necora

September/October 1998

Volume 36, Number 5 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998
Volume 36, Number 5

contaminant of putting green turf. Record

Cover Photo:
Silvery thread moss is a common 

1
Moss Eradication in Putting Green Turf 
With persistence it can be selectively removed. 
By Keith A. Happ
6
Risk Management for Golf Facilities: Are You at Risk?
Some ideas for minimizing your exposure.
By John M. Fotiades
10
The Pros and Cons of Fairway Overseeding 
Winter overseeding of bermudagrass fairways has 
both benefits and some negative consequences.
By John H. Foy

13

Long-Term Aerification 
A bentgrass fairway study compares 
hollow- and solid-tine core aerification. 
By Drs. Stanton E. Brauen, William J. Johnston, and Roy L. Goss
16
A-4, Not Your Parents’ Bentgrass 
New management techniques for a new bentgrass variety. 
By Cutler Robinson, CGCS
19
Introducing a New Creeping Bentgrass Cultivar 
Through Interseeding: Does It Work?
It sounds like a good idea, but there are drawbacks. 
By Patricia Sweeney, Ph.D., and Karl Danneberger, Ph.D.
21
Certification: A Gratifying Experience 
Seabrook Island and the Audubon Program become a natural fit. 
By Allan H. Pulaski
23
News Notes
24
Chasing Color
Many of today’s golfers think that if the turfgrass isn’t green, it is dead. 
By Patrick M. O’Brien
26
Turf Twisters

Employees should be trained to identify 
potential hazards on the golf course, and 
to immediately report those hazards to 
management. See page 6.

The fall overseeding establishment 
process takes understanding from both 
the golf course superintendent and the 
golfer. See page 10.

Spore production perpetuates the existence of moss. Great quantities of spores are produced during the life cycle of the plant.

Moss Eradication 
In Putting Green Turf 

With persistence it can be selectively removed.

by KEITH A. HAPP

WITH ever-increasing demands 

placed on putting green turf, 
fueled primarily by the need 
for speed, is it any wonder that sur­

face management problems develop? 
Today’s golf course superintendent is 
faced with many turf management 
decisions, most of which are centered 
on providing the best possible playing 
conditions. At times during this quest, 
plant health is compromised in order 
to deliver the desired playing effect. 
While pursuing the ultimate ball roll 
and surface performance, bentgrass 
vigor can decline and the potential for 
weed development increases. One 
weed that can easily invade and fill 
available voids is moss. A small moss 
colony can proliferate and turn into a 
bigger problem that is more difficult to 
overcome. If conditions remain favor­
able, moss can spread across a putting 
surface.

It has been reported that thousands 
of species of moss exist. This is no 

surprise, since moss has been around 
for some 350 million years. Moss can 
develop and thrive in many different 
environments. Four mosses that often 
inhabit putting green turf are Byrum 
argentum, Byrum lisae, Ambly- 
stegium trichopodium, and Brachy- 
thecium spp. Each has its own 
characteristics. For example, Byrum 
argentum (silvery thread moss) is 
found in open sites. Its silvery appear­
ance allows it to be distinguished easily 
from other mosses, and it is one of the 
most common contaminants of putting 
green turf.

Byrum lisae also is found in open 
sites but favors rocky or sandy soils. 
Byrum lisae is distinguishable from 
other mosses by its green to yellow­
green appearance, and its colonies 
form tufts or clumps. Both species of 
Byrum mosses can tolerate a wide 
range of soil moisture conditions. A 
common misperception of Byrum 
moss is that it only competes well in 

shady, damp sites where turf has little 
or no chance of competing for space. 
Although it remains true that the best 
defense against weed encroachment is 
a dense stand of turf, Byrum moss can 
rapidly fill a void if the opportunity is 
presented. Once established, and if the 
conditions remain favorable, Byrum 
moss will proliferate in full sunlight.

Amblystegium trichopodium, on 
the other hand, is more difficult to 
identify and thrives in saturated soils. 
As such, this moss may be a problem 
on heavy clay soils or areas of poor 
drainage. Brachythecium spp., which 
also thrives in wet soil conditions, is 
a common variety of moss referred to 
as “yard moss.” Amblystegium and 
Brachythecium moss usually are found 
in higher cut turf, but they can be 
tracked easily into putting green sur­
faces. These mosses can become estab­
lished in the rough or perimeter areas 
of the course and spores can be spread 
via air or foot traffic.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

1

What is Moss?

Moss is a photosythesizing terrestrial 
plant. However, mosses are non- 
vascular plants and need to be in 
contact with water to avoid drying out. 
Many mosses absorb water over their 
whole surface, while others take in 
water through their rhizoids in a man­
ner similar to that of vascular plants. 
Mosses that can survive in a state of 
desiccation have fine, hairlike leaves 
that can reflect the sun’s heat. Cuticle 
development is rare, and this results in 
mosses being adapted to shady, moist 
locations. Mosses can, however, sur­
vive long periods of desiccation, in 
some cases several years, and can with­
stand high temperatures in a dormant 
state. Laboratory studies have found 
that mosses can tolerate dehydration 
levels equal to 80% of original bio­
mass. When mosses are rehydrated, an 
immediate respiratory burst is mani­
fested, but recovery is slow. Addition­
ally, research has provided evidence 
that mosses can survive extended 
periods of dormancy by living symbi­
otically with blue-green algae. This 
relationship is important. Algae can 
be viewed as a precursor to moss 
encroachment. Hence, addressing the 
factors that encourage algae growth can 
preventatively discourage moss coloni­
zation. It is much easier to eradicate 
algae than it is to selectively remove 
moss from putting green turf.

How Does Moss Reproduce?

Although water is essential for their 
sexual reproduction, mosses are mainly 
land plants, and only a few species are 
adapted to aquatic environments. It is 
possible for moss to reproduce both 
sexually and asexually.

