The Cost of Fast Greens

[Tim_Weiman]

Recently I read a report by a prominent member of the golf industry wherein he commented on the cost of maintaining green speeds above 10 on the stimpmeter.

Unfortunately, this individual made only general comments and didn't attempt to quantify the costs.

Can anyone take a stab at this?  Is it possible to quantify the cost of maintaining greens at 8 vs 11?

[Peter Galea]

Tim, as always there are a number of variables, that's why the original article spoke in generalizations. I will try to list some of the extra maintenance involved in keeping speedy greens. Lower heights mean more stress, wear and much more precise applications of fertilizer and water. Thin mower bedknives wear faster so must be replaced more frequently. This as well as quality of cut being more critical means more labor by the mechanic. At high speeds, granular fertilizers are pretty much useless because of the unpredictable response and flush of growth when they "kick" in. This means that you must apply fertilizers foliarly (by spraying) If the super will allow the sprayer to drive on the surface it's a one man job. If it must be sprayed by hand it is a two man job. In order to get a predictable and steady response this means spraying greens every 10-14 days.
Generally at lower heights disease pressure is greater, this means that fungicide use is increased, these chemicals are very expensive, although most can be tank mixed with the fertilizer, thereby saving some labor. The need for hand watering is increased. Verticutting, topdressing, double cutting and brushing must be done more frequently. These are the few that come to the top of my head, I'm sure others will chime in. In essence, more labor, much more labor. Didn't MacKenzie say something like this? "Brain power is much cheaper than manual labor, to economize use more brain and less labor."

[Tim_Weiman]

Pete Galea:

Your knowledge of what contributes to higher costs for faster greens goes well beyond my area of expertise.

But, I'm hoping someone can quantify it all.  Perhaps I should be more specific: what would be the approximate annual savings of maintaining grees at 8 vs 11?

If the best that can be done is offering a range (High/Low), that's fine.  I'm really trying to understand the magnitude of the potential savings?

Is it $50,000? $100,000? $200,000? Or more?

[jim__janosik]

Pete,  As a fellow "turfhead"  I  think its a wash  when you pencil  in  more  $$$$$$$ for water  if you overwater  and  
even more  $$$$$$ fungicide  for  if  you overwater  and  
eliminating  poa if you overwater.  

Tim,  I  don't  think its  more than $25,000  a year.

[Peter Galea]

Jim,
What if you don't over water, tolerate a little disease pressure and have all poa annua?

Your $25k is going to depend on what you pay for labor.

It's the labor.

After thinking about it a while I have to add, the number is going to be dependant on the length of season, In California
we're pretty much 365. Greens speed up after a frost, so in my area the "edge" is maybe 8-9 months. In other areas, more or less.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim/Pete:

Your comments on water and disease control are beyond my expertise.

Are you saying that maintaining greens at a slower speed increases the requirement for water and/or increases the need for chemicals related to disease control?

Also, regarding the labor, it sounds like you mean something less than one full time employee (FTE).  Is that right?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim,
Two thoughts.
Whenever the turf is on the edge, it requires more attention. It's not always measurable in $$$. The amount of time spent babysitting greens that are maintained on the edge has to be factored in. That task is not usually delegated to a $7/hr employee, it takes someone with a fair amount of knowledge.

Second. Turf types play a hugh role in what can be kept fast. Some of the newer bent and bermuda strains can be kept in their confort zone and still be in the 10+ range. It's when a course tries to take a grass like penncross and get it to roll like the new A or G series' that the trouble starts.

[JohnH]

Tim,

In my experience, maintaining slower greens reduces the need for water and chemicals as it pertains to disease control.... I just haven't had the urge to figure $$$ figures on paper..... yet.

[Tim_Weiman]

John H:

Forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but it sounds like you are saying slower greens might be favored from an environmental perspective (by reducing the need for chemicals).

Is that too far of a stretch?

[Peter Galea]

Whoa!, Hold on, Wait a minute. What the heck was I thinking?
The "cost" of fast greens has nothing to do with maintenance or money$. Sometimes I take myself to seriously and the written word to literally. It's one thing to speed them up for one weekend a year (ie: the Invitatonal). To keep the speed up week in and week out is fantasy brought about by teevee. The real cost is to the game itself. Fast greens reduce cupable area, shatter nerves, increase wear to the turf, destroy design intent, eliminate strategy and make putting BORING! Putting off greens, slowing down play, designing flat greens to handle the speed. There's the real cost.
Quantify that!
Whew! Now I feel better!
 

[Tim_Weiman]

Pete:

The report I was referring to clearly spoke (in general terms) to the economics of maintaining greens faster than 10 ....day in, day out.

I'm with you on all the other issues, but I didn't intend to get into all that on this thread.  I am just trying to understand the economics of the issue.

Sorry if the focus seems a little narrow.

[jim__janosik]

Tim,

My  experience is that slow greens are overwatered  and overfertilized  which costs  $$$$$$$$.  Overwatered and overfertilized  means  more disease.

[JohnH]

Which is a flawed maintenance practice.  There is a difference between overwatering and raising the height of cut to "baby" greens through the hot summer months.

[TomSteenstrup]

Which is more important for the greens everybody here wants, fast or firm?

It seems to me that fast in it self is not all that desirable. It reduces the possibility of creating greens with real slope and undulation, and reduces the pin-able area of greens already existing.

