THE BULLETIN

of the

UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION GREEN SECTION

Vol. 12 

Washington, D. C., February, 1932 

No. 2

Conten ts

Page
The Delicate Question of Watering Turf.............................................................    22
Why Keep Putting Greens Soft? By Robert T. Jones, Jr.................................. 25
The Soggy Putting Green. By Alex Pirie............................................................  27
Structural Requisites of Putting Green Soil. By Kenneth Welton..................  29
When Is a Bent Grass a Creeping Bent?................................................................ 37

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. Les, 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.

Thb 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, 1925. at the post office at Washington, D. C., under 
the Act of March 3, 1879. Copyrighted, 1932, by the United States Golf Association Green Section.

22

Vol. 12, No. 2

The Delicate Question of Watering Turf

One of the most useful and perhaps most abused improvements 
on golf courses is the modern watering system. The judicious use 
of adequate water has made it possible to maintain turf in a luxuriant 
condition throughout most of the playing season whereas if depend­
ent entirely on natural rainfall the turf on many golf courses would 
be dried out during much of the season. On the other hand one fre­
quently finds at the height of the growing season large areas of dead 
or badly-weakened turf which can be traced directly or indirectly to 
the use of too much water, which in many cases has been applied by 
artificial means. In many cases the loss of turf is attributed to dis­
ease, when in reality the disease had probably only a secondary effect 
and developed to serious proportions only after the grass had been 
greatly weakened by excessive watering.

The chief reason for watering turf artificially should be to provide 
sufficient water for the growth of grass during periods when Nature’s 
supply is inadequate. Unfortunately watering systems are not limited 
to this main purpose of encouraging turf development. In many cases 
water is used to the disadvantage of grass in an endeavor, by ill-in­
formed greenkeepers and club officials, to use large quantities of 
water to maintain putting greens soft enough to hold pitch shots. It 
is argued that golfers generally prefer soft putting greens and that 
it is impossible to keep the surfaces soft enough to satisfv the ma­
jority of club members unless the putting greens are constantlv 
watered. Players contend that the chief purpose of a putting green 
is to provide the desired playing conditions, that the attainment of 
that end should receive first consideration from the course mainten­
ance force, and that the growth of grass should be considered dis­
tinctly secondary. Players frequently are not aware that the same 
desirable playing conditions may be obtained by different methods. 
Any method which gives immediate improvement to playing condi­
tions but at the same time endangers turf must ultimately result in 
a poor playing condition, for the best enjoyment of the game on most 
golf courses is dependent on a satisfactory covering of turf.

The modern tendency on American golf courses to place great em­
phasis on the pitch shot has created a demand from golfers generally 
for putting greens which can be depended upon at all times to hold 
pitch shots. Too frequently this demand for holding shots has devel­
oped to such extremes that it is apparently desired that conditions be 
such that the poorly-played shot be held as securely as the well-played 
shot. Such a viewpoint naturally raises the question as to what is the 
purpose of golf—whether the emphasis should be placed on skill or 
whethei thei e shbuld be a certain amount of standardization and sim­
plification of the game to reduce the number of shots and make all 
shots easier to play effectively. Golfers in general will no doubt agree 
that if the elements of skill and variety are removed from the game 
it undoubtedly will lose much of its charm. Yet players constantly 
aie making demands of theii green committees and greenkeepers 
which, if followed out, would rob the game of a great deal of its va­
riety and demand for skill. Elsewhere in this number of the Bulletin 
two well-known players give their opinions as to the danger of robbing 
the game of much of its interest by over-emphasizing the pitch shol 

February, 1932

23

and providing conditions such that less skill is desired in playing this 
important shot. These writers point out the disadvantage of soggy 
putting greens from the standpoint of playing the game. There have 
been repeated warnings in the Bulletin against soggy soil in putting 
greens from the standpoint of maintaining healthy turf.

Unless the soil on the putting green is suitable, it is difficult to 
properly maintain the best playing conditions. If the topsoil of the 
putting green is largely clay it will be puddled by the trampling of 
players and by the machinery and laborers that work on the turf. 
Puddled clay becomes bricklike when dry, and even the best shots 
will not hold properly on a putting green with such a surface. When 
a clay putting green is wet, a pitched ball digs deep into it and leaves 
bad pockets which serve as a constant menace to putting. Putting

Damaged turf on a putting green caused by excessive watering in an effort to 
hold a pitch shot under all conditions. The injury first became apparent on the 
lower areas of the green

greens built of this type of soil are apt to be extremely fast when 
they are dry and especially slow and soggy when they are wet. On 
the other hand, putting greens which have a sufficiently thick top 
layer of good sandy loam do not present the extreme putting condi­
tions that are presented on clay putting greens. Putting greens with 
a topsoil of sandy loam will hold a ball well even when relatively dry. 
These same greens will not be as badly scarred with pitch shots during 
rainy periods or when excessively watered. A good sandy loam with 
an ample supply of organic material therefore presents a much more 
desirable surface from the playing standpoint than is provided by a 
soil with too much clay.

A sandy loam well supplied with organic material is usually a 
much more desirable soil for grass to grow in than is a heavy clay soil, 
particularly if the latter is puddled and can not be cultivated. Ex­
cessive moisture drains out of a sandy soil much more rapidly than it 
does from a clay soil and, unlike a clay soil, a sandy loam is not easily 
puddled and consequently does not produce a hard crust when the sur­

24

Vol. 12, No. 2

face dries out. A sandy loam soil, therefore, is the type of soil which 
is generally preferred for the surfaces of putting greens both from 
the standpoint of play and from the standpoint of grass growth.

