imo the USGA spec ones gave the best, most consistant greens over a season. (Although probably the best over a short period were push-ups with poa).

[Ray Richard]

I was involved in three separate golf courses in a ten mile radius on a sandy plateau near the ocean.

Course#1 was built on 150 acres of beach sand with fine sandy loam available on site. We tried to talk the owner into push-up greens but he was interested in the long-term marketability of the project so we built USGA greens on the sandy base. He did sell the project and the term "USGA greens"was all over the sales prospectus. Cost factor 3x.

Course #2 is an executive course that needed a large pond for irrigation. We dug out all the sand we needed and mixed it with native sandy topsoil and we constructed push-up greens. We didn't test anything.Cost factor 1x.

Course#3 is another executive course with a sandy base. We dug out a few ponds and stockpiled native loam then we tested batches every day to be sure the mixture was acceptable. Cost factor 2x because of production delays caused by the testing process.

These referenced push-up greens should be called mix-transport-and push up greens. All the greens constructed above are fine today.

[Bradley Anderson]

Let me clarify something. When I stated that a USGA green would be a faster grow-in, I was relating that to the midwestern soils (that I am most familiar with) that all tend more towards the clayey side of the spectrum. Those clayey type soils would take at least three years to get a smooth fast running surface on. To me a green is grown-in when it is playing to your expectations, not just when it has grass on it.

If I was working in an environment where the native soils tended more towards the loamy and sandy side of the spectrum, I would be comfortable working with those soils.
  
    Those soils are going to transition better with the fill pad and approach.

    The construction process would not have to be scripted but rather more free form, owing to  the fact that properly built USGA greens must have a mirror image subgrade to final grade.

    The cost would be cheaper, allowing you to spend more money on drainage of fairways, or whatever.

But I would still want to have tests run on the native soil to determine if the material would have a managable percolation rate, and a decent air to water ratio - not that I would expect  perc rates as high as a USGA spec green is. What we do not often realize is USGA greens loose those incredible perc rates as they age. It depends on a lot of factors, e.g. suspended solids in irrigation water, and wind etc., but USGA Greens can loose 50% of their initial perc rate in 5 years.

[Bradley Anderson]

Joe,
Now I get what you mean, and to an extent I agree with you. Generally I figure around 5 days before a USGA spec green needs water so based on that, a push-up green might last longer before it need water, but I'm not sure 5 days is something I'd call drying so fast its unnatural

I'm biased towards the USGA specs so....
I've dealt with all types of greens over the years (native soils, USGA, California and some modified type crap that was supposed to be USGA spec!) and imo the USGA spec ones gave the best, most consistant greens over a season. (Although probably the best over a short period were push-ups with poa).

Alan makes an important point. If you are in an area of the country where you need to irrigate a lot, and your water aquifiers are salty (as almost all of them are) you need to be able to flush the root zone from time to time to keep the salts moving downward. The USGA green is a good model for that management program. But many people say that the California model is pretty good too.

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,
Now I get what you mean, and to an extent I agree with you. Generally I figure around 5 days before a USGA spec green needs water so based on that, a push-up green might last longer before it need water, but I'm not sure 5 days is something I'd call drying so fast its unnatural

I'm biased towards the USGA specs so....
I've dealt with all types of greens over the years (native soils, USGA, California and some modified type crap that was supposed to be USGA spec!) and imo the USGA spec ones gave the best, most consistant greens over a season. (Although probably the best over a short period were push-ups with poa).

Alan makes an important point. If you are in an area of the country where you need to irrigate a lot, and your water aquifiers are salty (as almost all of them are) you need to be able to flush the root zone from time to time to keep the salts moving downward. The USGA green is a good model for that management program. But many people say that the California model is pretty good too.

I agree 100%. The only addendum would be that the critical factor in high irrigation use/ high sodium or bicarbonate areas is the ability to flush the irrigation water completely past the root zone and into a drainage system that is far removed form any grass growing areas of the course. USGA, California, even site blended with native soils can accomplish that, but the key is ample drainage, properly engineered and installed to work with the soils and shaping of the greens.

Joe

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

There is no correlation between holding a championship(whatever that means) and building a USGA green. Merion, Bethpage, and Oakmont don't have USGA greens.

I am wondering if anyone has built a push up green in the last 40 years other than truly ideal or predomitly sandy sites?

Hey John, what do we have at Aronimink? 

[Art_Schaupeter]

I had a nine hole project in the midwest with a 500K construction budget.  The greens are modified push up greens.  We shaped the greens with about 12" of topsoil then capped them with 6" of sand, deep tined the surface to break up the interface between sand and topsoil, floated them out and seeded them with bentgrass.  That was two years ago.  I didn't see the course last year, but I talked with the club representative and didn't hear about any problems.  The greens all sit out in the open, no air flow or sunlight restrictions, and they shed surface drainage in at least two different directions, if not three.  I'll defer to the others on this thread who are much stronger agronomically than me, but part of the thinking here was that this was basically what the original nine holes of this course were.  70 year old push up greens that had been topdressed forever.  This was going to give the super a fairly consistent management program between the new nine and the old nine.  Of course the construction budget almost mandated something like this anyway.  USGA greens would have eaten up too much of the budget.  I had some experience with this on three projects in Texas in which similar modified push up greens were built, again with no problems.

[Sean_A]

In my area, Redditch GC converted to USGA greens some 8 years ago and so far as I know they are the only club to do so.  The general aspect of much of the Midlands is clay based soil.  While it cost the club a ton of dosh and it took a few goes to get all the greens right, today these are the best greens around in the winter.  In fact, often times most clubs are on temps or closed while Redditch is on the greens.  Mind you, the club seems to have done nothing about the fairways!  They can be absolutely saturated making the course effectively unplayable regardless of the condition of the greens.  This is a great shame, but a good lesson for all those clubs thinking about conversion.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()