Sustainable golf - question #1

[Don_Mahaffey]

The word sustainable is everywhere. If anyone is building something, or making major organizational changes, or just touting their company thru press release, the chances of reading the word sustainable, or sustainability, is high.

I have a hard time with the never ending use of the word when applied to golf. I think if you look up the history of sustainable agriculture, you'll learn that sustainable principles have been around for decades, and to be truly operating or constructing a golf course using sustainable principles is not easy. But, what is sustainable golf? I'm not sure, but I am sure there are some who hang around here who know more about the subject, so I wanted to start a discussion.

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

Do we care about sustainability, or do we really just want pretty grass?  

[Greg Tallman]

Define "WE" and you have your answer... different definitions beget different answers. Some think mudball is the only way to go.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Greg,
I can't define we, can I? What's important to you?

Do we in golf adapt our methods to be sustainable, or do we change the definition of sustainable to fit our methods?  

[David Harshbarger]

Don,

Where do you think the tipping point is on sustainability? 

Chambers Bay is coming soon on the national radar, and they have both a poly culture turf of colonial bent, chewings fescue, and creepIng red fescue...

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/turf/pdf/06chambersbay.pdf

And is touted as a sustainable course...

http://citybugs.tamu.edu/2010/09/14/green-golf-courses/

The changes at Pinehurst certainly seem in line with the lower input element of sustainability. 

Is it just a matter of time at this point?

[Tony Ristola]

Polystands are a common practice in Europe. If some spots of bent on the greens are lost to disease, the fescue is still there to stabilize the area.

Fairways are usually polystands too.

If you find a monostand somewhere it's likely a McSignature architect, or the course is pure poa.

Sustainable:
(1) Not going bankrupt.
(2) Limited waste in production.
(3) Manageable over the long term with modest means without a loss of quality.

[Melvyn Morrow]

We are or have gone overboard in building golf courses, its way to complicated and expensive. The sustainability of the land, plants, shrubs and grass are important. We seem to have forgotten the First Lesson re Design & GCA, that the Course should reflect its surroundings. Forget that and your client had better have deep pockets not just for the build but ongoing maintenance of the site.

Reality needs to be let into the designers brief again, although that should go without saying. The consequence of having large budgets or abundance of money generally kills initiative.

Sustainability – perhaps as recently defined in Fine Golf http://www.finegolf.co.uk/2012/03/the-new-sustainable/ . The following was my comment on that article that appeared in Fine Golf, which to date they have authorised for general publication. A pity because unless all opinions are examined what chance is there for an open and far more importantly an honest debate.  Fine Golf is not acting out of being bloody-minded but for the honourable concern of upsetting Barrett and the R&A.

“There is nothing wrong with still using the word Sustainability, but it has to be done in a way that is defined as part of golf and golf courses. To surrender it is just typical of the R&A and their consultants.

Sustainability needs to be defined and explained to all involved in golf, not to the high and mighty who find it hard to converse with us mortals, the ordinary golfers.

The word to this Golfer means, first that the ‘Land is Fit for Purpose. In this case it’s for golf. For the last 40 years or so some have had the mentality as per that of the American TV series ‘The Six Million Dollar Man’ i.e. we have the money so let’s rebuild him or it, in this case. The very concept behind the course is money not the test, the challenge or for that matter the fun, pleasure or entertainment for the golfer but money and can we make it into a Championship course to generate more money.

The result being super manicured, over watered courses more a kin to a park than a golf course with the obligatory fountain or Island Green. One being nauseating to a traditional links golfer, the other an insult to the average golfer that find his round killed dead, not just because his/her ball in under the water but that island Green never offers any alternative route. Golf is about the challenge, however if one skill is not quite there options to navigate the course are available, alas not so on Island Greens. This kills the Hole for the golfer and generally his mood too.

Sustainable is all a part of this, it starts when modern designers rip the heart out of the chosen land to lay drainage and irrigation systems, yet have they not heard of keyhole surgery keeping the land chosen intact – well for the most part that is. Retaining that natural and Nature, working with what we have and not this ridicules strip back to the bed rock before terraforming the whole area that does not resemble the land around it. An example of this is the madness of The Castle Course at St Andrews, alien landscape on farmland, sustainability, hell no, just a vast waste of money and years of correctional works. And no, it has nothing in common with St Andrews golf, just trying to cash in upon the name.  The importance of land selection has never been more important, we need to look at the site not just for the course but the on-going maintenance requirement, we have to start to remember that golf is meant to be natural working hand in hand with Nature, to offer golfer an inexpensive game yet testing and challenging at the same time.