In Mr. Welton’s article in this number of the Bulletin there is a 
discussion of soil structure, which contains information such as should 
enable greenkeepers and members of green committees to choose their 
soils more wisely. If a desirable natural soil can not be obtained 
readily, a suitable mixture can be easily prepared if one takes the 
pains to determine the amounts of the various ingredients needed for 
the preparation of a good sandy loam soil, using any available soil 
as a base for the mixture. If more attention were paid to the selec­
tion or preparation of soils used in constructing or top-dressing putt­
ing greens it is likely that watering costs would be minimized and 
much less damage to turf would result.

Where soil conditions are unfavorable it is especially important 
that putting greens be watered carefully. By some simple tests such 
as are described in this number of the Bulletin it is possible for the 
greenkeeper to determine which putting greens contain soil in a poor 
physical condition. Such putting greens should be watered with es­
pecial care in order to avoid saturation. On many courses putting 
greens are watered on a definite schedule with the same definite period 
allotted for watering each putting green. Such a practice can not be 
regarded as a sign of good judgment, for the different putting greens 
usually have differences in the size of the watered area, in the pres­
sure of water at the outlets, in the height of the water table, and in 
losses of evaporation due to different exposures to air currents and 
direct sunlight, and many other differences, in addition to the impor­
tant variation in soils used on the several putting greens. If it is 
determined that a certain putting green contains soil in a poor physi­
cal condition, the men who water that putting green should be in­
structed to use no more water than is required to keep it in the best 
condition and to apply the water slowly enough to enable the soil to 
absorb it readily.

When it has been determined that the physical condition of top- 
soil in a putting green is unsuitable for providing a playing surface 
or a medium for grass growth, some intelligent effort should be made 
to improve this condition of soil rather than to resort to other means, 
such as excessive watering. In some cases it is practical to remove 
the turf, change the entire surface layer of soil, and replant. In 
many instances such drastic methods are considered impractical even 
though they are obviously the best means for improving existing con­
ditions. When there can be no removal of sod to make way for soil 
improvement there is still the possibility of improving the top layer 
by adding properly-prepared top-dressing. The common practice of 
jumping from one extreme to the other in the selection of materials 
for top-dressing putting greens should be condemned, for it results in 
the formation of distinct layers, which are undesirable. It would be 
better to build up a uniformly-good topsoil by using regularly a tested 
mixture which is prepared by using properly the fundamental prin­
ciples of soil physics, such as are brought out in Mr. Welton’s article.
In many instances the demand from golfers for soft greens is en­
couraged by poor approaches. If a hole is designed primarily for a 
run-up shot the hole should be maintained with that object in mind. 
Frequently approaches are so badly neglected that they become actual 

February, 1932

25

hazards, and due to the irregularities of their surfaces a player can 
not possibly predict where his ball will roll even if it is accurately 
played for a run-up shot. In such cases a player is forced to use the 
pitch shot. Much of the emphasis on the pitch shot in this country 
may possibly be due to the tendency in greenkeeping to strive for 
perfect putting greens even at the expense of neglecting the ap­
proaches. If more- attention were paid to the improvement of soil 
conditions and turf on the approaches, with a view to providing the 
desired accuracy in the bounce and run of a well-placed shot on the 
approach, it is probable that more golfers would use this method of 
approaching and there would be fewer demands for soggy putting 
greens that will stop quickly any kind of shot from almost any 
distance.

Why Keep Putting Greens Soft?
By Robert T. Jones, Jr.
Atlanta Athletic Club

It is claimed by those in close touch with greenkeeping practices 
that much of the difficulty in maintaining putting greens is due to the 
excessive use of water and that greenkeepers and green committees 
point out that they water heavily in self-defense because golfers want 
soft greens. I have been asked to say how I regard the practice of 
keeping putting surfaces soft, even soggy, looking at the question 
purely from the player’s standpoint.

There can be little question that the great mass of golfers in the 
United States prefer their greens very soft. Such a condition makes 
the play much easier for all classes of players and is, in a great meas­
ure, responsible for the fact that tournament scoring is uniformly 
lower in the United States than on seaside links in the British Isles. 
The difference is attributable more to the excessive use of water on 
putting greens in the United States than to the much-talked-of sea­
side gales in the British Isles, which, after all, do not blow constantly.
Of our two great American preferences—the one for placing the 
green-bunkering very close to the putting surfaces, and the other for 
soggy greens which will hold any kind of a pitch, whether struck with 
backspin or not—I can not say which induced the other or which came 
first. The close guarding, in many instances, makes a soft green nec­
essary if the hole is to be playable, and the easy pitching, on the other 
hand, makes it necessary to decrease the size of the target in order to 
supply any test.

I quarrel with both ends of this proposition, whichever is to blame. 
These together are the two reasons, I think, why our golf courses in 
the main lack the subtlety of British links, and why our golf does not 
demand the strategy or the intelligent planning which it should. In 
my opinion, a properly-designed hole should impose a test upon each 
shot which the player has to make. There should always be a definite 
advantage to be gained from an accurate and intelligent placing of 
the tee shot, or a reward offered for a long, well-directed carry over 
some obstacle. This advantage or reward can be only in the shape of 
an easier and more open road for the second shot, and when we soak 
the green with water we absolutely nullify the advantage which the 
design of the hole has held out.

