Weird Science, Article by Anthony Pioppi

[Tony Ristola]

This was pretty interesting.

http://www.golfdom.com/golfdom/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=523430&pageID=1&sk=&date=

Thoughts?

.

[John Kirk]

Thanks, Tony.  Right down my alley.  Well written and an interesting subject.  I'm not a superintendent, so I have no professional opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

That's an excellent article. 

I have not yet met Marc Logan but I've been hearing his name a lot over the past 2-3 years.  I know just enough about turf to be dangerous, so I probably shouldn't say anything about the science, but I am familiar with several courses in the UK which are on very acidic sandy soils, which seemed to be of benefit for turf management there.

It would not surprise me one bit that a turf manager from Australia was onto something that we in America had missed.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tony:

Thanks for posting this. There are some very heated opinions on both side of the argument.

Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Bruce Harbottle?
Heron Bay?

[Tony Ristola]

Found the following article about Mike Strantz's work and the methods Bob Zoller set out to use.

   

While sand-capping is normally done with a 10-12 inch layer, the composition of PermO2Pore produces the same water-wicking properties with only a five-inch layer. “That was a huge benefit simply because of the amount of material that had to be trucked in,” Bowhay says. “As it was, we brought in 43,000 tons of material that required 2,500 truckloads. You can just imagine the ramifications of dealing with the residential aspect of 17-Mile-Drive and all that entails. Because we only had to use a five-inch layer as opposed to a 10 or 12-inch layer, we cut our trucking requirements by at least 40 percent.”

   The newly sand-capped fairways will require a slight change in management tactics, according to Zoller, but it’s one that he welcomes. “I think it’s going to be very important to manage the thatch so that you don’t create an unnecessary buildup of organic matter that clogs the sand and PermO2Pore layer,” he says. “That’s going to mean less nitrogen so that we don’t create excess vegetative growth. And even though it will be somewhat more critical to monitor soil nitrogen levels to make sure they are adequate, I believe this approach will ultimately produce much better results and be much better for the environment.”

http://www.brendacarol.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPCC.doc

Those that have played or play MPCC regularly, I'm interested to hear what you have to say, or anyone at any of the courses using these practices.
I find the concept highly interesting.

.

[Matt Day]

That's an excellent article. 

I have not yet met Marc Logan but I've been hearing his name a lot over the past 2-3 years.  I know just enough about turf to be dangerous, so I probably shouldn't say anything about the science, but I am familiar with several courses in the UK which are on very acidic sandy soils, which seemed to be of benefit for turf management there.

It would not surprise me one bit that a turf manager from Australia was onto something that we in America had missed.

Marc used to be one of my customers when he was at Mt Lawley GC in Perth when I was in the sales side of the industry, he definitley polarises opinion and has some unique ideas. One thing is certain though, he won't give up if he believes he's onto a winner.

In regards to the idea of using Iron on greens it is pretty common here, tanked mix with manganese at 2/1 ratio is almost the norm. Similarly fairway applications with Iron and Manganese with other additions as required is a pretty common technique.

[Ian Larson]

Ive been familiar with Marks program for a few years now and have close friends that work at courses that swear by the program. I personally see alot of good things with the program as long as it is showing results. But I also have some very big question marks with the program and philosophy so I guess that makes me a skeptic.


My question....

 
The Logan program makes use of raw elemental fertilizer components independently such as ferrous sulfate and manganese. These elements are processed at an agricultural grade, which means they are refined less in contrast to being processed at a pharmacutical grade which is refined more intensely. In the fertilizer industry agricultural grade is cheaper, less processed and not chelated. Pharmacutical grade is processed alot more and chelated.

To those who dont know, chelation is the process of refining the fertilizer element so that its electrical charges are able to allow the plant to upotake the fertilizer much much more easily. Its like giving it a ionic sugary coating like a kids vitamin. Its much easier to give your kid some flintstones vitamins everyday than an omega 3 tablet. Its the same way with grass plants. A raw lesser processed element that is not chelated will be taken up much less efficiently by the plant.

With using cheap, ag-grade fertilizer....how efficiently is the plant taking up the un-chelated elements? PLANT EFFICIENCY EQUATES TO DOLLAR EFFICIENCY. If the plant is not receptive to raw elements, how much of it is it taking in and at what rate?

Sure his program is cheaper. But he is using cheap and bulk ag-grade products. And with the product that is put down what is its efficency?

And can Logan support his programs plant efficiency and "bang for the buck" with independent research?

