Snake Oil, A Load Of Balls?

As we enter the depths of winter we are well and truly in the middle of the seminar/conference season. Listening to all these companies, they all seem to have the answer or magic cure for what ails our greens. Compost tea, phosphites, seaweed, all seem to be hot topics this year. We are being told that these are the way forward for both plant health and reduction in pesticides. But is this correct? Should we commit fully without solid independent evidence?

Last spring I was lucky enough to meet in person the legendary doctor Mr. James Beard. Me being me, I was right on him, trying to get inside that experienced mind of his. After two long days of careful probing there were two things he said that really stuck in my mind. The first was that there was no merit in so called ‘snake oils’ (meaning magic cures). He went on to say that in the future, some companies might find solutions, but at the moment it was like ‘throwing a load of balls up in the air and hoping that one would land correctly’. His words not mine!

The other thing he said that swayed my mind somewhat was that all a plant basically needs is a ‘a little N and sometimes a little K’ (meaning consistent application of Nitrogen over the season, followed by some Potassium at the right time). All this made me wonder; What should a plant management programme consist of?

I was prompted to write this blog today because of a phone call with a fresh Course Manager. This guy is not young but has only been a CM for two years. He’s on a very poor site, his greens sit on clay with no land drainage. His grass species is Poa, the perennial type rather than the annual. This poor guy doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. He has one rep telling the bio method is the way forward with compost teas, another saying only seaweed and yet another insisting that chemicals with phosphites will allow him to reduce his fungicide needs. Which way should he go? All these companies have data to prove their methods? Should he keep it simple and just concentrate on keeping the plant healthy with as Dr. Beard said ‘a little N and sometimes a little K’?

Choices, choices!

A green that has not seen an application of seaweed for two years!

Well I’m going to tell you what I told him. For me there is not enough evidence to prove many of these theories. However, that’s not to say they are wrong. Dr. Beard did say ‘some balls may land correctly’. But before he, you or I think about committing vast sums of money on these unproven products we should do our own research. Why not challenge these companies to put their money where their mouths are and give them an area to prove their product's worth. Over the last few winters I have managed selected greens differently to the others. For instance, I have greens that haven’t seen any seaweed for the last two years. The greens without the seaweed look and perform no differently from those that have received seaweeds.

So before you go out and try new products I encourage you to do your own research. If a company has a magic cure that they claim will reduce your fungicide usage for instance, challenge them. Give them a green that you will apply their product to, and then see what the difference is from your other greens that are maintained with your own methods. You never know, the ball might just land on that green!

Sustainability - what level are you at?

Last week I was driving to a turf seminar and while stuck in road works on the world renowned M25 (looking at Caterpillar diggers) I started to wonder; How sustainable am I? Apart from thinking that the motorway (highway for you North American boys) was not very sustainable I started to think about all the good things I'm doing. Less fungicide, less herbicide, basically less pesticides all make me happy. Then I thought about the grass species I like; creeping bent grass, poa annua and ryegrass and I started to panic. Perhaps I am not sustainable. Will my world fall apart?

A well maintained creeping bent green

When the R & A brought out their articles about sustainability and the reintroduction of the finer grass, fescue all those years ago, it gave turf guys like me a bad name. We were seen as the bad guys who would work with species that the R & A classed as unsustainable such as poa annua. The fact that people like me see this grass as an indigenous species which if managed correctly can produce 1st class surfaces, didn’t matter to these guys. We were unsustainable and it’s as simple as that!

Looking back over my career I’ve always felt I was a sustainable turf manager. The surfaces that I produced were always what the R & A wanted; Firm, fast and true. But the fact that I was not doing this with their ‘dream’ grass fescue was seen as a sin in their eyes. So what does sustainability really mean?

This is a hard question to answer and I’m not too sure there is one answer. In Wikipedia (my new dictionary) it says ‘ the capacity to endure’ meaning the ability to last. But what does this mean in the turf business? Which is more 'sustainable', the golf club that produces fescue greens but is losing money through a lack of customers, or the high end golf club who has very high chemical usage but is making huge sums of money? See. It's hard to answer.

Well me being me I have to have an opinion on it.

In all the years I’ve been visiting golf clubs I don’t think I’ve ever met a greenkeeper who I thought was ‘unsustainable’. Yes they could be doing some things better, but on the whole they try their best. They top-dress often, reduce their fertility levels and generally produce a good surface under trying circumstances. We know some guys are more proactive than others, but a lot of this comes down to what the clubs want and what resources they have at their disposal.

