[John Connolly]

After 7 years of twice per year hollow tine aeration, frequent topdressing, verticutting, and 3 consecutive years of aggressive dethatching with a Graden (with sand backfilling), my midwestern club's push up greens demonstrate only marginally better soil metrics than they did in 2009 (water infiltration rate, pore size, thatch percentage, etc.). When is it time to throw up the white flag and rebuild? Or can we get there by doubling down on the above stated practices? Anyone out there make substantial changes to their greens by going into maintenance overdrive?


 

[Randy Thompson]

There are to many variable and other factors to consider to expect a clear definte answer to your question. Have the surfaces improved over the seven years or are they still pretty much the same? Keep in mind, rebuilding even with costly USGA specification greens will still require the cultural practices you have outlined that cause short lived surfaces disruption.

[J_ Crisham]

John,
    Be careful what you wish for-we have 1 USGA spec green at our club that year in year out is our worst green IMO . Gets plenty of sunlight etc - it is just an anomoly compared to the other 17.

[Greg Chambers]

What were the greens like seven years ago?  How are they now? Where do they need to be?  Are you delving too deep into the science to spite the art?

[Jon Wiggett]

After 7 years of twice per year hollow tine aeration, frequent topdressing, verticutting, and 3 consecutive years of aggressive dethatching with a Graden (with sand backfilling), my midwestern club's push up greens demonstrate only marginally better soil metrics than they did in 2009 (water infiltration rate, pore size, thatch percentage, etc.). When is it time to throw up the white flag and rebuild? Or can we get there by doubling down on the above stated practices? Anyone out there make substantial changes to their greens by going into maintenance overdrive?

John,


very difficult to say as you give no meaningful information. What was wrong, where do you want to go and where are you now? Maybe the problem is a lack of definition in these points?


Jon

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

After 7 years of twice per year hollow tine aeration, frequent topdressing, verticutting, and 3 consecutive years of aggressive dethatching with a Graden (with sand backfilling), my midwestern club's push up greens demonstrate only marginally better soil metrics than they did in 2009 (water infiltration rate, pore size, thatch percentage, etc.). When is it time to throw up the white flag and rebuild? Or can we get there by doubling down on the above stated practices? Anyone out there make substantial changes to their greens by going into maintenance overdrive?

As mentioned above it's not an easy question to answer properly without more details. However saying that I would say that even though that list of cultural practices may seem like a lot (especially when it disrupts play), it really isn't any more than one would expect to just maintain an average push up green. As such, it is more keeping up with maturing so huge/quick improvements/gains shouldn't be expected. The cultural practices you listed also only disturb the top few inches and not the entire profile so any improvements are going to be limited to the disturbed area.


Generally the biggest issue  with push up greens is they lack good internal drainage. The best way to rectify that without rebuilding is a combination of really aggressive cultural practices and improvements like: drill and fill (makes a bigger "tub" that can hold water), adding XGD type drainage (to empty the "tub" and help drain the surface), multiple core aerations/gradens to modify the soil profile make the top few inches drain to the drain lines better and finally have a sufficient aeration program to maintain the advances that have been made.

This doesn't cover turf type which may also be an issue - most prefer a good poa putting surface but it has a limited range where it is really happy and not dying or going to seed! It also doesn't look at other environmental factors like shade, air movement etc which may need addressing too.

Sorry thats kind of a generic answer but there a lot of unknown factors at play where it is impossible to say what is the best solution. A rebuild would ultimately be a quicker solution (course closed for a period and then reopens) and new greens will need a different maintenance philosophy (as push-ups and USGA greens need to be maintained differently as do poa and bentgrass). However many prefer to keep the original greens so in that case the modification process may take more than a few years of less than ideal conditions (ie multiple aggressive cultural practices) until the program provides the required results. And either way once they are as required, still expect the regular cultural maintenance practices to be similar to what were mentioned in your post.

[John Connolly]

Thanks all for commenting. Some additional details seem to be in order.



very difficult to say as you give no meaningful information. What was wrong, where do you want to go and where are you now? Maybe the problem is a lack of definition in these points?

Jon



Jon,
Quantitatively, our greens still contain abundant thatch, on average 11% for the top tier of soil (4 inches). This has not really budged in 9 years. Mean infiltration rates are 2 in/hr, which is at the low end of acceptable, as I understand it. Importantly, our water to air porosity ratios have crept up to 3:1, whereas the goal would be 2:1 at bare minimum and closer to 1:1 in ideal circumstances. Our new practice putting green, for example has water to air porosity ratio of 1:1. As far as grasses, we seeded with bent in 2000 and now have significant poa infiltration throughout. We also installed XGD prior to commencing our soil testing in 2009.