26

Vol. 12, No. 2

I do not believe in forcing a run-up shot in preference to a pitch 
in every case. But, when one goes to the trouble of placing a bunker 
across the left side of the green in order to force the tee shot toward 
the right side of the fairway, why destroy its effect by soaking the 
green so that any sort of pitch over the bunker will hold ? Our expert 
players are in the habit of playing long iron, spoon, and brassie shots 
bang up to the hole. As long as they can do this no architect can ex­
pect them to worry much about placing the tee shots.

The strategy of this 360-yard hole calls for a drive to the right of the fairway. 
A shot to the left of the fairway requires a difficult pitch-shot approach over the 
large sand trap. If such a green is kept soggy the purpose which its designer 
had in mind is largely defeated and the hole loses much of its interest

It seems to me that the ideal green would be sufficiently soft to 
hold only a properly-placed pitch—and by “hold” I do not mean “to 
stay within a very few feet.” To carry out the intention of the de­
signer, conditions ought to be such that a definite penalty should be 
sustained by the player who has played himself out of position.

In this connection, I think one of our greatest needs is a fairway 
grass or treatment which will make the ground in front of our putting 
greens more reliable. If the greens themselves are maintained in a 
firmer condition, the need must arise on occasions to drop the ball 
short of the putting surface, allowing it to roll the remaining dis­
tance. I know very few courses where this is possible without great 
uncertainty.

A golden-leaved maple, a bronze-leaved maple, or a white, gray, 
or copper birch planted here and there in a woodland border, are 
exceedingly beautiful.

Plant at least a few trees on your course each year. Like every­
thing else, trees get old, sickly, and die, and it is well to replace them 
before extensive damage is done.

February, 1932

27

The Soggy Putting Green
By Alex Pirie
Old Elm Club, Fort Sheridan, Ill.

The watering of putting greens is a problem which demands the 
most careful consideration. The questions involved are many and 
varied. Of major importance in studying the problem for a particu­
lar putting green are the following considerations: What kind of a 
golf shot does the green call for? What is the condition of its sur­
face? Is it hard or just dry? Is it soft, soggy, or firmly wet? At 
what height is the grass cut? What, if any, outstanding features of 
design does it possess which are likely to affect the action of the ball 
after it has landed on the surface?

These questions enter prominently into the problem of watering 
a putting green and should be given careful thought if a condition 
is to be obtained that is fair to the players and favorable to the turf. 
Personally, I believe that under no circumstances a soft, soggy, or 
spongy putting green is advisable from either the player’s or the 
greenkeeper’s viewpoint. Such a green does not develop finesse, skill, 
courage, or strategy on the part of the player, but is merely some­
thing into which the ball can be played, almost heedlessly.

None but a pitch shot could be played to this small putting green on a 332-yard 
hole. With proper soil and structural conditions the turf on this type of green 
can be maintained so as to hold a pitch shot without excessive watering

Let us assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the shot 
to be played calls for a high-pitched ball with backspin from a maxi­
mum distance of 140 yards to a small putting green surrounded by 
hazards. Is it sound golf or good greenkeeping to keep such a green 
in a more or less waterlogged condition onto which the player can 
“shovel” his ball with little regard for the finer points of the game, 
a condition which, moreover, is almost invariably a constant source 
of worry to the greenkeeper? In my opinion it is not, because, in 
the first place, it is uncomplimentary to the player. It also is the 
cause of much annoyance to a player to find his ball in one of the 

28

Vol. 12, No. 2

innumerable indentations caused by the green’s being too soft and 
it is frequently impossible to hole a putt no matter how short the 
distance when a series of indentations occur between the ball and 
the hole.

Considering the effect of over-watering purely from the green­
keeper’s viewpoint, I believe that many of the turf diseases and other 
difficulties encountered in producing satisfactory putting turf are to 
be attributed directly or indirectly to this practice. It is highly 
conducive to an almost constant “stewing” process during the hot 
days of summer, which is harmful in that it checks the development 
of a deep root system and leaves little or no vitality in the grass plants 
for resistance to disease.

What, then, is the remedy for an unhealthy, waterlogged putting 
green? The player is certainly entitled to expect that if he plays 
his shot with a fair degree of skill he will receive an equally fair 
response from the green when his ball lands and that his ball will 
stay within a reasonable distance from where it hit provided his 
judgment and execution were sound. On the basis of my thirty 
years of observation and practice may I suggest that when a putting 
green does not properly hold well-played shots some attention be 
directed to improving drainage, soil texture, and other essentials. If 
these improvements fail to give complete satisfaction I would sug­
gest, for the particular type of green under discussion, that instead 
of using excessive water to provide “bite” for the ball the grass be 
cut from % to 3/16 of an inch higher than the average height of 
turf on other greens requiring entirely different shots in approach­
ing them. These putting greens should be watered only when it is 
necessary to keep the grass in a healthy condition.

There is no good reason why the turf on each putting green 
should be cut to the same close, uniform height. Such a practice 
does little to develop the finer points of judgment in play. Allowing 
the grass to grow a little longer or. a green will not detract from 
fine putting and will provide plenty of “bite” for a well-played shot. 
It will also, to a great extent, tend to reduce the unfair indentations 
left by balls, to which I have previously called attention.