So what is sustainable in the golf industry? I’ve categorised that there are 3 levels. Which one do you fall in to?

1. The top level. All singing, all dancing ultra-sustainable. No outside agencies to help you maintain the course. Sheep used instead of mowers, seed produced on site (not at a factory in Holland), and all fertilisers (if needed) produced from local manure. Not many clubs fall into this category me thinks.
2. The middle level. A more realistic approach. Good surfaces are produced that deliver profitable businesses without the need for high end budgets.
3. The bottom level. A high end unsustainable approach. Huge resources are needed to produce a product but the numbers don’t add up. Manchester City comes to mind in this level.

So there you are, this is my take on sustainability. 3 levels with the majority of us falling in to the middle category. For the record I consider myself in level 2. Yes, at certain times of the year I do rely on chemicals but this is done at a reasonable cost, without the need for excessive use, but ultimately gives the customer a product that they can market and sell. That’s the balance we all have to get right!

Cut those spores away!

As we are in to the peak months for disease pressure, how do we keep our surfaces clean of those dreaded parasites? We all hear about using the right cultural practises such as aeration, dew removal and fertility reduction; Basically anything that will dry out the surface and keep it lean. But what about cutting heights? We are always told to increase them at this time of year, but could keeping them tight help in our IPM programme against disease pressure?

Over the last few years I have caused quite a stir with my revolutionary cutting height recommendations. Without giving numbers my theory is to keep them tight 12 months of the year. This will not only help with the playability of putting surfaces through better ball roll and increased speeds but also may help from an agronomic view point as well.

When I was a young assistant I enrolled at my local college. One of the most important things taught was cutting height. Suggested heights ranged from 4mm in the summer months up to 5 or 6mm in the winter months. This was very conservative and on entering the real world I soon found out that it was nonsense. Visiting top courses and viewing great putting surfaces I soon gathered that their cutting heights were far lower. 3mm or less seemed to be the norm so I started to experiment with these sorts of cutting heights in the summer months. What about the autumn and winter months? What should we do here? ‘Get those heights up’ I hear the agronomists cry!

In my opinion too many turf managers are setting cutting heights by the calendar. As soon as the clocks go back, the heights go up. But sitting in my office this morning at 7am looking at my weather station it is telling me 12 degrees in London. So why increase them? ‘Because we always do it at this time of year’ would be the answer. But is this right? Could keeping those heights tight during the autumn months actually help against disease pressure?

As well as improving the playability of greens, keeping those heights tight can help with your agronomics as well. Organic matter build up is less as there is less leaf mass to break down and more importantly for this time of year, the sward will be drier as less moisture is able to build up in the sward. So often I see greens where the heights have been increased and spores are just sitting there in the turf canopy ready to attack. By decreasing the sward length you might find that you are able to keep disease at bay for longer periods.

Keep those greens tight during the autumn months

So when you are planning your autumn maintenance programmes, think about your cutting heights. Keeping them at your summer heights might not only improve your putting surfaces but improve your IPM as well.

How Smooth Are You?

The first question I get as a turf manager from members and visitors is 'What speed are they today?' and it's very true, speed matters a great deal to golfers. Golfers generally love quick greens. When have you ever heard a golfer say, 'Wow those greens were amazing, they were so slow!'. Not often I bet. However, for us turf managers, while speed is important (especially for bragging rights), smoothness is undoubtedly the key ingredient for top quality greens.

Personally, I hate slow greens. As a former decent golfer (yes, I used to hit a fairway once), if I went to play a golf course where the greens were sluggish I would be counting down the holes waiting for the 18th to get off the course. But far worse than this were quick, bumpy greens that you used to get in the English springtime with those northerly winds. A round in March when the greens were lightning fast but bumpy, would produce putting strokes where, if you watched carefully, you could just about see a backswing! So for me, even though I still detest slow greens, if they are true they remain superior to quick bumpy ones.

So now that we have established that smoothness matters and rates above speed, how do we measure it?

