Jeff,
I am no longer a superintendent after the past 13 years in the business which included LACC, Riviera, Ridgewood and construction of Bayonne, Hollow Brook and respective renovations at the existing courses. This past year I decided to return to school to persue a Landscape Architecture degree at UCLA and a career in design and construction before its too late. I dont have the pressure of maintaining greens anymore but soil science and organic chemistry will always be a passion of mine. I am in Southern California obviously most recently at LACC and Riv.
The point of my posts is to not grill you. The point is to get some first hand information from someone who is using the program. I have past assistants and friends that are using the program but are younger and not well versed in the actual science of what they are doing and why. This thread was posted and you stepped up as someone who supports and uses the program, you are a perfect candidate as an experienced superintendent who can help anyone who is interested understand the program and philosophy. As I said Im not at a club anymore and dont feel its appropriate to waste Marc Logans time with contacting him personally, otherwise I would.
Believe me, Im genuinely interested. I consider myself to be resourceful and thinking outside the box with my approach to turf. I root for the guys who dont conform to the mainstream just to collect the paycheck and produce staus-quo results with no passion for what they do. In fact I resent those types of superintendents. I truly respect and admire guys like Logan (and yourself) who follow their heart and tend to gravitate towards that type.
When you asked if I thought you were coming across smug in your post, my firts thought was No and that my smugness comment wasnt directed to you specifically. But as I read and reread your post my answer is yes. I do feel you came across smug. I feel that way because your posts made comments like these....
"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."
"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."
The tone of your posts is identical to the tone of the guys that I talk to who are using the program. Its that superiority tone that is condescending to supers who believe in plant nutrition, the researchers and universities who spend their time trying to help the industry advance technologically, the fert companies who try to produce a product that helps the superintendent and their sales reps who try to offer themselves as another tool in their toolbox. Its the "what the hell the hell are you going to tell me about turfgrass" mentality / ego that really gets old. But thats just my personal interpretation of it.
We are similar in the way that you and I both agree that we shouldnt have to rely on the fert companies to supply us with expensive fert elements in a jug when we can get it bulk or bagged cheaper, which is good in certain situations and also bad in others. But my experience with fert companies, sales reps and universities is that they are not corn crop growers. My experience has been that my guys are golf guys that are passionate about the game and its science. More times than not former superintendents that can relate.
Take for example Floratine. Kevin Cavanaugh is the president. Former superintendent who is also a CGCS. Carmen Magro, former superintendent who is also certified. Just because they are with a company that believes in plant nutrition as the foundation for a healthy plant that can efficiently synthesize while withstanding disease, drought and stress doesnt make them any less credible or resistant to admit that they have been doing things the wrong way all along. What makes Logan any more credible than these guys? They are one the companies you refer to that sell a jug for 100 bucks when you can get a bag of the same thing for 15 bucks, and theres no difference other than the price. Thats wrong but Ill address that in a bit.
That article also misrepresented the non-Logan program supers out there. I think it also misrepresents the supers in general to the laymen who may read it. One of the examples used in the article was Zoller up in Monterrey and the drastic difference seen when he switched to Logans program.
Here is the part I have a problem with....
"Down the coast at the 36-hole Monterey (Calif.) Country Club, where superintendent Bob Zoller has been running the show for more than 30 years, he has cut back significantly on his fertilizer applications. Where once he applied as much as 1 pound of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet a month on greens and fairways, he has reduced that to 3 or 4 pounds a year on his greens and as little as 2 pounds a year on the bentgrass/fescue fairways of his Dunes Course, a Rees Jones renovation of a Seth Raynor design. At the same time, greens that were once nearly 100 percent Poa are now as much as 80 percent bentgrass. Fairways have seen similar transitions. The results are much the same on the Shore Course."
