A Publication on Turfgrass Management by the United States Golf Association January/February 1981 USGA Green Section F t ■ • w Golfers Remember Unusual Course Features USGA EDITOR: Alexander M. Radko MANAGING EDITOR: Robert Sommers ART EDITOR: Miss Janet Seagle Green Section RECORD Vol. 19, No. 1 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981 “Through The Green” by Carl H. Schwartzkopf GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Stephen J. Horrell 3007 Dehesa Road, El Cajon, Calif. 92021 NATIONAL DIRECTOR: Alexander M. Radko ASST. NATIONAL DIRECTOR: Carl H. Schwartzkopf United States Golf Association, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931 • (201) 766-7770 GREEN SECTION AGRONOMISTS AND OFFICES: Northeastern Region: United States Golf Association, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931 • (201) 766-7770 Carl H. Schwartzkopf, Director William S. Brewer, Jr., Asst. Director James T. Snow, Asst. Director Timothy G. Ansett, Agronomist Mid-Atlantic Region: Suite B4, 9017 Forest Hill Avenue, Richmond, Va. 23235 • (804) 272-5553 William G. Buchanan, Director Patrick M. O’Brien, Agronomist Southeastern Region: P.O. Box 4213, Campus Station, Athens, Ga. 30602 • (404) 548-2741 James B. Moncrief, Director Charles B. White, Agronomist North-Central Region: P.O. Box 592, Crystal Lake, Ill. 60014 • (815) 459-3731 Stanley J. Zontek, Director Mid-Continent Region: 17360 Coit Road, Dallas, Tx. 75252 • (214) 783-7125 Dr. Douglas T. Hawes, Director Western Region: Suite 107, 222 Fashion Lane, Tustin, Calif. 92680 • (714) 544-4411 Donald D. Hoos, Director Membership Questionnaires — Find Out Where You Really Stand by William B. Stark, III, and William Brewer A Study of Putting Green Variability by A. M. Radko, R. E. Engel, and J. Richard Trout Back Cover Turf Twisters Cover Photo: 18th hole. Pine Valley. ©1981 by United States Golf Association. Permission to reproduce articles or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (unless specifically noted otherwise), provided credit is given the USGA and copyright protection is afforded. To reprint material in other media, written permission must be obtained from the USGA. In any case, neither articles nor other material may be copied or used for any advertising, promotion or commercial purposes. GREEN SECTION RECORD (ISSN 0041-5502) is published six times a year in January, March, May, July, September and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Subscriptions and address changes should be sent to the above address. Articles, photographs, and correspondence relevant to published material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Second class postage paid at Far Hills, N.J., and other locations. Office of Publication, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Subscriptions $3 a year. “Through The Green” by CARL H. SCHWARTZKOPF Assistant National Director, USGA Green Section “Chocolate drops," a feature from early construction, are mowed infrequently. They present a formidable hazard. Cape Arundel Golf Club, Maine. Definition 35 of the Rules of Golf states: “Through the green” is the whole area of the course except: A. Teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played. B. All hazards on the course. Therefore, one can see that a con­ siderable amount of acreage remains on a golf course in addition to greens, tees and hazards. Although the terms “fair­ way” and “rough” are not mentioned or specifically defined in the Rules of Golf, they really exist, a fact that all golfers will confirm. When golf course care and condition are discussed by players and super­ intendents, greens receive most atten­ tion, followed by tees, then fairways, with roughs a distant fourth. The rough is mentioned only if it has some dis­ tinguishing characteristic, such as tall grass, difficult native vegetation or large numbers of trees or bunkers. When a perfectly balanced round of golf is played on a par-72 course, 18 strokes are played from the tees (no mulligans), 18 strokes from the fairways (through the green), and 36 strokes on the putting green. When a balanced round of golf is examined from this perspective, the 18 shots from the fairway take on added importance. The average player, however, uses more than 18 shots from the fairways and roughs during his “through the green” A contrast in water management and philosophy. On the left, fence-to-fence irrigation versus tee and green irrigation only, on the right. tour. These areas, then, become increasingly important when we assess maintenance priorities. Several years ago, before spiraling inflation, many fairway areas through­ out the country received care in the form of frequent fertilization, heavy irrigation and numerous pesticide applications for the control of turfgrass diseases and insects. In the majority of cases, the roughs immediately adjacent to the fairways received the same intensive care except for mowing height. As the intensity of the fairway manage­ ment level increased, the mowing height decreased and so did the permanency of the perennial bluegrasses and fescues, while Poa annua and other annual plants increased. As Poa annua in­ creased, so did the difficulty experienced by golf course superintendents who