The sexual reproductive organs of 
bryophytes (mosses) are very charac­
teristic in form, but they have little 
resemblance to those of flowering 
plants. Male and female organs may 
be on separate plants or on the same 
plant. In mosses the sex organs are 
usually interspersed with sterile hairs 
and are enclosed in leaves. This defense 
mechanism allows the moss to survive 
prolonged states of desiccation.

Asexual reproduction can be facili­
tated by water, wind, foot traffic, and 
even by maintenance equipment. For 
example, a moss plant can be severed 
by a golf spike and then transported to 
another area. When male and female 
gamete cells come in contact, fertiliza­
tion is possible and a zygote is formed. 
Additionally, moss bryophytes can 

2

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

grow from small pieces of shoot or even 
leaves. Once a zygote is formed it is 
protected in specialized (gametophyte) 
tissue. The zygote then develops into 
the sporophyte, which eventually re­
leases spores. The reproductive cycle 
is complete when these spores develop 
into the gametophyte structures that are 
identified as moss. Again, the primary 
requirements for completion of this 
cycle are voids in the turf and spores 
that easily generate a new colony.

Mosses develop in response to 
photosynthesis and also by nitrogen 
fixation in the absence of a light source. 
In the case of fixation, nitrate fertilizers 
applied to stimulate growth of the 
desired turf can be a catalyst for moss 
development. Thus, fertilization alone 
may not adequately correct a moss 
problem. To a certain degree, it could 
exacerbate the undesirable condition.

How Can Moss Be Identified?

Moss and slime/algae are different 
types of lower plants. It is relevant to 
consider them together because their 
occurrence and control measures over­
lap. When moss first colonizes an area 
it produces a black, slimy mat across 
the area before the green vegetative 
structures form. The green structures 
grow into branch-like filaments called 
protonema. These are the threadlike 
structures that bud out and develop 
into the gametophyte. The protonema 
of mosses are extensive, resembling 
green algae, and may persist for 
months. In the life cycle of moss, it is 
possible to wrongly diagnose and con­
fuse this with algae. This is important 
and reinforces the need to have a basic 
understanding of the life cycle of moss. 
Accurate diagnosis leads to accurate 
and precise treatment of the problem 
at hand.

Mosses can take many shapes and 
forms. Stems and leaves of moss are 
complex, most having conducting 
strands, midribs, and a great diversity of 
cell form. Shoots develop from tetra­
hedral cells, and this results in three leaf 
arrangements. Leaves may be grouped 
in pairs, threes, and even sets of five. In 
the majority of mosses, leaves are not 
arranged in regular rows. Except for 
the midribs, leaves are one cell thick, 
with most or all of the cells containing 
chloroplasts. This particular feature 
can be exploited when eradication is 
attempted. Disrupting photosynthesis 
of moss via selective desiccation 
methods provides a competitive edge 
for turf, provided the desiccating effect 
is maintained.

Mistakenly treating for algae may 
interrupt photosynthesis, but in the 
case of mosses it has been shown that 
they will reproduce in the absence of 
light. Furthermore, not even soil sterili­
zation can guarantee that an area will 
be free of dormant moss spores. The 
dried-out vegetative state does not 
utilize water or nutrients but will allow 
reproduction when conditions are 
again favorable. This further indicates 
the need to be persistent with control 
measures. Control requires constant 
vigilance and an understanding of 
when infestation takes place. Basically, 
if moss has colonized an area, an on­
going eradication program is needed to 
assure that it will not continue to be a 
problem.

The First Step in 
Correcting the Problem

First, ask why moss has developed 
on the green. Take a step back and 
review the management practices cur­
rently in use.

• Are surface and subsurface drain­
age systems sufficient to handle 
moisture conditions?

• Are cutting heights too low?
• Are fertilizer levels so low that 

they are preventing turf growth?

• Are the nutrients within the soil 
in balance so as to provide an optimal 
environment for sustained turf growth?
• Has a topdressing change been 
made that could affect the manner in 
which water moves through the soil 
profile?

• Finally, has irrigation frequency 
changed and inadvertently become a 
causal factor of moss development?

Answering these questions could 
provide a solution to moss encroach­
ment problems and insight as to why 
colonization occurred.

To many, the solution may sound 
simple: raise cutting heights and in­
crease fertility to promote healthy turf. 
But will contemporary golfers accept 
slower putting green speeds? From my 
experience, the answer is “no.” A 
holistic approach, combining cultural 
and chemical means, may provide a 
more acceptable answer.

Cultural Strategies

A strong cultural management pro­
gram can help to reduce the potential 
for moss encroachment. For example, 
aeration is the cornerstone of many 
maintenance programs. Aeration in 
any form helps to improve infiltration 
rates, which in turn helps to dry the soil 
surface and provides a competitive 

edge to the desired turf. Physically 
removing thatch may also provide 
assistance in defeating moss popula­
tions. The fact is, small-tine shallow 
aerification has gained wider accept­
ance by both turf managers and golf­
ers. Small-tine aeration, such as with 
quadratines, provides agronomic bene­
fit without creating a great deal of 
surface disruption, and it is an excel­
lent proactive management strategy 
whether moss is present or not.

In combination with small-tine 
aeration, light and frequent topdressing 
applications are a common practice. 
On heavy soil greens, the main benefit 
realized from this maintenance strategy 
is increased water infiltration. Basically, 
a green with better surface character­
istics is being established on top of a 
native soil material. On new USGA 
greens or other high-sand-content 
greens, the benefit realized is good 
thatch management. To maintain a 
balance of water and air in the profile, 
and particularly near the soil surface, 
the thatch must be constantly diluted. 
As soil porosity increases, so does the 
likelihood that moss encroachment 
can be brought under control. Allow­
ing the moisture to move freely into the 
soil rather than remaining on the sur­
face reduces the potential for moss 
development. Also, as topdressing is 
applied, moss spores that may be 
present near the surface will be buried.
Examining changes in topdressing 
materials may offer clues as to why 
moss encroachment has occurred.

Changes in the particle size of the 
topdressing sand or the use of a 
different organic matter in the mix 
could produce long-term problems. 
Periodic sampling and testing by a 
qualified physical testing laboratory 
can add both a check and a great deal 
of peace of mind. Problems can be 
avoided when a strong quality control 
program is in place.

