THE BULLETIN of the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION GREEN SECTION Vol. 11 Washington, D. C., December, 1931 No. 12 Contents Demonstration Turf Garden Results: a Three-Year Summary. By John Monteith, Jr., and Kenneth Welton........................................................................... 230 Questions and Answers.................................................................................................... 246 Page EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ganson Depew, Chairman, Marine Trust Bldg., H. Kendall Read, Vice-Chairman, Philadel­ Buffalo, N. Y. phia, Pa. Robert F. Arnott, Upper Montclair, N. J. Robert M. Cutting, Chicago, Ill. Walter S. Harban, Washington, D. C. K. F. Kellerman, Washington, D. C. Cornelius S. Lee, New York, N. Y. John Monteith, Jr., Washington, D. C. Wynant D. Vanderpool, Newark, N. J. Harvey L. Westover, Washington, D. C. RESEARCH COMMITTEE United States Department of Agriculture K. F. Kellerman, Chairman: Associate Chief. Bureau of Plant Industry. F. H. Hillman. Botanist, Seed Investigations. A. J. Pieters, Principal Agronomist in Charge, Forage Crops and Diseases. Oswald Schreiner, Principal Biochemist in Charge, Soil Fertility. W. R. Walton, Senior Entomologist, Cereal and Forage Insects. Harvey L. Westover, Senior Agronomist, Forage Crops and Diseases. United States Golf Association Green Section John Monteith, Jr. Kenneth Welton ADVISORY COMMITTEE Douglas Call, Richmond, Va. N. S. Campbell, Providence, R. I. William C. Fownes, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. A. J. Goetz, Webster Groves, Mo. William Harig, Cincinnati, Ohio. J. McRae Hartgering, Detroit, Mich. Frederic C. Hood, Marion, Mass. Norman Macbeth, Los Angeles, Calif. John Morley, Youngstown, Ohio. Guy M. Peters, Chicago, Ill. Alex Pirie, Fort Sheridan, Ill. William J. Rockefeller, Toledo, Ohio. George V. Rotan, Houston, Tex. George Sargent, Columbus, Ohio. John Shanahan, West Newton, Mass. Sherrill Sherman, Utica, N. Y. Frederick Snare, Havana, Cuba. Charles E. Van Nest, Minneapolis, Minn. Alan D. Wilson, Philadelphia, Pa. M. H. Wilson, Jr„ Cleveland, Ohio. The Bulletin is published monthly by the United States Golf Association Green Section, at Room 7207, Building F, Constitution Ave. and 7th St., Washington, D. C. Address all MAIL to P. O. Box 313, Pennsylvania Avenue Station, Washington, D. C. Send TELEGRAMS to Room 7207, Building F, Constitution Ave. and 7th St. N. W., Wash­ ington, 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. 1931. by the United States Golf Association Green Section. 230 Vol. 11, No. 12 Demonstration Turf Garden Results: A Three-Year Summary By John Monteith, Jr., and Kenneth Welton During the past three years the Green Section has established a number of demonstration turf gardens in different sections of the country in cooperation with local golf organizations. These gardens are to provide stations for testing various grasses, fertilizers, and cultural methods used on golf courses under a large number of soil and climatic conditions. They also serve as outposts for Green Sec­ tion work for presenting actual exhibits of the elementary principles of scientific turf culture at which those who are interested in golf course maintenance may observe them in their immediate localities. The first gardens were planted in 1928. Additional gardens were planted in 1929 and 1930. Unfortunately some of the gardens had to be abandoned due to lack of adequate care, for financial or other rea­ sons. The purpose and locations of the original demonstration gar­ dens were set forth in the Bulletin for December, 1928. Summaries of the first two seasons’ observations were presented in the Bulletin for December, 1929, and June, 1931. The reader is referred to these two numbers of the Bulletin for the details of the summaries. Some of the explanatory matter, more necessary for an understanding of the present summary, will, however, be found presented again in the following pages. The demonstration gardens are divided into series of plots 10 feet square, as shown in the accompanying plan of the gardens. The plots are divided into groups for making certain tests, thus the group in rows 2 and 3 is for a test of different grasses maintained as putting green turf, whereas the group in rows 4, 5, and 6 is for tests of fer­ tilizers for turf used on putting greens. Seed, stolons, and fertilizers for the gardens are furnished by the Green Section. Certain stand­ ard directions for the general care of the gardens are given to those who are charged with their maintenance, but details of maintenance are left to the individual greenkeepers. In general the instructions are to maintain the turf in rows 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 as turf for a similar purpose would be maintained on the golf courses where the gardens are located. The plots in the fertilizer series do not receive the dress­ ings of compost that are commonly used on golf courses. This is be­ cause compost contains elements of plant food to supply which fer­ tilizers are ordinarily applied to turf, and applications of compost would accordingly complicate the results to be obtained from the fer­ tilizer tests. Fertilizers are applied at regular intervals according to directions. In addition to the differences due to soil and climate there are differences in the care of the several gardens due to variations in the individual maintenance methods practiced on the courses where they are located. As a result of this variation the plots that have the highest ratings in the accompanying