Remind me why US parkland courses have fescue roughs in play?

[mike_malone]

Baffles me why you want people to lose their golf ball in areas that aren’t there naturally.

[Lou_Duran]

At some courses, fescue and buffalograss are used in the southwest generally in areas beyond normal play where bermuda does not grow well.  They are particularly thick during the cooler seasons and real hazards in terms of lost balls and playability.  One local course seeds fescue every fall in its native areas adjacent to most fairways and near its green complexes.  Through late June, it can be a miserable place to play.

[MClutterbuck]

What is the difference between fescue and natural prairie grasses from that region? Sometimes they can be tougher than fescue.


In fact, given fescue does not thrive in certain climates, bermudas and other natural grasses can be far worse.

[jeffwarne]

Baffles me why you want people to lose their golf ball in areas that aren’t there naturally.

What makes you so sure fescue and bluestem aren't native to a parkland neighborhood?
and area you telling me bluegrass and bent are there "naturally?


but I take your point

[Lou_Duran]

If the question is directed at me, buffalograss is native to the prairies.  i've seen it and fescue used in areas which do not get sufficient sunlight for bemudas to take hold.  Coastal bermuda is used at some courses as rough well outside normal playing areas, I think for aesthetic reasons primarily.  It is usually maintained too thick and high to be used as first and second cuts of rough.  Bermuda roughs, specially the hybrids, don't need to be much higher than 2"-3" to be formidable.  They just require sunlight to thrive and survive cart wear.       

[Terry Lavin]

I call it “trend tweaking” brought on by architects and superintendents pushing boards to make the course look like competing clubs that have recently done the work. Green to tee walkoffs are proliferating in a similar manner.

[John Emerson]

I can’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone would plant anything other than the fine fescues for native/out-of-play areas.  It does much better with drought and it doesn’t turn into a jungle.  When other turfgrasses like tall fescue, and bluegrass are used it might as well be a 1.5 stroke penalty and a guaranteed lost ball.   

[Tom_Doak]

It's not just trendy.  Many constituencies have pushed areas of unmaintained rough as being more environmentally friendly, and saving money on maintenance costs.


The trade offs, as you note, are slow play, the frustration of looking for lost balls, and a homogenization of golf courses, which unfortunately the proponents of long rough don't seem to care about.


I do hate to see these areas labeled as "fescue", though.  Fine fescue is a wonderful, drought tolerant grass that's playable at all heights and populates many of the best courses in the world.  It's a great playing surface except if you seed it too densely on more fertile soils and then let it grow unchecked ... which, in fairness, is a recipe for disaster for ANY grass type.  Sometimes I swear the labeling of bad areas as "fescue" is a deliberate disinformation campaign by the fertilizer and chemical lobbies, aka the golf course maintenance industry.

[Sean_A]

Yes, I seriously question if many of these North American areas of "fescue" really is fescue and for how long. I strongly suspect the term fescue is chucked about in the same way heather is. Many times in the US I have heard folks talk about heather when I saw no evidence of such.


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I wonder why any course would use any grasses in the native areas that are not 'native'. Yes, the long stuff on UK links courses has fescue in it but then fescue is a native grass for these area and it is not just fescue but a host of other grasses and plants.


Jon

[John Emerson]

Another problem I see is that when courses are being built there is little or no thought put into what’s going to be mowed and what is going to be “native area”.  So before this is thought out tall fescue, and bluegrass is seeded everywhere then after it’s grown in, only then do “native areas” get marked out and determined.  So it too late to kill and re-seed that many acres and the “native areas” are now “penalty areas”. :/

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I wish someone could come up with a better name for these areas. The names like low maintenance/ native/ fescue/heather (??I've heard that one too....) areas are colloquial terms used as no one really knows what the best description is for them.

Fine fescues are a good choice for for "non play" or "low maintenance" even if they are no native. As mentioned native grasses are not necessarily good for play as they can be very dense and thick so can easily swallow balls. The fine fescues can - if managed properly - at the very least make it easier to find your ball and should provide an opportunity to at least advance the ball.

Fine fescues are a thin turf with thin wispy stalks that don't grow more than 18-24"make it more suitable for play. Some of the bentgrasses can provide the same benefits.

Saying that, the type of fine fescue is essential to the playability. The bunch types (sheeps, hard, blue) are what should be used. A lot of times chewings and/or creeping red fescues are added to make a turf and these are the ones that get really thick, swallow balls and grab clubs. The bunch types do not make a great turf as they are patchy, but this property is why they work as a hazard. While I am a believer of planting grass that belongs to an area, fine fescues work in cool season areas and don't necessarily need sand to grow. Clay soils will provide more nutrients which will make them thicker but this is really only an issue with the creeping types.