Sustainability has been abandon because the R&A and CO have not the commitment to the game or its wellbeing, they either dither or take forever to make their mind up or dismiss things out of hand i.e. the damage that the equipment technology is doing first to our great courses, their Holes and to the game itself when they have effected legalised cheating by allowing the equipment rather than skill to reduce a player score  “TaylorMade even advertises that the new RBZ 3-wood will generate an additional 17 yards in distance -- an appealing claim to golfers of all levels obsessively consumed with gaining more distance.” Sorry not appealing whatsoever, that is in my eyes plain cheating when a player is allowed to buy distance and not earn it via skill.

The way forward noting the current financial pressures and environmental problems must be to embrace the sustainability of the land, but until the R&A get their brains and balls into gear we will continue to see the great game of golf further watered down. All because of a weak governing body with their advisers not willing to face the issues. Seemingly happy to walk away at the first signs of resistance. One also has to ask the question are they really interested in sustainability when they allow and in parts of the world encourage carts, their carts tracks and additional power consumption. Not to mention first the advantage in saving energy plus the health issue of able bodied players riding. Carts should only be made available to those who suffering from age or medical condition.

If there is a will there is most certainly a way, technology is not our enemy, but we should use it to maintain a consistency within the game and as an aid to sustainability. 

Soon or later reality must dawn at the R&A but as it has not done so in the last 100years I will not hold my breath as clearly money is apparently more important than the wellbeing of the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.”

Just an opinion from a golfer

Melvyn

[Tony Ristola]

We are or have gone overboard in building golf courses, its way to complicated and expensive. The sustainability of the land, plants, shrubs and grass are important. We seem to have forgotten the First Lesson re Design & GCA, that the Course should reflect its surroundings. Forget that and your client had better have deep pockets not just for the build but ongoing maintenance of the site.

Reality needs to be let into the designers brief again, although that should go without saying. The consequence of having large budgets or abundance of money generally kills initiative.

Melvyn, large budgets don't just kill initiative, but imagination... perhaps that is what you meant.

I am reminded of the story of Monty Python's Brian, where they didn't have the budget to pay for horses, so they used coconuts instead. A hilarious bit; imagination induced by lack of funds. Money makes people lazy; resorting to standard solutions.

The links are sustainable, but the faux inland links are often costly to construct and maintain. How many courses advertised themselves as "links" courses in the past 25-years. If there are lessons from the links, it isn't the steep and deep bunkers, or dunes... the optics, but the cost effectiveness of its maintenance. Of the conditions these courses embrace. Of their sense of place. This... unfortunately is lost on many.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tony

It’s the old ‘Land fit for Purpose’ problem that some just will not acknowledge believing money can overcome anything, alas even money will run out and generally well before the water.

I did mean ‘initiative’ just look at those bloody Island Greens – more money than sense.

Melvyn

[Mike Nuzzo]

I would not call Chambers Bay sustainable based on the construction price and their construction processes

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

One of the best examples of the unsustainable were the Florida "waste areas" built a la the PV style.  At TPC they went away, because things just grew too well in Florida to try to maintain sandy wastes.

Mike,

Not 100% sure that CB is a good correlation of cost to sustainability, as it might be on a pristine site.  That site was a mess and it doesn't surprise me that they spent millions correcting enviro issues from mining.  While it seems odd in some ways, using golf to make an old industrial site more enviro friendly is something the enviromentalists generally aplaud.  It probably would have cost the same to make it a park or cemetary.

The question is whether the links look is sustainable after construction, at least to me.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
It most certainly would not have cost the same to make it a park.
And I'm not saying the golf does not add more value than a park.
And I did not say there wasn't significant value in mitigating the industrial site.
Cheers

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - my grandfather lived through two wars and a depression and a move from subsistence farming in southern Italy to a life in Canada.  Until the year he died he tended a wonderful vegetable garden.  That last year I was visiting him and the garden was thriving especially well.  When I complimented him on it, he said (as if it were the most natural thing in the world):  "I was not feeling well this spring, and so I said to God - 'God, if you want a good garden this year you're going to have to do even more of the work than you usually do'...and He did. All this land belongs to Him; a thousand people have lived here before me and a thousand will live here after me.  All I do is take care of it for a little while".

