[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Have you ever MET Sandy Tatum?  Or Tom Watson?

Do you really think either of them was trying to build a links-style golf course for the p.r. value?

I am sure that you are right that a course like Whistling Straits or Erin Hills chose the grass partly for marketing reasons ... it's a lot harder to justify using fescue in Wisconsin than in Oregon or northern Michigan.  [I live almost straight across the lake from Kohler, Wisconsin, but the climates are more different than you'd think.]  But you are painting with a broad brush, and you are doing it about a type of grass you likely have no significant experience with.  You have consistently failed to mention where you work or which of these fescue-fairway courses you've actually seen or played.

As far as the agronomy goes, I understand the desire to have a mixture of grasses involved.  If you'd seen many of my courses you would understand that I am not a monostand kind of thinker, and Lord knows I've seen a lot of different grasses fail when they were all by themselves.  The problem with the conventional fescue-and-Colonial bent mix is that many turf professors spec it in a way that the Colonial will just dominate the mix from day one, because they really don't like the idea of fescue any more than Joe Vargas does.  But Colonial bent has more disease problems and water needs than fescue does -- the only upside to it is that it handles cart traffic a lot better, where that is a factor.

I will just go back to my first post ... there is a contingent out there who are just deniers of any example where fescue is actually working.  And it works great in some places.  Not everywhere; not nearly everywhere.

[Mat Dunmyer]

Interesting reading- glad to see Dave got involved in the discussion and used some real world examples.

[Dan_Lucas]

Brad

Just at a guess, we water our fairways 50% less than we would with bent. We try to use just enough water to keep the FW's from cart tracking. They will track when too dry. If we were walking only we would save much more water.

As to dollar spot, our fescue doesn't have a problem with it. I spent a lot of time selecting the blend for our grasses. I am a big believer in genetic diversity. There were 8 different varieties of fescue in our seed mix. I looked at the NTEP trials and selected the best varieties from the sites that most closely mirrored the growing conditions that we had, subject to availability.

[Bradley Anderson]

Dan,

We should talk some time. (I'm having a superintendents meeting here at Birmingham on November 20 to talk about fertilizer schedules, and again on December 7 I am hosting a state wide round-table about budgets. Were you coming to either of those meetings?)

Our architect has asked me to put some test plots out next summer to research the best fescue for possibly developing rough in way out of play areas. We would like to grow something that has enough density to hold the soil and stay relatively weed free with one or two sprays a year - but we don't want it too dense - we would still like for players to be able to find their ball in it, and possibly even hit from it. It would be nice also to have some seedhead floresence for color contrast.

So I would love to talk varieties and mixes with you some time. It sounds like you got this pretty dialed in.

My soils are sandy loam (more of the loam side) with some viens of clay here or there. But I think I may be sandy enough to grow some nice fescue here.

[Ian Larson]

Tom,


"Have you ever MET Sandy Tatum?  Or Tom Watson?

Do you really think either of them was trying to build a links-style golf course for the p.r. value?"


I dont even know what this means. Isnt everything for the PR value when a new course is being built, isnt that a key to the success?


"I am sure that you are right that a course like Whistling Straits or Erin Hills chose the grass partly for marketing reasons ... it's a lot harder to justify using fescue in Wisconsin than in Oregon or northern Michigan.  [I live almost straight across the lake from Kohler, Wisconsin, but the climates are more different than you'd think.]  But you are painting with a broad brush, and you are doing it about a type of grass you likely have no significant experience with.  You have consistently failed to mention where you work or which of these fescue-fairway courses you've actually seen or played."


Im painting a broad picture because I have no personal affiliation with fescue golf courses like you do. Broad is the only way Im going to paint so as I dont take everything personally on this thread like you are. I like fescue, I love fescue golf courses, I love fescue playing surfaces, I respect the guys managing fescue surfaces. But I also understand plant physiology and soil science because Ive devoted the last 14 years of my life studying it. So Im not going to say that fescue can be grown in most climates, and Im also not going to say that all of the golf courses built with fescue in the US have been successful with it. And yes it is my opinion that when the big idea for a golf course is being put together for a themed links style, fescue is right up there as one of the details to make it more authentic and I do believe that it gets marketed / advertised that way. Im not sure how its absurd of me to think that from my observation of the golf industry. And I dont need to be a jet setting architect or managed a fescue golf course to understand the physiology of the fescue plant; its growth habits, nutritional requirements, water requirements and disease pressure. And even if i was, growing fescue in Northern Michigan is different than growing fescue on the Pacific Northwest Coast. The same grass, in different climates equals different grass. My course isnt a fescue course, its Landscape Architecture at UCLA and the climate is 70 and sunny everyday with beautiful blond scenery.


