THE BULLETIN

of the

UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION GREEN SECTION

Vol. 9 

Washington, D. C., December, 1929 

No. 12

Contents

Page

Summary of Reports from Demonstration Turf Gardens for 1929 Season.

By John Monteith, Jr............................................................................................ 210

Sorrel and Its Control........................................................................................     221
Demonstration Turf Garden at Interlachen Country Club. By Erich W. Pahl 222

Demonstration Turf Garden at Charles River Country Club. By Frank H.

Wilson, Jr................................................................................................................  224
Control of Coco or Nut Grass on Southern Golf Courses. By Roy Kuykendall 225

Questions and Answers............................................................................................  226

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Wynant D. Vanderpool, Chairman, P. O. Box 

77, Newark, N. J.

Russell A. Oakley, Washington, D. C.
Harvey L. Westover, Washington, D. C.
H. Kendall Read, Philadelphia, Pa.

Walter S. Harban, Washington, D. C. 
H. Y. Barrow, New York, N. Y.
John Monteith, Jr., Washington, D. C. 
Cornelius S. Lee, New York, N. Y. 
Robert M. Cutting, Chicago, Ill.

United States Department of Agriculture 
Russell A. Oakley, Chairman.
Harvey L. Westover.

United States Golf Association 
John Monteith, Jr. 
Kenneth Welton.

RESEARCH

COMMITTEE

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

W. A. Alexander, Chicago, Ill.
Eberhard Anheuser, St. Louis, Mo.
A. C. U. Berry, Portland, Oreg.
N. S. Campbell, Providence, R. I.
Wm. C. Fownes, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa.
F. II. Hillman, Washington, D. C.
Thos. P. Hinman, Atlanta, Ga.
Frederic C. Hood, Watertown, Mass.
K. F. Kellerman, Washington, D. C. 
Norman Macbeth, Los Angeles, Calif.
E. J. Marshall, Toledo, Ohio.

W. L. Pfeffer, St. Louis, Mo.
George V. Rotan, Houston, Tex.
Sherrill Sherman, Utica, N. Y. 
Frederick Snare, Havana, Cuba. 
James D. Standish, Jr., Detroit, Mich. 
Charles E. Van Nest, Minneapolis, Minn. 
W. R. Walton, Washington, D. C.
Alan D. Wilson, Philadelphia, Pa. 
M. H. Wilson, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio. 
Frank L. Woodward, Denver, Colo.

The Bulletin is published monthly by the United States Golf Association Green Section, 

at Room 7207, Building F, 7th and B Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C.

Address all MAIL to P. O. Box 313, Pennsylvania Avenue Station, Washington, D. C.

Send TELEGRAMS to Room 7207, Building F, 7th and B Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C.
Subscription Price: In United States of America, Mexico, and West Indies, $4.00 per year: in 

all other countries, $5.00 per year.

Entered as second-class matter, April 21, 1926, at the post office at Washington. D. C., under the 

Act of March 3, 1879. Copyrighted, 1930, by the United States Golf Association Green Section.

210

Vol. 9, No. 12

Demonstration Turf Garden Reports
Summary of Reports from Twelve Gardens for 1929 Season
By John Monteith, Jr.

During 1928, in cooperation with local golf organizations, the 
Green Section established a number of demonstration turf gardens 
in different sections of the country. These demonstration gardens 
were to provide local stations at which the Green Section might test 
a number of different grasses, fertilizers, and cultural methods under 
a variety of soil and climatic conditions to serve as checks on some of 
the results obtained in the experimental turf gardens at Arlington 
and elsewhere. They were also to serve as outposts for the Green 
Section work to present to greenkeepers and green-committee mem­
bers the elemental principles of scientific turf culture in a manner 
that could be readily understood and at locations where they would 
be more readily available than is the case with the larger experi­
mental turf gardens. The purposes and locations of these several 
demonstration gardens were set forth in the December, 1928, num­
ber of the Bulletin.

These gardens are divided into series of plots 10 feet square, each 
series receiving some treatment different from its adjoining series. 
The seed and stolons for planting the gardens were furnished by the 
Green Section. Part of each garden was devoted to tests on putting 
green turf, and this part was cut, watered, and top-dressed like put­
ting greens on a new course. The top-dressing material was the reg­
ular compost used on the course where each planting was made. 
Except for the fertilizer series no standardized treatment was pre­
scribed. Therefore in addition to differences due to soil and climate 
there were differences in the care of the several gardens, including 
differences in watering, mowing, top-dressing, fertilizers used, and 
other maintenance procedures. Consequently the grasses which re­
ceived the highest ratings in the accompanying tables demonstrated 
their ability to produce good turf under a great variety of soil, cli­
matic, and cultural conditions. The fact that the care of these 
gardens has been left entirely in the hands of some of the country’s 
best greenkeepers who employ somewhat different methods on their 
courses, speaks well for the practicability of the results obtained. The 
accompanying chart shows the plan of these demonstration gardens. 
In two cases, where soil conditions seemed to justify it, the arrange­
ment of the plan was somewhat altered. The garden at the Inter­
lachen Country Club is an instance of such an alteration; its plan is 
shown in the illustration on page 223 of this number of the Bulletin.
In order to avoid danger of interference with different fertilizers 
used in the compost on the several courses, the top-dressing used on 
the fertilizer series was merely the natural soil of the garden that 
was planted. This top-dressing was used to fill in the low spots so 
as to give a true surface. The fertilizers were sent out from the 
Washington office of the Green Section in order that these materials 
would be the same on all plantings and also to relieve those who cared 
for the gardens from the tedious task of carefully weighing the small 
quantities involved.

The gardens in many sections proved of much interest and were 
carefully watched by greenkeepers and green-committee members in 
their neighborhoods. Meetings of greenkeepers and green-committee

December, 1929

211

PLAN OF DEMONSTRATION TURF GARDENS
ABODE

d
e
R

.
e
u
c
s
e
f

’ 
s
g
n
i
w
e
h
C

e
u
c
s
e
f

Annual 
bluegrass.

Sewage 
sludge.

­
h
s
a

W

n
o
t
g
n
i

.

­
o
r
t
e

M

n
a
t
i
l
o
p

,
l
a
i
n
o
l
o
C

.
n
r
e
t
s
e
w

d
n
a
l
a
e
Z

,
l
a
i
n
o
l
o
C

.