As I reported in my September blog 'Greens Performance - Are you measuring it?' the STRI brought a tool out a couple of years ago called the 'trueness meter'. The device is outstanding, giving precise data on lateral and horizontal movements of the putting surface. The R & A now use it for The Open Championship to record smoothness data. The only problem with this tool is cost. At present, according to an STRI agronomist, it costs £12,000 to purchase. So unless you have a spare £12k knocking around in your course budget, how do you measure smoothness? I've come up with a system that might just allow you to do so for a cost of a stimpmeter (£50), 3 golf balls (£10) and the golfer's golden rule, no cheating!.

I collate data on my greens regularly. Everything from organic matter levels to percolation rates is measured. I also perform weekly performance tests where I measure speed and on course actual cutting heights with a prism gauge. It was during this time with a stimp meter that I started to think about how I could rate ball roll. So I implemented a system based on a 10 point scoring system:

• Go to a flattish location on one of your greens where the hole cup is (try to keep to the same green weekly if you can).



• Measure a distance of around 6 feet (don't go under this distance but if the greens are quick you will have to go further away).



• Place the stimpmeter on a small bracket so that it is angled around 25%. A small bucket (as shown) or an old hole cup will do.



• Send the ball down naturally allowing for it to finish 1 foot behind the hole. Once you have this measurement then you are at your optimum distance (remember, it must be greater than 6 feet).



• Now adjust the meter so that the ball travels in to the centre of the hole on a regular basis. This may mean that the meter is facing the right lip position for example so that it takes a slight break and drops in the middle of the hole.
  
  Once you have done this you are now ready for the test. Send down 10 balls and score accordingly:



• 1 point if it finishes in the centre of the hole, 1/2 a point if it goes in the right or left half and zero points if the ball misses.



• After 10 balls you should have a score out of 10. So for example if you sent down 10 balls, with 8 going in the middle, 1 slotting in the right half and 1 missing, you score 8.5 out of 10, a perfectly reasonable score. On the other hand, if you send down 10 balls and 3 go in the middle, 3 in the right half, 1 in the left half and 3 miss, you have only scored 5 out of 10, so get that top-dresser out to smooth those greens a bit.

This system may not be as scientific as the STRI's trueness meter, but it certainly costs a lot less! If you did start to implement this system on a weekly basis I bet your life that very quickly you will see how good or smooth your greens are. Either way, just like speed, measuring smoothness is a crucial element in judging how your greens perform on a daily/weekly basis. Your golfers demand it!

Who's the Boss of the Moss?

One of the hot topics (as well as hollow coring) this summer has been moss. In particular moss on greens. I've visited lots of courses this season, speaking with many turf managers and a very high percentage have had a huge battle with moss this season with silver thread moss being the chief culprit. However, my own course, a wet, clay based parkland course surrounded by trees, has been totally free of any type of moss for the last five seasons. Why? By rights, my course should be perfect for moss to invade. I do the same as most other greenkeepers. I aerate and sand dress as much as other guys, but the two things that some greenkeepers may not be as aggressive with are my very tight height of cut (2mm) and weekly spoon feeds. Could this be it?

My key for a top greens' surface, or any playing surface to think of it is density. Creating tight, firm swards is crucial to producing top quality playing surfaces. To achieve this, on top of good cultural practises, I believe in a low cutting height and frequent spoon feeds at very low rates, just keeping the plant ticking along nicely. The tightest swards that I have seen with the greatest shoot density have been the modern creeping bents and the good old fashioned perennial poa (which incidentally is seen as a weed by certain traditionalists). Cut low, the swards get so tight on these surfaces that sometimes you have to verti-cut just to get a granular feed in to the canopy. Moss doesn't stand a chance of breaking into these swards.

We all now accept that the excessive fertility inputs of the past have no place in a modern maintenance programme as they produce soft, spongy, disease ridden surfaces that are terrible to putt on. But have today's turf managers gone too far the other way? In certain circumstances, I believe so. The heavy ammonia granular feeds of yesteryear may have produced carpet like swards and because they were so dense they did keep out the moss. However, to help gain speed on longer heights of cuts, fertility has been heavily reduced in certain turf programmes. This has produced weaker swards ideal for pests like moss to gain an advantage. This is where I think frequent spoon feeding has a place in a modern turf programme.

With frequent, light rates, spoon feeding can give you a sward that is growing at a controlled rate. The advantages of this are increased speed and smoother ball roll as growth is controlled but, more importantly for moss control, a stronger sward that helps to suffocate this pest out.