[Don_Mahaffey]

I don't know much about the Logan program other than what I've read. I do know it was a a hotly debated topic while I was in Bend.
Is it really about plant uptake? Isn't it really about trying to acidify the soil and that is the reson for the bulk use of ag grade materials? It is interesting stuff, especially when you read Mackienzies thoughts about acidic soils and golf turf. Seems like a very old idea that has made a strong comback. 

[Ian Larson]

Don,

Yes it is about acidifying the soil hence the main reason for cheap ag-grade and I shouldve clarified that....

Which then I have to ask, what is the fertilization program? Is there one? If not why? Does soil only need to be acidified to support great bentgrass? If soil only needs to be acidic for greens and the superintendent to be successful, have we been doing everything wrong for decades now? Have all technological advances been conducted in vain because the answer was right there under our noses all along?

I treat the grass plant pretty much the same I treat my own body. Its a living breathing thing that needs to nourished. I will always belong to the school of thought that a healthy plant is a strong plant that can sustain itself under enviornmental pressure. I dont understand how a grass plant can be a healthy plant with no nourishment besides iron and manganese.

I will also believe in the "survival of the fittest" philosophy with grasses. If poa wants to live in certain areas then it should live there if it has the ability to outcompete, adapt and survive. That to me is as pure and an organic philosophy as you can get when it comes to turf management.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Again, I'm no expert, but I think the idea is to slow down the growth in an environment (the acid soils) where nothing else will out-compete the grasses you want.

[Matt Day]

Ive been familiar with Marks program for a few years now and have close friends that work at courses that swear by the program. I personally see alot of good things with the program as long as it is showing results. But I also have some very big question marks with the program and philosophy so I guess that makes me a skeptic.


My question....

 
The Logan program makes use of raw elemental fertilizer components independently such as ferrous sulfate and manganese. These elements are processed at an agricultural grade, which means they are refined less in contrast to being processed at a pharmacutical grade which is refined more intensely. In the fertilizer industry agricultural grade is cheaper, less processed and not chelated. Pharmacutical grade is processed alot more and chelated.

To those who dont know, chelation is the process of refining the fertilizer element so that its electrical charges are able to allow the plant to upotake the fertilizer much much more easily. Its like giving it a ionic sugary coating like a kids vitamin. Its much easier to give your kid some flintstones vitamins everyday than an omega 3 tablet. Its the same way with grass plants. A raw lesser processed element that is not chelated will be taken up much less efficiently by the plant.

With using cheap, ag-grade fertilizer....how efficiently is the plant taking up the un-chelated elements? PLANT EFFICIENCY EQUATES TO DOLLAR EFFICIENCY. If the plant is not receptive to raw elements, how much of it is it taking in and at what rate?

Sure his program is cheaper. But he is using cheap and bulk ag-grade products. And with the product that is put down what is its efficency?

And can Logan support his programs plant efficiency and "bang for the buck" with independent research?

Ian
when he used that programme in Perth it was all about plant uptake through the leaf. Acidification of the soil was a possible side benefit, as was any Poa or Moss control

[Jeff Johnson]

Weird Science?  Try basic science.  Marc has taken basic techniques that were used over 70 years ago and were lost in the shuffle when the agronomists came in and started telling greenkeepers how to grow turf.  I am managing a playing surface not growing a crop.  What does a soil scientist educated about growing corn know about growing creeping bentgrass at heights below 1/8"?  Cheap fertilizer vs. expensive fertilizer, does the plant really know the difference?  If I want ammonium sulfate, why would I spend $60 a gallon in some special mix, magic formula in jug when I can get it for $15 a bag and the plant get immediate uptake?  I think many Superintendents cant get their thoughts around the Logan program because it is so simple.  It truely brings the art of greenking back into the hands of the Superintendent. 

I hear all this talk about balancing the soils, "you need to balance the soils", Hogwash.  Of course that's always coming from who, the salesmen and most guys listen to that BS.  If I want bentgrass greens why do I want a balanced soil?  Bentgrass evolved on impoverished soils, it requires little to nothing for inputs, a little nitrogen at the proper time, ferrous sulfate and maybe are few other basic elements, the rest it can effieciently find in the soil itself or do without. If you are applying P and K to bentgrass you are wasting your money, it can efficently get uptake of this on it's own. Poa on the other hand needs a balanced soil and it needs to be babied.  I find it interesting when a course regrasses it's greens and then the Superintendent doesn't change his management program to favor the bentgrass.  They continue to core aerate, verticut, feed and feed and then to their total amazement the poa starts to come in. And they say well the new varities get so thatchy, well quit feeding it all the frick'n time a balanced blend of fertilizer! Of course the poa will come in, their management pracitices are the same as they were when they had poa.  Have you ever heard the term aggressive greenkeeping is the death of finer grasses?  Since working with Greenway, starting last year I have yet to verticut greens, we used to do it once month followed by a topdressing.  Now I feel sorry for our members that we used to put them through all of that.  The lack of verticutting is only one minor aspect of the program we have changed and I can honestly say our greens have never, ever been better.  Anyone need a set of verticutters for their greens or faiways, I have a set of each for sale.  I cant wait to get rid of them.  I also hear they make great boat anchors.