A balance between cutting heights 
and fertility levels must be established. 
The overall goal of any maintenance 
plan is to provide healthy, vigorous turf. 
If this maintenance plan is compro­
mised for the sake of ultra-fast green 
speeds, then weed invasion should be 
expected. It has been observed that 
moss growing on a putting surface will 
not encroach into the surrounding 
collar area. Quite simply, turf cut at a 
greater height resists invasion. Raising 
the mowing height as little as V32" has 
shown positive effects in reducing 
moss populations. Even raising the 
height of cut from Vs" to %4n provides 
13% more leaf blade. Greater leaf 
blade surface area enables the turf to 
become more vigorous by increasing 
photosynthesis. There are many other 
tools available to manage putting 
green speeds. Growth regulators, for 
example, can be applied in combi­
nation with other grooming tactics to 
enhance surface performance.

Fertility

A Scottish greenkeeper once said, 
“Moss is a sign of poverty in the soil.” 

If conditions are favorable, moss can spread across a putting green and be carried 
from surface to surface. A small moss colony can proliferate and turn into a bigger 
problem over time.

This is an amazingly accurate statement 
that has been verified by university re­
search. There are some distinct nutrient 
deficiencies and relationships that 
favor moss encroachment. Research 
indicates that calcium-rich soil may 
exacerbate Byrum moss development. 
Areas of moss colonization tend to 
have higher calcium-to-magnesium 
ratios and a higher percentage of silt 
and clay in the surface. This soil texture 
accounts for the increased water 
retention due to reduced percolation. 
Examining the nutrient status and the 
physical properties of the soil therefore 
may provide a great deal of informa­
tion not only to defeat moss, but also 
to promote the healthiest stand of turf 
possible. If calcium levels are high, 
MgSO4 (Epsom salt) treatments may be 
warranted. Magnesium is a component 
of chlorophyll production, and its addi­
tion into the soil could enhance turf 
vigor.

There is a correlation between moss 
populations and potassium (K) levels 
in the soil. Moss pressure seems to 
increase as K levels decrease. As such, 
monitoring K levels in the soil is 
important. If deficiencies exist, correc­
tive applications can be made in the 
spring or fall. Sulfate-of-potash treat­
ments provide a safe means to achieve 
adequate K levels.

Various fertilizer treatments have 
been applied to selectively retard moss 
growth while the desired turf is pro­
moted. Ammonium sulfate, for example, 
has performed well in many studies. 
This fertilizer is thought to produce a 
selective desiccating effect on moss 
when applications are made frequently 
and at low dosage rates. Treating with 
/12 to % lb. of N/1000 sq. ft. per week 
can produce positive results. This treat­
ment regime also provides an acidifying 
effect that can produce desirable side 
effects. Patch diseases may be less 
likely to develop when the pH of the 
soil is managed in this manner.

Ferrous sufate applications have also 
been closely examined for their effect 
on moss. In fact, in 1933 calcined iron 
sulfate was a common treatment for 
moss problems. Iron treatments, in the 
form of iron sulfate, can be applied at 
a rate of 2 ozs./lOOO sq. ft. every other 
week during the summer or at higher 
rates during the fall and winter. Up to 
3 lbs. of iron sulfate/1000 sq. ft. has 
been applied to moss-infested putting 
greens, and this treatment strategy re­
mains common in the British Isles. The 
effect of the treatment is dramatic. The 
turf takes on a dark green or even black 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

3

appearance due to the chlorophyll 
surge. Moss colonies may experience a 
selective desiccating effect and the turf 
recovers. Positive signs of the desic­
cating effect on moss are exhibited by 
an orange-brown or golden-brown 
coloration. This is the initial sign of 
moss decline, but it is by no means an 
indication that treatment strategies 
should stop. As previously stated, 
persistence is the key.

Hydrated lime and copper sulfate 
have been suggested as treatments for 
moss contamination problems. How­
ever, the effect on the pH of the soil is 
of greater concern regarding the use of 
lime, and copper sulfate applications 
do not offer a wide margin for error. In 
many instances, the results of the 
treatment may be worse than the 
original problem.

Potassium of fatty acid (DeMoss) is 
a labeled product for moss control. The 
treatment procedure is similar to that of 
ammonium sulfate applications. The 
material must be applied frequently 
over an extended period of time to 
achieve the desired effect. Applying 2 
to 3 ozs. of material/1000 sq. ft. every 
week can produce a significant reduc­
tion in moss populations, and the 
consistency with which the material is 
applied is an important ingredient for 
success.

Chemical Treatments

Timing of chemical applications 
appears to be crucial to their success. 
Studies have tested control measures 
during maximum sporophyte develop­
ment in the spring and found that 
selective eradication can be achieved.

Maneb- or Zineb-based fungicides 
applied to moss during its early stages 
are phytotoxic to young/immature 
moss plants and algae. Also, there are 
indications that Maneb treatment may 
inhibit N-fixation with respect to the 
symbiotic relationship of moss and 
algae. Treatments render populations 
unable to produce carbohydrate re­
serves and thus unable to compete for 
space. Maneb is a broad-spectrum 
fungicide, but it produces herbicidal 
action favorable to moss control.

Case Studies in Moss Control:
Case Study #1

Spot treatment procedures have also 
provided satisfactory control of moss. 
DeMoss (Mycogen Corporation) has 
been applied in combination with 
wetting agents and a surfactant. Todd 
Voss, of the Double Eagle Golf Club, 
experimented with a combination of 
materials, which included DeMoss, on

4

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

tive desiccating effect on moss popu­
lations and due to the ingredients of the 
product may also provide cryptocidal 
effects on the moss spore populations 
in the soil. Although Dawn has been 
tested at universities (Danneberger 
1998, Landschoot 1998) and used suc­
cessfully on golf courses, it is not 
currently labeled for use for moss 
control on turf and thus is not legal 
for this use at the present time.

