Drainage Experts: Who is the master?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff/Bradley

I do take your points. My point is that we have options and should seek answers, even from the past.

As for the worms, Old Tom used a tool to easly remove the worm cast from the Greens which aparently worked very well. Just think of the information and knowledge we seem to have lost over times.

Melvyn

[Bradley Anderson]

Melvyn,

I'm sure you know this, but many of the original practices that Old Tom devised are still in practice at St. Andrews.

Old Tom did a tremendous amount of topdressing with sand, and that certainly would have helped the greens to drain. And probably it would have made worm casts less disruptive too.

I agree with you, by the way, that we can learn a lot from the past. My great grandfather laid drainage tiles in his fields in northern Illinois. And without those tiles it would have been a swamp. Those old clay tiles are still working today over 100 years later.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bradley,

I doubt the topdressing helped the greens drain if there were no aerification holes via worms or otherwise. It just transferred the water down a few inches or so, no?

Melvyn,

I agree we need to learn.  There was an American farmer named Ketchel Karch (sp?) who did some amazing things with farm drainage that got forgotten and came back in style. Cisterns to catch rain water are coming back in style after years of relying on water somewhere else being piped in, because we had the water and money to ignore localized collection.  Now that conditions change, we are reexamining a lot of the older ways.  I don't think drainage theory is stagnant by any means, with the new emphasis on water quality and treatment being added to the mix, as just one example, with emphasis on flood control even changing towards holding back smaller and smaller watersheds.

If it has gotten more complicated, again, its because sometimes golf gets interwined with the outside world, like it or not.

And, please remember I am closer to Houston than St. Andrews.  From memory, I thought houston had more than 38" of rain per year.  And, environmentalists insisted that to build the one course I did down there, we had to drain to lakes, away from wetlands and have no natural drain outlets, so their irrigation pump runs more when it rains to drain the course than it does when its dry and it needs irrigation!

From memory, I also thought Singapore had closer to 100" of rain a year, not 83.  I recall sizing pipes for that project and getting there to find out that "they" decided I was spending too much on drainage.  I stood in a monsoon and watched a fw wash away where they had downsized my 48" diamter pipe to something about half that, and water flowed over the fw.

So, engineers have learned a lot since the days of Old Tom, but I agree that in some cases - like concrete channels everywhere along highways, that there are more elegant solutions, especially for golf courses.  I will still not rely on worms, though.  That is really the perrogative of the superintendent and it falls under soil conditioning more than drainage, at least in  the modern scheme of things.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley,

I doubt the topdressing helped the greens drain if there were no aerification holes via worms or otherwise. It just transferred the water down a few inches or so, no?

Jeff,

In that environment at St, Andrews, where they only average a fairly consistent 2 - 2.5 inches of rain a month, and where the temperatures do not spike to where they require irrigation in between the rains, it is possible that the topdresing layers actually could have acted as compensatory water storage to absorb the rain before it pooled. Maybe that explains one reason why Old Tom was so aggressive with topdressing. Also there were areas on St. Andrews where the topdressing may have raised the elevations above water table situations where he had no place to drain the water to? Is that possible? I'm not that familiar with the elevations relative to water table there.

[Ray Richard]

I'll go with the previously mentioned Kelly/Ami firm from Montreal. John Kelly and Steve Ami do something different. They perform extensive sub grade and slope analysis, then they develop strategies to solve drainage problems. They solve huge drainage problems with a few perfectly located pipes. And they use high-perc sand and geofabric covered pipe.

I still see civil engineers blanket soggy fairways with herring bone pipe. I'm sure these installations drain water but they often miss the point: find out what is happening underneath the problem and fix it.

[Steve Lang]

  Jeff,

that was monthly average data, summed to yearly average data posted (tables get screwed up on posting, got to look twice), houston is > 50 inches a year, one good hrly rain here is like 2 months total rain in edinburgh, hmmm...

edinburgh,uk = 27 inches
long island, ny = 44
long island, ks - 23.5
houston, tx = 52.2
chicago, il =38
ogallala, ne = 17.8
singapore = 83.7

p,s, i don't remember TOC elevations being that close to sea level.. shallow ground water there must either be coming from up land areas in the surficial aquifer or be perched or held up by localized pockets of poorly graded soils with fines in their mix..  

p.s.s. have there ever been soil surveys published in that the St. Andrews or Fife area?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Of course the year I built a course near Houston, we faced three direct hit hurricanes and got about 100 of that 52 average inches half way through the project!  Add in soils that drain at 0.3" per hour, being 18 feet above sea level and we had a different kettle of worms than St. Andrews ever had!