....are you kidding me!!!!! Who the hell puts out a pound of nitrogen per month. In Monterrey that comes to 12 pounds annually!!!!!! I dont know Zoller or the site specific challenges he faces but I have never heard of anyone putting out that much Nitrogen, never. Im not picking on or singling out Zoller but, hey, its a published fact that this is what he did and Ill be the dick who points out the obvious here.
The article is using a very extreme worst case scenario when it comes to the difference seen when N is cut back. 12 pounds of N is off the charts and is not an accurate representation of what most supers put out in a year. The average high end Ive ever seen for poa is around 8 pounds per year. Most guys I know managing poa put out 5 maybe 6. Which really is only 2 maybe 3 more pounds that straight bentgrass managers put out. Even the companies who create nutrition programs who believe in Nitrogen would laugh at that. And the fact is that most companies usually only prescribe .1 lb / 1000 square feet of N every other week as a foliar, which comes out to only putting down around 3 lbs of N per year. What is so wrong with that? And how is that so different from what the bentgrass guys put down?
From what Im hearing here are the benefits to Marcs program....
1. Less fertilizer used......which is great
2. Fert used is the cheaper elemental grade, making it even cheaper........fantastic
3. Little to no surface disruption on the green.....its a miracle!!!!!! win / win for supers AND members
4. Better conditions accomplished with a fraction of the cost.......thats a damn homerun in my book!!!!!!!
Here is what my questions and concerns are with the program.......
1. Logan uses little Nitrogen. Instead uses ferrous sulfate (very soluble iron source, good stuff) and manganese (also good stuff). Nitrogen is needed in all plant life for synthesis. Nutrient uptake, respiration, transpiration, translocation and more importantly chlorophyl production for photosynthesis. The iron is solely used as a replacement for nitrogen to reduce the rate of synthesis (cell division....growth) and instead just create the green color in the grass plant meaning there are SOME chlorophyl compound chains being completed with the addition of iron. But with the lack of Nitrogen the grassplant is not truly synthesizing as much as it should be. This is why the plant is considered to be "sick". The lack of synthesis means its not running on all 6 cylinders. Immunity can be decreased, stress and drought tolerance can be also inhibited.
BUT IT LOOKS GREEN!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
2. The BIG problem with no nitrogen and alot of iron is that in acidic soils MAGNESIUM BECOMES UNAVAILABLE WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE CHLOROPHYL COMPOUND!!!!!!! without magnesium you cant complete the chlorophyl compound. Without the production of chlorophyl you cant create photosynthesis.
This is one reason why this is considered an inefficient method. The plant synthesizes less, photosynthesizes less. But it appears as though it is. Magnesium is being inhibited so its a shot in the dark as to how much iron is connecting with magnesium to complete the chlorophyl chain in an acidic enviornment.
3. Ferrous sulfate is not a good source to choose when trying to acidify the soil. Huge amounts of it would be required to actually make a little dent. It is good for soluble foliar applications but chelated iron is the only way to go if you want actual iron put into the soil. And according to Jeff and others using the program, they dont need chelated iron because there is no difference in iron sources???. And the fact of the matter is that chelated iron is more expensive than bags of ferrous sulfate. Chelated iron is what the fert companies are producing and selling for more money because the iron is processed extra amounts to achieve chelation, which costs more money. Which is passed down to the consumer.
4. The choice source of Nitrogen when used is ammonium sulfate. Ammonium sulfate is one of the most inefficient sources for Nitrogen EVER. When ammonium sulfate is applied it needs to be eaten up and processed into ammonia by nitrifying bacteria in the soil. THE PLANT WILL NOT TAKE UP AMMONIUM. Then after it is puked up or shit out of the microbes in an ammonia form the microbes also end up converting it to nitrate form anyway before the plant eventually takes it in. Ammonium has a positive charge to it making it completely vulnerable to being immobile and easy for microbes and clays to attach themselves to. If the plant does take in the ammonia it uses ALOT more energy to process it and translocate it throughout the plant, energy that can be used elsewhere. Very inefficient.
