The Tarped Greens and a Few Experiments

The melt has been slow mostly due to overnight lows of -13 over the past couple of nights but the snow is moving a bit and with forecast highs of +14 for the weekend things should really start to change.  I've been speeding the melt on some back greens by spreading very light rates of black sand and have seen a nice slow sustained melt.

#11 Green 7 Days After Adding Sand

I guess I should fore warn you that the pictures here don't really do the course justice but, as mentioned before, you should take the time for a walk around and look for yourself because on a whole things are good.  Anyways, a interesting result of experimenting with different materials on the greens surface over winter included this:

7G Enkamat Section

Last fall I was looking for ways to mitigate anoxia and tried a new product (go HERE for a reminder).  This picture is sort of misleading as well because the bright green strip makes the rest of the green look funky but it wintered pretty good versus other years when it came out brown (go HERE for that picture).

I also covered the upper portion of the "new" putting green with Enkamat because of the damage it sustained from ice last year.  That result was also nice to see.

Enkamat Covered Area in Foreground

I only had enough Enkamat to do a strip on the back of 9 Green and it too showed positive results.  One winter doesn't really give you a true feel for the product but results from this past winter are encouraging and I hope to keep up with using Enkamat, especially on #7.

It's only during the winter I whole heartily promote people to go to other golf courses and walk around; mostly due to this:

Snowshoe Trail on 8G

Heavy foot traffic on the greens will compact the snow and can create ice.

Snowshoe Trail this Spring

The compacted snow takes longer to melt and ice can form.  Mechanically removing it is an option but it may cause unnecessary damage to the surface.  It's way better not to have the traffic.  When it melts that ribbon of turf will be behind the rest of the grass on the green and will probably look like this:

Snowshoe Trial #1 Green

You can see the arc of discolored turf from this snowshoe trail on #1 green.   It doesn't look too bad but remember this green was covered with a tarp so any ice formed wasn't directly on the green surface.  The degree the snowshoe trail on #8 green will set back the turf is a bit of guess work right now.

Tune in next time for the traditional April "first-ish" comparison picture and possible projected opening dates

Spring Update

To this point the spring has been easy with us only blowing one green off and most the rest melting on their own.  A little early but it looks like the winter was kind to most the areas on the course.  Even the areas we did not treat for snow mould didn't really get hit too bad.  There is no standing water which says the ground never really froze or there wasn't that much snow or a bit of both.  With at least 70% of the front fairways without snow and only #6 and #8 greens with any real snow I encourage people to come and take walk around and check out things out. 

It's interesting to look at the greens since this is the time of year when you really get a feel for the variety of grass species growing on the greens at KGC.  Usually when greens are newly constructed a single bentgrass species or sometime a blend of 2 species make up the grass population to provide a consistent playing surface.  The variety of species that make up the greens at KGC is pretty amazing.  Even amongst the varying Poa species you can see small patches of bentgrass.  Go take a look now and then make an effort to try and pick out the different patches come June.  What's my point?  I don't know but I guess it's regarding consistency and how it relates to playability and maintenance.  Despite the huge variety of turf that exist on the greens at KGC they generally play similar but it is that variety that makes them a challenge to maintain.  Over the past couple years I've been realizing that the "one size fits all" approach when it comes to maintaining the greens at KGC is a wee bit narrow minded. I am not just referencing micro climates because that is true for every property but in particular I am thinking of those cultural practices we sometime mindlessly apply to all the greens.  If greens are of a single grass species it's a fairly safe bet to treat them similar but the more variation that exists between greens the more you need to consider what the impact may be (good or bad) on "routine" maintenance practices.

Some Apropo Links for Those Interested

Pure coincidences, I assure you.  One sort of rosy view point of creating a standard and one a wee bit cautionary.

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/article/niven-value-3-8-13.pdf
http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/article/vavrek-unreasonable-3-30-12.pdf

Discussion of Survey, Part 2

continued.......

The results from the question about the accessories (flags, rakes, etc.) can be interpreted a couple of ways.  61% thought accessories should be replace once they appear "worn out" versus repairing and using them until they are damaged beyond repair.  We actually do the latter.  Are people saying they don't like the way we do it now or are they unaware of how we stretch out the usable life of accessories?  Why stretch out the usage?  9 nylon flags of a single color cost $90.  We run 3 colors so $270 for new flags that appear worn out in one season.  A single item but here's some food for thought: bunker rakes: $25 each, flag sticks $45 each, divot bucket (you see them on the par 3's) $50 each.  I choose those items since we have multiples of each and by the end of the season they all show wear and tear which we address in house to stretch out the dollars.

The last question where respondents were asked to express maintenance expectations in general had 50% agreeing with the idea of leaving areas considered unsafe or too costly unmaintained.  Again, pretty much what we do but the point of that question was to see if people knew of the maintenance we perform outside of the golf course proper.  Think of things like controlling the pine beetle on the lands down by the river, snow removal, and building maintenance to name a few.  Not a big part of the overall picture but still processes that are required and processes that consume resources that could otherwise be used for maintenance on the actual golf course.

Question #6 referencing green surrounds was the only question that allows me to demonstrate how members’ expectations may be out of line with realities of KGC.  62% want dense turf shorter than regular rough height around the greens.  A surprise to me mostly because of how little difference we are talking in height of cut.  The rough at KGC is mowed at 1 ½ inches while the fairways are at 5/8’s of an inch.  A nice middle ground between the two would be 1”.  I guess people are hoping a shorter height will allow the ball to sit up in the turf a bit more. 