[Don_Mahaffey]

I know this thread is primarily focusing on major drainage, like after a 2 inch thunderstorm or some other large rain/irrigation event. For those things experts who can do the math and get the water going where they want it to go in a controlled manner is what we need if we want to grow good grass and play golf quickly after getting soaked.

But, about Mel and his worms. It’s not just that worms help the soil porosity, worms are also an indication of soil property. I don’t see a lot of worm castings in compacted areas. Compact soild don't drain. Worms help with soil porosity which helps with water movement down as a liquid and up as a vapor. Good soil porosity also helps with root growth and those roots like to use water. Same with aerification. I don’t view hollow core aerification as just creating a straw or channel for water to move downward. Aerification done right increases soil porosity and that again helps with water movement, air exchange, and root growth. A soil that can breath will help to provide a dry golfing surface. And while that may not be enough to dry out quickly after a major storm, I guarantee you it helps get back to good conditions quickly. The water moving on top of the ground is the easy part of drainage. Drying out the top layer of soil quickly, while still providing good golfing turf, is the more difficult task. 

[Steve Lang]

   Don,

Strictly speaking, porosity doesn't equal permeability, which is what I think you're really talking about..  they're certainly inter-related which is why folks often miss the subtle difference.. i.e., though voids , be they worm holes or tined/drilled, more surface area for water and soil gas passage is created

Porosity is the amount of void space in a rock or other earth material (like a sand deposit) - in other words, it´s how much water a material can hold.

Permeability refers to how well water flows through a material - that´s controlled by how large the pores are, and how well connected they are

a well graded, consistent sized sand wil have more porosity and hold more water than a poorly graded sand that has an appreciable size distribution ( large particles with small ones filling voids)..

[Don_Mahaffey]

Steve,
No Steve, I was talking about porosity. Your talking soil science, I'm talking greenkeeping.
I want aeration porosity, lots of macro pores, because I'm more concerned with air exchange than I am permeability.
It's really hard to change the Ksat, but with certain practices I can maintain enough porosity to allow for the functions that lead to strong roots and healthy plants. If I have a heavy soil, I can't change the permeability, which is why some will tell you hollow core aerification or sand top dressing doesn't make a soil drain better. I'm not trying to drain an undrainable soil, but I can (to a certain extent) speed up how fast it dries.

[Ian Larson]

Isn't greenkeeping and soil science one in the same? Good greenkeeping comes from a good understanding of soil science and hydrology. I would hope that's why I had to take soil science classes to get a turf degree.

Nobody on here has been saying anything wrong except Melvyn thinking modern superintendents should use worms . But I get where he's coming from. The fact is that any cultural practices supers do to improve drainage is only a band aid. Like Jake said it's only making the bath tub deeper......it's only changing the water table. And a course in a region that gets ALOT of rainfall, I don't think there is anything a super can do culturally to go deep enough to lower the water table sufficiently. The tub will always get filled up. And that's where I think piped drainage is crucial to a sites success.

10 years ago I was at a top 100 course in the New York met area that was designed by one of our ODG's. I don't think there was TOO much for piped drainage except for bunkers and some fairways. Soils were typical NY met area soils that don't drain well. We had a HUGE worm problem in the fairways with their castings getting so bad the fairways looked like mud and it was wreaking havoc on the fairway mowers. It got to the point we had to spray for the worms...and not to promote them. We were about to host the Met Amateur and it wasn't worth not being able to mow fairways and have them smeared in worm castings. Because in reality, as many worms that were in the heavy soils, they weren't doing shit to improve the soils drainage. A typical storm of a couple inches, followed by another storm...flooded the place just like Bethpage last year. The only answer was more pipe in the ground, and since then I'm sure it's been put in.

 

[Ian Larson]

Which reminds me of why I do like worms...

Back home in Pennsylvania the sod fields get fertilized with worm castings that cost about $100 a ton from the local sewage plant. They utilize worms to process the raw sewage and they didn't know what to do with the worm casting after processing the sewage. It's a great organic N source that's worth looking in to with your local sewage plant.

[Mark Luckhardt]

Piped drainage systems like, the one earlier on this thread from the turn of the century, are crucial to lowering the gravitational groundwater table in all soils. Drainage systems like these are designed to control the water table at a manageable level, and in some cases act as large stormwater holding capacity during heavy precipitation events, before field capacity is reached.