I also understand why people don't understand it and to them it is unconventional, yes because it is a 180 degree change in philosophy.  It's surely not what they were taught in school nor is it what the chemical and fertilizer salesmen want you to believe.  Of course not, through this program we have cut our fertilizer and pesticide budget in half.  Fact!  And our conditions are better.

I think some guys don't want to buy into the program becuause then they have to admit that everything they were doing in the past was wrong and that will make them look bad and they dont want to do that.  I am tired of trying to maintain poa, it is a shit grass and is inferrior to bentgrass. I dont lose bent in the summer and I dont lose bent in the winter.  So why are we not using management practices that favor the stronger grass instead of managing to favor the weaker grass?  After 20 years in the business my entire outlook on how I manage the golf course has changed and I can thank Marc Logan for that.  Say what you will about Marc or Greenway, but the proof is in the pudding.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

All of that makes sense to me, but like everything else in turf management, the real proof will be whether you're still telling the same story ten years from now, right?

[Niall C]

Ian:

Again, I'm no expert, but I think the idea is to slow down the growth in an environment (the acid soils) where nothing else will out-compete the grasses you want.

There is an old saying you often hear in the UK which is if you want to know what you to do vis a vis your grass/turf, the answer is to ask a farmer and then do the opposite ! I'm no expert either but I think I'm right in saying the basic concept is to keep the grass alive but not necessarily thrive.

Niall

[Adam Clayman]

Very Interesting.

Ian, Thanx for the education.

I wonder if answers to your questions would be forth coming. How else will Mr. logan sell his service with out some control on proportions and applications?

I know for a fact that Corey is one who does not subscribe to core aeration anywhere near as frequently as every other course I've been close to. He has never aerated his greens in the 6 years he's owned them.

[Jeff Johnson]

Naill, that is so true.

Aeration is a critical part of any program.  It just depends on what type and what the purpose is.  Core aeration is extremely disruptive and plays right into the hands of poa.  Solid tine, deep tine, needle tine, whatever you want to call it is more beneficial to managing bentgrass.  Of course there are many variables regarding the decision to do what, but I know at Stock Farms in MT they have not core aerated in at least 2 years on the logan program, maybe more and they actually have less organic matter in the greens then when they started the program and core aerified twice a year.

Time will tell what Tom?  I would say that time has told us the current managment practices most courses are using are not sustainable and we can no longer continue to manage in this manner.  The amount top courses are spending on greens, tees and fairways for fertilizers and fungicides is out of control.  There is an addiction to all of these products.  Most will not let there greens go 2 weeks or less without a fungicide being applied because they are affraid what will happen.  Why?  Why not look for an alternative to managing, what is wrong with that? But, then when someone finds an alternative method all people can do is look for a reason that is will not work.  I dont know of a single salemen that would embrace this program, they have a lot more to lose then the course who's conditions get better.

I know there are so many that don't what to buy into what Marc is doing and you know what, that's fine by me.  As long as my members are happpy and we can increase the stand of bentgrass on the course I can sleep better at night.

[Ian Larson]

Jeff,

Since you stood up and raised your hand as a Logan guy there is obviously going to be alot questions aimed at you so be prepared.

Before I begin let me first state  for the record that sustainable and economical greenkeeping is what the industry should lean towards and I am not opposed to Logans program nor am I for it at this point. I want to be for it, but thats impossible with the lack of data, its infancy (especially in the states) and the defensiveness and smugness of anyone that is using the program aimed towards those who are not. There needs to be more "proof", data, information. What have you, than "my proof is in the membership being happy" or "just look at my greens". Especially if the Logan and his disciples want to truly enlighten the turf industry with the program.

Since you stood up on this thread hopefully you can be the catalyst in spreading the good word.


Before I get into anything the first question to be asked and answered is....

