[Scott Witter]

I am looking for some help from the supers and from any one else who may have a constructive idea.  You can either reply here or send me info by email at witterdesign@gmail.com, or by IM, many thanks in advance.

One of my earlier projects was a 9-hole addition.  The greens were built based on the "California' method.  The budget was obsurdly tight and when it came to deciding what sand to use in the greens we had 2 materials to choose from.  Naturally there were more, but none were cost effective to be realistically considered.  One of the materials was an 80/20 mix of processed sand and peat.  The other was a locally available mason sand which could also be purchased at half the cost of the 80/20.  We had both products tested by a very well known and reputable soils lab, based on samples provided.

The results of the tests resulted in a recommendation by the lab to use the local mason sand.  Naturally the club was happy knowing they had a good product and the cost was within their budget so we went with it.  All in all, everyone involved did the right thing.  The only weak link that I can see is that perhaps the sampling for the mason sand was taken correctly and the soils lab can only test and comment on the sample they received.

Jump ahead to a few years ago, about 5 actually.  The club and their super have been struggling with these greens to keep them consistently moist, so much so that they have come very close to losing them on many occasions.  All of the more exposed greens, of which there are 5 constantly have isolated dry areas that even with careful hand watering, they just can't seem to keep them healthy.  Root growth on these surfaces is okay, but not great, with maybe a 5-6 depth.  The greens have now been built for 10 years.  Many many soil probes later, we find 2" of moist sand, the next few is powder and the next couple are moist, very odd.  it seems clear that moisture is very inconsistent throughout all the surfaces and manitaining consistent moisture seems to be impossible.  The super has tried aerifying and hydro-jetting aggressively and topdressing with an high organic mix with minimal results.

So the super and the club want to know if this approach is their best approach (they are concerned that it will take many years before they achieve decent results) and in the mean time, they are very concerned about losing them.  Is this a practical method, are there alternatives to introduce organic material, or do they need to core them out and use a blended mix and start over?

This is darn serious and the club is prepared to do what is necessary, but they want to make sure they are doing the right move.

Thanks!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Scott - This is quite difficult to answer by text and my real advice would be to seek advice from an agronomist. In an ideal world you should be loking for sands that get regular testing so you know you material will be consistent but ideal worlds and budgets are often in different solar systems. It sounds as if your supers and the advice you have so far is on the right track and you need to input organic and retentive material, strangely most situations exchanging soils are reverse as usually introducing sandy material is normal. It is quite a painfull process, it is quite expensive, disruptive and only half doing the job, but equally the rebuild method is painfull, disruptive and very expensive but does do the job. There may be some middle ground with stripping turf, removing some soil mix, incorporating a better top 4", perhaps even replacing the turf, but you need someone to do some serious testing and a hands on approach.

[Donnie Beck]

I would try muliple drill and fill deep tine aerifications before I rebuild the greens. Regular use wetting agents should help distrubute the mostiure.

[Greg Chambers]

Scott,

My greens were built exactly as yours, and I too have battled the same issues.  From the get go, my opinion is that an 80/20 mix is too high (the peat can actually repel water rather than absorb it, leading to LDS issues), 90/10 should be the max, and my putting green which was built a year later out of straight sand is my best performer, but what's done is done.  I have found deep tining and replacing with a sand/INorganic blend to be very helpful (I use ecolite, profile may also be used).  The other thing I do to help is to water extremely heavy about once every couple of weeks...I'm talking just putting down as much water as your irrigation system will allow.  Be ready to have a bunker crew go out the next morning.  California greens don't drain the same as USGA spec.  The inability to obtain a true perched water table causes the greens to dry out quickly, and inconsistently, due to the fact that moisture is drawn directly to the drain lines.  It can be very frustrating, I know, but it can be overcome.

[Mark Luckhardt]

California greens I have seen successful usually have organic amendments added to the top 4" after mix is applied to cavity, just before final float. In your situation could the sod be salvaged and organics tilled in, and sod reapplied?  This may afford the least downtime to play.