Old School archies and superintendents understood the importance of fine drainage, and worked on their drainage plans from each courses beginnings. I have personally viewed thousands of old greens soil profiles and marvel each time at what the previous generations were able to accomplish, with their limited technology compared to ours, in terms of original piping systems, and how they have been maintained through the years.

I dig worms. They are absolutely helpful to the soil for aeration purposes. I am not a superintendent, and see everyday how worm castings destroy turfgrass surfaces.

[Jake Straub]

Couple of things to remember here in our war of the worms.  One, there is a big difference between the worm castings that you are buying for fertility practices and the worm castings that are left on the surface of your golf course.  Point being, as crazy as this sounds, there is a lot of guys out there producing some of the highest quality worm castings that you will ever see.  These guys go the extreme of controlling the worms diet so well that they have a fetilizer analysis that is a lot more then some NPK.  In my mind these guys have developed almost the perfect humus which is much better than just throwing down some products to improve your organic matter content in the soil.  Second, go to the field of a farmer that really understands biological farming and you will find a tremendous amount of worms in the soil  from 1inch to a couple of feet deep.  In a golf course environment we have created hardpan layers from years and years of aerification to the same depth.  Now when your worms are looking for some place to go they have to come to the surface for air.  Throw in some saturating rain/irrigation and the pore space that was once air is now water, the worms can't go deeper because of the hardpan so they come to surface.  Worms are living breathing creatures just like us and we all know that air is more important than water if you don't think that is true, hold your breathe and I will get you a glass of water.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
I don’t feel like soil science and greenkeeping are one in the same. Do I need to have a good understanding of the nature and properties of soils to be a good Green keeper? Of course. But it’s just one of the many sciences we use and there are experts in all those fields we can call on if we need help. I don’t consider my self a soil scientist.

If you comprehend my initial post on this subject, you’ll see where I wasn’t addressing macro drainage, or the removal of excess water; water we didn’t apply.

You say cultural practices can’t improve drainage, and I agree when it comes to major events. I maintain a golf course on the gulf coast. We get 50+ inches a year, or almost nothing like last year. I also was very involved in the construction. I’ll bet we have as much pipe in the ground as any modern course. I understand the need to control and move extra water.

I also worked in So Cal and AZ for 15 years. Areas where we could go 100 days or more with no measurable rain, and yet I still played a lot of wet golf courses. Are you saying all those courses need to improve their drainage? A lot of these course are newer modern courses designed by the best and built for a lot of $$$. Why are they wet? And why are some not wet? I say it’s because some supers do a very good job of providing dry golfing turf and others don’t. And I think a lot has to do with cultural practices. Yes, we absolutely need good drainage to get rid of excess water. But if we have that, and we control how much water is applied, why are some courses still wet? There are too many cultural practices to note that help present a dry golfing surface. I probably can not improve my soil permeability. But, I can improve, or at least maintain, my porosity and infiltration rate. If I do those things, through aeration, or irrigation management and water treatment, wetting agents, traffic control, promoting beneficial soil micro biology…then I probably can maintain good turf and present a dry surface.

[Forrest Richardson]

Since every golf course site is unique from the others, I doubt we could agree that there is "one" guru of drainage. Philippe makes some good comments and suggestions — but even he cannot be considered a "guru" — (hope he agrees   )

I think the "guru" (if there is one) is the individual who takes the time to engineer the site and fit the solution to the conditions. Knowing that every single golf course site is different is a beginning point of understanding drainage. Sure, past experiences and successes become part of your arsenal, but you cannot stop there.

Drainage, too often, is limited to what one sees in the land. In reality, it needs to consider other aspects; weather, soils, agronomics, the net effect of retention and how fast water will evacuate the site even when drainage is "expertly" in place. For example, on this last point, you can have "great" drainage, but it can be slow to work. That is not necessarily great. Reaching the balance between speed, efficiency, and volume is always key.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What he said....

But as long as Melvyn wants to consider history, I would like to add that when I started in the gca biz in 1977, piping was very sparse, even rare. Part of the reason was the cost of concrete or even metal pipe for lower budget golf projects.  When ADS and others came out with plastic pipe, in ever larger sizes, it became quite economical (albeit, not as economical as worms!) to use and started being factored into designs, just as more earthmoving came in as the relative costs went down.

In that time frame, I sent some apprentices to the Cornish-Graves Harvard seminars for some more info.  In their sample budgets, they had $50K for drainage.  Afterwards, my guys told them that we probably averaged $200K and Geoff Cornish remarked that in five years time, it probably comes to that and we were probably smart to put that much in to start to reduce additions later on. 