....what ph does the Logan program keep its fertilizer solutions mixed at and what is the ph of the soil in the greens? Also what is the ph of the water used to mix the fert tank solutions and also the water that is being applied to the greens?

[Chris Tritabaugh]

There needs to be more "proof", data, information. What have you, than "my proof is in the membership being happy" or "just look at my greens". Especially if the Logan and his disciples want to truly enlighten the turf industry with the program.

....what ph does the Logan program keep its fertilizer solutions mixed at and what is the ph of the soil in the greens? Also what is the ph of the water used to mix the fert tank solutions and also the water that is being applied to the greens?

Ian,
Why does turf management always have to be about the number or the data? Why can't it be about what's on the ground, the quality of the playing surfaces and how a Superintendent feels about the product he/she is producing? There seems to be this idea within our industry that if you are not using all of the latest and greatest technology or chemistry that you cannot possibility be producing the best product. I am constantly handed programs by vendors which will cost me many thousands of dollars over the course of the season. These programs are not only ridiculously overpriced, they are also unnecessary.
From my understanding the practices in the Greenway program are nothing new or earth shattering. They are simply the best management programs for managing the fine turf (non-Poa) playing surfaces of a golf course. Somewhere along the line maintaining a golf course became more about managing the appearance than managing the surface.   

[Ian Larson]

Chris,


"Ian,
Why does turf management always have to be about the number or the data? Why can't it be about what's on the ground, the quality of the playing surfaces and how a Superintendent feels about the product he/she is producing?"

....because the numbers and the data are what support new and innovative ideas that are showing signs of success across the entire spectrum of scenarios. This may be old science but its new again like it or not. You cant just tell a super that this is the way to do it and the proof is in my greens, lower fert budget and happy membership. And the super says "okay" and just does it. Does Logans program work all over the world in any enviornment and climate? Should a super in Sweden just automatically adopt a program that is showing signs of success in Mexico?

Recording data and crunching numbers with research and development for new or old technology is what helps the advancement of technology as the technology fails and succeeds. The numbers are the only way to correlate the failures to effective troubleshooting and the successes to supporting the successes. The numbers are the only way to say this is what happened and this is why it happened. And this is what you should and should not do in the future.

Ultimateley research and data collection is what can make a super comfortable with putting his job and reputation on the line for anything new or different from what he has always done and feels comfortable with.



 "There seems to be this idea within our industry that if you are not using all of the latest and greatest technology or chemistry that you cannot possibility be producing the best product. I am constantly handed programs by vendors which will cost me many thousands of dollars over the course of the season. These programs are not only ridiculously overpriced, they are also unnecessary."

...in my 13 years in the business I havent seen this. The supers I have worked for and the mentors who have guided me couldnt care less about making sure that they are keeping up with the Jones'. Its been my experience in the industry that its about YOUR greens and doing whats best for your greens within budget and intelligently while keeping ears peeled and eyes open for whats working in your area or not. And the guys out there with consistently great greens arent being criticized for how theyre doing it, because theyre doing it and doing it wisely no matter how their doing it.

You may snicker at and ridicule programs handed to you by vendors because it doesnt fit for YOU and YOUR situation. But that doesnt mean it doesnt fit for the guy down the street and HIS situation and it may be necessary for HIM. Those programs also may be overpriced for you and should be more expensive than your program because its processed more than your ag grade elements. And the truth is theyre not overpriced because your getting what you pay for. How many bags of iron are you using to get the same rate the other guy is with his 2 jugs? How much longer are you taking to mix up the ferrous sulfate into solution while the other takes 10 seconds to dump it into the tank?

Its pretty vague and naive to say something is overpriced and unnecessary just because it doesnt work for you at your operation.



"From my understanding the practices in the Greenway program are nothing new or earth shattering. They are simply the best management programs for managing the fine turf (non-Poa) playing surfaces of a golf course. Somewhere along the line maintaining a golf course became more about managing the appearance than managing the surface."

...of course Greenways method is nothing new or earth shattering. Its very very basic elemental science that is sooo basic that it IS NEW AND EARTH SHATTERING.

Be careful when you come on to a public forum and say something is the best way. Saying something is THE BEST is sooo subjective you cant even take someone serious like you when you say that. Discussing turfgrass science on here is different than anything else discussed because there are way too many variables involved all over the world for anybody to say there is a best way for anything.

If you are inferring that someone who uses a different program than Logans when they manage bentgrass is managing the appearance rather than the surface, you are grossly wrong again and thats a pretty strong shot to alot of supers out there.