tables indicate the ability of the particular grass or treatment to produce good turf under a great variety of soil, climatic, and cultural conditions. The gardens continued to prove a source of interest to green­ keepers and members of green committees in their neighborhoods. Several meetings were held at a number of these gardens during the season at which the various tests were explained in detail to the vis­ itors. In addition to the visitors at the time of these regular meet­ ings, a large number of persons, singly or in small groups, have gone December, 1931 231 PLAN OF DEMONSTRATION TURF GARDENS ABODE 1 d e 2 R e u c s e f i s g n w e h C e u c s e f ­ 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 , l a i n o l o C d n a l a e Z . N Colonial bent, ILL Velvet bent seed Annual bluegrass a i n i g r i V a i b m u l o C 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 Activated sludge Poultry manure tankage Check Sulphate of ammonia Compost and sulphate of ammonia Check Nitrate of soda Urea Ammonium phosphate 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 * 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 /■Optional. Trial >plots of putting green grasses. Fertilizer experiments on putting /-green grass (seeded German mixed bent). Putting fgreen length. „ > Cutting r experi­ ments. > Fairway length. _ Ky. blue redtop and Chewings fescue Ky. blue and redtop Ky. blue, redtop and Ger. mixed bent Colonial bent Chewings fescue and Ger. mixed bent Trial plots of ffairway grasses. Bone meal Lime Check Sulphate of ammonia Activated sludge Check Manure Complete fertilizer 6-12-4 Complete fertilizer 12-6-4 Check Lime and mixed fertilizer 6-0-4 Lime and mixed fertilizer 6-12-0 Check Mixed fertilizer 6-0-4 Mixed fertilizer 6-12-0 Fertilizer experiments on pairway grasses (Kentucky blue­ grass and redtop mixture). ♦ Soil in plots 7A and SA poisoned with arsenate of lead before seeding. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 232 Vol. 11, No. 12 over the gardens with the greenkeepers or others familiar with the plans. The clubs on whose grounds the gardens are located have willingly made the gardens accessible to visitors at all times. 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 T. T. Taylor Charles River Country Club....................................................................................... Boston F. H. Wilson, Jr., and G. J. Rommell, Jr. Country Club of Virginia.......................................................................................Richmond Douglas Call and Dominic Larusso Detroit Golf Club............................................................................................................. Detroit Alex McPherson and M. Milenow Hyde Park Golf and Country Club......................................................................Cincinnati William Harig Indian Trails Golf Course................................................................................ Grand Rapids Floyd Metcalf, Carl Fiedler, and Robert Cullin Lochmoor Club................................................................................................................ Detroit W. F. Beaupre Meadowbrook Country Club........................................................................................Detroit Thomas Slessor Niagara Falls Municipal Golf Course.......................................................Niagara Falls Frank Bulges and Albert Bulges Oakmont Country Club............................................................................................ Pittsburgh Emil Loeffler and Lois Miller Philadelphia Country Club.................................................................................Philadelphia M. E. Farnham, Benjamin Webber, and H. A. Murphy Upper Montclair Country Club......................................................Metropolitan District George Robertson and T. T. Taylor Wheatley Hills Golf Club.................................................................Metropolitan District Frank Krause and T. T. Taylor Monthly reports on the condition of turf on the various plots are made out in duplicate, one copy being sent to the Green Section office in Washington and the other retained for home reference. These reports are made out from May to October. In most cases the notes have been made by two persons in order to give the results the ad­ vantage of combined opinions, thereby reducing the likelihood of overlooking some points of interest. During the season of 1931 con­ tinuous reports were made from 14 northern gardens. Where reports were made for only part of the season or where there was evidence of carelessness or indifference in their preparation, reports from these gardens have not been included in the summary given in this num­ ber of the Bulletin. Occasionally the report was omitted for one month due to some unusual rush of work which prevented its prep­ aration or due to the fact that no change had occurred in the previous ratings of the plots. In order that the summary might not lack the benefit of these otherwise complete and well-prepared reports, they have been included. Where, however, reports from a garden are missing for two consecutive months the reports in their entirety have been disregarded in the preparation of this summary. Anyone who has taken careful notes regularly on a series of tests such as these will appreciate the fact that it is a tedious and somewhat monotonous task. The names of those who have cooperated to the extent of per­ forming this task conscientiously throughout the season of 1931 are given in the foregoing list of