Qualitatively, I'd say our greens feel soft except for a few weeks in the late spring and early summer where firm conditions can be found. But towards the end of the season, our greens get mushy, with large pitch marks, poa (and bent) die off and necessarily slower speeds.


I appreciate your question, "where do you want to go?" - indeed, that is the money question. Simply put, we want firmer greens that are more resistant to stress, can tolerate less water, and offer consistent performance for longer periods in our relatively short midwestern season. I guess we want it all.


Our consulting soil scientist claims that to truly transform greens, 35% soil displacement via aeration, top dressing etc is needed. This may require 4 aerations a year for 2-3 years. Is this 35% value an industry standard?


In short, we're trying to determine whether we should keep on working at improving our greens through displacement methodologies to get at thatch reduction, improved air porosity, faster infiltration rates and a more robust root zone mass, or whether we should, at this point, just build 'em.

[Don Mahaffey]

After 7 years of twice per year hollow tine aeration, frequent topdressing, verticutting, and 3 consecutive years of aggressive dethatching with a Graden (with sand backfilling), my midwestern club's push up greens demonstrate only marginally better soil metrics than they did in 2009 (water infiltration rate, pore size, thatch percentage, etc.). When is it time to throw up the white flag and rebuild? Or can we get there by doubling down on the above stated practices? Anyone out there make substantial changes to their greens by going into maintenance overdrive?

Why are you trying to make them into something they are not? Managing sand based greens and soil based greens require a very different approach.   If you want to manage like they are sand build sand based greens. If you want to manage what you have the first step is realizing they will never have the metrics of a sand based green and every lab you send samples to will tell you to rebuild.
There are some advantages to soil, play to those. 

[Jim Hoak]

In my opinion too many courses are too quick to resort to rebuilding greens.  I'm sure it is necessary in many cases, but it needs to be a last option.  Look at the number of classic courses--Oakmont being one--that have never rebuilt the greens and have spectacular greens.  Don't jump to a rebuild.

[Tom_Doak]

After 7 years of twice per year hollow tine aeration, frequent topdressing, verticutting, and 3 consecutive years of aggressive dethatching with a Graden (with sand backfilling), my midwestern club's push up greens demonstrate only marginally better soil metrics than they did in 2009 (water infiltration rate, pore size, thatch percentage, etc.). When is it time to throw up the white flag and rebuild? Or can we get there by doubling down on the above stated practices? Anyone out there make substantial changes to their greens by going into maintenance overdrive?

Why are you trying to make them into something they are not? Managing sand based greens and soil based greens require a very different approach.   If you want to manage like they are sand build sand based greens. If you want to manage what you have the first step is realizing they will never have the metrics of a sand based green and every lab you send samples to will tell you to rebuild.
There are some advantages to soil, play to those.

Don:


Well said.


John:


My primary deciding factors on whether to rebuild greens would be whether they have good surface drainage.  If not, I'd be more inclined to rebuild.  If they do, then maybe XGD or some additional drainage work to the profile will be enough.  I know that lots of clubs swear by the XGD system after they've installed it, but I've also dealt with a couple of clubs who weren't satisfied with the result and eventually rebuilt their greens.  [Bel Air will likely do this next year ... rebuilding is more likely in a competitive, high-end market when neighbor clubs have already done the same.]  It also matters a lot where you are and exactly what you've got.


The funny thing is, you didn't report at all on the playing condition of the greens ... just some meaningless statistics.  The pore size of soil greens is always going to stay low, because soils are much finer than sand.  The pore size and water infiltration rate at Oakmont is very low, but their greens are terrific.

[Jon Wiggett]

John,


I would suggest something along the lines of the following. Drill and fill using a high peculation rate fill but being careful not to affect the XGD you have installed. I would target low spots and band across long slopes with the drill and fill. I would then alternate between either mini, micro and star-tine or sorrel roll on a weekly basis as well as topdressing (dusting) on weekly basis or until it is worked in which ever is longer. I would also do one or two larger tine operations but only during good growth periods.


This way you will improve the mid rootzone area (2" to 6") and also build up a drier, firmer putting surface whilst maintaining a playable green. The regular tining and topdressing will help to reduce the existing thatch as well as preventing the build up of new.


It is important that it is tweeked to suit your climate and situation but I hope it gives you food for thought.


Jon

[Grant Saunders]

John

Has any thought been given to analysing the program of inputs your greens are receiving?

Based on the renovation schedule you described and tbe recommendation to target 35% it would appear you are accumulating organic matter as rapidly as you are removing it. This gives rise to 2 options: renovate more or grow less thatch.

Im always amazed how as an industry so much emphasis is still placed on treating symptoms as opposed to the cause.