Some architects like to seed all the roughs to fine fescue as it gives them the ability to move grass lines at will to adjust strategy. The concept makes sense but this obviously causes a problem as the turf has to do two things - be thick for the near cut and thin for the "native" - the creeping fescues are great for the rough but make the fescue a challenge and solely having bunch types will result in poor regular rough quality. As such, courses that were seeded like this have extremely dense and tough fescues.

Creating a turf is desired as it holds the soil together and a nice stand of bunch type seed will have soil patches in it. This isn't an ideal situation but it does result in a playable area. As such most "low maintenance" seed mixes have a creeping type turf in them to make a turf. Similarly fine fescue sod has creeping fescues in it to keep it together as a stand of bunch type would just fall apart when cut. So as you can see it's not just the maintenance that causes the density issues. Yes over watering (and irrigation over spray from other areas of the course) do not help just as over spray from fertilizer applications will cause extra density. Saying that it is the creeping fescues that get will get thicker from this as they will creep more whereas the bunch types really have no where to go with the extra food and water except get greener, longer and make a bigger bunch.

So to answer the original question: the main reasons are to save labor and to add design strategy with I guess the visual aesthetic in third place. Aesthetics can be debated - I think in some cases it looks great but on other courses all the designs run together. The design strategy can also be debated and if it is needed or not. The last is labor savings. This is a big one. To maintain them properly they do still require quite a bit of work but it really is 2-3 times a year whereas the day to day savings add up quickly. For example the course here has ~60 acres of low maintenance areas. Mowing that weekly would require two more staff members, two more machines, fuel etc etc all of which adds up quickly.

[mike_malone]

I wish someone could come up with a better name for these areas. The names like low maintenance/ native/ fescue/heather (??I've heard that one too....) areas are colloquial terms used as no one really knows what the best description is for them.

Fine fescues are a good choice for for "non play" or "low maintenance" even if they are no native. As mentioned native grasses are not necessarily good for play as they can be very dense and thick so can easily swallow balls. The fine fescues can - if managed properly - at the very least make it easier to find your ball and should provide an opportunity to at least advance the ball.

Fine fescues are a thin turf with thin wispy stalks that don't grow more than 18-24"make it more suitable for play. Some of the bentgrasses can provide the same benefits.

Saying that, the type of fine fescue is essential to the playability. The bunch types (sheeps, hard, blue) are what should be used. A lot of times chewings and/or creeping red fescues are added to make a turf and these are the ones that get really thick, swallow balls and grab clubs. The bunch types do not make a great turf as they are patchy, but this property is why they work as a hazard. While I am a believer of planting grass that belongs to an area, fine fescues work in cool season areas and don't necessarily need sand to grow. Clay soils will provide more nutrients which will make them thicker but this is really only an issue with the creeping types.

Some architects like to seed all the roughs to fine fescue as it gives them the ability to move grass lines at will to adjust strategy. The concept makes sense but this obviously causes a problem as the turf has to do two things - be thick for the near cut and thin for the "native" - the creeping fescues are great for the rough but make the fescue a challenge and solely having bunch types will result in poor regular rough quality. As such, courses that were seeded like this have extremely dense and tough fescues.

Creating a turf is desired as it holds the soil together and a nice stand of bunch type seed will have soil patches in it. This isn't an ideal situation but it does result in a playable area. As such most "low maintenance" seed mixes have a creeping type turf in them to make a turf. Similarly fine fescue sod has creeping fescues in it to keep it together as a stand of bunch type would just fall apart when cut. So as you can see it's not just the maintenance that causes the density issues. Yes over watering (and irrigation over spray from other areas of the course) do not help just as over spray from fertilizer applications will cause extra density. Saying that it is the creeping fescues that get will get thicker from this as they will creep more whereas the bunch types really have no where to go with the extra food and water except get greener, longer and make a bigger bunch.

So to answer the original question: the main reasons are to save labor and to add design strategy with I guess the visual aesthetic in third place. Aesthetics can be debated - I think in some cases it looks great but on other courses all the designs run together. The design strategy can also be debated and if it is needed or not. The last is labor savings. This is a big one. To maintain them properly they do still require quite a bit of work but it really is 2-3 times a year whereas the day to day savings add up quickly. For example the course here has ~60 acres of low maintenance areas. Mowing that weekly would require two more staff members, two more machines, fuel etc etc all of which adds up quickly.

Out of play unkempt areas are fine but allowing these areas where the average player can easily hit the ball on parkland courses just baffles me.

[John Emerson]

I wish someone could come up with a better name for these areas. The names like low maintenance/ native/ fescue/heather (??I've heard that one too....) areas are colloquial terms used as no one really knows what the best description is for them.