[Scott Witter]

Guys, thanks for input so far and for those who sent IM's as well.

Adrian, this may be a decent middle ground approach...it is certainly a viable option to rebuilding, which as much as the club says they are prepared, I know them well enough to know they don't have the $ to rebuild!

Donnie, the super has already started this 2 years ago...he and the club are just concerned it won't be enough soon enough.

Greg,  I know about the differences between USGA and California methods and you are right there always is differential issues between them.  So we have another vote for deep aerification and top dressing with a good blend.  Ecolite and Profile have also been discussed--have to look into the cost differences between that and a blended mix.

Mark:  Are you the same Mark Luckhardt from the TDI drainage team?  Just curious, if so we have met a couple times before.

Anyway,  your technique has also been discussed betrween me and Jeff Brauer offline--I think it is viable and I might suggest this approach to one of the greens as a test case and see how it responds and go from there.  I am certain the sod can be salvaged, but it would need to be done with an experienced crew and not the super and his crew IMO.

The door is still open for any other suggestions/techniques.

[archie_struthers]

 


Scott  .... I think the drill and fill methods to basically change the soil over time will work.  Much of the problem with California style green construction seems to stem from the soil drying out too fast, rather than the latter.  The ones built in our area seem ot have problems with this, and wetting agents help in some regards.

It's probably not a great time of year to do a serious driill and fill , particularly if you have an ongoing business but amending the soil type is probably the most economically viable answer. My guess is you need more organics , the opposite problem of most old push up greens , which are typically amended with pure sand. 

An interesting experiment we did at Grteate Bay a ago worked well for us.  We actually stripped the green of all sod ( (thinly sliced for you deli guys) and then redid all the drainage and the base .  We then replaced the sod,  which took quickly and now is one of our best greens (#16)  It took away the need for a lengthy regrow -in while  matching the indigenous greens perfectly.

Best of luck! 

[Don_Mahaffey]

I've seen this on a course I managed, also built with mason sand.
What I did (with some good consulting help) to fix the problem,
1. Deep irrigation. Fill the entire profile with water...you'll be amazed how much water it takes, you'll also be amazed at how 'open" you can keep the sand if you fill, dry down, fill...etc...
2. Use a high quality wetting agent (I used it at double the normal rate until I had even penetration of H2O) as often as needed.
3. Deep tine, or as Donnie suggests, drill and fill is even better.

You can get that powder dry layering due to two things (maybe more, but these two for sure), one is what we call irrigation pan; if you water with the same amount of water on a frequent basis you get the same penetration each time. You can easily end up with an upper wet zone and a lower, or middle, zone of powder dry sand. When you combine that type of irrigation with the same depth of aerification, then you get an aerification pan as well. This is not uncommon at all.
Pay attention when cutting cups, as soon as you see moisture layering in your plugs, attack the problem.

[archie_struthers]

 

Don real good stuff , very educational !   

There is hope for our patient!

[Jim Thompson]

Sent e-mail.

JT

Good point about the water app rate Don.  Mix it up folks.  God doesn't stop at 1/2" everytime he makes rain....

[Ray Richard]

Scott,

As per other suggestions, I'd check out some of the mild wetting agents that permit a big dosage without any adverse effects. Wetting agents can be phytotoxic if overused, and some have less phytotoxicity.
 I'd also watch the water in the spring. If you let the greens dry out early in the year you're setting up a hydrophobic situation (the turf won't accept water). Cool, windy days with low enviro-transpiration rates create localized dry spots that will worsen later in the summer when the turf gets stressed. On Cape Cod, I've seen some serious green drying in April. Some supers believe that keeping them dry in the spring will force the roots down, but I don't agree with that perspective. I always turned the water on early and often.I think you can fix the problem without a rebuild.