N

Colonial 
bent, 
R. I.

Velvet 
bent 
seed.

.
a
i
n
i
g
r
i

V

.
a
i
b
m
u
l
o
C

Poultry 
manure 
tankage.

Seaside 
bent.

German 
mixed 
bent.

d
n
a
l
h
g
i
H

.
t
e
v
l
e
v

6
7
2
4
1

.
o
N

.
t
e
v
l
e
v

Check.

Sulphate 
of 
ammonia.

Compost 
and 
sulphate 
of 
ammonia.

Check.

Nitrate 
of 
soda.

Urea.

Phosphate 
of 
ammonia.

Check.

Complete 
fertilizer 
6-12-4

Complete 
fertilizer 
12-6-4

Check.

Lime and 
sulphate 
of 
ammonia.

Bone 
meal.

* German 
mixed 
bent.

German 
mixed 
bent.

German

Metro.

Chewings’

mixed 
bent.

. bent 
stolons.

fescue.

Optional.

Trial 
plots of 
putting 
green 
grasses.

Fertilizer 
experiments 
on putting 
green 
grass 
(seeded 
German 
mixed 
bent).

Putting ' 
green 
length.

Cutting 
experi­
ments.

* Ky. blue 
and 
redtop.

Ky. blue 
and 
redtop.

Ky. blue, 
redtop and

Ky. blue 
and

Chewings’ 
fescue and

Ger. mixed 
bent.

redtop

Ger. mixed 
bent.

Fairway 
length. .

Ky. blue, 
redtop and 
Chewings’ 
fescue

Ky. blue 
and 
redtop.

Ky. blue, 
redtop and 
Ger. mixed 
bent.

R.I. 
bent.

Chewings’ 
fescue and 
Ger. mixed 
bent.

Trial plots of 
fairway grasses.

Bone 
meal.

Lime.

Check.

Sulphate 
of 
ammonia.

Sewage 
sludge.

Check.

Manure.

Complete 
fertilizer 
6-12-4

Complete 
fertilizer 
12-6-4

Check.

Soil in plots "A and 8A poisoned with arsenate of lead before seeding.

Fertilizer 
experiments on 
fairway grasses 
(Kentucky blue 
grass and red top 
mixture).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
212 

Vol. 9, No. 12

members were held during the summer on many of the gardens. Some 
of these meetings were attended by visitors from courses over 100 
miles away. In this number of the Bulletin, Frank H. Wilson, Jr., 
who has charge of the garden in the Boston district, and Erich W. 
Pahl, who has charge of the garden in Minneapolis, give their im­
pressions of the value of their gardens not only to themselves but to 
their fellow greenkeepers. These two articles require no comment, 
for they well illustrate how these demonstration gardens are serving 
their purpose of aiding those who choose to use them to their full 
advantage. Many of the other gardens have been likewise used dur­
ing the year and enthusiastic reports have been received from them. 
These two reports are published because they represent opinions from 
two districts far apart but where the fine attitude of helpful coopera­
tion is quite evidently the same.

At the Green Section's demonstration turf gardens, greenkeepers have opportunity to gather from 
time to time to inspect experimental results and discuss the various features of the work

The plans for these turf gardens call for periodic reports on the 
condition of the plots. These reports are prepared in duplicate, one 
copy being sent to the Green Section office in Washington, the other 
being retained for home use and reference. In most cases the reports 
were submitted monthly from May to October; and it was indeed en­
couraging to find that with very few exceptions the notes showed 
evidences of conscientious endeavor to register observations in a fair- 
minded and accurate manner. Taking notes is at best a tedious task; 
but since no individual’s mind is reliable enough to remember the 
changes that come about in the various plots of such a series through­
out the year, much less over a number of years, it is essential that 
some record be made if the work is to mean anything as time goes 
on. Most of those who undertook to care for these turf gardens gladly 
complied with the request for notes throughout the season of 1929, 
and we are therefore able to present to our readers a summary of the 
results obtained on 12 of these turf gardens. In a few cases, for one 
reason or another, the periodic reports were not made out. Where 
records were made for only part of the season or where there was 
evidence of carelessness or indifference in their preparation, the re­
ports have not been used in this summary. The turf gardens from 

December, 1929 

213

which this review is compiled and the names of those who prepared 
the notes in each case are shown in the accompanying list.

Demonstration Turf Gardens Cooperating with the Green Section

Allegheny Country Club..................................................................................Pittsburgh
John Pressler and Lois Miller

Century Country Club............................................................... Metropolitan District
Henry Shakeshaft and G. W. Milnes

Charles River Country Club................................................................................. Boston
F. H. Wilson, Jr.

Detroit Golf Club.......................................................................................................Detroit
Alex McPherson

Indian Trail Golf Course............................................................................ Grand  Rapids
Floyd Metcalf and H. Pas

Interlachen Country Club...........................................................................Minneapolis
E. W. Pahl

Massachusetts Agricultural College............................................................. Amherst
Wm. E. Robison, Jr., and L. S. Dickinson

Meadowbrook Country Club................................................................................. Detroit
Wm. Slack and T. Slessor

Morris County Golf Club......................................................... Metropolitan District
G. Donofio and G. W. Milnes

Oakmont Country Club...................................................................................... Pittsburgh
Emil Loeffler and Lois Miller

Upper Montclair Country Club............................................ Metropolitan District
George Robertson and G. W. Milnes

Wheatley Hills Golf Club.......................................................Metropolitan District
Frank Krause and G. W. Milnes

In order to simplify as much as possible the taking of notes and 
to avoid the danger of hair-splitting details which would make the 
notes difficult to interpret it was decided to standardize the details as 
much as was practical. Accordingly blank forms were provided to 
-be filled in with a few simple markings. The turf on each plot was 
rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor. In determining this rating of 
the turf it was specified that consideration be given its density, vigor, 
color, fineness, freedom from nap, and any other factor that would 
affect its quality for golf turf purposes.