John Keeler, of Hershey’s Mill Golf 
Club, experimented with a number of 
control techniques on a designated test 
site. Applications of iron sulfate were 
tested at various rates, in addition to 
Dawn treatments. A check plot was 
also established to better evaluate 
treatment performance. Dawn treat­
ments ranged from 2 ozs. to 8 ozs. of 
material/1000 sq. ft. The product was 
delivered to the moss colonies with a 
minimum of 1 gal. of water/1000 sq. ft.
An immediate response was ob­
served following the application of 
Dawn. First, a water-soaked appear­
ance was observed in the treated areas. 
Within 48 hours the moss colonies 
exhibited the classic orange or orange­
brown discoloration while the sur­
rounding turf showed no signs of 
phytotoxicity. After testing was formed, 
the material was applied to moss- 
infested sites throughout the course, 
and within a four- to six-week period 
acceptable moss control was achieved.
Although the treatment strategy cen­
tered on Dawn applications, a holistic 
program was put in place. Topdressing 
was applied periodically and nitrogen 
treatments were made on a routine in­
terval. Putting green speeds were main­
tained in the sufficient range with the 
use of walk-behind mowers and infre­
quent rolling. Irrigation was applied to 
support turf growth, but not to the 
point of overly saturating the soil pro­
file. Basically, every effort was put forth 
to strengthen the basic agronomic pro­
grams in order to allow moss control 
techniques to be as effective and long- 
lasting as possible. Surface perfor­
mance was improved, and this led to 
heightened golfer enjoyment.

Case Study #3

John Klosiewicz, of the Vic Meade 
Hunt Club, utilized a combination of 
methods to overcome a serious moss 
infestation problem. The problem was 
so bad that reconstruction was thought 
to be the only corrective procedure 
available.

The road to recovery began with 
height-of-cut adjustments. The mowers 

Moss also responds to fertilization.
A blackening of the moss often does not 
sufficiently desiccate the moss colony.
Fertilization must be persistently 
employed to achieve the desired result.

his sod nursery. The initial goal was 
to find a mixture that would apply 
selective pressure to moss without 
harming the desired stand of bent­
grass. Once satisfactory results were 
achieved, the spray combination (1 oz. 
DeMoss, 1 oz. Lesco Wet, 1 oz. 
spreader sticker in 32 ozs. of water) 
was applied to moss populations on 
the course. Treatments were performed 
in the afternoon during the summer 
and continued throughout the fall. The 
treatments were performed with a 
hand-held squirt bottle calibrated to 
deliver repeatable applications.

Three to four squirts from the spray 
bottle adequately soaked the moss 
colonies. Within 24 to 48 hours, moss 
populations exhibited the orange to 
orange-brown color, signifying that a 
positive desiccating effect had oc­
curred. Repeat treatments were per­
formed depending on the density of 
the moss colonies and the spore popu­
lations in the soil. Minor phytotoxic 
effects were exhibited on the turf. But, 
via fertilization, the turf grew out of 
the herbicidal effect caused by the 
moss control mixture.

In combination with this eradication 
technique, spiking and overseeding 
were performed. As bentgrass popu­
lations increased, interspecific compe­
tition increased, and moss colonization 
was minimized.

Case Study #2

Another treatment strategy that has 
shown promising results is the use of 
Dawn dishwashing detergent. The 
detergent provides an excellent selec­

were raised to 732". Fertility levels were 
also increased, with ammonium sulfate 
and urea being the main sources of 
nitrogen. Chemical analysis of the soil 
provided evidence that high soluble 
salt problems existed, and this was 
addressed by treating with magnesium 
sulfate and gypsum.

The chemical analysis led to ques­
tions about how the salt problems 
developed. To find answers, the top­
dressing material was submitted for 
both chemical and physical analysis. 
The results indicated that the top­
dressing was a contributing factor due 
to its moisture retention capacity. A 
program of aggressive aeration was 
implemented to help remove thatch 
and soil. Following aeration, a carefully 
selected straight sand topdressing was 
applied to fill newly created columns 
to the surface. This was supplemented 
by weekly treatments of between 50 
and 100 lbs. of material/1000 sq. ft. 
throughout the season. Soil porosity 
improved dramatically and this allowed 
the surfaces to be maintained in a much 
drier state.

After the physical properties of the 
soil were addressed, the next step was 
to selectively attack the moss colonies 
on the greens. During the months of 
December and February, iron sulfate 
was applied at a minimum rate of 2 
lbs. of material/1000 sq. ft. This began 
the selective desiccation process. As 
the spring weather arrived and soil 
temperatures increased, urea and 
ammonium sulfate products were ro­
tated into the treatment regime. Each 
was applied at a rate of % lb. N/1000 
sq. ft. per week. The bentgrass re­
sponded to the increased N level and 
the moss became much less prevalent. 
Still, another method of eradication 
was needed.

In combination with fertility adjust­
ments, DeMoss was applied every 
other week at a rate of 1 to 2 ozs. of 
material/1000 sq. ft. Only severely 
infested greens were treated in this 
manner, while spot treatments were 
performed on greens that exhibited 
only minor infestation. Bentgrass seed 
was introduced regularly during the 
entire eradication process. This inte­
grated approach to moss control paid 
off; non-target damage was minimized 
and bentgrass populations increased 
dramatically.

Using a combination of techniques, 
the moss problems were brought under 
control in seven months. During this 
time, the playability of the surfaces did 
not suffer. Multiple mowings, light and 

frequent topdressing, growth regulation 
treatments, and rolling were used to 
maintain acceptable conditions.

Conclusion

The control of moss should be 
approached as a long-term project. It 
takes time for moss to develop into 
colonies that both visually and physi­
cally affect the playability of greens. 
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that 
it will take time, often a long time, to 
reverse the undesirable condition.

The immature stage of moss coloni­
zation (the protonema) is highly sus­
ceptible to desiccation. If properly 
diagnosed during this early stage of 
development, site-specific treatment 
performed in a carefully thought-out 
manner could provide excellent results. 
Cultural practices such as spiking, 
aerification, topdressing, overseeding, 
and proper fertilization should accom­
pany the use of a selective eradication 
product.