tried to ensure its survival during periods of high temperature and humidity, from late June through early September. As spiraling inflation becomes more of concern to the professional turfgrass manager and the golfers who pay the bills, it is JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981 3 important to develop a more permanent playing surface within reasonable costs. Since outstanding and effective chemical controls presently are unavailable for controlling Poa annua in a cool-season grass community, many elect not simply to accept its presence but to try to manage and encourage its survival. Others encourage a more permanent turfgrass cover by overseeding with improved bluegrass and ryegrass cultivars or bentgrasses, mowing frequently at a slightly higher height of cut, irrigating less and fertilizing according to needs. AS A MORE permanent turfgrass cover is developed on fairways, playing conditions improve propor­ internal drainage is during construction. If it is not done then, it will be necessary to install drain lines to remove excess water after the turf is fully established. When the topography is not suited to natural drainage, it may seem expensive to install drain lines. However, it is important to remember that good drainage is essential for a healthy turf cover. When one considers the turfgrass loss that occurs on poorly drained soils, the inconvenience experienced by players, the increased cost of mainte­ nance, the weed problems that result, and the demise of the permanent grass species, the initial installation of drain­ age is a small price to pay for the decades of benefits received. tionately. Also, as a permanent turf grass cover becomes more evident, the need for some practices, such as irrigation, are reduced. Whatever savings are realized are then used for other areas of the golf course operation. Several courses recently initiated contour-mowing programs for their fairways. This not only reduces the number of acres maintained, but it also places more importance on the execution of a properly hit golf shot. Additionally, the aesthetic value of contour mowing is more appealing than a straight line “runway” or “landing strip” mowing pattern. Many of the difficulties experienced in fairway and rough management may have evolved as a result of procedures mentioned previously, such as low mowing, high fertility levels or over­ irrigation. Another factor that con­ tributes to managing “through the green” occurs during construction. When many of our golf courses were built in years past, stump removal was considerably more difficult than it is today. As a result, stumps were buried and overseeded. Subsequently, depres­ sions and water-holding pockets developed years later as the stumps decomposed. Very often, during golf course fair­ way construction, little attention is given to the importance of good surface and internal drainage. This lack of attention is generally associated with budget concerns and the pressure to complete the project as soon as possible. Large areas are costly and sometimes difficult to drain. Obviously, the best time to provide adequate surface or 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD GOLF COURSE superintendents, professional turfgrass managers and agronomists agree that drainage and irrigation go hand-in-hand. Occasionally, due to poor internal and surface drainage, combined with difficulties in operating a fairway irrigation system, soft-wet playing conditions can result. It is very impor­ tant, therefore, to provide for adequate surface and internal drainage when planning the installation and operation of an irrigation system. Originally, when courses were built, fairway irrigation didn’t exist. The irrigation of greens was considered a necessity and the irrigation of tees was highly desirable. However, as technology advanced, watered fairways finally became a reality. Fairway irrigation encouraged more liberal use of fertilizer, a closer cut, more frequent mowing, and accelerated maintenance in general. Initially, playing conditions improved; however, under this type management it was difficult for the Kentucky blue­ grasses and the fine fescues to survive. When they weakened, it provided the opportunity for the growth and pro­ liferation of annual plant species and Poa annua. The more that Poa annua is watered and fertilized, the more vigorously it grows. The cycle is never­ ending. The best way to combat the problem is to initiate cultural and maintenance practices discussed earlier that favor perennial grasses. The rough, more than any other feature, can set the overall character of the golf course. Hopefully, we all strive to play from the rough as little as possible. The rough, however, provides the background, influences other course features, and adds to the challenge for all golfers. THE ROUGH, as the term implies, is the portion of the golf course where the player expects less than an ideal lie. Roughs play an important role in the game of golf, yet they are without doubt the most neglected area on most courses. This neglect begins in the construction phase and lasts throughout the life of some courses. It is unfortunate but true that roughs receive attention only after the rest of the course