"As far as the agronomy goes, I understand the desire to have a mixture of grasses involved.  If you'd seen many of my courses you would understand that I am not a monostand kind of thinker, and Lord knows I've seen a lot of different grasses fail when they were all by themselves.  The problem with the conventional fescue-and-Colonial bent mix is that many turf professors spec it in a way that the Colonial will just dominate the mix from day one, because they really don't like the idea of fescue any more than Joe Vargas does.  But Colonial bent has more disease problems and water needs than fescue does -- the only upside to it is that it handles cart traffic a lot better, where that is a factor."

Dave Wilbur never chimed in last night so Ill stick my neck out on the chopping block and throw out my two cents. Correct me if Im wrong Tom but I feel like your considering "Colonial Bent" to be just another type of bent like any of the university designed bents that you are against...

Colonial Bent may have that word "Bent" in it, but IMO Colonial bent has nothing at all in common with all of the other true Bentgrasses. Colonial Bent is just like a Fescue but in a Bentgrass disguise. And there are also hundreds of different types of Colonial Bents, the only thing Colonial Bent has in common with Creeping Bent is that its in the poacae family, thats it.

-its leaf texture is more similar to fine fescue
-its nutritional requirement is identical to fine fescue
-its water requirement is identical to fine fescue, very drought resistant
-its thatch accumulation rate is identical to fine fescue
-its RHIZOMOTOUs like some Fescues, not STOLONIFEROUS like creeping bents
-and it doesnt get dollar spot like the other bentgrasses

Thats the entire reason Fescue stands of grass also have Colonial Bent in the mix. Because Colonial Bents eat, breathe and shit just like the fescues. They are very low maintenance and are treated as one stand with the fescue. And the primary reason the Colonial is there is because, just like you said, of its endurance to traffic wear and tear. And because its rhizomotous, it has the abilty to fill in where grass becomes thin.

So I disagree with you that Colonial Bent, in a Colonial-Fescue mix has a different water requirement. Colonial can compete with any grass out there when it comes to drought resistance and its ability to endure being dried out. And I cant see how when a Fescue mix is being specified that whoever specifies it, does it "in a way" that the Colonial dominates. If the Colonial dominates its not because someone specified it "in a way" that does dominate. And its not them being Fescue haters or covertly working for Joe Vargas. Im sure if we saw the seed tag for the mix that it was specified as it should be.

Heres the whole crux of my posts on here....

If in a situation where a course is seeded with a Fescue-Colonial mix, and the stand is managed properly per the requirements of Fescue and Colonial. If Colonial ends up dominating the stand....then Colonial is the grass that is happiest there. The grass doesnt care what stand of grass Tom Doak wants to be there. Its going to do what it wants naturally, and that natural process should be embraced because with grass its survival of the fittest.   

[Dan_Lucas]

Brad

I will probably be at the Big Ideas Conference in Frankenmuth for the first two days (Dec. 1-2). I might be able to make the Budgeting discussion at your place, but as of now it's a long shot.

I would enjoy talking to you. The guy you need to get in depth with is Tom Mead. He is speaking @ Frankenmuth and he has a lot more experience with fescues in different environments than I do. He does consulting on this type of stuff for a living and has done a lot of research on sustainability models.

E-mail me (kcsuptdfl@yahoo.com) if you are interested and I will connect you.

Dan

[Norbert P]

. . .
-its nutritional requirement is identical to fine fescue
-its water requirement is identical to fine fescue, very drought resistant

Thats the entire reason Fescue stands of grass also have Colonial Bent in the mix. Because Colonial Bents eat, breathe and shit just like the fescues. They are very low maintenance and are treated as one stand with the fescue. And the primary reason the Colonial is there is because, just like you said, of its endurance to traffic wear and tear. And because its rhizomotous, it has the abilty to fill in where grass becomes thin.

So I disagree with you that Colonial Bent, in a Colonial-Fescue mix has a different water requirement. Colonial can compete with any grass out there when it comes to drought resistance and its ability to endure being dried out. . . .

Ian, thanks for a very informative and interesting post.  Is it a special cultivar that you speak of in Colonial Bentgrass?  

I've always thought of CB as being needy of water and fertility so your statement sent me to the USDA website.

http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=AGCA5

 excerpted . . .         drought tolerance         Low
                              fertility requirements    high

  It does show that the species has deep roots, of course dependant on crop height, but it's resprout capability is nil.  


  (BTW . . .it takes over 6 million CB seeds to make a pound ! )

[Jud_T]

Personally, I find the friendliest strain to be a cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Quit being so condescending.  I know every bit as well as you do that Colonial bentgrass is a different species than Creeping bent, that it doesn't spread via stolons, that it's supposed to be just like fescue, etc.  I've seen it in many places.  You still haven't told me where you have any first-hand experience with it.