Fine fescues are a good choice for for "non play" or "low maintenance" even if they are no native. As mentioned native grasses are not necessarily good for play as they can be very dense and thick so can easily swallow balls. The fine fescues can - if managed properly - at the very least make it easier to find your ball and should provide an opportunity to at least advance the ball.

Fine fescues are a thin turf with thin wispy stalks that don't grow more than 18-24"make it more suitable for play. Some of the bentgrasses can provide the same benefits.

Saying that, the type of fine fescue is essential to the playability. The bunch types (sheeps, hard, blue) are what should be used. A lot of times chewings and/or creeping red fescues are added to make a turf and these are the ones that get really thick, swallow balls and grab clubs. The bunch types do not make a great turf as they are patchy, but this property is why they work as a hazard. While I am a believer of planting grass that belongs to an area, fine fescues work in cool season areas and don't necessarily need sand to grow. Clay soils will provide more nutrients which will make them thicker but this is really only an issue with the creeping types.

Some architects like to seed all the roughs to fine fescue as it gives them the ability to move grass lines at will to adjust strategy. The concept makes sense but this obviously causes a problem as the turf has to do two things - be thick for the near cut and thin for the "native" - the creeping fescues are great for the rough but make the fescue a challenge and solely having bunch types will result in poor regular rough quality. As such, courses that were seeded like this have extremely dense and tough fescues.

Creating a turf is desired as it holds the soil together and a nice stand of bunch type seed will have soil patches in it. This isn't an ideal situation but it does result in a playable area. As such most "low maintenance" seed mixes have a creeping type turf in them to make a turf. Similarly fine fescue sod has creeping fescues in it to keep it together as a stand of bunch type would just fall apart when cut. So as you can see it's not just the maintenance that causes the density issues. Yes over watering (and irrigation over spray from other areas of the course) do not help just as over spray from fertilizer applications will cause extra density. Saying that it is the creeping fescues that get will get thicker from this as they will creep more whereas the bunch types really have no where to go with the extra food and water except get greener, longer and make a bigger bunch.

So to answer the original question: the main reasons are to save labor and to add design strategy with I guess the visual aesthetic in third place. Aesthetics can be debated - I think in some cases it looks great but on other courses all the designs run together. The design strategy can also be debated and if it is needed or not. The last is labor savings. This is a big one. To maintain them properly they do still require quite a bit of work but it really is 2-3 times a year whereas the day to day savings add up quickly. For example the course here has ~60 acres of low maintenance areas. Mowing that weekly would require two more staff members, two more machines, fuel etc etc all of which adds up quickly.

Out of play unkempt areas are fine but allowing these areas where the average player can easily hit the ball on parkland courses just baffles me.

Like the above said, it’s a huge reduction in costs.  That’s really the bottom line.  The problem is that it’s not usually thought out ahead of time before it’s left to grow up.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

"Out of play" is often in play for double digit handicappers.  35-40 yards in either direction away from the centerline of the fairway are certainly in play for more than you would think.

Even assuming a generous 40 yard wide fairway with an additional 5 yards of first cut before the gunch starts would be a 50 yard wide playing corridor and lots of lost balls.  Then throw in cross wind and oh my lawd....

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Like anything it can be overdone.  However, most parkland courses have some marginally in play (but realistically out of play) areas that are maintained at rough height, with irrigation, fertilizer, mowing etc. that don't need to be and are essentially a waste of resources.  Most of these fescue areas that I've seen have been established in this manner.  That is to say here and there rather than lining every playing corridor.  To the OP, are there any examples you can reference of parkland courses that have done fescue/tall grass along all the perimeters?  Perhaps you are thinking of Bethpage Black?


Check out Google Maps overhead of Barton Hills or Chicago Golf Club as a good examples of no-mow/tall grass/fescue areas done right in my opinion.  Would you rather these areas be irrigated/fertilized/mowed rough height bluegrass (with plenty of poa annua infestation along the way), burning up diesel and labor hours?


There are downsides though, labor is still required.  Invasive species such as thistle will crop up and need to be spot sprayed or weeded, and if the spasmodic archirrigation system  known as Mother Nature decides to water heavily (e.g. this spring basically everywhere) they can become thick and unruly.  However, when courses are jammed midday into the afternoons it's a good time for the maintenance crew to swarm these areas.


When done right, even if a ball enters these areas it shouldn't be hard to find.  In the spring, the old leaves are laid over and dead and the new shoots basically grow up slowly from zero, and as the summer hits the grass goes dormant and the leaf blades get whispy.  Here in my area Country Club of the Rockies has an excellent native presentation from both an aesthetic and playability standpoint. 