has been properly taken care of. It is likely that a portion of the problem that contributes to this condition of the rough is the fact that almost everyone concerned with golf course care has been conditioned to think of the greens first, the tees second, the fairways third and then the roughs. The amount of rough found not only on each golf course but also on each specific hole may vary widely. Some golf courses have trees adjacent to the fairways with narrow rough lines between them. The amount and type of rough on a golf course depends on a number of factors; these include the amount of land available, topography, trees and natural vegetation, ponds, lakes and streams. The rough portions of the golf course may be mounded or sloped, have several sand bunkers and many trees in keeping with the strategy of each hole as designed by the architect. Some of the earlier course construc­ tion featured “chocolate drops” in roughs. These mounds were difficult for maintenance and play and have largely been replaced by gently contoured slopes to ease mowing. In many in­ stances, roughs are as smooth as fair­ ways, and a mis-hit shot is penalized hardly at all. Occasionally, where the rough does not impose a penalty, low- handicap golfers will deliberately play into the rough to obtain additional advantage. The condition of the rough should be such that all golfers will make every effort to avoid it and play the course as it was designed. When planning golf course mainte­ nance programs it is important to remember the significance that fairways and roughs have in the overall role of the game. They should be conditioned to play their separate roles to perfection to enhance the test for golfers of all handicaps. Number one hole, Cortland Country Club. Green invaded by tree roots which affected the putting surface. The required correction was made. Membership Questionnaires- Find Out Where You Really Stand by WILLIAM B. STARK, III, and WILLIAM BREWER* THE CORTLAND Country Club is in many ways similar to other country clubs, at least to those located outside major metropolitan areas. It is a private equity club with somewhat in excess of 300 family ♦Golf Course Superintendent, Cortland Country Club, and USGA Green Section Northeastern Region Agronomist, respectively. memberships. Although the club’s facilities are used for business purposes occasionally, it serves primarily the personal, recreational and social needs of its members, most of whom reside within a radius of six miles of the club. The club, which is nearly 70 years old, differs from some others in that it is almost exclusively a golf club. The course is set in the gently rolling countryside of one of those fertile central New York valleys carved by a glacier ages ago. At 6,200 yards, it has been known for some time as one of the most pleasant of golfing challenges. Until recently — and for over 40 years — the man largely responsible for developing and maintaining this sporty layout and the club’s golfing program was Aldor Jones, who served in the dual capacity of club professional and golf course superintendent. The fine course, active membership and his long tenure all are testimony to his skills and intimate knowledge of the game and of the club’s membership. JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981 5 In 1978, as Aldor began pointing toward a well-earned retirement, I was hired to manage the golf course. The following spring, Dick Blair arrived as our new club manager. Then, in the fall of 1979, Aldor turned over his duties as golf professional to Bob McCarthy. Thus, in under two years the club had seen a total change in management staffing and with it a need to achieve quickly a more complete sense of the needs and desires of the entire member­ ship for guidance in present operations and future planning. To serve this need, the Board authorized the development of a membership questionnaire. With assis­ tance in matters concerning the course and golf programs, Dick Blair drafted the six-page, 39-question survey which was sent to the members in mid­ November of 1979. By mid-January, 1980, over 65 percent had completed and returned their questionnaires in the provided envelopes, and by mid-March the replies had been tabulated and analyzed, the results readied for publication in our club newsletter, and we were already formulating some changes in operations for the coming season. While the questionnaire was not distinctly divided into sections, it first asked for a variety of information that might be termed demographic: each member’s age, marital status, type of membership, length of membership, distance of residence from the club, etc. This sort of information provided a membership profile that might not only give us a better insight into membership needs for the present, but also should serve as a baseline for judging trends when some future survey is taken. THE BIGGEST PORTION of the questionnaire was devoted to enquiries about the current use of the club’s various facilities and activities and to a poll to determine how the members felt about the quality of these facilities and activities. Of course, it was in the responses to these questions that we expected to find the greatest immediate guidance, especially