All aspects of management should be 
considered when battling moss. Is the 
sunlight sufficient to allow the turf to 
compete and fend off invasions? Is the 
air movement around the problem area 
adequate to permit soils to be purged of 
excessive moisture? Drainage should 
be corrected or installed where it is 
inadequate or nonexistent. Deep-tine 
aerification can provide relief when 
compacted soil conditions exist. 
Thatch management will enable good 
rooting and thus increase the vigor of 
the turf. Any preventative measure 
should be done with the overall goal 
being to promote healthy, vigorous 
turf. After all is said and done, healthy 
turf is the only way to cure and prevent 
moss invasion.

KEITH A. HAPP is an agronomist in 
the Mid-Atlantic Region, visiting courses 
in the states of Delaware, Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
Keith joined the Mid-Atlantic staff in 1993.

References
Brauen, Goss & Nus (1986). Control of 
Acrocarpous Moss with Endothal. Scien­
tific Paper No. 7428, Agricultural Research 
Center, Washington State University.
Braunschweig (1975). Annual Report of 
the German Plant Protection Service, 
1974. (Pub. 1975). Vol. 21.
Conrad, Redfom & Brown (1979). Know 
the Mosses. Brown Pub. Debuque, Iowa 
(1979).
Danneberger, Karl. (1998). Personal com­
munication. The Ohio State University.
Dhindsa, R. S. (1985). Non-Autotrophic 
CO2 Fixation and Drought Tolerance in 

Mosses. Journal of Experimental Botany. 
June, 1985. Vol. 36, 167, pp. 980-988.
Duich, Jos. M. (1985). Weeds, Trees & Turf.
Vol. 24, No. 1, January, pp. 72-78,104.
Evans, P. S. (1986). New Zealand Turf 
Management Journal. Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 
1986, pp. 25-27.
Giddens, J. E. (1982). Nitrogen fixation in 
soil crusts of tall fescue sods. Soil Science. 
Vol. 133, No. 5, 1982, pp. 295-297.
Hans, Martin & Jahns (1980). Collins 
Guide to Mosses. Williams & Collins Ltd. 
Published 1980.
Hummel, N. W, Jr. (1986). Factors Influ­
encing Moss Encroachment Into Golf 
Course Greens, and Its Control. Agron­
omy Abstracts. November, 1986, p. 135.
Hummel, N. W, Jr. (1988). Cultural and 
Chemical Strategies for Controlling Moss 
(Byrum argentum) in Creeping Bentgrass. 
Agronomy Abstracts. Vol. 80, November/ 
December, 1988, p. 152.
Hummel, N. W, Jr. (1986). Initial Moss 
Study Results. Tee to Green. Vol. 36, No. 
10, March/April, 1986, pp. 1-4.
Hummel, N. W, Jr. (1987). Moss Infesta­
tion of Putting Greens Research Project 
Update. Tee to Green. Vol. 17, No. 6, 
August, 1987, p. 2.
Kuttruff (1980). Experiments with Chemi­
cals to Eradicate Moss in Turf. Rason, 
Grunflachen, Begrunungen. Vol. 11, No. 1, 
March, 1980, pp. 11-13.
Landry, Gilbert, Jr. (1985). Controlling 
Moss and Algae in Turf. Park Mainte­
nance and Grounds Maintenance. Vol. 38, 
No. 12, December, 1985, p. 4.
Landschoot, Pete. (1998). Personal com­
munication. Penn State University.
Rabatain, S. C. (1980). The Occurrence of 
the Vesicular-arbuscular-mycorrhizal 
Fungus Glomus Tenuis with Moss. 
Mycologia. Vol. 72, No. 1, 1980, pp. 191- 
195.
Reddy & Giddens (1981). Short communi­
cation: Nitrogen fixation by moss-algal 
association in grassland. Department of 
Agronomy, University of Georgia, Agricul­
tural Experiment Station, Athens, Ga.
Skirde, W. (1970). Moss Control by Tenoran. 
Rasen Turf Gason. Vol. 1,1970, p. 50.
Snow, James T. (1984). A Rolling Stone 
and Healthy Turf. USGA Green Section 
Record. Vol. 22, No. 6, November/ 
December 1984, pp. 7-9.
Turgeon, A. J., W. F. Meggitt & D. Penner 
(1972). Role of Endothal in the control of 
annual bluegrass in turf. Weed Science. 
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 562-565.
Vandehey, Russell & Tom Cook (1984). 
Chemical Control of Moss in Turf. Pro­
ceedings of the 38th Turf grass Conference. 
Vol. 38, September, 1984, pp. 18-22.

Wainwright, M. (1978). A Review of the 
Effects of Pesticides on Microbial Activity 
in Soils. Journal of Soil Science. Vol. 29, 
1978, pp. 278-298.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

5

Risk Management
For Golf Facilities: Are You At Risk?

Some ideas for minimizing your exposure.

by JOHN M. FOTIADES

BEWARE has become the byword 

.when it comes to injuries, ill- 
messes, and liabilities at a golf 
facility. In this litigious society, settle­

ments and verdicts from lawsuits are 
soaring, as are workers’ compensation 
claims and insurance premiums. The 
cost to defend a suit, pay a claim, con­
test a citation, or pay a fine, can be 
devastating. So what can you do to 
minimize your liability exposure?

Risk Management Plan

Begin by initiating a risk manage­
ment plan. Risk management is the 

process of identifying, evaluating, and 
managing existing or potential hazards 
or conditions that may lead to injury, 
illness, damage, or liability. For our pur­
poses, a hazard or risk is a potential 
source of danger. Any successful risk 
management plan should have the 
following minimum criteria:

Management Commitment: Manage­
ment should be committed to, and pro­
vide authority, personnel, resources, and 
full support for the successful imple­
mentation of any risk management 
plan. Everyone should understand that 
safety is of paramount importance.