[SL_Solow]

Perhaps a little history is in order.  In the 1960's and 1970's, clubs attempted to emulate Augusta National's appearance during the Masters with a wall to wall green look.  In 1972, Paul Voykin, the superintendent at Briarwood CC in Deerfield Il, addressed the USGA Greens Section and the Superintendents Association with a talk titled "Over Grooming is Over Spending".   He was criticized at the time. In 1976 he followed up with an article in the Greens Section record with the same title, again with little immediate impact.  Paul suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was overly expensive.  He also suggested that a natural look was more attractive and would lead to better habitats for birds and other wildlife.  He began planting areas in wildflowers, tall bluestem, fescues etc.  Now we have come full circle where many courses have followed PV's lead and, like many trends, some may have gone a bit too far.  But the rationale remains the same.  There are tremendous cost savings in terms of labor and inputs.  But often overlooked is the natural beauty of these areas when done properly.  Moreover, the increase in wildlife which is attracted to these areas is a real ecological benefit.  Like anything else, these plantings can be overdone.  But on balance, the benefits have proved to be worth the occasional annoyance.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Great article, had to google it.


http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1970s/1976/760310.pdf

[archie_struthers]

 


Given that many courses don't have budgets to support wall to wall grassing and that mother natures weeds don't look too inviting, fescues become an alternative that can be decorative and weed resistant.






my apologies to Alan as I responded prior to reading is fine analysis

[Bill Crane]

Our club is on a very compact piece of the land and even the "out of the way" areas are often in play for wayward shots, especially drives.


In NJ, the Garden State, they basically become a mass of weeds.  Each fall they get cut down, and in the colder months and spring are semi-playable.


There was a program for a few years to expand this area to save water etc., and the expanded areas needed special grasses requiring additonal maintenace to keep the weeds out.  My understanding is that it ended up taking a fair amount of other inputs to actually maintain this grass vs.  masses of weeds. 


After a few years they disposed of these additional areas since it took much resources and slowed down pace of play.

[Tom_Doak]

"Out of play" is often in play for double digit handicappers.  35-40 yards in either direction away from the centerline of the fairway are certainly in play for more than you would think.

Even assuming a generous 40 yard wide fairway with an additional 5 yards of first cut before the gunch starts would be a 50 yard wide playing corridor and lots of lost balls.  Then throw in cross wind and oh my lawd....

The number that I've always used for playability is 65 yards [200 feet] of width in the landing area, and near the green on longer holes.  That doesn't have to be all fairway, obviously; just grass mowed short enough you can find your ball easily enough.

I was surprised to learn this year that the number Tour pros use for themselves is ALSO 65 yards, in that they aim 32.5 yards wide of any significant hazard [with a driver] in order to be 99% sure they don't take a penalty stroke.  Of course, that implies that average players will be dealing with the same hazard more than 1% of the time.  I haven't investigated the statistics on how much more, but anything above 65 yard corridors is probably unrealistic for most courses to maintain unless the neighboring development is chipping in on the cost.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

That sounds like a good rule of thumb, at least 65 yards gives the average joe a fighting chance.

I was thinking, outside of those 65 yards, if they don't fertilize or water it, how many courses would end up with the thick stuff if they just left it alone?  I'm guessing its a fairly small number, especially here in the states where most places get hot enough temps to keep things thinned out a bit.

[John McCarthy]

If it is in the Midwest fescue does not grow.  But native areas work if they are ignored, no water ever.  Some years are impossible, 2019.  But in drought years one can bomb away. 


My problem is otherwise difficult golf courses add tall grass as a hazard as a reaction to some young member setting a course record.

[Dan Herrmann]

Fescue = good
Bluegrass = bad. 


Bluegrass is incredibly penal if you get a lot of rain.  And isn't most of the USA now getting copious amounts of rain.

[Ronald Montesano]

We have a course in western New York, called Crag Burn. It is a 1969 RTJSR course, a golfer's club, no pool, no tennis courts. It was built on land previously used to stable, train, ride horses and have fox hunts by a wealthy family. The club has a high number of very-low handicap, non-golf professionals, some of the best golfers in the area and the state. CB is known for its heather (strike one) err, fescue (strike two) err, native grass (bingo) areas 'twixt corridors. When the stuff is high, you lose lots of golf balls, if you don't aim properly, or anticipate the bitter medicine you will need to imbibe.


Stories abound on the origin, care, and futility of the long and thick stuff. Some say that the grounds crew lost control of it all, attempted a thin-out five years back, but whatever happened, there are still barber-shop poles out in the native areas, to give you an idea of where your futile search for your lost ball will commence. The stuff is hewn in the fall, rolled, and given away free to local farmers for bovine and horse feed.


To change the status quo, would be akin to the Oakmont Miracle of the 1990s. They would have to begin with a small area, and little by little, spread the elimination. I don't know if this is even something the membership wants, but guest should choke up two inches on the driver, bunt it out there on the first 14 driving holes, and then take a rip at it on the practice range, post round.