Not all insects are to be condemned.—When kept under proper 
control many insects are of decided help from an agricultural view­
point. Australia is actually importing plant bugs, caterpillars, scale 
insects, and beetles to feed on the prickly pear cactus, which has 
spread so rapidly there as to become a costly weed. In spite of vari­
ous control methods practiced in Australia, this cactus has increased 
its range of devastation at the rate of 1,000,000 acres a year. Ac­
cording to recent reports, however, the use of insects as a control 
measure has been of sufficient success to predict complete control of 
the prickly pear cactus within 10 years. In Hawaii, also, a number of 
different kinds of insects have been introduced from Mexico, by the 
Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association, to feed on and destroy the 
lantana plant, and reports indicate that this method of controlling 
the weed has proved successful. Golfers are still hoping that some­
one will find a bug that will eat crab grass, clover, and a few other 
weeds and at the same time spare the bent grasses, bluegrass, and 
other desirable plants on the golf course.

February, 1932

29

Structural Requisites of Putting Green Soil
By Kenneth Welton

Cultural practices influence to a large extent conditions which af­
fect the growth and vigor of grass plants and hence the quality of the 
turf produced. In common with most plants, grass requires, among 
other things, a suitable substratum in which the roots may obtain 
anchorage and find a reserve of plant food, air, and moisture with 
which to carry on the life processes. The physical condition of the 
soil affects the development of roots and tops as do the cultural 
practices.

It has been shown that the restriction of the top growth of grasses 
by constant cutting reduces the root system of the plant in a corre­
sponding degree, due to the depriving of the plant of a certain 
amount of food which is manufactured in the leaves under the action 
of sunlight. The root systems, then, are limited in development not 
only by soil conditions but also by the amount of food which the plant 
is able to manufacture through the medium of its leaves. Some 
grasses which provide excellent fairway turf can not be maintained 
for any length of time under the comparatively close cutting to which 
they are subjected on the putting green. As a consequence certain 
species and strains of grasses have been developed which are better 
adapted to the unusual cultural conditions found on putting greens. 
Even these species and strains are weakened by frequent close cut­
ting and are rendered more susceptible to turf ailments to which they 
might be resistant if allowed to develop under more normal con­
ditions.

It is through the root system that plants are able to absorb mois­
ture in which the fertilizer and other salts are dissolved. These salts 
play an important part in the manufacture of plant food in the leaves. 
A restricted root system is limited in its ability to supply the plant 
with the necessary elements. Efforts to give it assistance by supply­
ing fertilizers become increasingly difficult, since the proper concen­
tration of fertilizer must be maintained in the comparatively thin 
layer of soil surrounding the roots During hot weather, when tran­
spiration and evaporation are rapid, more water is needed by the 
plants than at any other time. A dense root system concentrated in 
an inch or two of the surface soil tends to deplete the soil moisture 
in the top layer more rapidly than does a root system drawing its 
water supply from deep in the soil. Evaporation also adds to the loss, 
necessitating frequent watering to supply the required amount of 
moisture. Frequent and excessive watering further complicates the 
scheme of things, because water in the soil, in excess of the optimum 
amount, displaces from the pore spaces of the soil the air which is 
indispensable to plant growth.

Soils Must Contain a Supply of Atmospheric Oxygen

The microscopic plant and animal life in the soil is usually re­
ferred to under the general term of microorganisms. These are of 
importance in the soil for a number of reasons, but the extent of their 
importance in putting green soils is not yet fully understood. Their 
activities are greatly influenced by changes in conditions. A normal 
supply of air in the soil favors those forms of microorganisms which 
are of actual benefit to plant growth by their action in decomposing 

30

Vol. 12, No. 2

organic matter and building up soluble plant foods. When, however, 
water is present in excess for any length of time, the development of 
a group of microorganisms which are not beneficial to plant growth 
is favored.

The condition of the soil for satisfactory grass growth should be 
such that free or gravitational water will drain from it. The plants 
therefore depend mostly upon capillary moisture, which remains in 
the soil against the pull of gravity. Capillary moisture exists only 
as a film surrounding the individual soil particles and leaves space in 
the soil for the presence of air. A heavy rain or watering displaces 
the soil air and a new supply is drawn into the soil when the excess 
water drains away. Part of the water which has drained to lower 
depths is available to plants by capillary attraction, which brings it 
within reach of the roots. This action is best likened to the manner 
in which ink creeps through a blotting paper.

Soils in good tilth have their individual particles grouped or floc­
culated into crumbs or granules. This arrangement increases pore 
space and provides a more.satisfactory medium for the development 
of plant roots. Under putting green conditions the soil is often 
puddled much as bread dough is kneaded. The excessive watering 
and trampling while the soil is wet help to bring about this condition. 
The crumbs or granules are broken into the single grains of which 
they are made, and the resulting structure is much more compact 
and sticky. Such a condition hinders the percolation of water through 
the soil, excludes the air to a large extent, and renders the penetra­
tion of roots more difficult. Puddled soils become hard upon drying, 
and excessive watering is required to bring them to the resiliency 
demanded by the players, and thus a vicious circle is developed. All 
these related conditions which tend to further restrict normal root 
development combine to weaken the grass plants so that a period of 
extreme weather conditions or an attack of disease may prove too 
much of a strain and the plants will succumb.