since most of the questions also invited mem­ bers to offer additional comments or suggestions. It was most gratifying — though not really a surprise — to learn that the overwhelming majority of members gave the club very high marks for such things as the friendliness of other 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Number four hole, Cortland Country Club, focusing upon aesthetics and the need to upgrade other portions of the course similarly. members and the staff, the appearance of the clubhouse inside and out, the service and food quality in our dining room, the growing junior golf program, and — dearest to my heart — most areas of our golf course, its appearance and attractive atmosphere. But while it is always nice to know that most of what one is working to achieve is being well-supported and appreciated, the poll revealed a number of aspects of each club department that needed improvement. For example, the marks received were less high for club communications, our locker rooms, menu variety and the snack bar, the limited recreational facilities beyond golf and the times during which the course was not open for play by women and juniors. With regard to the course itself, we learned that we were on the right track with most of the improvement programs which had been initiated during the past two years, improvements made possible by the substantial (more than double) increase in the budget, which had been supported even prior to the membership survey. Our tee rebuilding program received continuing support, for example, along with plans for extending our fairway irrigation capabilities and continuing work on our ponds and toward resolving the few remaining places of poor drainage. One of the areas that I had not scheduled for immediate attention but which our golfers expressed concern about was the condition of our bunkers. Since coming to realize this, we have not only stepped up our regular bunker maintenance, but also have selected an improved grade of sand and begun a program that may result in our replacing all the sand in selected bunkers. Our membership survey was rounded out with some specific questions about operating changes that were already under consideration, about the addition of certain recreational activities and with a question that asked each member to single out the one action or effort he, or she, would emphasize if he were a Board member. In addition to those operating changes which were worked into the departmental plans on the basis of responses to other questions (such as snack-bar improvements, changes in dining room hours and expanded times for women’s golf), the final series of questions led to plans for organized cross-country skiing in the winter and a drive to attract more members, especially younger members and those interested in adding tennis to club activities. TO SUMMARIZE, the questionnaire appears to have been worth the time and money invested — about $200 covered the materials, printing and postage. If only for the improvement achieved in communications among the Board, the membership and the depart­ ment heads, we recommend the periodic use of such a membership question­ naire to all clubs and recreational facilities. It can help rectify any tendency toward tunnel vision or minority rule, it contributes to proper focusing of long- range planning and to a fine-tuning of day-to-day operations, it reinforces and can correct program and policy direc­ tions, it serves to substantiate decisions or requests for staffing or budgetary support, and it provides a standard against which to gauge progress. In the end, the biggest advantage to be gained from this sort of program may lie with the clearer image that can be provided to us of the needs and desires of those being served. If the baseball adage applies, that you cannot hit what you cannot see, then I am in favor of any device which can help bring me closer to 20/20 foresight. Tabulated Responses to First Part of Question No. 28. 28. Golf course conditions Excellent Good Fair Poor Unable to rate Greens Fairways Tees Rough Bunkers Drainage Practice area (69) (48) (28) (31) (26) (20) (11) (83) (92) (81) (97) (74) (81) (87) (10) (20) (41) (23) (43) (42) (30) ( 0) ( 1) (12) ( 9) (24) (11) (18) ( 5) ( 5) ( 5) ( 6) ( 9) (21) (15) 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD New Agronomist Timothy G. Ansett was recently appointed to the USGA Green Section staff as Northeastern Region Agronomist. Ansett received his B.S. in turfgrass management from Michigan State University and his M.S. in turfgrass science from Colorado State University. He was most recently employed as an instructor in turfgrass management and horticulture at Mount Hood Community College, in Gresham, Oregon. Prior to that he had gained valuable insight into helping golf course superintendents deal with management problems as Turf Advisor for the University of California Cooperative Extension Service. With these experiences, and having spent several summers working on golf courses in Michigan, Tim brings to the USGA a blend of education and practical knowledge in the field of turfgrass and golf course management. A Study of Putting Green Variability by A. M. RADKO, R. E. ENGEL, and J. RICHARD TROUT* THE