That's "sustainable", it seems to me. That's "good stewardship".  My grandfather had never even heard of those words, let alone used them -- for him, they were not charming/fashionable philosophies or something to discuss over coffee; the words described a very simple truth and a clear duty, as he understood those.  Others, of course, are free to understand truth and duty differently.

Peter

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter, the other word that goes in this discussion is conservation, which is whole other approach.  Those who would conserve, view nature as a resource for men to use.  Or as a quote from "Last Man Standing" last week, when Tim Allen (a hunter) confronts his daughters new eco activist boyfried, says, "We manage animal populations so future hunters can kill them." 

Most animal groups wouldn't accept this, but there is some value in conservation, and in some ways they can work together.

I don't think anyone knows what the best approach is.  And, as they say, only time will tell.  People just get nervous because of the long term effects of any approach being wrong......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Conservation - such an evil word and a real excuse to do little. Conserve water or even the oil supply by reducing the need is by definition a surrender to effective and sustainable planning.

If water is in great demand we should curtail the need to use it, perhaps lower consumption or properly plan for the future by encouraging better and more cost effective reservoirs. The Heavens have proven time after time that there is sufficient fresh water available; it’s just that we let it run out to the sea without utilising this precious resource. It’s free at source, just needs some basic planning, it’s certainly not rocket science, if we look to history the Romans were masters when dealing with H2O – seems we keep forgetting to learn from our history.  

Follow the path of conservation and you open the door to half baked ideas. Grasp the nettle and face the problem face on is the only way to sustain both human life and spirit.

Sustainability has little to do with conservation. Sustainability is Nature’s way, while Conservation is the Accountants way, a pointless exercise in juggling figures to proving the inevitable  

Melvyn

[Joe Hancock]

Tony,

That was "The Holy Grail" that used coconuts...Patsy in particular.

But to Don's question: It comes down to a business question, really. When doing golf(design/ building/ remodeling/ operating) it all comes down to giving the customer what they want. Here in America, it has been a matter of aesthetics for a long time. While this fanatic group of golfers on GCA.com seems OK with polystands(at least with their online stated preferences), the general public most often prefer the monostand grassing methods. The golf course with pure bentgrass fairways and pure bluegrass roughs is certainly striking visually, but does it make the golf experience any better? Maybe so, if aesthetics are higher up the list than most would admit to, and certainly in this crowd.

The thing that happens with a polyculture(as Don is describing it) is that the plants that remain over time are sustainable...they've survived whatever the maintenance regime has encouraged. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean the original grasses survive always, but possibly subspecies of those plants, or even other grasses from other means is what remains. When maintaining a turf stand to keep it "pure" the maintenance is driven by those stands. Superintendents have a plethora of tools, and may stop at nothing to use them in order to keep those "pure" stands intact....after all, that's what was planted when the course was built, it must be what the original architect and superintendent had in mind, right?

I don't know, Don. Sustainability is a strange word in golf, because by very nature golf isn't really sustainable due to the huge amount of maintenance practices required. But, sustainability ought to be a principal by which golf (and all of us) operate....it's just a better way to go and almost always cheaper in the long run.

Joe

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,
I can't define we, can I? What's important to you?

Do we in golf adapt our methods to be sustainable, or do we change the definition of sustainable to fit our methods?  

Therein lies the problem. What is important to me is not necessarily important to our guests who are accustomed to green and lush and those things you mention.

I should share some of the comments I receive in writing blasting the "burned out areas" and "dead greens". While this year has been a challenge the comments I speak of are those offered up when I would considered the course near perfection. 

What you are really talking about has been touched on several times and it deals with the education of the ignorant when it comes to maintaining 200 plus acres for golf purposes.

You know what is best, I know what is best... the people paying the bills still want what they want. That will be hard to change.

I will tell you when that will change. The day Augusta National decides to present a less green carpet look in favor of a less water, some borwn areas on teh slopes and the players laud it as the best thing ever.

[Howard Riefs]

When it comes to sustainability, is the Vineyard Golf Club considered the gold standard and/or the extreme?  (Granted, it helps to have a rather healthy budget like this club.)

From a NY Times article in 2010...

"... The club is thought to be the only completely organic golf course in the United States, its 18 holes groomed without the use of a single synthetic pesticide, fertilizer, herbicide or other artificial chemical treatment.

“When we started here, some of my peers thought this golf course would be a dust bowl,” Carlson said, walking across a lush, smooth green toward a rolling, verdant fairway. “I admit I wasn’t so sure it could be done myself. People said we were crazy.”