My budgets for drainage have actually started coming down, relative to inflation as I seek that balance Forrest speaks of, basically draining only small rains on most courses.  Part of that is pure cost, engineering to reduce pipe to the minimum necessary and because "new" knowledge says ponding reduces environmental damage from sediment in runoff and I achieve that ponding with smaller inlets and pipe to hold water back.

All of the above, and the knowledge that most older courses continually add drainage make me suspect of taking one quote from a century old book about TOC and saying that is the one bit of drainage history that matters most.  I simply don't think it is.  I think each generation has built on what Old Tom realized and worked to achieve - adequate drainage.  The Golden Age guys realized it to but did more grading and drainage with the technology of the day.

Speaking of historic drainage, I thought I wrote about this, but a quick scan shows I didn't unless I missed it.  When I built a nine hole course near Lynchburg, VA at the base of Jefferson's Poplar Forest home, we dug up some of his old drain pipes!  They were made from the trunks of Tulip Trees, which are very straight, which were cut in half, cored out like a melon, and then strapped back together.  The thought of seeing a drain system engineered by TJ and probably carried out by his slaves was simply fascinating! 

The house was built in 1805, demonstrating that learned folk that far back realized there was a need to aid nature in drainage if they were to use the land.  Much of the midwest actually is drained wetlands, courtesy of drain tiles on herringbones, and those areas were settled in the 1830's and on.  So, its not new, its just expanded.  And, I do understand that there are examples of gca's overdoing it (i.e., no restraint) when the prices plunged.  Just because we can, it doesn't seem as "sincere" when we do it willy nilly for artistic effect rather than practical reasons.

So, the philosophical question on this and Melvyn's Left the Land thread is why some think the culture of golf design is or should be so strong as to advocate no manipulation of land for its intended purpose, or no drain pipes when they have been used for centuries in all applications?  Golf design isn't that special in the big scheme of things AND I think that many have overly romanticized what really happened over 500 years at the old course and glossed over the improvments made over time.

It occurs to me that there may have been miles of drain pipe (exaggeration) added to TOC, but since no one sees them, they presume they don't exist!

[Steve Lang]

   and perhaps the most original thoughts have always been transposed between professionals..

The "Drainage Hall of Fame" was established in the Agricultural Engineering Department at The Ohio State University in 1979. It is dedicated to Virgil Overholt (1889-1978), Professor of Agricultural Engineering for 42 years (1915-1956) of outstanding service in education and research on agricultural drainage. The Drainage Hall of Fame at The Ohio State University was dedicated to the memory of Virgil Overholt on March 9, 1979.

http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~agwatmgt/images/animation.gif

[Sean_A]

Well, whatever you pro lot do, just get it done!  Ya can't play golf on a bog so I am always gonna be in favour of drainage. Is it obvious I have a low tolerance for wet courses?  How drainage is done is out of my scope knowledge and to be honest interest.  Mind you, if drainage starts highly impacting play and/or aesthetics then I will immediately become an expert - tee hee. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

With respect I would like to correct you. I was not referring to just one article but from memory at least three if not four. I also actually said, please note my last sentence (copied below) 

From my reply#15 “TOC when under Old Tom was well able to withstand many of the rainstorms. He said it was down to the cultivation of worms, yet after he retired Hamilton killed all the worms, the course started to pool water and for a period from 1905-12. I believe the R&A were unhappy with the quality of TOC during this time. Perhaps a lesson could be learnt that not all modern ideas are best.”

There is a report from Old Tom advising Hamilton not to kill the worms, also to deviate to using a different mix would not be advisable, yet Hamilton ignored that advice and according to reports TOC underwent some 8 years or so of problems. The course problems have been reported, I have read them, Old Tom’s suggestions were reported and I have read them, TOC not pooling with water when Old Tom used the worms, those reports have also been read. So I would like to correct you on your comment of just one report.

We can learn from the past, in fact we are still discovering processes lost in antiquity that have a place in our modern world. The point I was making is that we should not discard old ideas without some serious consideration.