No effort was made to establish any one standard of excellence by 
devising a score card. The ratings are therefore to be regarded as 
merely relative. In the series of plots of different grasses for putting 
greens, for instance, a report from one club might indicate that a cer­
tain grass was good whereas the report from another club might rate 
the same grass as fair. As an actual fact the turf in the latter case 
might be fully the equal of the former, but the person or persons 
making the report were probably more critical and exacting in the 
latter case than those making the report from the club where the 
grass was given a rating of good. However, the individual who was 
more exacting and held higher standards would naturally scale down 
all the ratings in the same degree. Since the purpose of the reports 

214

Vol. 9, No. 12

was to compare the grasses side by side rather than to compare the 
ratings of different sections, all reports that were made with care 
and fairness were equally valuable. It will be noted in the foregoing 
list that in the majority of cases the notes were made by two indi­
viduals,, which of course helped to avoid oversights.

Many who are interested in these gardens have wondered just how 
these records could be of value without a definite standard to guide 
in making the ratings. To make this clear we use a single example. 
Reports were received from three gardens which for convenience will 
be referred to as reports No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. In report No. 1, 
Metropolitan bent is rated as excellent and Virginia bent as good; in 
report No. 2, Metropolitan is rated good and Virginia fair; in report 
No. 3, Metropolitan is given a rating of fair and Virginia is poor. 
This might be interpreted as meaning that in garden No. 1 the Metro­
politan was much superior to the Metropolitan in either of the other 
two gardens, and that the Virginia in garden No. 1 was superior to 
the Metropolitan in garden No. 3. Such a conclusion is unwarranted 
for these differences may merely mean that those who made out re­
port No. 3 held a much higher standard of excellence than those who 
made out No. 1. Such comparisons between different course reports 
may or may not have some significance other than the personal factor. 
The important point in the three reports is that the Metropolitan 
proved superior to the Virginia in each instance regardless of differ­
ences in soil and climate.

Putting Green Fertilizer Ratings, on German Mixed Bent Turf, from 12 
Demonstration Gardens During 1929
(The order given is from highest to lowest rating for the year)

May 
and 
June

July 
and 
August

September 
and 
October

Entire 
season 
(totals)

Excel­

lent Fair
Good Poor

Excel­

lent Fair
Good Poor

Excel­

lent Fail
Good Poor

Excel­

lent Fair
Good Poor

Complete fertilizer (12-6-4).
Complete fertilizer (6-12-4) .
Sulphate of ammonia............
Phosphate of ammonia.........
Poultry manure tankage....
Urea .......................................
Activated sludge...................
Sulphate of ammonia and
compost...............................
Sulphate of ammonia and
lime.....................................
Nitrate of soda.....................
Bone meal .............................
Checks (no fertilizer)..........

11
12
11
8
10
9
8

10

5
8
5
1

1
0
1
4
2
3
4

2

7
4
7
11

12
10
9
10
9
9
8

6

6
5
6
1

0
2
3
2
3
3
4

6

6
7
6
11

12
11
12
11
10
11
10

8

11
9
8
2

0
1
0
1
2
1
2

4

1
3
4
10

35
33
32
29
29
29
26

24

22
22
19
4

1
3
4
7
7
7
10

12

14
14
17
32

From some of the gardens the reports for the entire year did not 
include a single rating of excellent even though the turf was well 
cared for and many of the plots in these particular gardens had turf 
which would have been a credit to most courses of that neighborhood.

December, 1929

215

This merely indicates that those who prepared the notes in many in­
stances were extremely critical and were inclined to underrate the 
turf rather than to assign any flattering ratings. This tendency of 
course makes the accompanying tables more interesting than would 
have been the case had the tendency been the other way, with ratings 
universally higher. No attempt is made in this summary, nor will 
any such attempt be made in the future, to publish comparative 
ratings of the different gardens, for such a comparison would serve 
no useful purpose and might tend to encourage less critical rating if 
the individual or individuals making the notes felt that low ratings 
would bring discredit to those caring for the garden being rated. The 
Green Section wishes to encourage a critical attitude toward these 
gardens, and it is hoped that the standards of excellence will be raised 
even higher as the turf becomes older.

Wherever possible the reports have been condensed to tables. An 
attempt will be made in the text to call attention to the chief points 
of interest in each; but it is recognized that any set of tables contains 
almost unlimited possibilities for analyses. The reports cover a 
period of six months; but to simplify the tables they are arranged 
in three periods of two months each, representing early summer, mid­
summer, and late summer or early fall. In the tables the two columns 
at the right give the totals of these three bimonthly summaries. The 
ratings excellent and good, as well as fair and poor, have been com­
bined to further simplify the tables. A few deviations were made 
from the standard plan of the gardens, which resulted in omitting 
certain grasses from some gardens. Where any grass or combina­
tion of grasses was not planted in all of the 12 demonstration gardens 
attention is called in the tables to this omission.

Putting Green Fertilizer Ratings

The putting green fertilizer tests were made on German mixed 
bent turf. There are 15 plots in this series, 11 receiving different 
fertilizers and 4 being check plots which received no fertilizer. The 
check plots are so arranged that every fertilizer plot is beside one 
which is not fertilized. The fertilizers were applied each month from 
May to October. The rates of application were figured on a nitrogen 
basis. The quantities used for a full-strength application contained 
1/10 pound of nitrogen to a plot. This is at the rate of 1 pound of 
nitrogen to 1,000 square feet, which is the amount carried in 5 pounds 
of sulphate of ammonia, in 16 2/3 pounds of the complete fertilizer 
with an analysis of 6-12-4, or in 33 1/3 pounds of bone meal analyzing 
3 per cent nitrogen. During July and August the rates of applica­
tions were cut in half to reduce the danger from burning. Therefore 
in the six applications during the year each fertilized plot received 
i/2 pound of nitrogen. The nitrogen basis for comparing the fertili­
zers was chosen instead of the cost basis, which has been suggested 
several times, because it is more definite and usable. Costs vary ac­
cording to many local conditions as well as the seasonal changes. 
Knowledge of the relative effects of different fertilizers when com­
pared on the nitrogen basis enables anyone to determine by simple 
arithmetic the values of fertilizers according to his local quotations.
In the accompanying table the fertilizers which received the 
largest number of ratings of excellent or good during the season 
have been placed at the head of the list while the check plots, receiv­