   

[Ian Larson]

Jeff and Chris and everyone interested in this topic,


While we are waiting for Jeff to come back with some info on his ph levels.....


....I would like to point out a super that has grown in and maintained his golf course for the past 15 or 16 years with a program that is NOT Logans and he is known widely for keeping his bentgrass greens poa free since the beginning.

His name is Jim Loke and he is the super at Bent Creek Country Club in Lancaster, Pa. Right in the poa invasive mid atlantic, Jim has kept his greens completely clean of poa while the rest of the region embraces it or is failing to keep it out. He has also done it on a modest budget.

Jim is a personal friend and a true mentor to me. My whole point is that it doesnt take Logans program to reduce poa or defend the greens against it. Logans program is not the only show in town. It will never be "the best" way to manage greens. It will always be "another" way to manage greens.

Jim is my case in point for this thread and is why I resent the continued smugness and defensiveness of those in total support of Logans program with continued references of others being inferior while we have yet to see some hard evidence that the program is supported and can be adapted to any situation across the spectrum.

Here is a little snippet from the GCSAA when they honored Jim with the Distinguished Service Award.....


Three Receive GCSAA's Distinguished Service Award

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) certified golf course superintendents (CGCS) Donald Hearn, H. James "Jim" Loke and Oscar Miles have been selected as recipients of the 2008 GCSAA Distinguished Service Award. They will be acknowledged at the Opening Session (January 31) of the 2008 GCSAA Education Conference in Orlando, January 28-February 2.

"Don, Jim and Oscar are most deserving of the Distinguished Service Award," said GCSAA President Ricky D. Heine, CGCS. "They have made outstanding and significant contributions to the advancement of the golf course superintendent profession as well as to the game of golf. GCSAA is richer from the dedication of these gentlemen."

Hearn, a 37-year GCSAA member, served on the GCSAA Board of Directors and was the association's president in 1987. He has also served on the USGA Green Section Committee. Hearn is a past president of the New England GCSA and is a past member of the Massachusetts Golf Association Executive Committee. A superintendent at Weston (Mass.) Golf Club for 29 years, Hearn also had stints at Lexington (Mass.) Golf Club and Vesper Country Club in Tyngsboro, Mass. He is credited with being on the forefront of the push for increased education and professionalism in the industry.

Loke, the certified golf course superintendent for the past 15 years at Bent Creek Country Club in Lancaster, Pa., is a 36-year GCSAA member and has served on numerous committees for the association. He currently serves on the USGA Mid-Atlantic Green Section Committee and the Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council Board of Directors. He is a past president of both the Central Pennsylvania GCSA and the Northern Ohio GCSA, and has served on the Ohio Turfgrass Foundation Board of Directors. Loke has hosted numerous high level golf events, including the 1975 PGA Championship at Firestone Country Club in Akron, Ohio; two Ben Hogan PGA Tour events at Quail Hollow Resort in Painesville, Ohio; and several major Pennsylvania amateur events at Bent Creek. He is considered one of the pioneers in using fertigation and developing a 99 percent effective Poa annua-free management program at Bent Creek. Loke is recognized as an authority in both areas.

Miles, a 45-year GCSAA member, is a retired superintendent who last worked at the Merit Club in Libertyville, Ill. He has served on various GCSAA committees and hosted 13 professional golf tournaments, including 12 Western Opens at Butler National Golf Club in Oak Brook, Ill., and Olympia Fields (Ill.) Country Club, as well as the 2000 U.S. Women's Open at the Merit Club. A past president of the Illinois Turfgrass Foundation, Miles also served on the board for GCSAA's Indiana chapter. An industry expert who has mentored more than 75 interns, Miles is renowned for decades of soil temperature research, and he was at the forefront of the lightweight fairway mowing concept, now considered standard practice.

The GCSAA Board of Directors selects Distinguished Service Award winners from nominations submitted by affiliated chapters and/or association members. First presented in 1932, the award is given to individuals who have made an outstanding, substantive and enduring contribution to the advancement of the golf course superintendent profession.

For more information on the GCSAA and these awards, visit www.gcsaa.org.     

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Ian,
I will appoligize for using the term "best". The implecations of best were not what I had in mind. It was the wrong word and it would have been better to say very good way to maintain a Poa free playing surface.

Of course there are thousands of ways to go about maintaining turf. And there are guys who maintain bentgrass without Poa using different methods. I don't use the Greenway program but I understand what it does and why it would be used. Frankly their price is not in my budget. Rather I have taken what I know of their program, mostly from Anthony's article, and read research, articles and other info on acid fertility. I am not saying research is worthless or meaningless just that IMO the ultimate proof is in the pudding. What is a program doing for my playing surfaces?