[Trey Stiles]

You might consider several different wetting agents in test plots ... My experience has been that you need to find the one that works well for your specific situation and superintendent.

Just because X worked well at one course does not mean it will work as well for Z course ( and superintendent with different practices )

[Scott Witter]

Many thanks for all the input.  It seems reasonable to conclude that this condition can be addressed with good ole fashion common sense, tweeked time-tested and modern cultural practices and some TLC before it is time to call in the excavator.

[Forrest Richardson]

"The club and their super have been struggling with these greens to keep them consistently moist, so much so that they have come very close to losing them on many occasions..."

Do turfgrass roots like to be "consistently moist"? I guess it depends on how you define consistently.

Root growth is achieved by approximating the natural delivery of water, which is in cycles that allow full percolation before the next cycle. I would much prefer to deal with the problem of fast percolation that the alternative — saturated growth medium that promotes all sorts of issues.

"Mair sand...mair sand..." said Old Tom.

A method I have seen used is to simply begin using a finer particle size for top dressing and following aerification. For example, an expensive USGA sand might be the answer for the club at this stage...augmenting the more coarse sand with a particle size that will slow percolation without adding compounds that may prove detrimental.

[Scott Witter]

Forrest, your point is well taken.  Perhaps 'consistently moist' was a wrong choice of words.  Nevertheless, I intend to see the condition for myself before I make a recommendation.  At this time, I am not sure it is a slow or a fast perc rate that may be contributing to the problem, but I hope to discover soon enough.

[Troy Alderson]

Scott,

I would follow with Don's suggestions.  The problem is not too much sand, but the irrigation practices of light and frequent.  I have the same problem at my current golf course.  Light and frequent on the bottom side and deeper and more infrequent of the top side.  The bottom side suffers during droughts and the top side survives just fine, deeper rooting on the top side than the bottom side.  The superintendent and I are working on trying to water the bottom side the same as the top side.  The bottom side is automatic wall to wall irrigation, the top side is night watering with quick couplers.  We currently water daily on the bottom side and every other day on the top side.

Troy

[paul cowley]

If you have dry areas within an otherwise healthy green, Profile, or its equivalent fired organic, can successfully be deep drilled/tined into these areas without having to treat the entire green....it works well.

I've used crystilized yogurt covered catfood, petrtrified bean curd, and others methods too numerous to mention......but nothing seems to do the job like your good old timey fired clay pellets!

In this business I've never gone along with the "food before function" crowd....really, how can you when your name is on the line?

[Randy Thompson]

Scott,
Have you checked the organic content of your present greens. It is my understanding that during the first three to five years, california type greens will generate their own organic matter and after five years have an organic matter content or percentage very similar in comparrison to an original USGA spec 90-10 green. What has been the topdressing material in the last ten years. hopefully it has been the same mason sand. I have seen to many clubs switch to finer sand for topdressing and makes for great surfaces for tournament play but does long term destructive damage to the entire infiltration and perculation process. Many times I can look at a profile of ten to fifteen years and tell you how many superintendents the club has had during that time frame because new superintnedent comes out with a new and better sand for X reasons. There are also a lot of supers that would kill to have five to six inches. That not bad at all, you should be able to produce healthy turf with that root system if play is not excessive and cutting heights are reasonable which they should be or you would not have five to six inches. All the other advice is on the money, deep infrequent waterings and consistent program with a good wetting agent. If different sands have been used through the years in topping and following aerifying then you will need to get back to the basics and do some frequent aerifying with large tymes and filll the holes with the original sand mix. In one aerifying you will change around four to five percent of the surface and root zone mix.

[Ian Larson]

I dont want to open another can of worms, but like I said in Muccis "will pushup greens make a comeback?" thread....

You are either going to pay now or pay later when it comes to choosing the sub-base purely by its cheaper cost. Sure, any accredited lab is going to analyze mason sand and say that it could support a putting surface. But it is the customers responsibilty to interpret that analysis by someone in the field such as an agronomist, or 2, or 3.