216

Vol. 9, No. 12

ing no fertilizers, which were given the fewest excellent or good 
ratings, are at the bottom. It is interesting to note that the two 
complete fertilizers head the list, which indicates that some readily 
available phosphorus and potash are desirable for grass in its first 
season. These complete fertilizers were prepared by mixing sulphate 
of ammonia, phosphate of ammonia (Ammo-phos), superphosphate, 
muriate of potash, and sand. No organic material was used in their 
preparation. The sand was used as an inert filler to add weight to 
make up the desired proportions. If the strength of a 12-6-4 fertilizer 
is reduced by the addition of an equal amount of inert material, such 
as sand, it gives double its weight of a 6-3-2 fertilizer. Since all the 
fertilizers were applied on a nitrogen basis only half the quantity was 
used of the 12-6-4 as of the 6-12-4 fertilizer. Therefore this quantity 
would carry as much fertilizer as would have been carried in a 6-3-2 
applied at the same rate as the 6-12-4. The difference in the ferti­
lizers applied to these two plots is therefore merely a difference in 
proportions of phosphorus and potash. The 12-6-4 formula was used 
on the plots in preference to the diluted 6-3-2 formula merely because 
the modern trend of fertilizer formulas is in favor of the more con­
centrated mixtures to save freight charges on inert materials.

In the plot receiving sulphate of ammonia and compost, only half 
the quantity of sulphate of ammonia was used as in the plot receiving 
the sulphate alone; the other half of the required amount of nitrogen 
was furnished by the compost. The results indicate that the nitrogen 
in the compost was not as readily available as in the inorganic ferti­
lizers. Lime was applied on one plot in the spring. A small amount 
of injury resulted from this application on some of the gardens and 
the rating was therefore lowered early in the season.

It is interesting to note that the check plots, which were given no 
fertilizers, received only 4 high ratings out of the 36, indicating that 
the soil where these plots were planted was of low fertility.

In examining the table it must be remembered that it is a record 
of one season only. The really important test of a fertilizer is its 
ability to produce results over a period of years. It is well known that 
a fertilizer which may give excellent results at the start may be far 
outclassed in a period of years by some other fertilizer which at first 
was none too promising. It is to be hoped that these gardens will be 
continued in order that the accumulative value of these fertilizer tests 
will be available to golf clubs year after year. Even at this early date 
they are certainly of value to those who are interested in getting the 
most rapid turf development in the first season. The results are also 
significant in showing that the tests on a great variety of soils sub­
stantiate the more intensive tests at the Arlington turf garden and 
other experimental turf gardens in showing the prompt response of 
grass to fertilizers containing ammonia in its cheapest form, such 
as sulphate or phosphate of ammonia.

Fairway Fertilizer Ratings

The fairway fertilizer series consisted of 10 plots planted with a 
mixture of 80 per cent Kentucky bluegrass and 20 per cent redtop. 
Three of the plots were not fertilized, to serve as checks against the 
seven fertilized plots. As in the putting green series, the nitrogen 
fertilizers were applied to give the same quantity of nitrogen for each 
plot and at the same rates as those used in the putting green ferti­

December, 1929

217

lizer series. These rates are regarded as excessive for annual appli­
cations to fairway turf and will be reduced next season. Early de­
velopment of a fairway turf is, however, desirable, and it was there­
fore decided to make heavy applications of fertilizers the first season 
to attain this end.

Fairway Fertilizer Ratings on Mixed Turf of Kentucky Bluegrass and 
Redtop from 12 Demonstration Gardens During 1929 
(The order given is from highest to loivest rating for the gear)

May 
and 
June

July 
and 
August

September 
and 
October

Entire 
season 
(totals)

Excel­

Excel­

Excel­

Excel­

lent Fair
lent Fair
Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor

lent Fair

lent Fair

Complete fertilizer (6-12-4) .
Complete fertilizer (12-6-4).
Sulphate of ammonia............
Activated sludge....................
Bone meal...............................
Manure ..................................
Lime .......................................
Checks (no fertilizer)..........

10
9
7
4
4
4
2
2

2
3
5
8
8
8
10
10

9
7
5
5
5
3
4
2

3
5
7
7
7
9
8
10

9
10
8
8
7
4
3
2

3
2
4
4
5
8
9
10

28
26
20
17
16
11
9
6

8
10
16
19
20
25
27
30

The results on the fairway grass mixture show an interesting cor­
relation with the fertilizer tests on the mixed bent in the putting 
green series. Here again the list is headed by the two complete fer­
tilizers made by mixing in different proportions sulphate of ammonia, 
phosphate of ammonia, superphosphate, muriate of potash, and sand. 
It will be noted that the order of these two is reversed, but the differ­
ences are too slight to justify general conclusions. The significant 
point brought out by these results, especially on the unwatered fair­
way plots, is that the addition of some readily available phosphorus 
and potash is desirable on some soils to encourage seedling growth. 
The results indicate that although a certain proportion of each of 
these elements is important, an excessively large proportion of either 
does not add to the vigor of the turf.

Manure, which was applied in the spring, gave the poorest results 

of any of the fertilizers.

The plots which received lime alone were little better than the 
check plots. It is recognized that lime is not ordinarily classed as a 
fertilizer and for turf work should be used in conjunction with some 
fertilizer containing nitrogen. It was used in these plots, however, 
because many clubs in this country still use lime on fairways without 
any fertilizers. The results on these plots further demonstrate the 
futility of using lime in this manner.

The low ratings given the check plots again indicate the poor 

character of the natural soil on most of these gardens.

Putting Green Grass Ratings

The grasses tested at the turf gardens are grouped, in the accom­
panying table of ratings, according to botanical relationship, and 
within the groups are listed in order of favorable ratings.

218

Vol. 9, No. 12

In the group of creeping bents are four strains planted with 
stolons and one planted with seed. It is interesting to note that the 
seaside bent received a rank midway among the five. The ratings of 
the Metropolitan and Virginia strains of creeping bent will doubtless 
be of interest to those who make sweeping criticisms of creeping 
bent. An interesting detail not shown in the table is that out of the 
36 ratings in the year’s summary, Metropolitan received 12 ratings 
of excellent and Virginia only 2 (the figures in the table showing 
merely a combination of the ratings excellent and good).