the demonstration turf gardens cooper­ ating with the Green Section. Readers should bear in mind that with­ December, 1931 233 out the help of these cooperators no such interesting summary as is given in this number of the Bulletin could be possible. In addition to the above 14 gardens, similar reports were obtained from three demonstration gardens located within the Bermuda grass region. Since these gardens are located south of the region in which northern grasses are generally used on golf courses the observations are not included in the tables of this Bulletin. These gardens are as follows: Bay Shore Golf Course.......................................... Miami Beach Fred Hoerger Sedgefield Country Club.............................. Greensboro T. H. Antrim Tulsa Country Club...........................................................................................................Tulsa J. C. Painter Summer meeting at the demonstration garden on the course of the Charles River Country Club, Boston, Mass. Some of the preliminary results obtained during the first winter at Miami Beach, Fla., were given in the Bulletin for October, 1931. The reports from the two gardens at Greensboro, N. C., and Tulsa, Okla., will be referred to separately since they are in districts where there are turf problems in many ways distinct from those that exist where the other turf gardens are located. In order to simplify the taking of notes it was decided to stand­ ardize 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 determin­ ing 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 234 Vol. 11. No. 12 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 mak­ ing the report in the latter case were probably more critical and ex­ acting than those making the report from the club where the grass was given a rating of good. However, the person who was more ex­ acting and held higher standards would naturally scale down all the ratings in the same degree. Since the purpose of the reports 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 fair­ ness were equally valuable. It will be noted in the foregoing list that in the majority of cases the notes were made by two persons, 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 con­ venience 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 as good and Virginia as fair; in report No. 3, Metropolitan is rated as fair and Virginia as poor. This might be interpreted as meaning that in garden No. 1 the Metropolitan was much superior to the Metropolitan in either of the two other 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 report No. 3 used a much higher standard of excellence than those who made out No. 1. Such comparisons between differ­ ent 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 differences in soil and climate. 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. 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 makes the accompanying tables more interesting than would have been the case had the tendency been the other way, with ratings uni­ versally higher. The reports on fertilizers and grasses are condensed to tables, while the points of greatest interest are emphasized in the text. The reports cover a period of six months, May to October, inclusive. In the summaries for 1929 and 1930 the reports were arranged in three periods of two months each, representing early summer, mid­ summer, and late summer or early fall. For 1931 it has been decided to change the method of preparing the tables. For several reasons it seemed desirable to change to a numerical system, which, when re­ duced to percentages, could be more readily summarized and thus represent more accurately the ratings as given. It was therefore de­ cided to give a rating of excellent the value of 4, good the value of 3, fair the value of 2, and poor the value of 1. By the old method of December, 1931 235 rating, a plot which during the 6 months received 6 ratings of excel­ lent would be classed as equal with another receiving 6 ratings of good. By the new method the first would receive a rating of 24 and the latter a rating of 18. Although this different method might be expected to bring about decided changes in some of the ratings, an actual comparison of the ratings with the two methods has shown that the relative positions of the different plots are the same except in oc­ casional places where the differences between plots were extremely small by either method of rating. Therefore the tables prepared by this new method of rating can be compared directly with the previ­ ously-published summaries for 1929 and 1930. The change of system was made primarily as a means for simplifying the consolidation of reports and preparation of tables. The ratings reported during 1929 and 1930 have been converted into percentages and these percentages have been used in preparing the accompanying graphs showing the relative ratings in the four fertilizer and grass series for the three years 1929, 1930, and 1931. For 1929 the graphs represent ratings on 12 gardens in their first year; for 1930 they represent ratings on 13 gardens in their second year and 1 garden in its first year; and for 1931 they represent ratings on 11 gardens in their third year, 1 in its second year, and 2 in their first year. The summaries of the demonstration gardens which have been published to date in the Bulletin represent the composite results ob­ tained on several different types of soil under different climatic condi­ tions. The relative order of ratings of the different plots varies to some extent on different gardens. These local