Firm however, is what is making arial-only golf difficult, right? So that should be the maintenance objective.

If you can get healthy greens that play firm, and keep watering and chemicals to a minimum by not cutting the grass too low, that seems to be the perfect combination to me. Isn't that also what you see as the most typical conditioning of the British links courses?

Tom

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Steenstrup:

I think most people here agree with what you said.

I just wish there was also a more compelling economic argument.

[Peter Galea]

Tim, sorry we couldn't come up with a better economic argument. The two to three acres of greens are the most intensively maintained area on the golf course. They are the heart of the golf course (roughly 5% of the course). You can have spotty fairways and tees that are beat, but if you don't have good greens you don't have a golf course. In that light, when it comes to maintaining greens, money is no object.
You would need a real revolution, because of the impact of teevee and comparisons of courses nearby. I can hear it now, "man these (expletive deleted) greens are slow, they're terrible, why can't we have greens like the club down the road, at least you can putt over there, they always have the greens fast and rolling."

[Tim_Weiman]

Pete:

If that's the answer, then so be it.

Personally, I think there are plenty of other reasons to build greens with more contour, but it would have been nice to be able to also show the economic side.

[Justin_Zook]

The superintendant where I work, who has been one of the best in the business for many, many years, said that the cost of maintaining a green around 10 or 11, as opposed to 8, is $40,000 more a year.  Needless to say, the greens at the club are some of the best in the state.

[Tim_Weiman]

Justin:

Are you saying the annual cost is $40,000 per green?  That would be a huge number ($720,000)......indeed, more than the total maintenance budget for many clubs.

[Justin_Zook]

Yes.  I know it is quite a lot.

As I understand it, keeping the greens at 10/11 is $40,000 more than keeping them at 8.  The greens at the course are pretty flat, and definately do not resemble McKenzie greens.  

There are 2 qualities of turf.  Visual, and Functional.  The superintendant must maximize those qualities with the funds that the greens commitee allows.  

Idealy, you want a true roll with every putt, and that is done by cutting the grass very low.  Like humans, turf has the ability to deal with stress.  Some Stresses are disease, insects, and traffic.  This is called the recuperative capacity.  But as the grass is cut lower, it's capacity for recuperation decreases.  The superintendant is forced to do the things that Pete Galea talked about.  

I am not sure why the cost is so high where I work.  I do know that at any golf course, the greens represent much of the budget.  The percentage obviously varies between clubs.  

The greens, where I work, are kept tremendously well.  If you miss a putt, it is definately your fault.

[Mike Cirba]

Although I know nothing about the cost of the greens maintenance at Justin's course, I can certainly attest to the fact that they are perhaps the most pure bent grass greens I've seen, without even a hint of poa in an area where poa is pretty common.

The superintendent is quite the guy, as well!

[Justin_Zook]

Yes sir!  You are certainly correct there Mr. Cirba!

[Tim_Weiman]

Justin,

Let me go at this one more time.

It seems like we've got a pretty wide range of responses to my question.

Pete Gelea and Jim Janosik have suggested a number like $25,000 per year for the cost of maintaining greens at 11 verses 8.

You have suggested the number is $720,000.

These two numbers aren't even close.

Can you comment on what might account for such a wide range in responses?

Also, can you put the $720,000 in perspective?  What percent of the total budget is this?

If this kind of number is true, why haven't the long term economics of building greens with less contour/maintained at faster speend received more attention?

FYI, my home club (Sand Ridge) spends about $1.3-1.4 million per annum on maintenance.  Greens are maintained in the 10-11 range.

Are you suggesting we could eliminate half the total budget just by slowing down greens to an 8?

[Dr. Reynolds]

 Tim,

Sounds like a question for the Greenskeeper at your club! Especially if youre posting the annual budget in this forum!

[aggies93]

Its difficult to put an exact number "economics" on maintaining greens at 10 or 11. Many good reasons for increased budgeting were made in previous posts'. But one has to look at many factors that are unknown in any given season, especially environmental factors; heat, pest, disease pressure, as well as what substrate you have under the turf. Additionally, is the turf bent or bermuda.

From the bermuda side, I have helped maintain "Champion Bermuda" for 3 seasons now. It has been extremely challenging while also difficult or lets say a big learning curve. Economically speaking, maintaining this turf is difficult to pinpoint because our greens may require more or less imput than a course 30 miles down the road because of totally different environmental conditions. Were talking micro and macro environments which are additionally different through a single golf course. It also depends on what kind of equipment inventory you have on hand.

I'll cut to the chase. We had to purchase a new (sand) topdresser for more precise output. Four walking greensmowers, because when your mowing a hair below an 1/8, triplexes just dont give you consistency and you can definitely see the difference. A new spray rig, for foliar rather than granular applications. Additionally, a good aerifier would be needed because a tine greater than a "needle tine - 1/8" has a residual of 2-3 weeks. We already had a verti-drain so we didnt need a new device, but your looking at 14 - 18K.

Throw in the man power and your spending some cash. Not to mention going to chemical applications, increaded sand applications (for smoothness), and handwatering during times of stress. All in all, annually your looking at 30 - 50K additional budget. The range is based on conditions unforeseen, such as bermudagrass decline, which inturn cause a lot of screeming from a membership. Maybe one should add an addition 5K for Doctor visits!