Putting Green Grass Ratings from 12 Demonstration Turf Gardens 
During 1929

May 
and 
June

July 
and 
August

September 
and 
October

Entire 
season 
(totals)

Excel­

Excel­

Excel­
lent Fair
lent Fair
Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor

lent Fair

lent Fair

Excel­

Colonial bent:

Rhode Island grown..........
Western grown..................
New Zealand grown*........

Creeping bent:

9 
8 
7 

3
4
4

Metropolitan (stolons). — 11 1
2
Washington (stolons)....
3
Seaside (seed)...................
7
Columbia (stolons)...........
6
Virginia (stolons).............

10 
9 
5 
6 

Velvet bent:

No. 14276* (stolons)........
Highland (stolons)............
Canadian (seed)*..............
Mixed bent (German)..........
Fescue:

Chewings’ ...........................
Red .....................................
Annual bluegrass...................

1 
10
2 
10
• • • •
9 
3

9 
3 
7 

3
9
5

9 
7 
7 

3
5
4

11 1
11 1
11 1
5
7 
7
5 

8 
4 
5 
9 

6 
0 
4 

3
8
5
3

6
12
8

8 
7 
6 

4
5
5

11 1
10 
2
3
9 
7 
5
5 
7

8 
8 
5 
9 

3
4
5
3

6 
6
1 11
3 
9

26 
22 
20 

33 
31 
29 
19 
16 

17 
14 
10 
27 

21 
4 
14 

10
14
13

3
5
7
17
20

16
22
10
9

15
32
22

The mixed bent seed used in this series was the same as that used 
in the putting green fertilizer series. It was purchased in open mar­
ket as a representative of the German mixed bent of the trade. Seed 
sold under this name is chiefly Colonial bent but with a varying per­
centage of velvet bent and creeping bent as well as different amounts 
of redtop. The results on the gardens indicate that this mixture pro­
duced a turf with a rating very close to Colonial bent.

The Colonial bent (commonly known as Rhode Island bent or 
brown top bent) was grown from seed which came from three differ­
ent sources. The reports indicate that there is little difference in the 
turf produced by this species of grass regardless of the origin of the 
seed.

The velvet bents made a poor showing early in the season but im­
proved as they grew older. The stock available for these plantings

• Not reported from all 12 gardens. 

December, 1929 

219

in 1928 was limited and the plantings were accordingly far too sparse. 
This shortage of planting material largely accounted for the thin 
stand and low ratings early in 1929. The Canadian velvet bent, as 
will be noted, was produced from seed, but the seed was not planted 
until the spring of 1929; in considering its rating, therefore, allow­
ance must be made for this delayed planting.

Both of the fescues showed a decline from spring to fall. The 
two plots showed a striking difference between the genuine red fescue 
of the trade and the Chewings’ fescue, especially at the end of the 
season.

The plot of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) was planted with seed 
of mixed bluegrasses of which a little over 50 per cent was the annual 
bluegrass. This was the best seed of this grass available on the mar­
ket, and although the turf produced was by no means truly representa­
tive of the annual bluegrass turf on many putting greens in the 
United States it is likely that the proportion of annual bluegrass will 
increase in the plots if the grass reseeds and crowds out the other 
bluegrasses.

Fairway Grass Ratings

Fairway Grass Ratings from 12 Demonstration Gardens During 1929

May 
and 
June

July 
and 
August

September* 
and 
October*

Entire 
season 
(totals)

Excel­
Excel­
lent Fair
lent Fair
Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor

Excel­
lent Fail

Excel­
lent Fair

Colonial bent*.......................
Kentucky bluegrass, redtop, 
and mixed bent..............
Chewings’ fescue and mixed 
bent .................................
Kentucky bluegrass, redtop, 
and Chewings’ fescue....
Kentucky bluegrass and red- 
top ..................................

4

6

7

6

4

3

6

5

6

8

2

6

5

4

4

5

6

7

8

8

4

6

6

5

4

2

5

5

6

7

10

18

18

15

12

10

17

17

20

23

Of the four mixed grasses in the fairway plots the Kentucky blue­
grass and redtop mixture was given the lowest rating. The addition 
of either mixed bent or fescue seemed to improve the bluegrass-redtop 
combination. The mixture of bent and fescue made a creditable show­
ing, as did the Colonial bent when planted alone. It is well known 
that Kentucky bluegrass is not aggressive during the first season; it 
is therefore too early as yet to pass judgment on these fairway 
grasses.

Other Tests on the Demonstration Gardens

In each of the demonstration gardens one putting green plot and 
one fairway plot were treated with arsenate of lead before sowing the

Not reported from all 12 gardens. 

220

Vol. 9, No. 12

seed. This poison was used at the rate of 5 pounds to 1,000 square 
feet. Beside each of the poisoned plots was one of the same grass on 
which arsenate of lead had not been used. In the first reports re­
ceived from some of the gardens it was noted that some retardation 
of seedling development occurred in the plots treated with arsenate 
of lead. Later reports indicated that this was merely a temporary 
checking of growth, for by midsummer no difference was apparent 
in quality of turf on the poisoned plots and those not poisoned. The 
primary purpose of this test was to demonstrate the effect of this 
chemical on grubs, but none of the gardens were bothered with these 
pests last season.

Some interesting observations were made on the effect of arsenate 
of lead on earthworms. The poison used on all the gardens came 
from the same package and was applied at the same rates and in the 
same manner just before sowing the seed. In spite of this standard 
application of chemical there was apparently a difference in control 
of earthworms. On several gardens the number of earthworms in the 
poisoned plots was much smaller than in the check plots, but on other 
gardens the worms were equally numerous in both. This difference 
is probably due to a difference in soil, as has been indicated in pre­
vious tests. However, observations must be continued several more 
years before the full value of arsenate of lead as a control for earth­
worms is determined.

The reports on arsenate of lead as a control for weeds also failed 
to give conclusive evidence for or against this treatment. Five of 
the gardens were reported as showing some indication of a slight 
reduction in weed growth where arsenate of lead was used, but in the 
other gardens there was no apparent difference. As in the control 
of earthworms, soil conditions may have some influence on the effec­
tiveness of this chemical when used for checking weeds.