variations will be left for discussion in the Bulletin at a later date when further data are available. The gardens contained other tests besides the tests of grasses and fertilizers. In a general way the reports on these other tests were similar in 1931 to previous reports. Information on these mav be found in the summary for the season of 1929, appearing in the Bulle­ tin for December of that year. Many of the reports for 1931 con­ tained interesting information concerning these other tests. A sum­ mary of these reports will, however, be left for a later number of the Bulletin, when the results over a number of years can be brought to­ gether, thereby giving more convincing figures than are available for a discussion of reports of a single season. Putting Green Fertilizer Ratings The putting green fertilizer tests were made on German mixed bent turf, with the exception of the garden on the course of the Coun­ try Club of Virginia, where Metropolitan creeping bent was used. There are 15 plots in the series, 11 receiving different fertilizers and 4 being check plots receiving no fertilizer. The check plots are so arranged that every fertilized 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 of 100 square feet. This is at the rate of 1 pound of nitrogen to 1,000 square feet, which is the amount carried in 5 pounds of sul­ phate of ammonia, in 16 2/3 pounds of the complete fertilizer with 236 Vol. 11, No. 12 an analysis of 6-12-4, or in 33 1/3 pounds of bone meal analyzing 3 per cent of 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 1/2 pound of nitrogen. Knowledge of the relative effects of differ­ ent fertilizers, when compared on the nitrogen basis, enables anyone to determine by simple arithmetic the values of fertilizers according to his local conditions. The complete mixed fertilizers used in the tests contain sulphate of ammonia, ammonium phosphate, 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 fertilizers applied to these two plots is therefore merely a difference in proportions of phos­ phoric acid 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 concentrated mix­ tures to save freight charges on inert materials. Putting Green Fertilizer Ratings, on German Mixed Bent Turf, from 14 Demonstration Gardens During 1931 (The order given is from highest to loivest rating for the year) May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total 6-12-4 ......................................... 12-6-4 ......................................... Sulphate of ammonia............. Ammonium phosphate........... Sulphate of ammonia and compost ................................ Activated sludge...................... Urea ........................................... Poultry manure........................ Lime and sulphate of am- monia ..................................... Nitrate of soda........................ Bone meal................................... Check 4-C (no fertilizer) . . . Check 5-A (no fertilizer) . .. Check 5-E (no fertilizer) . . . Check 6-C (no fertilizer) . .. 50 50 46 45 43 35 37 35 37 36 33 22 23 19 20 46 46 47 42 42 37 39 37 38 38 30 21 20 19 21 43 44 45 41 40 42 36 37 39 38 32 26 22 24 24 44 41 38 38 34 40 32 38 33 32 34 22 25 22 22 45 43 40 40 39 42 40 36 37 37 33 26 25 22 21 49 49 49 44 46 45 40 40 37 39 30 26 28 27 21 277 273 265 250 244 241 224 223 221 220 192 143 143 133 129 Per­ cent­ age 82 81 79 74 73 72 67 66 66 65 57 43 43 40 38 In the accompanying four tables of putting green fertilizer ratings, fairway fertilizer ratings, putting green grass ratings, and fairway grass ratings for the season of 1931 will be found the aggre­ gate rating for each of the six months May, June, July, August, Sep­ tember, and October for the 14 gardens, also the total for the six months and also the percentage which the total represents. As pre­ December, 1931 237 viously stated, the ratings have been determined by assigning a value of 4 to a rating reported from a garden as excellent, 3 to a rating re­ ported as good, 2 to a rating reported as fair, and 1 to a rating re­ ported as poor. A maximum rating for any one month would there­ fore be 56, representing an excellent report from all 14 gardens, and a total maximum rating for the six months (on which the percentages in the column on the extreme right in each table are based) would accordingly be 336. The four inorganic fertilizers which head the list in the table this year were in the lead in the reports for both previous years. It is interesting to note that the two complete mixed fertilizers have received the highest ratings in each of the three years in which these demonstration gardens have been conducted. As in 1930, there is a slight difference in favor of the 6-12-4 mixture. The sulphate of ammonia plot for putting green turf has been only a trifle poorer than the best of the complete fertilizers in each of the three years, which indicates that on most of the soils where these gardens are located the use of phosphoric acid and potash results in only a small improvement over the fertilizer containing only nitrogen. The ammonium phosphate again compared favorably with sul­ phate of ammonia, as it did in the two previous reports. The plot receiving sulphate of ammonia and compost rated in fifth place as compared with seventh in 1930 and eighth in 1929. This plot receives half of its nitrogen from sulphate of ammonia, the other half is furnished by the compost. Activated sludge this year heads the list of the organic fertilizers, attaining the highest relative position it has held in the three years. Urea and poultry manure received the same number