Employee Involvement: Employee 
involvement and feedback in decisions 
affecting safety and health practices is 
also essential to the success of any risk 
management plan. It is the employee 
who may often know best what can be 
done to make a job practice, work area, 
or an existing condition safer.

Inspection: Identifying and evaluat­
ing hazards is the most important step 
of any successful risk management 
program. This inspection process is 
especially important because an un­
recognized hazard cannot be managed. 
All areas of the golf course, clubhouse, 

Children, because of their ages and inexperience, are owed a special duty of care for their protection and safety. Measures should be 
taken to keep them from potentially dangerous situations.

6

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

maintenance facility, outbuildings, 
work practices, and conditions should 
be reviewed and examined during the 
inspection.

Routine daily inspections are in­
tended to detect substandard condi­
tions that may change from day to 
day. Maintenance personnel often can 
correct problems detected during rou­
tine inspections. Periodic inspections, 
conducted at least semiannually, should 
be handled by a professional experi­
enced in identifying and evaluating 
hazards and safety requirements. This 
more specific inspection is intended to 
detect permanent substandard condi­
tions, such as design concerns or non- 
compliance with regulations.

Hazard Prevention and Control: 
Preventative measures must be imple­
mented when an inspection reveals a 
hazardous condition that could cause 
illness, injury, damage, or pose a lia­
bility. Some common corrective mea­
sures involve training and educating 
employees, implementing administra­
tive and workplace controls (e.g., equip­
ment design, job rotation, new tech­
niques), personal protective equipment, 
improving security, upgrading or re­
placing equipment, and formulating 
emergency plans.

Training and Communication: 
Establish a training program to ensure 
that employees receive required and 
necessary training. Outside workers 
and golfers also should be informed of 
what is expected of them for their own 
protection and safety.

Record Keeping: All employment 
and medical records, training logs, 
Occupational Safety Health Adminis­
tration (OSHA) logs, inspection forms, 
checklists, inventories, corrective mea­
sures, accident reports, meeting notes, 
hazard communication, emergency 
evacuation plans, and other record­
keeping areas must be documented. 
These records must be made available 
for current and future reference, in­
spection purposes, and to show a 
good-faith effort for safety concerns 
should a legal dispute arise.

Risk Management Includes ...

Risk management at golf facilities 
covers numerous subjects, including 
OSHA standards, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), the employ­
ment process, maintenance practices, 
equipment operation, pesticide usage, 
golf course design, practice areas, 
shelters, rules of play, security, food and 
beverage service, nuisances, and emer­
gency medical treatment. Liability con­

cerns also exist with wetlands and 
other environmental issues, buildings 
and structures, renovation work, and 
non-golf recreational activities (e.g., 
jogging, swimming). A risk manage­
ment plan designed to manage hazards 
should address and prioritize each of 
these concerns in order to limit liability 
and to control insurance premiums and 
other costs. Effective risk management 
looks beyond compliance with specific 
legal requirements to address all haz-

OSHA standards govern workplace and 
equipment safety to protect employees. A 
written training program also should be 
established to ensure that all employees 
are properly trained.

ards that could lead to injury, illness, 
damage, or liability.

OSHA

The Occupational Safety and Health 
Act and Administration (OSHA) were 
created to save lives, prevent injuries, 
and protect the health of workers. 
OSHA standards, which apply to all 
golf facilities in the United States, cover 
hazardous and toxic materials (e.g., 
pesticides, gasoline), egress and walk- 
ing/working surfaces, personal protec­
tive equipment (PPE), sanitation, fire 
protection, medical and first aid, equip­
ment, machine guarding, tools, emer­
gency plans, and evacuations.

Even where OSHA standards do not 
address a specific situation, employers 
are responsible for complying with the 
Act’s general duty clause, which states 
that each employer “shall furnish to 
each employee a place of employment 
that is free from recognized hazards 
that are causing or are likely to cause 
death or serious physical harm to the 
employees.” In addition, employers 

also are responsible for conducting 
inspections, responding to hazards, 
posting OSHA and other employee 
information posters, and providing safe 
tools and equipment and a right-to- 
know station. Employers must also 
maintain injury and illness logs and 
provide training, including emergency 
and fire prevention plans, first aid, 
and the use of personal protective 
equipment.

A hazard communication plan also 
must be developed. Most frequently 
cited violations of OSHA standards 
involve the hazard communication 
standard. The purpose of this standard 
is to ensure that information concern­
ing the hazards of all chemicals in the 
workplace and appropriate protective 
measures is transmitted to employers 
and employees. This plan includes 
having employees learn how to read 
container labels and Material Safety 
Data Sheets (MSDS) and howto select 
and use the proper PPE.

Although OSHA does not cite em­
ployees for violations, it does require 
that they comply with health and safety 
standards, including reading the OSHA 
poster, using personal protective equip­
ment and reporting hazardous condi­
tions. Employees also must report any 
injury or illness and promptly seek 
needed medical attention. Employees’ 
rights under OSHA include the right to 
request information regarding hazards 
or toxic exposure and to receive appro­
priate training.

OSHA provides a consultation ser­
vice and otherwise conducts work­
place inspections that may lead to cita­
tions and fines to ensure that employers 
provide a safe and healthful workplace.

Duty of Owner and Negligence

An owner or operator of a golf 
facility has a duty to exercise reasonable 
care for the safety and protection of 
others and to make reasonable and 
timely inspections, correct defects (e.g., 
defective cart brakes) and disclose any 
dangers (e.g., signage — wet slopes, 
work area) that others may not be 
aware of. Although an owner must 
anticipate the normal actions of the 
game, he cannot be required to foresee 
every possible accident. If these duties 
are breached, liability may attach where 
that conduct injures another. General 
examples of duties include supervising 
orderly play and maintaining the 
premises in a safe condition. The high­
est degree of care owed is to partici­
pants in recreational activities, such as 
golf; the lowest is due to trespassers —

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

7

tionally, dangerous conditions or con­
duct often are considered an integral 
part of the game, such as the errantly 
struck ball. Unless there is an improper, 
intervening cause (e.g., design flaw), 
there is no duty. Assumption of the risk 
or comparative negligence will apply.