[Joe Hancock]

Im always amazed how as an industry so much emphasis is still placed on treating symptoms as opposed to the cause.

Me too, but there isn't much off an audience to preach the message. No one wants to hear it.

[Joshua Pettit]

Im always amazed how as an industry so much emphasis is still placed on treating symptoms as opposed to the cause.

Me too, but there isn't much off an audience to preach the message. No one wants to hear it.

Joe & Grant,

I think you guys are spot on.  I’ve often thought the turf industry is much like the pharmaceutical industry -- geared toward reactionary rather than preventative medicine -- incentivized to treat symptoms rather than causes.

[Joshua Pettit]

John,

There’s a great Seinfeld episode called “The Opposite” in which Jerry convinces George to try doing the opposite of every instinct he has.

“If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”  Jerry says to George.

I’m not a greenkeeper but I’ve been fortunate to work with some very talented guys that have embraced seemingly unorthodox or counterintuitive methods, that have lead to impressive results.

To Tom’s point, if your greens have good surface drainage than I’d leave them alone for now.   And I’d suggest you try doing the opposite of what you’ve been doing.  Do nothing.  Don’t aerify.  Don’t verticut.  Don’t top-dress.  Drastically cut back on fertilizer and water.  As the growth of turf slows start to mow less often.  You should only have to mow 3 or 4 days a week during the growing season, and roll the other days if possible to help keep them smooth and mitigate morning moisture. 

The STRI published a booklet years ago entitled “Disturbance Theory” in which their basic premise is that the more you do to your greens the more you have to do.  It’s a vicious, never ending cycle.  The more you disturb the plant the more vulnerable it becomes, and the more opportunity there is for undesirable grasses and diseases to thrive. 

It’s often hard for guys to grasp the idea that doing a lot of work just creates even more work.  Like I said, seemingly counterintuitive.   

But to answer your question more directly, yes it can be done, but it doesn’t happen by accident.  I have witnessed the conversion of push-up Poa greens into really good, predominately bent-grass greens in a fairly short amount of time.  World class?  Probably not, but that all depends on how you define “world class.”  Maybe my standards are too high.  I’ve been told that before.

[Grant Saunders]

Im always amazed how as an industry so much emphasis is still placed on treating symptoms as opposed to the cause.

Me too, but there isn't much off an audience to preach the message. No one wants to hear it.

Joe

Its funny, when you scroll through the various forms of social media, its littered with guys posting pictures of the latest bit of renovation gear purchased or their super aggressive approach at renovation time. What you pretty much never see is pictures of lower N rates being charted or other examples of input restraint.

In my opinion, the number one cause for greens needing to be rebuilt is how they are managed.

[Jon Wiggett]

Im always amazed how as an industry so much emphasis is still placed on treating symptoms as opposed to the cause.

Grant,


that is because there is more money to be made in treating symptoms rather than the cause. Only time the (medical) industry really wants to treat the cause is when it is going to kill the patient as you can't make money from dead clients.


This is pretty bad in the European golf course maintenance market but it strikes me as been at insane levels in the US


Jon

[Justin VanLanduit]

It can be done and it just has to take dedication and setting up a system to succeed.  Greens we have here consist of 11 soil push up greens from 1920, 5 USGA greens, and 5 greens that were built at different times with different methods and architects.  Fun to manage for sure.  Anyway, when I became Superintendent here in 2009 we had to address some issues.  We had predominantly Poa greens that didn't drain at all and were soft.  The 16 non USGA greens had no subsurface drainage either.  For the the first 3 falls we instituted drill n fill to all greens except the USGA.  Our goal here was to get sand channels punched into the native soil allowing a place for water to go.  On top of the drill in fill we were routinely pulling plugs spring and fall along with routine solid tine aeration throughout the season with frequent topdressing.  We made progress but knew we could do more.  In the summer of 2010 we took a 2 phase approach with the installation of XGD in all native push up greens as well as regrass our greens to an A1/A4 blend of bent.  In 2010 we installed the XGD and it made a huge impact.  We had greens that couldn't be mowed after .3" of rain due to being soft, now those same greens can be mowed immediately after 1.5" of rain.  If you have XGD you have to keep creating channels for water to follow to the pipe, we've since stopped drill n fill but have our own deep tine unit.  Greens are deep tined spring and fall with 1/2"x11" solid tines and the turf loves its, especially the roots that chase down these holes.  Lastly, our regrassing in 2011 was a huge benefit cause the root mass and durability these new grasses can create if managed correctly changes the game.  Reduces water usage, fertility usage (4-4.5lbs/N a year), allows for more rolling; all these things will help surfaces firm up.  Cultural practices must not be reduced though.  Brushing, verticutting, topdressing, aerification are the turfs best friends.  The golfers may not like it all the time but when you get them saying the greens are the best they have ever been then it shows that those things work. 