Aside from adding another task to a crew that we are already cutting back on (16 staff in 2011, 14 staff in 2012), increasing the intensity of maintenance means you have to increase the inputs (fertility and irrigation, for example) to maintain healthy and, therefore, playable turf.  The biggest hurdle is the irrigation.  Only 6 of 18 green complexes have irrigation heads specific for irrigating surrounds.  This has been a pet project of mine that has been way-laid as of late for budgetary reasons.  Dual heads around the greens give me the power to irrigate the greens and the green complexes separately.   I’ve noted before that keeping the greens dry and firm is one of the biggest factors in providing a superior putting surface by enhancing both speed and the "trueness".  As much as I lament the root zone of our greens I can tell you it is better than the native growth medium available for the turf on the surrounds.  The poor growing conditions for the surrounds means I actually spend more time irrigating the surrounds to keep them healthy (read playable) than I do irrigating the greens.  Obviously, on those 12 greens without dual heads the amount of irrigating needed to maintain the surrounds would impact the playing conditions of the greens themselves since I would have to also water those greens while watering the surrounds.  Because those 12 greens would be seeing more irrigation they would play differently from the 6 greens with surrounds heads....there goes consistency. 

It’s not that black and white but the reality is maintaining the surrounds at a lower height will have an impact on how I distribute resources.  One other consideration is the type of mower required to accomplish this type of maintenance.  At that height (1”) it best to use a reel type mower (think of the cutting heads we use on the fairways).  A rotary mower (this type of mower is similar style to what you would see on a regular homeowners' mower) would be prone to scalping on our surrounds because of bumps and hollows and the steepness associated with some greens surrounds.  Even if the rotary cutting heads were able to provide a proper cut we only have one unit small enough to manoeuvre around bunkers and the putting greens.  That unit is already needed in conjunction with our large rough mower to maintain the regular rough.  

Changing the height of cut to use the smaller unit for both the regular rough and short rough around greens is possible but not practical since we would have to do it at least 3 time a week (Analogy?  The only one I can come up with relates to having a set of expensive tires you don't want to wear out so you switch them out to another set every time you go on the highway and then switch back to the expensive set when you're driving around the city and you have to do this 3 times a week.  You could do it but what a P.I.T.A!).  Other non-turf considerations include the increased costs and time associated with the maintenance of reel mowers and how tree litter impacts the quality of cut.

I could try to project out the costs in labour and materials but I don’t really have enough information (mostly with respect to the time/labour component) to provide a somewhat relevant number.  Despite the long winded explanation I still think it something we'll try this year and I'll keep track and see if the results justify the costs.

Holy!  That was long.  Now what?  I've already created the "standard" for the fairways and I will be posting a standard for each area on the course in the clubhouse so everyone can read them.  Feel free to stop me and ask questions or comment if you have any sort of input.

Discussion of Survey, Part 1

Question #1:	V. Important	Somewhat	Important	Not as Import.	Unimport.
Playing Conditions	62.00%	23.90%	13.00%	0.00%	1.10%
Turf Health	26.10%	46.70%	18.50%	8.70%	0.00%
Environmental Impact	3.30%	5.40%	17.40%	28.30%	45.70%
Course Grooming	8.70%	18.50%	46.70%	22.80%	3.30%
Landscaping	0.00%	5.40%	4.30%	40.20%	50.00%

Some people did not like this question since it forced you to choose only one condition as being “Very Important”.  Welcome to my world.  Weekly, if not daily, I am forced to make these very same choices.  For me every one of these items is VERY IMPORTANT and should receive the same attention.  I don’t think it’s too dramatic to say that the experience players have on a golf course is not the result of one thing but a sum of its parts.  The position we’re now in has forced us to review everything we do and make some hard choices.  However, if everyone has some say hopefully the choices we make are supported or, at the very least, understood by all at KGC.

As well as making you prioritize this was a question that tested your knowledge of golf course maintenance.  Only 26.10% got it right by listing turf health as very important.  Perhaps I need to define turf health with respect to a golf course.  For me, healthy turf is able to withstand whatever conditions I decide to subject it to and not decline or, worse, die as a result.  Further, healthy turf has to be able to withstand whatever Mother Nature decides to throw at it.  Notice there is no mention of green/lush/long turf, aerating monthly, pounding the fertilizer, or ladling down control products.  Healthy turf begets good playing conditions, which is reflected in good course grooming.  Healthy turf doesn’t need protectants which decreases the environmental impact and less money spend on treatments means more money for the non-turf related areas of the golf course.

Question #2:   As I hoped most (95.8%) choose consistency over speed.  Now we need to define consistency.  As I mentioned at AGM, greens are considered consistent if all green roll with 6" of each other.  For example, if a green is rolling 8’6” any green plus or minus 3” (i.e. 8’3” to 8’9”) is considered to putting at the same speed (I get that info from this article).  What speed is good for our greens?  That goes back to my definition of healthy turf: whatever speed I can get that doesn’t kill ‘em and whatever speed we can get that falls within equipment and staffing limitations.

For most all other questions most people choose the maintenance regime we regularly perform:

81% expect moderate bunker maintenance

57% expect mostly weed free tee surface mowed 2 to 3 times/week

84% want firm fairways with defined edges with few weeds

62% want rough mostly green and longer than fairways with few weeds

73% expect most areas to be usually free of most debris

There is 3 more questions to discuss but this post is long enough.