Waivers, such as those that appear 
on the back of a ticket or rental agree­
ment, are an attempt to limit liability. 
To be valid, it must be shown that an 
injured party knew or should have 
known of the waiver and intended to 
relinquish the right to claim damages 
for an injury. Not all states recognize 
waivers, and in some, they are unen­
forceable against minors and where 
injuries result from intentional or 
reckless misconduct.

Workers’ compensation provides 
that employers assume the costs of 
most work-related injuries and illnesses 
to employees, regardless of fault. How­
ever, negligence may be alleged, at least 
where an employer is without workers’ 
compensation insurance, or where an 
injury is caused by someone other 
than the employer.

Training and Communication

A written training program should be 
established to ensure that all employees 
are properly trained. The plan should 
detail what is to be covered and 
expected of each employee. Educating 
golfers also is an essential component 
of any safety program. The program 

A golf course owner or operator has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety 
and protection of others. Daily inspections of the golf course help to identify potential 
hazards. This inspection is a critical component of a risk management plan.

defenses that can be used should there 
be a claim of negligence. Assumption of 
the risk, and contributory or compara­
tive negligence, may be valid defenses 
if an injured person knew, or should 
have known, of the risk or danger (e.g., 
errantly struck ball, entering a pro­
hibited area) as one that was open and 
obvious, but proceeded anyway. Addi­

except for children, to whom a special 
duty of care is owed.

A breach of this duty, to exercise 
reasonable care for the protection and 
safety of others, may result in a claim of 
negligence. In order for a claim to be 
successful, there must be a legal, en­
forceable duty of care owed (e.g., duty 
to provide safe premises), and a breach 
of that duty which results in injury 
and damages.

Duty of Golfers and Others

Participants and others have a duty 
to exercise reasonable care for their 
own protection and safety. They may 
assume the risk of injury from ordinary 
hazards inherent in the game, such as 
being struck by an errant ball. Golfers 
have a duty to warn those within a 
foreseeable danger zone of errant shots. 
Fore!, the universal cry of golfers, may 
not by itself relieve one of liability. Such 
might be the case where an errantly 
struck ball injures a fellow golfer who 
is playing the same hole and is within 
reach. Golfers and others do not 
assume liability for extraordinary risks 
caused by another’s negligence, such as 
where golfers have to cross a public 
way.

Defenses

The best defense is a risk manage­
ment plan consisting of sound safety 
practices and policies. There are legal

8

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Properly designed fuel storage tanks demonstrate the facility’s commitment to safe and 
environmentally sound operations. These tanks are in the initial stages of installation.

should communicate what is expected 
of them while they are at the facility 
(e.g., safety rules for play, cart 
operation).

Employee training may be required, 
such as by OSHA or state regulation 
(e.g., pesticide applicator’s license), or 
otherwise should be part of any risk 
management plan. Training is espe­
cially crucial for new or reassigned 
workers and must include safety prac­
tices, identifying hazards or potential 
hazards that could cause injury, and the 
corrective actions that can be taken to 
protect themselves and others.

Training should be conducted by 
qualified personnel or others. Have 
regularly scheduled meetings regarding 
all aspects of workplace safety. Set 
ground rules and appoint a facilitator 
to conduct and oversee the meetings. 
Keep accurate meeting notes and try 
to reach decisions whenever possible. 
Follow up to ensure that decisions and 
corrective measures are implemented. 
Communicate the message Safety First 
on a daily basis.

Safety Committee

A risk management plan should start 
with the appointment of a safety com­

mittee that consists of members from 
the management team, employees, and 
others who may have expertise in this 
area. If you cannot have a safety com­
mittee, then either appoint a safety 
director or seek the assistance of a risk 
management professional. Goals of 
the safety committee should include: 
assisting management in establishing 
and maintaining a safe facility and en­
vironment; establishing procedures for 
safety inspections, accident investiga­
tions, and first aid; evaluating correc­
tive measures; and developing and pre­
scribing training guidelines. The safety 
committee should meet regularly and 
maintain accurate and detailed notes 
from those meetings.

Summary

Liability can affect anyone associated 
with a golf facility. However, exposure 
to liability and damages can be greatly 
reduced by the use of an effective risk 
management plan. Although no golf 
facility can be free from all hazards, 
conditions, or practices that may create 
injury or liability, management should 
work to uniformly protect the health 
and safety of all employees, members, 
golfers, guests, and others.

Establishing and maintaining a risk 
management plan can result in lower 
injury rates, and a reduction in injury 
rates can lead to reduced costs (e.g., 
workers’ compensation). Additionally, 
a successful risk management plan 
often will lead to an improvement in 
employee morale, reduced absentee­
ism, and increased productivity and 
work quality.

Preventative risk management — 
think of it as installing a traffic light be­
fore, not after, an accident has occurred. 
Remember, one successful lawsuit or 
fine can buy an awful lot of safety.

JOHN FOTIADES, ESQ., is a principal of 
Golf Facility Safety & Consulting, Inc., 
in Worcester, Mass., offering consulting 
regarding risk management and other 
aspects of golf facilities. He has authored 
You’re The Judge! How to Understand 
Sports, Torts & Courts, and is writing Risk 
Management for Golf Facilities, a complete 
and comprehensive how-to risk manage­
ment manual for golf facilities. This 
manual will be available in early 1999.

A containment device is used to protect wetland areas from siltation caused by nearby construction work.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

9

THE PROS AND CONS
OF FAIRWAY OVERSEEDING
Winter overseeding of bermudagrass fairways has both 
benefits and some negative consequences.

by JOHN H. FOY

For the vast majority of 

American golfers, the presence of 
a lush green turf cover is one of 
the main criteria used to evaluate 

golf course quality. Even with their 
increased environmental awareness 
and agreement that course manage­
ment programs should be geared to 
minimize impacts and conserve re­
sources, golfers want to play on green 
grass. Television, no doubt, has greatly 
contributed to and heightened every­
one’s aesthetic consciousness.