The Logan program doesnt believe in nitrate nitrogen which is a very clean nitrogen source that is taken up by the plant very efficiently because of its positive charge. It doesnt need to go through the extra steps of being processed by microbes before being eaten up. Very efficient.
5. Another part of the program I dont understand is the minimal disruption to the green surface. I totally understand why the program calls for reduced to no surface cultivation on greens with poa, to not spread viable poa seedhead around the green and propogating it even more. But if you have a monostand of pure bentgrass being accomplished by the program, why worry about it?
a. Does compaction not exist on greens that use the program?
b. Is there less need to aerify greens with hollow tine to relieve compaction and create good gas exchange?
c. If the choice is to use solid tine to create gas exchange, what is being done towards compaction as each tine continually compacts the soil in between each tine as it penetrates the profile without removing the core?
d. And do you really believe that mowing greens at very low mowing heights takes care of eradicating organic matter accumulation? If it does then please share with the rest of the industry how its done because that is truly something I cant begin to wrap my brain around.
This part of the program is the real reason why the statement is made about the true proof will be in years down the line after years of relieving compaction have been stopped. It will also be interesting to see greens that are never groomed with verticutting and similar practices.
The reason I dont understand this is because its necessarry to aerify and verticut greens at the right time of the year as to avoid the spread and germination of poa seed while its viable. Eliminating cultivation isnt the answer to me and if there is something Im missing please by all means let me know.
In conclusion.....
There are many ways to manage greens. Youre right that there isnt a one size fits all method. Greenkeeping is an art and a science that relies upon instincts and feel and its up to the super to do what is best for his course. But it shouldnt make a superintendent look bad for being apprehensive about immediately adopting something new to them. And I dont agree with you that a super is guilty of not wanting to admit that he has been doing something wrong with his practices in his career because of his apprehension. That is a direct shot at alot of supers who would resent that remark.
Plants DO know the difference between cheap ag-grade products and more expensive, processed and chelated pharmacutical grade products. And there is a huge difference in how efficient each one is and how the chemistry allows the plant to take it in.
Cheap isnt always better. You always get what you pay for. Like I said before, nutrient efficiency equates to dollar efficiency. Chemical reactions are chemical reactions, and they are backed up by science. Which is why the science matters with issues like this.
It doesnt take a Logan program to acidify soil especially if it already is acidic. Create a proper iron to manganese ratio. Keep Phosphorus or Potassium out of spray applications. Maintain appropriate Nitrogen levels. And reduce or eliminate poa populations.
Its my opinion that the Logan program isnt really acidifying the soil but rather supplying the plant with iron and manganese to make it appear that it is synthesizing but in an inefficient manner. This works because iron and manganese are some of the only nutrients available when the soil is truly acidic below a ph of 6.0. It is useless to put down phosphorus and potassium because the ph makes it impossible to be plant available. This also includes magnesium which is the cornerstone to chlorophyl production. Which doesnt make sense.
It also needs to be known that just because a soil is acidic doesnt mean that bentgrass is going to pretty much sit there and do nothing. When a plant is growing in its appropriate ph it will thrive. So to grow bentgrass while neglecting it its necessary nutrients needed for proper plant functions is not growing a healthy plant, and a healthy plant is strong plant.
Theres something to be said about a healthy plant that can be resistant to all enviornmental pressures while at the same time creating a great playing surface that is dense and upright growing, that is also being controlled by a product like primo that transfers plant energy from top growth down to root growth.
And going back to Jim Loke. Its possible to maintain and defend against poa infestation with sound agronomics within budget. This isnt a poa versus bent thread. Its a same results can be achieved in a healthier manner. And time will tell what wins with longevity.
Im not against this program and if it exceeds all skepticism and rewrites all of the chemistry books everyone will be a winner.
It would really be great if someone would face the questions asked and provide some real points about Logans program and why it works and why any of what I said is bullshit rather than this is why I chose to use the program. We know why people choose to use it. Lets get down into the agronomics and share why it is working and why it will withstand the test of time.