Im very familiar with mason sand and its particle size and shape. There is NO WAY I would ever use that as the growing medium for a green. Yes you can use it and grass will grow on it. And you can mow it and spray it and water it like any other green. The bottom line comes down top how it will perform years and years down the line. It all comes down to drainage.

Mason sand creates too large of macropore space in between each particle. And if it was used without any organic matter there is nothing in there to retain any plant available water creating the inconsistent conditions. The water management is the locomotive in the train wreck, its the cheap growing medium chosen for the greens.

One obvious option is to rebuild them and the other is to ammend them aggressively .

All of the ammendment recommendations above will work. But that shit is expensive. Especially drill and fill with Profile. If you go with the aggressive ammendment route it would be interesting to see some numbers crunched afterwards associated with the man hours and product cost needed for it and compare that to if you had actually just gone with a USGA version in the beginning.

PS  Ive never seen organic matter in a USGA green dry out to the point that it was diffcult to re-wet it. If the organic was so consistently dried out to that point the watering practices need to be looked at. I think the organic in a USGA was mistaken for the organic and thatch produced by the plant. There is also nothing wrong with using a 80/20 greens mix as compared to a 90/10. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
I agree with most of what you wrote but I want to add a few comments.
First, "mason" sand can meet USGA specs. How do I know, I just reviewed a sand that the supplier called mason sand. It was tested by an accredited lab and it met USGA specs, barely. I don't know what exactly makes a sand qualify as mason sand, but I think it varies a lot and has more to do with being clean and narrowly graded than any sort of particle size spec...I think.

Secondly, I've seen a USGA greens mix do exactly what Scott described. If you never push enough water to get the drains to work, you can end up with a profile that is wet on top and dry below. I've seen it and it happens when you are in arid areas with little to no rain and you water 10 minutes every night. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it can happen. A great rootzone is a good start to a healthy green. But poor maintenance can screw up the best rootzone. Ever been asked to help out a fellow super who’s greens were struggling only to learn that he has no idea where the outfalls are and whether he’s even moving water through the greens? I know you know the importance of that because you’ve written about flushing before. The USGA putting green system is very good for growing grass, but IMO, its best used with deep, infrequent irrigation that keeps everything open and moving. Water lightly every night with crappy water and you can lock ‘em up just as Scott described.

[Ian Larson]

Don,

Yeah like I said mason sand will fall into to the USGA or any other accredited labs spectrum of acceptable materials for a growing medium. I just feel like its a mistake for the customer to see what falls within the spectrum and go with the cheapest option without doing much more research or getting other opinions.

In southern california I use Larry Stowell at Pace labs for just about everything. He is one of the best in the business. But I always find that I have to take any data or recomendations that he gives me and take it one more step to translate that into something practical for the field. And if I dont think something is right but is beyond me to bridge the gap from the lab to the field then I call on friends and colleagues or independent agronomists.

In this part of the country, what is considered mason sand is a larger particle size than the standard 30 mesh topdressing sand. its size and shape probably does fall with a labs specs but the translation into the field is how is it going to perform with the balance of draining and retaining and creating capillary action. The answer is not as well as a USGA spec or version of, because the bigger particle size creates bigger macropores. If one were to choose mason sand the only answer would be to have it mixed with an organic. And with the larger macropores the mix would probably have to be a larger proportion like 80/20 or even 70/30.

Ive looked into using mason sand in place of the smaller 30 mesh topdressing to reduce costs and most importantly open up pore space to improve drainage and vent a thatch layer that was bound up with the worst blacklayer Ive ever seen. Obviously my instinct said not to change up topdressing size so I didnt but my point is that the lab was against it for the greens. The only thing I use mason sand for is topdressing approaches.

And you are spot on with watering practices and frequency with bad water, my only point was that the growing medium was problem #1 which should dictate the watering. But I guess its one in the same.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()