STIMPMETER, a device for measuring the speed of greens, has been available for almost three years. It is a management tool the golf TABLE 1 USGA Green Speed Test Comparison Regular Membership Play Tournament Conditions course superintendent can use in con­ sultation with his green committee chairman. Together they can promote uniform greens after deciding upon the speed of greens that is comfortable for the membership. Charts were devised after USGA Green Section agronomists tested the speed of more than 1,500 putting greens throughout the country. Speeds designated for tournament and regular membership play have been defined as follows: Fast Medium Fast Medium Medium Slow Slow 102” 90" 78" 66" 54" ♦National Director, USGA Green Section, Far Hills, N.J.; Res. Prof, of Turfgrass Management, and Associate Prof, of Statistics, Cook College, Rutgers Uni­ versity, New Brunswick, New Jersey, respectively. 126" 114" 102" 90" 78" Figure 1. 1979 Weekly Readings on a Golf Course in Connecticut — Average of Three Greens Triplex Mower at 3/16" (Thin Bedknife) ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S I D ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S D I ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S D I Figure 2. 1980 Green Speed Readings for Eight Golf Courses During The Period of May-September — Average of Three Greens DATES OF SPEED READING DATES OF SPEED READING 132 ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S D I ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S D I ) S E H C N I ( E C N A T S D I 85 New York Green #14 Green #2 Green #8 DATES OF SPEED READING DATES OF SPEED READING 87 Vermont DATES OF SPEED READING 88 Massachusetts 89 Maryland It was developed and named the Stimpmeter by Edward S. Stimpson, of Massachusetts.1 Preliminary use gave indication that this device, which rolls a ball down the same angle of slope, could be an important management tool. Subsequent experience with the Stimpmeter combined with discussions with golf course superintendents proved this theory to be correct. As a result, research tests were devised to help determine what effect management had on speed and uniformity of greens. The first research report appeared in the January/February, 1980, USGA Green Section Record.2 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD This is the second of a series of articles planned to show the seasonal speed of putting surfaces. Super­ intendents from eight states cooperated in this study. The states represented are California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Vermont. Routine manage­ ment practices were used during the test period and were documented during the course of this study. Three greens were selected for testing at the golf course superintendent’s discretion. A flatter portion of the green was used for measuring green speed, and the starting points and direction were the same each week during the test period. Distance of the Stimpmeter roll away from each of the four marked starting positions and the return roll were measured and averaged to give four speed readings per green per week. Readings were taken weekly, within hours of the day’s mowing, from early May until mid­ September, except as weather or other conditions dictated. GREEN SPEED RESULTS The average weekly speed of the three greens measured in 1979 is given in Figure 1. While these readings were commonly in the range of from eight to nine feet, they showed abrupt drops in speed on two occasions when excessive wetness developed. In the first, daily mowing was interrupted in the wet period of late May and early June. Greens were mowed then readings were taken, after a two-day interval between mowings, on May 21, 28, June4 and 11. The speed had dropped to 7 feet on May 28, 4.9 feet on June 4 and back to 7.5 feet on June 11. A total of seven inches of rain occurred in the five-day period that ended June 4. Excessive wetness and lack of regular mowing appeared to give a brief but severe breakdown of the putting surface. On August 13, with daily mowing, a second and similar break in the normal putting speed occurred with three inches of rain. Fortunately, neither breakdown in normal putting lasted more than a week. The 1979 observations showed the need for more long-term speed readings which were taken in 1980. Seasonal putting speed performances of 1980 are given for eight courses in Figure 2. The average green speed for the group ranged from approximately five to nine feet for the season. This translates into a range of slow to fast according to the USGA scale. While these clubs were essentially a random selection, as an aggregate, they repre­ sent better than average golf courses nationally. When comparing the graphs for the different courses, note the LSD values which range from 2.7 to 8.9 inches for the LSD.05 (least significant difference) with a probability of .05. This not only aids in evaluating differences on a given graph, but these values show the measuring procedures contributed a surprisingly small amount of error in the differences recorded. Results sup­ port the USGA contention that greens are considered uniform if all are within ±6 for Championship play, which requires speed readings of over 102 inches. The summary