A study of the influence of soil conditions on plant growth em­
phasizes the desirability of providing a topsoil for putting greens 
which will allow moisture to penetrate to the lower levels in the soil 
and encourage the maximum growth of roots which the restricted 
top growth will allow. Such a soil when dry should retain the re­
quired resiliency or “give” to hold a reasonably well-played pitch shot.
Soil is made up of weathered fragments of rock and organic ma­
terial. It may be considered under three general categories: (1) the 
physical, which includes the size of the particles (texture) and their 
arrangement in the soil (structure) ; (2) the chemical, which includes 
the composition of the particles; and (3) the biological, which con­
cerns the activities of the minute forms of life with which the soil is 
teeming. The physical properties are important in the building and 
maintenance of putting greens, for without the proper texture and 
structure of the soil the chemical and biological processes can not be 
maintained in a condition most beneficial to the growth of the grass. 
With suitable soil structure the chemical and biological processes can 
be influenced by superficial soil treatments, but it is difficult, if not 
practically impossible, to improve soil structure in a putting green 
after it is in play.

Soils to be used as top soil, or for top-dressing material, on putting 
greens, are too often chosen with no appreciation of the qualities 

February, 1932

31

which are essential in putting green soils. The origin of the soil has 
little to do with its suitability, since in some cases subsoils are supe­
rior in this respect to some topsoils. The color, the feel, and the fer­
tility of a soil may have little to do with its suitability, since there 
are other factors which have a greater influence. Color is an indi­
cation of varying amounts of materials which may or may not have 
a decided effect. The fertility is the potential productivity of a soil, 
and this can not be fully realized except under ideal structural and 
climatic conditions. The feel of the soil is the most accurate guide 
of those mentioned, but is useful only to those who have some knowl­
edge of the physical properties of the soil and understand and ap­
preciate the unnatural conditions under which putting green soils 
must be productive. The skilled worker is able, by the feel of a soil, 
to place it as to class and to estimate, to some extent, its behavior 
under various conditions.

Detrimental layers may be formed on a putting green by the improper use of 
top-dressing materials. The six clearly-defined layers of soil were formed in as 
many seasons of top-dressing. A highly plastic soil was used for top-dressing 
purposes throughout the growing season and each winter a heavy dressing of 
sand was applied. Satisfactory results would have been attained had the soil 
and the sand been mixed together for use during the growing season

There is a general understanding among greenkeepers of the 
proper use of the terms sand, silt, and clay to designate soils of dif­
ferent textures. Briefly, the term sand designates the predominance 
of coarse material; silt, the predominance of material which is finer 
than sand and coarser than clay; and clay, the predominance of fine 
material. The term loam designates a more or less balanced mixture 
of both coarse and fine materials. It has been found, however, that 
these terms are used to designate different classes of soils in different 
localities. For example, farmers in an area where clay soils pre­
dominate are apt to class soils which are somewhat coarser than 
their average soils as sandy loams, when in reality they are silt loams. 
Likewise, in sandy areas there is a tendency to class silt loams as 
clay loams. Soil specialists can judge with surprising accuracy the 
class to which a soil belongs by rubbing a sample of the soil between 
the fingers. However, some soils which are similar in texture can 
not be accurately classified by field methods, and it is necessary to 
subject them to a mechanical analysis in order to determine accu­
rately their class. There are practically no pure silt or clay soils, 
and seldom is a soil found which contains more than 80 per cent of 
silt or 65 per cent of clay. These materials are usually found in mix­
tures, and the terms sand, silt, and clay are used to describe qualities 
which may be easily determined in the field. To avoid misunder­
standing, the terms sand separates, silt separates, and clay sepa­

32

Vol. 12, No. 2

rates may be used to designate these classes of soil particles. The lim­
its in size of the soil separates, as designated by the Bureau of Chem­
istry and Soils of the United States Department of Agriculture, are 
given below. The estimation of the number of particles in similar 
weights of the various separates shows the tremendous differences in 
fineness of particles.

Size of Soil Particles

Separates 

Limits in size 

Millimeters 

Calculated approxima­
tion of No. of particles
to each gram (453.69
grams equal 1 lb.)
200
1,700
13,500
132,000
1,700,000

Fine gravel ................................  2.00-1.00 (.078-.039 
Coarse sand ...............................  1.00-0.5  (.039-.019 
Medium sand ............................  0.5 -0.25 (.019-.01 
Fine sand ..................................  0.25-0.1  (.01 -.004 
Very fine sand ..........................  0.1 -0.05 (.004-.002 
Silt................................................  0.05-.005(.002-.0002 in.) 35,000,000 to 65,000,000
Clay......................  Less than 0.005 (Less than .0002 in.) 45,000,000,000 and over

in.) 
in.) 
in.) 
in.) 
in.) 

The proportion of soil separates, or of soil particles of various 
sizes, in some of the more common soils is shown in the following list 
and accompanying chart:

5Ut

loam

Loam

10-207, 

40-45 7. 50-35, 7>

10-157, 15-307, 75-55 %
Differences in composition of normal loam soils are shown in this chart. It also 
brings out the possible variation in percentage of clay, silt, and sand in soils of 
the same class

Sandy loam contains less than 20 per cent of clay, from 20 to 50 

per cent of silt and clay, and from 50 to 80 per cent of sand.

Loam contains less than 20 per cent of clay, from 30 to 50 per cent 
silt, and from 30 to 50 per cent of sand.

February, 1932

33

Silt loam contains less than 20 per cent of clay, 50 per cent or 

more of silt, and less than 50 per cent of sand.