At Cape Kidnappers and at Sebonack the superintendents were not really down with the idea of fescue fairways, so they managed the fescue / Colonial mixture to promote the Colonial, and I would say the fairways of both are 98% Colonial bentgrass.  That isn't just because it's "the happiest grass" in those soils and that climate ... it's because the supers fertilized and watered more early on, and that promoted the Colonial over the fescue.  Mr. Wilber specified the grasses for Cape Kidnappers, so he can chime in if I'm mistaken on this.

Again, I am not generally in favor of monostand turf selection.  I would be happy with a course where the Colonial and the fescue each won out in the parts of the course more suited to them.  But there are still many superintendents who are more comfortable with "bentgrass" [even Colonial] than fescue, so they water and fertilize to get their way ... only then they've got a monostand which is very susceptible to take-all patch.

If you want to continue this discussion, your first paragraph had better be about your personal experience with fescue and/or Colonial bentgrass, or I'm coming through the ethernet cable after you. 

[Dave_Wilber]

Ian,

You are right, it's all Poacae. It's all Grass. But you are wrong in that really what you are trying to teach us is Agrostis. And your statement that Agrostis capillaris (syn. tenuis) has the same water requirements as any of the Fine Fescues doesn't hold the water per se. It has lots to do with when and how the water comes, the quality of that water and a ton of other stuff that we have learned in the field because we are there. Nutritionally they are very very different, so when water and nutrition are in concert or at odds, no question that those moves are going to select for certain grasses, climate or no. That's not rocket science. Nor is the concept that if everything is done exactly the same in two different climates that a different result will occur. Gee. Wow.

You really are a poster child for the reason that I don't post here much. What in the world has any of us done to you to have you spenching your attitude all over us? Is your 14 years (wow) of study somehow set to make you better than us? I just don't get it. There's healthy discourse, and there's dumbass silverback ASCII Combat. After my many years of being online and seeing yet another wingnut try to spin up the bolt I just don't care that you are smarter than me. You are. Good for you. Mostly, the kind of attitude you are giving out here makes you fodder for my bozofilter and not much more. Regardless of your agronomy.

But, there are people who want to learn and every time I get emails pointing me to a topic here, it is because someone thought that I might be able to add something that one may not be able to read by using Google, Wiki or James Beard's book. If you want to just give everyone what the book says, that's fine. But telling those of us that have made our living in the field, on the turf, awake at night over the details of capillaris vs. castellana, not home for holidays because we are figuring out which sand to use, (etc), that's not very interesting and you are just being a bore. I'm quite sure that there are a few names here that don't deserve the amount of disrespect you are showing. In the end, your attitude is costly to the GCA community, as people with real experience and real info to offer won't bother to be victims of your nipple clamping. So go right ahead...be the expert. Yawn.

[Ian Larson]

Ian,

You are right, it's all Poacae. It's all Grass. But you are wrong in that really what you are trying to teach us is Agrostis. And your statement that Agrostis capillaris (syn. tenuis) has the same water requirements as any of the Fine Fescues doesn't hold the water per se. It has lots to do with when and how the water comes, the quality of that water and a ton of other stuff that we have learned in the field because we are there. Nutritionally they are very very different, so when water and nutrition are in concert or at odds, no question that those moves are going to select for certain grasses, climate or no. That's not rocket science. Nor is the concept that if everything is done exactly the same in two different climates that a different result will occur. Gee. Wow.

Your right thats not rocket science Dave. If I am wrong with the water and nutritional requirements for Colonial (Agrostis capillaris) compared to Fine Fescue, could you correct me with what the requirements actually are for both? Youre making it sound like Im way out of the ball park in comparing each. Am I out of the ball park or are the requirements so similar that the slight difference is splitting hairs?
Colonial is used with the intentions of taking advantage of its lower water and nutrient requirements, thats why its the one of Mark Logans favorite grasses to use with his Greenway / No Disturbance Program. Colonials requirements allow the super to majorly cut back on water and fertilizer. So how is that any different than the Fine Fescues? The water and nutrient requirement is very low. Low Maintenance. So please correct me with showing the numbers you've seen with water and nutrient requirements that show a huge disconnect with my statements that Colonial and Fescue are low maintenance. And maybe you could explain to me that if there is such a difference in the water and nutrient requirements for Colonial and Fine Fescue why is it seen naturally together in the UK and why it is used together when specifying seeding mixtures for new courses. Im sure you would agree that it doesnt make any sense for 2 grasses that have completely different requirements to be specified together. And Im also sure you would agree that if 2 grasses are living harmoniously together with the one constant being the local climate....how different could the water and nutrient requirements be?