of points this year—at the middle position in the list. The plot receiving both lime and sulphate of ammonia is in ninth place on the list, which is the same position it held in 1929. Some of the unfavorable reports of 1929 were due to burning as the result of the heavy application of lime and sulphate of ammonia early in the season. On this plot in 1930 and 1931 only enough lime was applied to neutralize the acid residue of the sulphate of ammonia used on the plot. A comparison of this plot with the plot receiving sulphate of ammonia alone indicates that there is no deficiency of lime in most of the soils where these gardens are located and that it would be better not to use lime under these conditions at least for the first year. Nitrate of soda and bone meal rated tenth and eleventh—the same relative positions they held in both previous seasons. The four check plots, which received no fertilizers, were given low ratings throughout the season, which indicates that the soil on which these gardens are planted is generally poor and in need of fer­ tilizers. The difference of only 5 per cent between the ratings of the four check plots indicates that the soil throughout the series is fairly uniform and that the ratings of the different fertilizers can be de­ pended upon regardless of the location of the plot. The putting green fertilizer ratings for the two years 1929 and 1930 have also been converted into percentages. In the graph on page 239 will be found a comparison of the percentage ratings for the three years 1929, 1930, and 1931. It is a consolidation of reports of the third season in the case of 11 gardens, the first season in the case of two gardens, and the second season in one case. The fertili­ 238 Vol. 11, No. 12 zers are arranged in the graph from left to right in the order of high­ est average ratings for the three years. The best fertilizer plots, as will be noticed, received average ratings approximately twice as high as the average ratings of the check plots. There are several instances in which some interesting differences appear in individual plots in the 3 years. Differences are shown in the poultry manure, urea, and bone meal plots, where there is a grad­ ual stepping down of the ratings over the three-year period. The complete fertilizer 6-12-4 has the highest rating for the three years. The first and third year are the same. Plots receiving sulphate of ammonia and compost are the only ones of the fertilizer plots which received a higher rating in 1931 than in either of the two preceding years. Such seasonal variations may be of much practical value if they continue to develop in this manner over a period of several years. The tendency toward deterioration of putting green turf fer­ tilized exclusively with bone meal has been observed to occur in other fertilizer series maintained over a period of several years. It will be interesting to learn whether this deterioration in bone meal plots will continue on these several soils, as has been observed in other experimental work. Before arriving at any definite conclusion as to results over a short period, as is represented in these tests, one should carefully study the variation in the plots which received no fertilizer. In these plots it is evident that there are decided seasonal variations. In one plot the rating was the same over the three-year period. In each of the 3 other plots the 1930 rating was lower than the 1929 rating. In two instances the 1931 rating was lower than the 1929 rating, but in another plot the 1931 rating exceeded the 1929. In spite of these variations the reports represented in this chart are of much signifi­ cance. The comparison, for instance, of the behavior of nitrate of soda and bone meal with the two complete fertilizers indicates the need of discrimination in the selection of fertilizers for putting green purposes. The important test of a fertilizer is its ability to produce results over a period of years, and the standings shown in the graph must therefore not be regarded as final in any sense. The rearrangement of the order of standing for the season of 1931 as compared with the two preceding seasons brings out the variations in results obtained from the use of fertilizers in three consecutive seasons. The rainfall and general climatic conditions prevailing where these gardens are located are quite different in the three seasons, and such variations are known to have an important effect on the results obtained from various types of fertilizers. In spite of these variations there have already been results in this fertilizer series of much significance. A comparison of the two complete mixed fertilizers with such fertilizers as nitrate of soda and bone meal in the three seasons should furnish those in charge of golf courses with useful information in connection with the purchase of fertilizers for their putting greens. In recent years there has been much adverse criticism of experi­ mental turf work on the grounds that results obtained in one section do not necessarily apply under an entirely different state of soil and climatic conditions. For the first time these reports of the demon­ stration gardens, however, represent a consolidation of reports from gardens with entirely different soil and climatic conditions. The fairly December, 1931 239 777^7 77 ? ? ^Z/Z’ZZ'ZTS ZTWZZ^Z^S wW Q/^/V/VGW/S? Z?MVCW/y//7 ^z.66c>g^: ^c/zz^/v^r^: ', <2Zy?/7/YZW/Zl 7 zyA/Pczwz’afT^ ZO^ZZZ y szz/yyzG’z: 7^A//C^&£7 z//mrz?/w> ^i/z.tv/s'fzz: ^Z/VWA'/A' /v/zyezrrf: C/ZZCK 67ZECZT 6-C «w) C<9LO/VZ'4£ &G/V7~ {jrttZTS/wj COZOZZ/sZZ. £?Z£/V7~ wz>) (£7-