My point also applies to selecting the sites of courses, we should be more critical in our selection otherwise we undermine the very thing we are trying to achieve, golf for all. Brain washing the general public into believing that using a cart is the golfing way is not IMHO the right way to introduce the great game of golf. To introduce the game to an unsuitable location and then knowing that the site is unplayable in the conventional manner, one proceeds, that individual(s) has bastardized the great game of golf. I question, no in fact if I was building a golf course I wonder if I would employ any cart building cart-ball architect as I feel he/she has betrayed the game of golf in my eyes. There are places in the world just not suitable for the game, which is the real game of golf – that’s the game you walk around a course with 18 holes and should not be confused with cart ball etc.

We all have our own limitations, be it physical or mental which more or less stops us participating in various works or leisure’s activities. To a point we should accept that, why, well let’s ask would you employ a blind person to clean your factory or home. Its not that they can’t do the work, it’s the practicality of it all, unless you intend to spend a fortune. But why would you spend a fortune on cleaning. Common sense is something of an asset to us human beings, so why don’t we use it at times, unless the intention is to water down golf, deprive the general public of the real thrill and challenge of the game of golf and thus mould the game into just making money for the few or whatever other reason someone comes up with at the time. Nevertheless, taking the time to think, is this land fit for purpose, will it allow the game of golf to flourish or are we limited in the first place to just playing cart-ball in this area/environment.

I see nothing wrong with cart-ball, as long as it is understood that it is not golf. A simple question would you be happy if some one modified you National flag (either changed the colour or added or removed some of the stars or stripes). Well that’s how I feel when people tinker with the way the game of golf is played. I respect your right to your flag and to retain its original integrity, why won’t many here and around the world offer me (and others of my persuasion) the same courtesy?  Lets not forget I have not changed or gone away from the game where walking is such an intrinsic part. Have you?

I just ask some of you to think, before we may lose the will to walk when playing or become so detached from the thinking process that you are no longer able to work out which club to use unless you delve in the Pandora’s Box of distance aids. Ladies and Gentlemen how strongly do you believe in the Spirit of the Game and your Golfing Soul, because you are looking into the abyss. Are you going to lets your legs do the walking away from the edge or are you going to ride into the flames of Hell?

Jeff I hope you have a nice day, I believe it is going to get very, very warm soon.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

And I gave a few examples of how we are returning to old style technolgy.  I think most of human "progress" has been an improvement, but also a mixed bag because it tends to be directed at a single issue.  We did forget some old style basics when pipe became cheap.  And bugs have always been a problem, so some bright scientist developed DDT to solve that SINGLE problem, with little thought or knowledge of long term evironmental effects so we had more dead bugs but some other problems were introduced, too. 

At some point in time, the conditions that drove certain solution come back and parts of the old thinking come back, albeit, usually in modernized form.

I won't morph into the OT topics of cartball, etc., but it is a good example of how many people think - the opposite of the single issue mindset is to tie a lot of things together. I have been in public hearings where water supply is not an issue.  Some lady stands up and asks "how can you use water to water a golf course when they don't have enough drinking water in Africa?"  There is, of course, no possible way to deliver Minnesota water to South Africa, so in my miind, its a non issue.  But, to this lady there was a legitimate problem in the world and somehow, my golf course shouldn't be built because of it, even though its totally unrelated.

Short version - I don't believe advances in drainage techniques have much to do with the advance of cart ball.

Texas won't be getting warm for a few months now, but your last line actually sounds somewhat more sinister than that.....But, all the best to you as well!

[Tim Liddy]

My experience working overseas and in the US is there are two distinct and different approaches to drainage. In the US we tend to look at surface drainage, ensuring positive surface drainage flow, while in other parts of the world (and with agricultural drainage in the US) they look at subsurface drainage, which requires continued porosity in the soil. In the US we drain golf courses like they are parking lots (which also provides the same look) but we can play golf 10 minutes after it rains. Subsurface drainage works but has lifespan worries (silt) and relies on continued aerification for maximum benefit. Soils conditions are also a major factor, but I have had success with both styles in clay soils. Heavy soils require consistent topdressing and aerification for the subsurface drainage to be most effective, but is a win-win for golf course agronomics - and playability as well. Most importantly, subsurface drainage also allows for fairways to retain their natural appearance, while we all cringe at the look of 50 catch basins throughout a fairway. A combination of the two types of drainage, while minimizing the look of catch basins is the best approach -or always working on natural sand, which some architects demand.

[Ian Larson]

Melvyn,

Would you be able to expand on the reports you have with as to what Hamilton's mix was that made TOC go from draining great with OTM to flooded with Hamilton.