I don't assume that I have the total answer to the question of moss, but having thought about it over the past few months I ask you to consider that there may be a link between cutting heights and fertility. What goes without question is that the greater the sward density, the more chance you have of keeping moss at bay. If you have reduced your fertility over the last few years and seen a dramatic increase in moss, try upping the fertility levels again. It may be as simple as that!

Greens Performance - Are You Measuring It?

One of the biggest complaints from golfers is that their greenkeeper does all this work to their greens and the greens never seem to improve. A greenkeeper can be out there spiking to their heart's content, but if the surfaces don't improve, make no mistake, they will be under pressure.

Smooth putting surfaces are crucial to getting the golfers on your side!

Golf course maintenance in my opinion, is a trade off between good agronomic practises and playability. You have to sit right in the middle of these two as leaning too much to either side will mean you are bound to fail. But how do you measure it? Do you keep saying that the greens are getting better when the golfers view is the contrary? The greenkeeper works his balls off (excuse the pun) only to walk in to the 19th hole and be set upon by angry golfers; very disheartening. No matter where you are in the world, this seems to be a common theme for greenkeepers but what can we do about this?

I always encourage greenkeepers to conduct their own trials and tests. Why rely on outside agencies such as consultants or sales agents to come in and do their tests when, with minimal investment and a little time set aside, you can perform your own. There are two areas to analyse with your testing, as follows:

1) Agronomy

In my last blog I talked about the need to conduct tests before you start an aggressive aeration programme. How do you know where you want to go, if you don't know where you are starting from? Its the same with measuring. Before you bamboozle golfers with scientific talk, make sure you know how the results are going.
Below is a list of tests that should be conducted throughout the year:

• Soil and tissue analysis
  


• Soil moisture content
  


• Percolation rate
  


• Organic matter content
  


• Compaction levels



• Shoot density



• Bulk density
  


• Height of cut - Bench setting v actual height on the green

Some of these tests will have to be completed by a certified laboratory, but most can be performed by you with just a little investment in items such as a petrometer to measure compaction, a moisture probe for soil moisture and an infiltration meter for percolation rate.

2) Performance

For a golfer, the performance of the green is the most important consideration. Turf managers may get excited about how we have reduced our thatch percentage in the top 25mm or how the greens are draining 2mm per hour faster than last year but this information just goes over the heads of the golfers! However, tell them that the greens are stimping at 11 instead of 10, or that the smoothness has gone up from 8 to 9 this week and you will have their attention. A lot of managers get scared about giving them this type of information, but why should you if you are confident of producing the results?

For performance, the criteria should be:

• Speed


• Ball roll


• Firmness

We all know how to measure speed, it is universally measured with a stimp meter, but what about ball roll and firmness? The STRI have brought out devices to measure these which is great. The only problem is cost. The trueness meter currently costs around £12,000 to buy, but what turf manager can afford to slip that into their course budget? However, over the last few years I have been collating data using a method that you may find acceptable, using only your own time and good eyesight.

I will explain all in my next blog!

Aeration - Who needs it?

During August and September, all I hear about from course managers/superintendents is the size tines they have used to hollow core their greens, or the size of their Graden blades. But this has made me think. Are these guys aerating their greens because they discovered that they need too through scientific tests, or are they doing it because they have always done and the course up the road always does too?

Like many turf managers, over the years I have always believed that to produce good greens, aeration is a crucial tool. It provides oxygen for the soil and roots, degrades organic matter build up and improves drainage capabilities. But my eyes were opened several years ago by an American agronomist. At a seminar, he said that if you built a new green, had no golfers play on it and diluted any OM build up thorough dressings, then you would not have to aerate that green at all. Now the golfers would love that (not that they would be allowed on it of course!).

Some data tools available today.

Now this is an unrealistic situation as of course golfers will always play on the greens, but the fact is still there, no golfers potentially means no aeration! If we think of aeration like this then we can start to see that greenkeepers may have over-aerated in the past. I'm starting to believe that as much as certain greenkeepers have under-aerated their greens through the years, some may have over-aerated as well. But how do we know when and how much aeration we should apply?

So, when you plan your next aeration schedule, will you know why you are doing it? Will you be going with a hollow tine set at 75mm (3 inches) because your latest OM results said that around this level there is a high OM percentage? Or, will you be going with a tine that is deeper than the 200mm (8 inch) pan that you have just found in your green with the help of the petrometer? Decisions, decisions. But that's why we are employed, to make the right calls at the right time.

Good luck, I'm off to order my next set of tines!