In spite of the fact that during 1929 brown-patch was in general 
much less prevalent than usual, many interesting observations were 
made on the demonstration gardens. The reports however did not 
bring out anything new. It was noted on several gardens that there 
was a decided difference in susceptibility shown by the several putting 
green grasses, and it was also observed that the fertilized plots were 
more subject to attacks of diseases than were the check plots. Brown­
patch is commonly more severe on older turf, and it is probable that 
many interesting observations will be recorded as these gardens grow 
older. Later observations when used with those made during the 
past season should be of much value in understanding and controlling 
turf diseases in the regions where these gardens are located.

The tests on cutting at different heights did not show anything of 
interest. Most of the gardens did not start these particular tests 
until late in the season. This delay was in order to allow the turf to 
become well established before changing the mowers. This type of 
test of course is not expected to show any striking differences for at 
least two years.

The lower rainfall of the past season in many sections where the 
demonstration gardens are located presented an opportunity to note 
the value of artificial watering of fairway turf in the plots where this 
test was made.

The demonstration turf gardens have proved of great interest dur­
ing the year, and from every indication at present it is safe to predict 

December, 1929

221

that they will prove more interesting and instructive as they develop 
farther and accumulative effects of fertilizers and treatments be­
come a factor. Most of the gardens were used by individuals in their 
neighborhood to an extent far greater than those who planned the 
gardens had expected for the first year. The gardens have not solved 
all of the problems of turf culture nor have they solved any single 
problem. Such solutions were not expected by anyone who has any 
reasonable appreciation of such work. It is quite apparent however 
that they have encouraged an open-minded attitude among many who 
have visited them, and the results already obtained lead one to ques­
tion many of the hard-and-fast rules by which some individuals feel 
turf culture can be governed. Such an accomplishment, independent 
of all the other features of value, has fully repaid the money and 
energy so far expended on these gardens.

Sorrel and Its Control

One of the more persistent weeds in fairways and putting greens, 
when once it has a foothold, is sheep sorrel. This is a low-growing, 
creeping perennial belonging to the buckwheat family and closely 
related to the docks. The weed is variously known also as horse 
sorrel, field sorrel, red sorrel, sour weed, or simply as sorrel, the 
name sorrel being derived from a German word meaning sour, and 
having reference to the sour taste of the leaves. Other plants with 
sour-tasting leaves are also called sorrel, but none of them are as 
troublesome as the sheep sorrel.

Sheep sorrel forms dense clusters of small arrow-shaped leaves, 
which lie close to the ground in poor soils and form thick mats of 
foliage on more fertile ground. The plant spreads by means of creep­
ing underground stems or runners, somewhat after the fashion of the 
strawberry plant, and in addition produces an abundance of small, 
triangular seeds. The seeds are borne in loose clusters on slender 
stalks and are of a peculiar reddish brown color. In late May or 
early June a patch of sorrel is conspicuous for miles around, owing 
to the red mass of ripening seed heads.

This plant is a common weed in old pastures, meadows, stubble 
fields, and lawns throughout the United States. It is particularly 
abundant on dry, sandy, or gravelly soils that are in a run-down con­
dition, although it sometimes becomes troublesome in more fertile 
soils following seasons of unusual drought. Its presence is often, 
though not necessarily, an indication of an acid condition of the soil, 
as the weed will thrive on acid soils more vigorously than will most 
other plants. Like any other plant, sheep sorrel prefers a rich, well 
drained soil well supplied with lime ; but it usually can not compete 
with other plants under such conditions.

Sorrel can be destroyed by spraying with a solution of sulphate of 
iron (copperas) made at the rate of l1/-! pounds to a gallon of water. 
The treatment will not permanently injure grass, and will destroy 
the weed if repeated as often as the sorrel tries to send out new 
leaves. Sulphate of iron is deadly to clovers as well as to many 
broad-leaved weeds, but is not injurious to animals or to the soil. 
The spraying method is useful where the sorrel occurs as patches in 
a good stand of grass, or for working around rocks or fences. Where 
it is not abundant it may be weeded out by hand.

222

Vol. 9, No. 12

Demonstration Turf Garden at Interlachen Country Club 
By Erich W. Pahl

Secretary, Greenkeepers’ Association of Minnesota

The selection of the Interlachen Country Club, Hopkins, Minn., as 
the site for the demonstration turf garden for the Minnesota district, 
was made by the United States Golf Association Green Section on 
account of its accessibility and the fact that its soil appeared to ap­
proach nearest to the average for the district. The garden was laid 
out and planted during the first week of September, 1928. The sod 
that was removed from the location selected was used in reconstruc­
tion work on the Interlachen course. The planting was done by the 
greenkeepers of the Minneapolis-St. Paul district, under the super­
vision of a Green Section representative who had come to Minneapolis 
especially for the purpose. The seed was furnished by the Green 
Section. After planting, the turf developed rapidly, requiring two 
cuttings the ensuing fall. On the suggestion of Charles E. Van Nest, 
chairman of the green committee of the Interlachen Country Club, 
the clubs of the district gladly consented to contribute toward the 
upkeep of the plots for a period of five years.

The demonstration turf garden at the Interlachen Country Club

Fertilizer applications were begun in the spring of 1929 and have 
proved to be of great interest not only to the local greenkeepers but 
to many nurserymen and others who have visited the plots. A rep­
resentative of the Minneapolis Park Board has visited the plots several 
times during the summer and was much impressed with the value 
of the work to the community. A rather interesting thing developed 
during the fall of 1929, when it was found that the plots which were 
fertilized with a mixture containing phosphate of ammonia had the 
least number of earthworms and that the plot receiving phosphate of 
ammonia alone had no worms at all. Of especial interest also was the 
comparison of the merits of different grasses on the plots in respect 
to the creeping habits of the various bent grasses, the texture of the 
turf produced, the local suitability of various grass mixtures, the abil­
ity of the grasses to withstand our severe winter conditions and hot, 
humid weather of summer, and their resistence to the brown-patch 
and snow-mold diseases.

The Greenkeepers’ Association of Minnesota met at the plots sev­
eral times during the summer, and many of the greenkeepers visited 
the plots also on Sundays, when they had leisure to examine them 
carefully and compare the results of different fertilizers during the

December, 1929

223

successive periods of the summer. The plots have been a great help 
to many in deciding on the kind or mixtures of fertilizers best suited 
to their needs and to the various grasses represented in the plots. 
The garden has taught us much during the past season, and I have 
no doubt that during the next four years it will teach us more than 
we now realize.