[BCowan]

Justin,

    Your plan seemed very logical and showed that using mechanical cultural practices reduce chemical apps in the future along with better seed varaties.  Do you use dried sand for top dressing?  I hear it's very expensive if nobody produces it close by. 

   Grant,

      Your comment about accumulating more organic material seeming counterproductive seems spot on.  A friend of mine tests his organic levels in spring and the fall. 

[Justin VanLanduit]

We use dry sand for all our Grns/App topdressings.  Spend roughly $300 more a load but saves us a lot of time from waiting for it to dry and work in.  We now can spread a light topdressing and kick on sprinklers for a few minutes and it washes right in.  Our sand comes to us from Cedar Rapids, IA to the north shore of Chicago.

[John Connolly]

Why are you trying to make them into something they are not? Managing sand based greens and soil based greens require a very different approach.   If you want to manage like they are sand build sand based greens. If you want to manage what you have the first step is realizing they will never have the metrics of a sand based green and every lab you send samples to will tell you to rebuild.
There are some advantages to soil, play to those. 

Don,


Thanks for your thoughts.  A question, and please excuse its simplicity: If our old push up greens were developed from clay-based soil 100 years ago, and we want to improve them, wouldn't steady sand application, organic matter management and alleviation of compaction still be appropriate methodologies? We're aware of they're not sand based greens but I've not heard that because they're not, they shouldn't be cared for with sand amendments, etc. Another way to ask the question would be, "because they are heavier soil greens, what should be the preferred approach to achieving firmer conditions for them?"


And what would be strengths of non sand-based soil that we should play to?

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Our consulting soil scientist claims that to truly transform greens, 35% soil displacement via aeration, top dressing etc is needed. This may require 4 aerations a year for 2-3 years. Is this 35% value an industry standard?

The rule of thumb that ~20% of the surface should be disrupted per year to maintain healthy greens and keep up with thatch accumulation. It should be noted that surface disruption in this case = physical removal, not solid or needle tining which just displaces material. Surface disruption (ie area) is used as the calculation as the depths can vary with different aeration practices so volume would greatly differ and not provide an accurate number.


That 20% number can vary a lot depending on the existing environmental conditions, existing turf/soil conditions, maintenance practices etc so is an average guideline.


20% is a lot to disrupt over a year so - depending on the size and spacing of the aeration tines - the amount of aeration described in the first post is probably not much more than that number, if at all.


If I remember correctly the 35% number is the largest practical amount that can be removed in one year while still maintaining a putting surface. Even at 35% it can be a long multi year process. They will never be the same or perform as a full sand green but they will perform much better than an unmodified soil so the benefits are there.

As for the list of metrics on how the greens are performing. They are guidelines for optimal conditions. Turf and turf soils are living things so are constantly evolving and changing, therefore it is difficult to hit a number or even more so, maintain it. They do however provide a guideline of how the soils are progressing (or retrogressing) and what programs are working or not to achieve the required goals.



It should be noted also that there have been studies on topdressing enough to keep up with thatch growth. It showed that it could be done but the amounts of sand required was unpractical for playing conditions.

[Don Mahaffey]

Why are you trying to make them into something they are not? Managing sand based greens and soil based greens require a very different approach.   If you want to manage like they are sand build sand based greens. If you want to manage what you have the first step is realizing they will never have the metrics of a sand based green and every lab you send samples to will tell you to rebuild.
There are some advantages to soil, play to those. 

Don,


Thanks for your thoughts.  A question, and please excuse its simplicity: If our old push up greens were developed from clay-based soil 100 years ago, and we want to improve them, wouldn't steady sand application, organic matter management and alleviation of compaction still be appropriate methodologies? We're aware of they're not sand based greens but I've not heard that because they're not, they shouldn't be cared for with sand amendments, etc. Another way to ask the question would be, "because they are heavier soil greens, what should be the preferred approach to achieving firmer conditions for them?"


And what would be strengths of non sand-based soil that we should play to?

John,
Old push up greens that have been top dessed and aerified for decades can be an awesome root zone.   But they will still never have the internal infiltration rates of a sand based green so they need good surface drainage like Tom mentioned. 
Modern turf management practices for greens are based on sand greens, which do not hold much water or nutrients compared to a soil green.  If you use these techniques with soil greens you will over feed (build thatch) and over water (soft and wet).   
Continuing to sand top dress and areify is good, but the key is to use the advantages a soil green has and that is it can bank nutrients and offer very good buffering against drying out.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()