Clay loam contains 20 to 30 per cent of clay, from 20 to 50 per 

cent of silt, and from 20 to 50 per cent of sand.

Clay contains 30 per cent or more of clay, less than 50 per cent of 

silt, and less than 50 per cent of sand.

Peat contains 30 per cent or more of relatively poorly-decomposed 
organic material, sometimes mixed with much sand, silt, and clay.
Muck contains from 25 to 65 per cent of well-decomposed organic 

material with much clay or silt, and some sand.

There are several methods of making mechanical analyses of soils, 
such as sieving value and measuring the settling velocity. In the 
sieve method the soil is put through sieves of various-sized meshes. 
The meshes, however, can not be made small enough to separate the 
finer grades of soil particles, and hence some other method is usually 
used supplementing the sieve method. Finer particles may be 
separated by suspending the sample in water, since the rate of settling 
of the soil particles is in proportion to their size, and each successive 
grade of particle may be determined as it slowly settles. Soil is classi­
fied according to the percentage proportion of each soil separate 
present. The soil classes have been arrived at through the analyses 
of many soils which are regarded as typical.

The classes of soils have various characteristics which must be 
considered in cultural practices. The characteristic property of soil 
which should concern the greenkeeper when selecting or mixing a 
soil for putting green topsoil is the structure which it will form under 
putting green conditions. Soil structure is the term used in reference 
to the arrangement of the various particles, which determines 
whether it is loose or compact. The choice of a soil for its structure 
is more complicated than the simple choice of a soil class. The struc­
ture depends, apart from proportion and size of particles, upon the 
factors of plasticity and cohesion, which vary in soils of the same 
class, especially in fine-textured soils.

Very Plastic and Cohesive Soils are Troublesome

The plasticity of a soil is its ability to allow a change in form 
without breaking apart. Plastic soil may be compared to putty which 
has been mixed with the proper proportion of oil for use. The cause 
of plasticity of soil has long been under discussion, but it is generally 
accepted that the fineness of texture, along with the colloidal content, 
affect the soil most vitally in this respect. Soil colloids are usually 
defined as soil particles which are finer than one micron (1/27,000 
inch) in diameter. They are complex substances, usually gelatinous 
in nature, which tend to bind the soil particles together. There are 
certain fine-textured soils which are neither cohesive nor plastic. In 
general, the more finely textured the soil the more colloidal matter it 
contains and the more plastic it becomes. The more plastic a soil 
the more likely it is to become puddled by working or trampling, 
particularly when it has a high moisture content.

Cohesion is the tendency of soil particles to stick together and to 
conserve the mass intact. It is closely related to plasticity. The 
cohesion of soil might be made a rough measure of its plastic prop­
erties, and vice versa, because, in general, the greater the plasticity 
of a soil the higher is its cohesion. When a soil is dry its cohesion 

34

Vol. 12, No. 2

is developed for the most part by the drying and shrinking of the 
gelatinous colloidal matter, and to a lesser extent by the interlocking 
of its grains and the development of cementing salts. Fine-textured 
soils, such as clay and silt loams, may be handled in such a way in 
farming that they may be kept porous in spite of their plasticity and 
cohesion. By proper cultivation at times when the moisture content 
is correct, the soil may be maintained in a granular condition. With 
the putting green, however, cultivation is impossible at any time, 
and the frequent watering and trampling soon destroy the granular 
structure and increase the plasticity and cohesion so that the soil 
becomes puddled. When fine-textured soils are in this condition they 
are likely to become exceedingly hard upon drying. A coarse or 
sandy soil, on the contrary, may be worked or trampled while wet, 
and its structural condition will remain unimpaired, since it has 
little or no plasticity.

Organic Matter Corrects Many Defects in Soil Structure

Organic matter also plays an important part in soil structure and 
in the fertility of the soil. Most soils do not contain sufficient organic 
matter for putting green topsoil. The effects of organic materials 
on soil and plant conditions are numerous and complex. Since the 
water-holding capacity of partially-decayed organic material is rela­
tively high, soils which are rich in humus usually possess a high 
water-holding power. Although the addition of organic materials 
to soils increases their water-holding capacity, such additions do not 
necessarily increase the tendency of the soil to become saturated. 
Organic matter exerts a beneficial action on soil structure. Its 
water-holding capacity makes possible greater changes in volume 
both on drying and in the presence of excessive moisture. This action 
is somewhat similar to the action of freezing and thawing on the soil 
in opening the soil and increasing its granular structure and porosity. 
The organic matter also tends to spread the individual particles 
farther apart, especially in clay and silt soils. There is considerable 
difference in organic materials and not all of them are suitable for 
the purpose of improving soil structure. Some muck soils, although 
high in organic matter, may tend to increase rather than decrease 
the plasticity of certain soils when mixed with them. Usually the 
mixing of such peat or humus materials which are now on the mar­
ket and available to the greenkeeper will tend to lower cohesion at 
any moisture content ranging from a saturated to a dry condition. 
Tests have shown that these materials will decrease the plasticity of 
the finer soils more effectively than will an equal amount of sand.
Texture must play an important part in determining the extent 
of cohesion which soil is capable of showing. In general, the finer- 
textured soils, such as clays and silts, show great cohesion, since, 
whether dry or wet, the forces that tend to hold the soil together 
are stronger than in coarser or sandy soil. As finer-textured soils 
dry there is a great increase in the binding capacity of the colloidal 
matter, but in coarse soil this binding effect is small or entirely 
absent. The addition of organic material to a soil, by hastening and 
increasing granulation, will also tend to lower cohesion. Therefore 
if it is desired to avoid hard-packed soils on putting greens it is 
necessary to avoid plastic soils and either to select a suitable natural 
soil or to mix materials, such as sand and organic material, with 
finer soils to reduce their plasticity and cohesion.