Ill be honest with you it makes no sense to me. Am I wrong in thinking that TOC is revered as having well draining sandy soils on a seaside links? Im sorry but sandy sites along the sea will drain water with or without the worms. You always mention a site suitable for golf.....Ive never heard anybody refer to "wormy soils" when it comes to site selection.

Having a "wormy soil" never was and never will be a preference or requirement when selecting a site. Worms and the work they do is unmeasurable.....and I dont mean that as a complement. You literally cannot measure what effect a worm has on soil. Nor can you control or manipulate them. They go where they want, they do what they want to do. They migrate to one area and not another for no appearant reason in inconsistent numbers. They just cannot be relied on as a management tool to a green keeper on a large golf course. With worms the only thing that you can rely on is that they are are there and they are not doing any harm, unless they start shitting casting out all over the place.

So I would think it would be interesting to learn what the "mix" was in the reports and who the source of the reports was. I cant think of ANYTHING that Hamilton could have been putting out that would have killed off all the worms unless he was actually TRYING TO KILL THE WORMS WITH A TOXIC PESTICIDE. And even in the event that the worms WERE killed off......the soils at TOC are perfectly suited to drain just as well. If what you are telling us is that the course drained poorly in the absence of worms.....then I think you need to do some research out in your garden as to how much drainage pipe that you are arguing against is actually in the ground out there and when they started using it. In the end what you are ultimately saying is that TOC doesnt naturally drain well....


You still have succeeded in avoiding my question as to what the site of the Castle Course looked like before it was tilled and farmed....

[Jeff_Brauer]

I kind of cross posted in the other thread, but worms aerating soil make sense to a certain degree.  However, I can imagine that too many worms might be a problem even with the soil opened up!  Old Tom realized their benefit, but it doesn't change the fact that others later figured out that the bigger opening of underground drain pipes carry more water than the pore space of soils, and that surface water flows down hill, and its best to make your land slope down hill if it doesn't do it naturally, to speed it up, and in other cases, flatten it when necessary to slow water down.  As Tim Liddy notes, surface drainage requires surface drainage solutions and subsurface problems require subsurface solutions, and most courses require some of both.

History also shows that probably 99% of golf courses have added drain pipes over the years to solve their specific problems.  So, the way I look at it, Old Tom was clearly more in tune with his golf course than his successor Hamilton.  But, we actually don't know if Hamilton's problems were all worms or if he was generally deficient as a super either.  We just don't know, but even today, many reporters and golfers come up with wild and wrong theories about how the turf died, and it couldn't have been any better back in the old days when everyone knew even less!  I agree with Ian that it could be a lot of management practices that combined to go wrong for the young whippersnapper!

As to drainage, Tom Doak reports that they still almost flood irrigate only every few weeks and that the water dissapates.  So, it still obvioulsy drains okay!

[Ian Larson]

Melvyn,

Would you be able to expand on the reports you have with as to what Hamilton's mix was that made TOC go from draining great with OTM to flooded with Hamilton.

Ill be honest with you it makes no sense to me. Am I wrong in thinking that TOC is revered as having well draining sandy soils on a seaside links? Im sorry but sandy sites along the sea will drain water with or without the worms. You always mention a site suitable for golf.....Ive never heard anybody refer to "wormy soils" when it comes to site selection.

Having a "wormy soil" never was and never will be a preference or requirement when selecting a site. Worms and the work they do is unmeasurable.....and I dont mean that as a complement. You literally cannot measure what effect a worm has on soil. Nor can you control or manipulate them. They go where they want, they do what they want to do. They migrate to one area and not another for no appearant reason in inconsistent numbers. They just cannot be relied on as a management tool to a green keeper on a large golf course. With worms the only thing that you can rely on is that they are are there and they are not doing any harm, unless they start shitting casting out all over the place.

So I would think it would be interesting to learn what the "mix" was in the reports and who the source of the reports was. I cant think of ANYTHING that Hamilton could have been putting out that would have killed off all the worms unless he was actually TRYING TO KILL THE WORMS WITH A TOXIC PESTICIDE. And even in the event that the worms WERE killed off......the soils at TOC are perfectly suited to drain just as well. If what you are telling us is that the course drained poorly in the absence of worms.....then I think you need to do some research out in your garden as to how much drainage pipe that you are arguing against is actually in the ground out there and when they started using it. In the end what you are ultimately saying is that TOC doesnt naturally drain well....


You still have succeeded in avoiding my question as to what the site of the Castle Course looked like before it was tilled and farmed....

Melvyn Im sincerely interested in your thoughts on this. Perhaps your scrounging up the reports?