 

[Niall C]

Just as a matter of interest, how long does it take to know whether a specific programme is working or not ?

Niall

[Jeff Johnson]

Ian,

Did I come across as smug and defensive?  That was not my intent.  I tend not to look at our industry as a whole with rose colored glasses. And yes there are a thousand different ways to manage a golf course and be highly successful.  No disrespect intended. Since about four years ago I have been searching for alternative methods to manage the course trying to avoid the paint it white sleep at night mentality.  We have been using a great deal of organics and that has worked really well, but it has not favored the bentgrass, only all grasses.

Since you brought up Jim Loke all I will say about Jim Loke is this, he is a highly respected and extremely skilled in what he has been able to accomplish.  I am familiar with his management practices and I could not compete with that.  I have a great deal of respect for Jim, but his program would not work here.

Since you have no idea where I am coming from our why I am involved with Greenway Golf I want to give you a little background into our history.  I really don’t know anything about you, your history or where you are located, I am assuming California.  Being in the Midwest the greatest liability we have on our golf course, bar none is poa annua, just like everywhere else I guess. But poa is why clubs spend thousands of dollars to cover their greens and protect them from our harsh climate.  But as you can imagine the guys who have bentgrass greens don’t cover, there is no need.

 In the spring of 2004 we emerged from winter in the worst condition I have ever seen.  We did not have a green where poa was not affected; every green was hit to one degree or another.  Not the bent, the poa!  It’s not fun and I don’t wish it on my worst enemy.  I don’t care who you are, when you come out of winter in that condition it take 8-12 weeks to recover.  It’s also an affective weight loss plan as I lost 15 pounds worrying about the damn things.

For me this was my crossroads in my career, I had to ask myself why on earth would I want to spend the next 20 years of my career protecting this plant that has our greens at its mercy day in and day out.  What emerged from winter, the bentgrass.  At that point I was open to any suggestions to making our greens healthier. We tried over-seeding greens for 4 years and saw little to no increase in our bentgrass stand and of course I was trying a few different products, but a year ago one of our members who’s a member at The Valley Club told me about what they were doing.  I followed my instinct called the Superintendent and Marc Logan.  I followed that up with a visit to SFGC, MPCC, Pasadera, The Valley Club and Malibu CC (the biggest dog track I had ever seen with greens, at the time, would have rivaled any big name club).  That’s the proof, that’s the data I needed. Visiting with some of the best Supers at some pretty darn good clubs and they are telling me things I had never heard before and you know what, it all made sense.  It doesn’t matter where you live, whether you are in the Midwest, California or Sweden, poa has different requirements then bentgrass so why are we treating them the same?

It’s not just the acid theory or the minimal disturbance theory, Marc has been able to combine all of these to a program where guys who follow the program see results.  I was looking for a change and did not like the direction we were heading. If guys are looking for an alternative to how they are currently managing this might be a program for them. If you are content with what you are doing and you like growing poa, then forget about it, it’s not for you.

I am by far no expert on the program, we have been at it for less then one full year, but the results I have seen and the quality of our greens has improved and the program has already paid for itself.  I saw a greater increase in bentgrass in the 4 months we were on the program last year then I saw in the 4 years we were over-seeding.  I know guys want to see the data, the want to see the university testing, that’s fine; I don’t have that kind of time to wait for them to get that data.  Call me naive if you want. And yes to some degree I feel I took a leap of faith. But I did my research and I consulted with some of the most trusted people in the industry, my fellow Superintendents. I call it trying to do what is best for our golf course.  And you know what, if for some strange reason it doesn’t work I can easily fall back on what I was doing in the past.  Nothing ventured, nothing lost!

So if you want to grill me about this on an open forum go right ahead, but if you or any other Superintendents have questions about it I’m in the book. This is not a one size fits all program and I don’t want my answers to be misinterpreted if I’m making a general statement.  If you are at a club and are interested, call Greenway, but don’t throw it down your Superintendents throat.  I was ready for a change and they have to be too or they are not going to buy into the philosophy. 

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Jeff:

Thanks for the description on how you chose to go this route.

In any situation where there is a new path, whether it be something like a hydroject or the Greenway method, there are always those who reject the new way outright, those who jump at the chance to use it and those who wait and see. It depends on the situation to see which is the better course of action.

Anthony