February, 1932

35

In general, topsoils are more fertile than subsoils, due largely 
to the oxidation to which they have been subjected, to their greater 
content of organic material, and to the greater activity of micro­
organisms. The greenkeeper should select a topsoil, if possible, which 
requires the minimum addition of materials to increase or to decrease 
its plasticity. Since expert soil men may be mistaken on the actual 
plasticity of soils not in the sandy class, the greenkeeper should not 
be content with judging a soil merely by its structure or feel, under 
the conditions in which he finds it. The greenkeeper’s choice of the 
soil to use for mixing might be accurate enough to decide upon the 
most suitable type available; but before putting either natural or 
prepared soils on the green, samples should be tested to discover the 
ultimate cohesion of the material.

Putting Green Soils Should be Tested for Plasticity and Cohesion

A number of laboratory methods have been devised for determin­
ing the cohesion of clays and other soils. Considerable difficulty has, 
however, always been encountered in measuring natural cohesion of 
either wet or dry soil. The chief difficulty has been in controlling 
physical conditions, since the cohesion of the soil depends largely 
upon the manner in which it has been handled, the amount of water 
that has been added, the length of time of drying, and the moisture 
content at which the determinations are made. As a consequence, 
most tests of cohesion have been made with samples worked to a 
maximum plasticity and then brought to a required moisture content, 
or with samples which have been uniformly compacted and then al­
lowed to take up water by capillarity. For accurate determinations 
of an exact numerical expression of plasticity of various soils it has 
been necessary to develop a highly-specialized technique. It is pos­
sible for the greenkeeper, however, to make more or less rough com­
parisons of the cohesion of various soils and mixtures at his disposal.
Equal amounts of the various soils to be tested should be procured 
while in such a condition that they can be handled without adhering 
to the hands or the equipment. The samples should be put through 
a 1/16-inch mesh screen in order to granulate the soil and to remove 
large bits of organic material or rock which might complicate the 
results of the test by forming lines of weakness through the samples. 
All except a small amount of each sample should then be placed in 
similar containers and water added slowly while stirring the soil 
with a stick. Each sample should be brought as closely as possible 
to a paste-like consistency. Soil in this condition will not readily 
flow from the container. It contains less than its maximum water­
holding capacity and yet contains enough water so that in clay and 
silt loams the soil has lost much of its sticky toughness; and although 
it will coat the fingers if they are thrust into it, it will not stick in 
large irregular clots. If a furrow is cut through the mass, the soil 
will just flow together if jarred slightly, leaving a distinguishable 
line of contact. If too much water has been added and the sample has 
become too thin, enough of the remainder of the soil should be added 
to thicken it to the required consistency. After a few trials it will 
be possible to prepare each sample of approximately the same con­
sistency with about an equal amount of stirring.

The samples should then be troweled into uniform receptacles in 
order that they may dry in a uniform manner. Small boxes or flower

36

Vol. 12, No. 2

pots may be used, or, for somewhat less accurate results, mud balls 
or pies may be molded with the hands into uniform sizes and laid 
on a board. A record of the samples should be kept and the samples 
numbered to prevent error. The samples should then be placed under 
cover in a position where they may dry uniformly. As the samples 
become dry it should be noted whether certain ones remain moist 
longer than others, as this factor is important in determining the 
best sample for putting green topsoil purposes. A sample which 
remains damp abnormally long may contain too much organic matter. 
After several days, when it is apparent that the samples have become 
thoroughly dry, with the exception of any which may contain too 
much organic matter, they may be removed from the molds or, in 
the case of mud balls and pies, the samples should be turned. It is 
usually advisable to allow the samples to dry another day after turn­
ing or removing from the receptacles or molds.

In testing the cohesion of a soil, samples of the soil are puddled and then molded 
either by hand or in several receptacles of the same kind and size. The samples 
are then set aside until thoroughly dried. Cigar boxes or flower pots are con­
venient for use as receptacles. On the table at the right are seen also two “pies” 
molded by hand, and a sample molded in a cigar box being tested by crushing it 
between the thumb and fingers

By handling the dried samples, the relative cohesion, particularly 
in the case of extreme soils, should at once become apparent. Sam­
ples which are too sandy, or contain too much organic matter, will 
crumble and fall apart and will not retain their shape even with 
gentle handling. Samples which have too much cohesion will re­
semble brick and will retain their shape even when dropped some 
distance. There is no clearly-defined ideal sample; but by using this 
method greenkeepers and construction men can discover a mixture 
which they can use in the putting green with safety. A dried sample 

February, 1932

37

of over an inch in thickness, prepared as above, which can be 
crumbled by the pressure of the thumb and fingers of one hand, and 
which does not present a glazed, hard crust, may be judged as a 
suitable mixture for putting green topsoil, including material for 
top-dressing purposes.

With adequate fertilizing and watering it will be possible to 
maintain excellent turf on such a soil mixture without danger of 
turf injuries due to poor soil conditions. Such a soil will also have 
sufficient “give” or resiliency, without being spongy, to hold on the 
green a reasonably well-played pitch shot, and will have present the 
same qualities in this respect from day to day whether wet or dry.