of variances in Table 2 shows that several courses had surpris­ ingly uniform speed for the three greens sampled. Note the low variance figures for Among Greens of courses 82, 84, 85, 87, 88 and 89. Similarly, courses 84, 87 and 89 showed very consistent speed through the season Date. The courses with the greatest change of green speed occurred on those having transition from cool-season to warm-season turf. Two of the courses with the most consistent green speed occurred in regions where the growing season has less variable weather. A lack of con­ sistency between greens need not be a reflection on the course. Choice of the three greens tested was left to the golf course superintendent who, purposely, may have chosen greens that were different. Note that Date of reading was the largest source of variance in Table 2. This indicates that season was producing change which was due most likely to weather or changes in maturity of the turf. Considerable variance was associated with Among Greens from Date to Date for two of the courses with the highest total variance. This suggests relative speed was shifting among greens for the dates of test reading. Two of the courses with the highest variance among the four rolls, taken per green on a given day, were among the three that had the highest total variances for the season. This variation could arise from a number of factors that range from variation in grass type, foot traffic indentations, fine gravel exploded from bunkers, cleat marks, inconsistency in operating the Stimp- meter or other causes. Most of these possibilities confront the golfer. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Stimpmeter was used to evaluate the greens speed of nine different courses in 1979-80. Weekly measurements were made on the same three greens at the same locations. Green speed averaged from less than five to nearly nine feet. This wide range was scarcely expected. Excess of water may have an uncon­ trollable effect on green speeds. For example, the breakdown in green speed in the wet periods of 1979 shows the body of the putting surface can be lost. In this case it was short-lived. While some courses showed signifi­ cant variability between greens and some speed change through the season, a majority of the courses in this study showed remarkable uniformity. REFERENCES: 1. Stimpson, Edward S. “Putting Greens — How Fast.” Golf Journal, April 1974, pgs. 28-29. 2. Engel, R. E.; Radko, A. M.; and Trout, J. R. “Influence of Mowing Procedure on Roll Speed of Putting Greens.” USGA Green Section Record, Jan./Feb. 1980, pgs. 7-9. TABLE 2 Individual Components of Variance and Total Variance of Putting Green Speed at Several Golf Courses, 1980 Course No. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 State Ga. Conn. Calif. N.Y. Texas Vt. Mass. Md. Mean Roll Distance (inches) Among Greens 78 107 95 88 87 78 78 90 0 11.04 0.08 0.09 19.87 0 5.24 4.48 Date 76.27 29.11 16.82 34.57 94.39 9.17 21.96 2.14 Variance Due To: Inconsistency Among Greens From Date to Date Among Rolls per Green Total Variance 37.32 4.98 12.79 6.69 21.29 4.67 3.03 8.52 22.16 40.34 3.68 7.71 6.12 10.11 4.06 5.64 135.64 85.47 33.37 49.06 141.67 23.72 34.28 20.78 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981 13 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981 TURF TWISTERS THESE FRIED EGGS Question: Our sand in bunkers is such that a “fried egg” occurs almost every time a ball lands in a bunker at our course. Why does this occur, and what, if anything, can we do about it? (Oklahoma) Answer: The problem is not uncommon with new sand placed to a 4- to 6-inch depth. If the sand has been in use for more than one year, the problem may be the shape of the individual particles that make up your sand. Particles that are round or smooth will tend to set-up softer than sharp, angular particles of sand. It may be that by adding sharp sand over your present sand to a depth of an inch or so it may be possible to stabilize the unsatisfactory sand. Try this on a small bunker first to ensure that it will work before proceeding full scale with this project. The Texas A&M soils lab sponsored by the USGA is researching bunker sand quality, including an investigation into the solutions for excessive “fried egg” lies. AND MYCORRHIZAE - Question: What are mycorrhizae and what are their significance in turfgrass management? (Ohio) Answer: Although very little is known about the importance of mycorrhizae in relation to the health and vigor of turfgrasses, it is known that this symbiotic fungus plays an important role in the growth of other crops, by somehow increasing nutrient and water intake by the root system. As turfgrass researchers learn more about these organisms, their knowledge will be shared with us. DEFINITELY NOT FOR PARTYING! Question: I overheard the term “mixed liquor” used in casual course management conversation at a club where I was a guest recently. Does it have any significance other than social? (Arizona) Answer: What you overheard apparently had reference to the use of effluent water in golf course irrigation. “Mixed liquor” is a mixture of primary effluent or untreated sewage and activated sludge . . . the contents of aeration tanks in the activated sludge process.