Two views of the sign board erected along­
side the demonstration turf garden at the 
Interlachen Country Club.

• 

le

TOHA ABD COUBTBY CLUB 

DEMONSTRATION PLOTS 
awiu/ar oe u.s. g.a. gaeem s£crng 
SUSTAININC ORGANIZATIONS 
fUMCSOTA GOLPASSOOAnOB 
H/M/KABOA CLUB 
B/AUCAPOLLS GOLF CLUB 

BLDLABD ff/US COUATPY CLUB 
SOBBBSCr COUBTDY CLUB
BOOM LU COUBTDY CLUB 
GOLDfB YALLBY GOLF CLUB 
LBTEPLACAFA COUPTPY CLUB

To assist in explaining the 
demonstrational work under 
progress at the garden a large 
sign board was erected at the side 
of the plots. On the side of the 
board facing the plots is painted 
a sketch of the plan of the garden 
and details showing for the re­
spective plots the kind and quan­
tity of seed or stolons used in
planting the plots, the fertilizers being applied, and other pertinent 
facts. On the side of the board facing a path from the 13th green to 
the 14th tee is given a list of the organizations contributing to the 
upkeep of the garden.

•

The work of the Green Section of the United States Golf Associa­
tion has been a great help to the greenkeepers of the country, and it 
is up to the greenkeepers to give it all the assistance possible at any 
and all times.

Systematic and intelligent buying is as important on a golf course 
as in a business run for profit. What is wisely saved is available for 
wise investment.

224

Vol. 9, No. 12

Demonstration Turf Garden at Charles River Country Club
By Frank H. Wilson, Jr.
President, Greenkeepers’ Club of New England

When we were asked to start a demonstration turf Rarden at 
Charles River Country Club, Newton Centre, Mass., little did I real­
ize the great value such a project could be to the golf clubs of this 
section of the country. The interest in the garden was continuous 
from early spring until the ground became covered with snow. Hardly 
a day went by without some greenkeeper or green-committee chair­
man making us a visit. Two meetings were held at the garden dur­
ing the season, one in May by the Greenkeepers’ Club of New Eng­
land and one in September by the New England Service Bureau in 
conjunction with the Greenkeepers’ Club. At the May meeting the 
greenkeepers showed much enthusiasm over the work, and monthly 
thereafter reports of results and observations have been printed in 
their Neivsletter. At the September meeting 26 clubs were repre­
sented. In one instance the garden was used by a green-committee 
chairman and his greenkeeper to determine what kind of grass should 
be selected to plant greens on their course, and in another instance to 
determine what kind of bent stolons should be planted on a certain 
course. The garden has been generally educational. I have spent 
many hours explaining the work on the garden, and have received a 
great deal of pleasure and profit from it. Our optional plots have 
been occupied by four clubs that had strains of bent grasses which 
they thought possessed special merit; these strains are being com­
pared with the grasses in rows 2 and 3.

The thing that strikes me most forcibly at the end of this first 
season’s work at the garden is the everlasting change in appearance, 
showing that one can not pass final judgment on any single grass or 
fertilizer without careful observation over a long period. Weather 
conditions, disease, and other factors change the appearance of a 
grass from one week to another. One plot in particular which was 
extremely fine throughout the spring was completely wiped out by 
leaf-spot in July.

We have achieved some outstanding results. On the fairway plots 
the watered section was much better than the unwatered section, due 
to an extremely dry summer, except that the unwatered plot of Chew- 
ings’ fescue and German mixed bent did well and stands out as the 
leading fairway mixture. Arsenate of lead injured the seedling turf, 
did not control earthworms, but did eradicate chickweed. Plots 
treated with organic fertilizers seemed to stand up under the summer 
heat better than those treated with inorganic fertilizers. In the se­
lection of grasses for putting greens by those who visited the plots, 
color and texture seemed to be the deciding factors. Few seemed to 
take into consideration susceptibility to disease and other factors.

The work has been of great value to me in the operation of my 
own course and should be increasingly so as time goes on. The old 
adage “seeing is believing” holds good here. I have changed my fer­
tilizer program to some extent because of results brought out on the 
plots. The results on the fairway plots will save time and money in 
the renovation and building up of fairways. The fertilizer plots of 
German mixed bent cut to putting green height certainly keep one 
thinking. I feel that other clubs also have benefited by using the 

December, 1929

225

garden. The growing of the various leading putting green grasses in 
close proximity to each other is very helpful. The most important 
thing of all is the fact that the garden has become a meeting place for 
those who have the care of golf courses. We have also had a few 
gardeners visit the plots. Such an undertaking is useful in direct 
proportion to the interest shown in it, and I feel that our garden has 
been well worth while.

Control of Coco or Nut Grass on Southern Golf Courses
By Roy Kuykendall
Delta Branch, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station

In the South, coco or nut grass is one 
of the worst weeds in golf course turf. 
It is found in all the States bordering 
the coast line from New York to Texas, 
also in southern California. It does not 
seriously infest any of the inland States 
except Arkansas. It is objectionable in 
turf because of its characteristic 
growth, which interferes with the true 
rolling of the ball on a putting green. It 
is also objectionable in sand traps.

The character which makes nut 
grass so very pernicious is its habit of 
tuber production. Each of its tubers 
is capable of producing from 1 to 59 
plants. The tuber normally sends up a 
slender thread, at the top of which a 
new plant is formed. As the plant ma­
tures, it usually enlarges at the base, 
forming a basal tuber, which in turn 
sends out lateral threads or rhizomes. 
Each of these rhizomes may form a new 
plant directly, or it may grow deeper 
into the soil, swelling at intervals, thus 
forming the chain of nuts so character­
istic of the grass. Each of these new 
nuts may germinate and form new 
plants the same season, or it may re­
main dormant until the following sea­
son and then germinate. At the Delta 
branch experiment station, Stoneville, 
Miss., one nut planted in a 2-foot tile 
produced more than 1,100 nuts in a sin­
gle growing season. The tip of the bur­
rowing thread or rhizome is very sharp 
and is capable of piercing potatoes, 
dahlia bulbs, and similar growths. Nuts
have been known to germinate and force their way through ordinary 
tar roofing paper, form a new plant, and continue to grow. At this 
station one nut buried 6 feet deep in the soil germinated, sent a long 
slender thread upward, reached the surface after 18 months, and 
produced a strong, vigorous plant.

