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.
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.
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.