When Is a Bent Grass a Creeping Bent?

There has been much discussion in the last few years regarding 
the inclusion of the word “creeping” in the common name applied to 
Astoria bent, a species of bent grass being grown in Oregon for seed 
which is a distinct strain of colonial bent that displays pronounced 
creeping characteristics in the place in Oregon where it is grown. The 
attitude of the Green Section in this matter is made clear in the article 
“Classification of Redtop and the Common Bent Grasses” commencing 
on page 44 of the Bulletin for March, 1930, especially on page 49 in 
that article. The difference in the points of view in this discussion is 
largely a matter of contention over the use of words, for both sides 
are in complete accord as to the character of the grass.

The name “creeping bent” has been handed down to us as a com­
mon name applying to a certain group of grasses which botanists have 
grouped into a single species which, as stated in the Bulletin for 
March, 1930, is known botanically as Agrostis palustris. Unfortu­
nately in this common name the word “creeping” may be construed 
as an adjective, which is a construction not intended. If the name 
could acceptedly be hyphenated or compounded, thus appearing as 
creeping-bent or creepingbent, its meaning would perhaps be less open 
to misconstruction.

In the use of the common name “creeping bent,” if the word 
“creeping” is to be construed as a descriptive adjective and not as a 
part of the noun, the confusion which exists in the case of Astoria 
bent would necessarily enter also into the case of many other grasses 
of the genus Agrostis. For instance, on many golf courses and ex­
perimental turf gardens there are areas of velvet bent turf (Agrostis 
canina) planted with stolons which have developed into thick turf by 
the creeping habit common to species of Agrostis. At the Arlington 
turf garden there are two plots of redtop (Agrostis alba) which were 
planted with stolons and which have developed by the creeping habit 
into thick turf. Using the word “creeping” as an adjective one could 
not deny that such turf consisted of species of Agrostis which had 
distinctly creeping habits. In that case therefore we should be obliged 
to call both velvet bent and redtop “creeping bent.” However, no one 
acquainted with turf confuses redtop and velvet bent with creeping 
bent.

38

Vol. 12, No. 2

In the case of Astoria bent, it can not be denied that this grass 
produces rootstocks and stolons, which are the creeping parts of 
plants. As a matter of fact, the production of rootstocks and stolons 
has been frequently demonstrated also in colonial bent grown from 
New Zealand seed as well as in other kinds of bent. It has therefore 
always been entirely agreed that Astoria bent was able to creep, and 
therefore a creeping grass, and logically a creeping bent if the word 
“creeping” in the name is to be construed as a descriptive adjective. 
Furthermore it has been admitted that all commercial bent, as well as 
redtop, is able to creep and is therefore creeping bent under the same 
use of the word.

The English language is noted for such confusing use of words. 
There is a strain of crimson clover the flowers of which are pure white. 
If a grower were raising this strain of clover, of which there can be 
no question as to color, it is wondered whether one would feel it neces­
sary to insist that it be certified as white clover instead of crimson 
clover. If an experiment station should attempt to do so it would 
doubtless find it difficult to induce the farmers or the various state 
and federal agriculturists to adopt its viewpoint even though the 
flowers of this white strain of crimson clover are whiter than those of 
white clover itself. The public generally accepts the name crimson 
clover for the plant Trifolium incarnatum and the name white clover 
for the plant Trifolium repens, regardless of color. Likewise the 
color of the blossoms of crimson clover is considered deeper red than 
the color of the blossoms of red clover (Trifolium pratense). Any­
one is nevertheless quite willing to accept the name red clover as a 
common name even though in Gray’s New Manual of Botany the color 
of the corolla is given as “magenta to whitish.” In the case of vetch 
the common name hairy vetch is restricted to a particular species of 
vetch, but there are a good many other species of vetch which are 
also hairy but which are certainly not referred to as hairy vetch. It 
is hard to see any blue in Kentucky bluegrass turf or red in redtop 
turf. There are almost no end of cases such as these that might be 
cited as apt to cause a great deal of confusion by construing in its de­
scriptive sense an adjective which in reality is a part of a noun. The 
whole situation reminds one of the remarks of a college professor of 
history who, when his class would reach the point of discussing the 
old Holy Roman Empire, would introduce his lecture thus: “Gentle­
men, we are now to consider the Holy Roman Empire, which was 
neither holy nor Roman nor empire. However this name has been 
handed down to us through the ages, and we will therefore refer to it 
as the Holy Roman Empire.”

Anyone can have good putting greens in May, June, or October. 
The real test of the greenkeeper is in the period from July to Sep­
tember.

Some one has estimated that United States farmers lose close to 
$500,000,000 a year through their neglect of farm machinery. On 
golf courses as well as on farms it pays to keep tractors, mowers, and 
other equipment in condition for use.

.
e
e
t

f
o

t
n
o
r
f

n

i

m
o
r
f

d
e
h
p
a
r
g
o
t
o
h
P

.
a
l
F

,

h
c
a
e
B

y
a
r
l
e
D

,

b
u
C

l

f
l
o
G

m
a
e
r
t
S

f
l
u
G

)
s
d
r
a
y

2
7
3
(

e
l
o
h

h
t
n
e
e
t
h
g
i
E

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is 

the probable reason why so few engage in it.

Henry Ford