A single plant of nut grass which 
developed from a tuber buried 6 feet 
in the soil. The original tuber from 
which the plant developed is seen at 
the base of the stem. About three- 
fourths up the stem a pair of under­
ground rootstocks have developed, 
each hearing a tuber. It required 18 
months for the upward growing 
stem to reach the surface of the soil.

226

Vol. 9, No. 12

On account of the persistence of the plant, it seems impractical 
to eradicate it from putting green turf. While trying to get rid 
of nut grass the desirable turf grasses would also be destroyed. 
It has been said that the only way to get rid of nut grass is to 
die and leave it. The Delta station has been experimenting on its 
eradication since 1926. Every weed poison known has been tried, 
with but few favorable results. There are many sprays, gases, and 
salts which will kill the tops of the plants, but the reserve strength 
in the nuts is sufficient to produce new growth in a very short time. 
As much as an inch of growth may be formed over night. Of the 
many chemicals tried, common table salt, calcium chloride, and 
sodium chlorate have given best results. Any of these three chemicals 
should give favorable results in sand traps. The table salt or the cal­
cium chloride should be applied at the rate of 1^2 to 2 pounds to the 
square foot. Sodium chlorate should be applied in a solution of 2 
pounds to 1 gallon of water, with a pressure sprayer, both the plants 
and the ground being completely saturated with the solution. About 
three applications at intervals of two to three weeks should be suffi­
cient to eliminate most of the nut grass in the sand traps or other 
places where all vegetation may be destroyed. Care should be exer­
cised in handling sodium chlorate, because organic matter or dust 
mixed with the chemical makes it highly inflammable. Clothing, wood, 
or other organic matter when soaked in a solution of sodium chlorate 
may be easily set on fire by friction.

In view of the grave condition presented when nut grass has 
gained a foothold in a putting green a word of caution must be 
sounded to greenkeepers in the nut grass regions to be on guard at 
all times to prevent the introduction of the weed. It is especially 
liable to be introduced in soil used for top-dressing purposes. A 
green free from nut grass may be quickly ruined if top-dressing is 
used which contains viable tubers of the grass.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

All questions sent to the Green Section will be answered in a letter 
to the writer as promptly as possible. The more interesting of these 
questions, with concise answers, will appear in this column. If your ex­
perience leads you to disagree with any answer given in this column, it is 
your privilege and duty to write to the Green Section.

While most of the answers are of general application, please bear in 
mind that each recommendation is intended specifically for the locality 
designated at the end of the question.

Organic fertilizers for fairways.—I have been a reader of the 
Bulletin for several years, but do not recall that you have urged 
strongly the fertilizing of fairways each winter with manure, a prac­
tice which has been observed consistently on many courses. Do you 
recommend a liberal top-dresing of fairways with manure each winter 
or spring? (Illinois.)

Answer.—There are several reasons why we have not strongly 
urged the top-dressing of fairways with manure, while at the same 
time we have not condemned the practice. Manure is yearly becom­

December, 1929

227

ing more difficult to procure in many golf centers. Due to its scarcity 
we think clubs may be well advised to use to the best advantage such 
manure as they may procure; and it may be used to the best advan­
tage in the making of compost. There are other organic fertilizers, 
possessing higher fertilizer content, which may be used more economi­
cally for top-dressing purposes, such as pulverized poultry manure, 
activated sludge (Milorganite), and cottonseed meal. The nitrogen 
content of manure is about 1 per cent, so that 1 ton of manure would 
contain only 20 pounds of this most important fertilizing element; 
while 20 pounds of nitrogen may be obtained in about 300 pounds 
of any of these other three organic fertilizers, which also contain 
phosphorus and potash, as does manure. It is the greater bulk of 
organic material contained in manure which makes it especially 
useful for mixing with soil in that it improves the mechanical texture 
of the soil. If manure is spread directly on established turf, much of 
its organic content is lost, since it can not be expected that such light, 
strawy material will work its way into a heavy, dense soil in this 
manner. Another objection to the use of manure for top-dressing 
purposes is that it frequently contains considerable weed and clover 
seed which, upon germinating, may be detrimental to fairways, 
whereas the other organic fertilizers to which we have referred do 
not contain weed seeds. Fertilizers for top-dressing turf should be 
purchased largely on their nitrogen content, since this is the most 
valuable element for turf fertilization. In this connection attention 
is invited to the Bulletin for June, 1928, which contains a list of 
plant food material contained in the various fertilizers.

It is preferable to fertilize fairways in late summer or early fall, 
since the summer weeds are then beginning to disappear and turf 
grasses are recovering from the heat of summer and are in excellent 
condition to make good use of fertilizers. It is sometimes objection­
able to apply manure to fairways at that time of the year, and there­
fore when manure is applied to fairways it is usually applied in the 
winter just previous to the spring thaws. The manure lying on 
frozen fairways over winter, however, does no good, and it may be 
that a great deal of fertilizing material is lost by being washed from 
the frozen ground.

Compost and commercial fertilizers.—My attention has been 
called to a product called * * * which is advertised to take the 
place of the compost we have been using for top-dressing purposes. 
What advice can you give me on this point? (Michigan.)

Answer.—The product you mention is a good fertilizer. How­
ever, there are many other good complete fertilizers on the market. 
For golf turf maintenance it is especially necessary to provide a rela­
tively large amount of nitrogen in fertilizing material. We there­
fore advise purchasing fertilizers primarily on a nitrogenous basis. 
If a complete fertilizer is required there should be some phosphoric 
acid and potash added. As far as this product’s taking the place of 
compost is concerned, that would be possible if the compost were 
used only for the purpose of providing plant food for the turf, but 
when compost is employed for adding organic material to the top 
soil to keep the soil texture in good mechanical condition and to assist 
in maintaining a true putting surface, like results could not be ob­
tained by any such commercial fertilizer.

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections

must be first overcome.

Samuel Johnson