You really are a poster child for the reason that I don't post here much. What in the world has any of us done to you to have you spenching your attitude all over us? Is your 14 years (wow) of study somehow set to make you better than us? I just don't get it. There's healthy discourse, and there's dumbass silverback ASCII Combat. After my many years of being online and seeing yet another wingnut try to spin up the bolt I just don't care that you are smarter than me. You are. Good for you. Mostly, the kind of attitude you are giving out here makes you fodder for my bozofilter and not much more. Regardless of your agronomy.

Dave I come from and agricultural background just like yourself, Im a farmboy from central Pennsylvania. I grew up in a farming family with Amish farm fields completely surrounding my house. I have not tried to "school" Tom Doak or anyone else on here about anything. If making posts on this thread stating my opinion on the subject is schooling anybody or trying to be "smarter" than what is everyone else doing on the thread including Tom and your last post. If you go back and reread the thread you will plain as day see Tom come after me after I said I have respect for Dr. Vargas blah blah blah. I had absolutely no idea, nor care who built what course and what grass it has. Tom started taking everything personally assuming Im taking shots at him and questioning his motives.....are you kidding me? I could care less what Toms motives are. Im talking about grass and voicing my opinion from my experience. Isnt that what this forum is about? So if Tom is going to make assumptions about me and go after me on this thread by firing the attitude shots like "Ive seen more than you and Vargas combined" then Tom should know by now that Ill fire back. And in typical GCA.com fashion guys will fire away but cant take it in return. Toms last post told me to quit being so condescending. Are you kidding me? Tom is telling ME to quit being condescending after he starts throwing it at me first?   

But, there are people who want to learn and every time I get emails pointing me to a topic here, it is because someone thought that I might be able to add something that one may not be able to read by using Google, Wiki or James Beard's book. If you want to just give everyone what the book says, that's fine. But telling those of us that have made our living in the field, on the turf, awake at night over the details of capillaris vs. castellana, not home for holidays because we are figuring out which sand to use, (etc), that's not very interesting and you are just being a bore. I'm quite sure that there are a few names here that don't deserve the amount of disrespect you are showing. In the end, your attitude is costly to the GCA community, as people with real experience and real info to offer won't bother to be victims of your nipple clamping. So go right ahead...be the expert. Yawn.

You have no idea who I am or what my background is, so go ahead and assume that Im spewing from the mouth straight from Beards or Vargas' books. Go ahead and make a mockery of my 14 years experience in the field. Are you assuming because im taking classes at UCLA now that since being a teenager I havent been helping out at the farm and working at the local golf course? Are you assuming that I didnt put myself through college with my own money earned from busting my ass on the golf course while taking a full schedule of classes? Are you trying to tell me that I havent been working in the field for the past 14 years of my life? Ive also been awake at night worrying about sand and grass for projects I have a responsibilty for. And to make sure Im making the right decisions I do research, ALOT of research. So yes, I went to college. I read and learned from books in college. I STILL read and learn from books. But everyday since high school Ive also been in the field and on the turf trying make a living and learn something Im passionate about. Im 32, Im sure you and Tom Doak DO have more experience and have seen more. But neither of you are going to bully me around and try to discredit me because Im not 50 years old with 35 years of experience or Im not a superintendent of a fescue sown golf course.

Im not and havent been the superintendent for a golf course with Fescue. Does that mean I dont know a damn thing about Fescue? Nope. If you and Tom must know I moved back to Happy Valley to build and grow in a golf course in my hometown with a single owner/ developer. When I came on we did alot research into what would be the most practical and cheapest way to do it with sand and grass selection. My best friend of 30 of my years had just purchased 20 acres land practically in my childhood backyard to start his own sod farm. He and I worked together on grass plots that we planted on the sandy soil along the river, of those plots fescues and colonial was included. Most recently when I designed and built the new 1 acre turf nursery for LACC I used our research at the sod farm plots to help select Fescue to plant and study on the hillsides and barranca adjacent to it.

So go ahead Dave, tell me Im giving everyone what the book says and that I have no field experience. I have no clue as to what the hell Im talking about and have no right to be posting on this thread. Could you also tell me who are all the people Ive disrespected? Anything Ive said has been done in a broad sense. Tom wanted to be specific and take things personally. I wasnt about to be specific because I dont claim to be an expert, but Im not about to roll over and play dumb. Talking about Colonial and Fescue in broad terms is not disrespectful to anybody. I never went in to telling any specific super on this thread that he is growing the Fescue wrong or whatever youre inferring. At the end of the day I agreed alot with what Tom said and definetely with what you said and even complimented you on the posts. So besides shooting back at Tom after his shots, who has been disrespected?

Hopefully you can keep the thread steered in the right direction by answering my specific questions on Fine Fescue and Colonials water and nutrient requirements. How they are so different that its worth calling me out on it or if its just splitting hairs. And why they are found together naturally under the same climate as well as why they are purposely specified together in a mix for new courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()