With golf courses increasingly being criticized for environmentally unfriendly practices, the Vineyard Golf Club has become a petri dish for alternative maintenance techniques. Carlson has learned to kill weeds with boiling water and a natural foam cocktail and to remove moss with kitchen dish detergent, and he has transported microscopic worms from Iowa to attack turf-ruining grubs. He has disrupted the mating cycle of damaging oriental beetles with a strategically placed scent and has grown grass that he believes is more resistant to disease because it developed without chemicals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/sports/golf/17vineyard.html?pagewanted=all

[JMEvensky]

Therein lies the problem. What is important to me is not necessarily important to our guests who are accustomed to green and lush and those things you mention.

I should share some of the comments I receive in writing blasting the "burned out areas" and "dead greens". While this year has been a challenge the comments I speak of are those offered up when I would considered the course near perfection. 

What you are really talking about has been touched on several times and it deals with the education of the ignorant when it comes to maintaining 200 plus acres for golf purposes.

You know what is best, I know what is best... the people paying the bills still want what they want. That will be hard to change.

I will tell you when that will change. The day Augusta National decides to present a less green carpet look in favor of a less water, some borwn areas on teh slopes and the players laud it as the best thing ever.

As a lay person who's been involved on the members' side,you're exactly right.It will be an uphill climb--and for the reasons you cite.

While ANGC would certainly be a geat trendsetter,I think more good might come from the USGA and PGAT.Each of them has many hours of available broadcast time which they could use to preach this gospel.I'm not holding my breath however.

The one thing that could shift the paradigm is budget.In today's economy,anything that might lower a maintenance budget will get a hearing at most clubs--especially if it can be argued that playability and turfgrass health might be improved.

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me that there are a lot of people trying to make sustainability more complicated than it should be.  [Shocker!]

The golf industry seems afraid of the topic because they think it will mean "no pesticides" and there are certain maintenance problems on golf courses where chemical control is a huge help.  So they try to promote sustainability and at the same time remove all the teeth of it.  Or, worse, they stick their heads in the sand and say it's impossible to go totally organic, so we'll just keep doing as we've been doing.

There are some in this business setting great examples, and they continue to be marginalized or ignored by the mainstream, because the mainstream is about selling stuff ... and sustainability is about not buying it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Isn't your Rawl's course nearly 'organic', or at least highly 'sustainable'?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Isn't your Rawl's course nearly 'organic', or at least highly 'sustainable'?

Jim:

I'm afraid I've been pretty much out of touch with The Rawls Course for the past five years, since their original superintendent moved on.  I'm not aware of what they are doing on the sustainability count -- but it would not surprise me if they are on top of it, since universities in general are among the most ardent adopters of sustainable practices.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Do the challenges in creating and maintaining sustainable golf in the US increase the further south one builds or are they relatively the same, but with different methods?   

[Bradley Anderson]

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

If I were establishing fescue greens, tees and fairways I would probably use more than one variety because the variation of traits among individual varieties of fescue are more pronounced than they are between bent grass varieties. If it makes you feel better you may seed with more than one variety of bent grass but in my opinion you will generally do as well to seed with just one variety.

In the rough I have always had the best success with a mixture containing 2-3 varieties of bluegrass, and 3-5 varieties of fescue, with the combined fescue making up 70% of the blend. The fescue is the first grass to germinate and at the outset of establishment it is the predominate grass. In areas where you have high traffic you can beef up the strength of the turf by adding fertilizer and water to promote the bluegrass to outgrow the fescue. But in the outer regions of the hole where there is no traffic you can leave the fescue unirrigated and unfertilized to predominate the stand. 

[Jon Wiggett]

There are some in this business setting great examples, and they continue to be marginalized or ignored by the mainstream, because the mainstream is about selling stuff ... and sustainability is about not buying it.

Tom,

you have just put it perfectly. This is without doubt the biggest challenge to the game in the next 50 years.

Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

In areas where you have high traffic you can beef up the strength of the turf by adding fertilizer and water to promote the bluegrass to outgrow the fescue. 

Bradley,

while I see where you are coming from isn't this going away from sustainable? Why not just spread the traffic and combat the wear problem through an aggressive aeration program. Even with the bluegrass you will still have compaction problems. I would however go with your suggestion if the bluegrass used was already on site or close by though then you might not need more fertiliser or water.

Jon