Each fall, warm-season turf species 
such as bermudagrass begin to enter 
into a semi- to fully-dormant stage, 
depending on where in the South the 
course is located. This is a natural 
response to cooler temperatures and a 
shorter day length. Along with a pro­
gressive decline in growth rate, there is 
a loss of green color. Once soil tem­
peratures reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit 
or lower, the bermudagrasses develop 
a straw-brown off-color character that 
persists until the spring. To compensate 
for this color change and to provide a 
lush green, actively growing turf for 
the winter, establishing a cool-season 
turf cover in the fall, on top of the 
dormant bermudagrass, has been a 
standard management procedure. For 
many years, winter overseeding of 
fairway and rough areas was practiced 
primarily at resorts and professional 
tour stops. However, over the past few 
years, fairway overseeding has been a 
rapidly growing trend at private clubs 
as well as daily fee courses.

Pros

The obvious benefit of fairway over- 
seeding is an actively growing green turf 
cover that appeals to many golfers. In 
the early to mid 1970s, colorants (dyes 
or paints) were tried as alternatives 
to fairway overseeding to control 
cost, reduce golfer inconvenience and 
minimize spring transition problems. 
This strategy never became very popu­
lar, however, because it was not pos­
sible to achieve a truly natural color

10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

A period of winter dormancy is a natural response of warm-season turf grasses, such 
as bermudagrass, to cold temperatures and a shorter day length. Yet, American golfers 
want to play on green grass.

that was similar to an overseeding 
cover. Also, with medium to heavy play, 
wear problems developed.

Another aesthetic issue is providing 
striped fairway mowing patterns, in 
keeping with current-day golfer expec­
tations. With the use of light- to 
medium-weight fairway mowing equip­
ment, improvements in both turf 
quality and conditioning have been 
achieved. With northern cool-season 
turfgrass fairways, rather dramatic 
mowing patterns can be produced and 
maintained. Yet, with bermudagrass 
fairways, these attractive mowing pat­
terns cannot be established unless the 
stripes are burned into the turf by 
repetitively mowing the exact same 
pattern each time. This strategy even­
tually results in a significant grain 
problem on the fairways. Thus, winter 
overseeding makes it possible to have 
that northern look, even in Arizona 
and Florida.

There is no denying that winter 
overseeding of fairways is conducted 

to a large degree for cosmetic reasons. 
However, improved playability is an­
other benefit of this practice. Every 
winter during Green Section Turf 
Advisory Service visits to courses 
throughout Florida, common com­
plaints about dormant bermudagrass 
fairways are that the fairways are be­
ing mowed too low or that there is no 
grass on the fairways. The reality of 
the situation is that the height of cut 
was raised up in the fall, and more often 
than not the mowing units are only 
being sent out to break up divots and 
clean off debris rather than actually 
cut the dormant grass. These com­
plaints result because the base bermuda 
is not actively growing and has become 
beaten down by golf cart traffic. It 
needs to be remembered that the 
average course handicap in America is 
31 for female golfers and 16-17 for 
male golfers. These golfers typically 
try to sweep the ball off of the turf 
for their approach shots, and tight 
bermudagrass fairway lies make this 

difficult. An actively growing perennial 
ryegrass overseeding cover provides 
additional ball support, and in turn 
there is the perception among a large 
number of golfers of better course 
conditioning.

Another common wintertime com­
plaint is a loss of definition between the 
fairway and rough cuts. Here, too, cart 
traffic is the main cause of the problem, 
and regardless of whether just the fair­
ways or both the fairways and roughs 
are overseeded, course presentation is 
dramatically improved with overseed­
ing. In countries where golf carts are a 
rarity, wintertime course deterioration 
is not a big issue, even though the 
majority of play occurs during this time. 
In some respects, fairway overseeding 
can be viewed as a traffic management 
tool, given the fact that golf carts 
have become an integral part of the 
American game.

Cons

While there are definite benefits to 
winter overseeding of bermudagrass 
fairways, there also are tradeoffs. First 
of all, there is no way around causing 
some course disruption and golfer in­
convenience during the fall establish­
ment process. To achieve successful 
seed germination and turf establish­
ment, good seed-to-soil contact must 
be provided. However, today, with 
more emphasis being placed on thatch 
control throughout the summer grow­
ing season and the availability of effec­
tive growth regulator materials, severe 
verticutting and scalping procedures 
are not being conducted at most 
Florida golf courses for seed-bed 
preparation.

Yet, along with some degree of prep 
work and uniform seed application, 
daytime irrigation applications are 
needed for at least three to four weeks 
during the initial establishment phase. 
The establishment process typically is 
initiated sometime between October 
and early December, depending on the 
location of the course, and four to six 
weeks needs to be allowed for devel­
opment of good coverage and appro­
priate conditioning. Furthermore, 
while not an option at some facilities, 
prohibiting cart traffic on juvenile over­
seeding is strongly encouraged to 
ensure optimum results. For a large 
number of facilities, the establishment 
process coincides with the return of 
golfers from the North, typically during 
prime golfing weather. This can result 
in a negative first impression and a 
difficult political situation for the golf

In addition to providing the desired aesthetic character, overseeding of bermudagrass 
fairways improves their wear tolerance as well as the playability for the average-to- 
high-handicap golfers.

course superintendent and course 
management.

Next, there is concern about the 
cost of winter overseeding. In south 
Florida, a seeding rate of approximately 
300 pounds of perennial ryegrass per 
acre provides adequate stand density 
and the desired aesthetic and play 
characteristics. This process is better 
described as an interseeding, and 
works satisfactorily because the base 
bermudagrass does not go fully 
dormant and off-color. However, for 
most other areas of the country, higher 
seeding rates of 400-600 pounds of 
ryegrass per acre are necessary, and in 
a few locations 800-1000 pounds per 
acre are being used. Although there are 
several variables, an initial expenditure 
of $7,000 to more than $25,000 can be 
required for the seed alone. To control 
costs, annual ryegrass is sometimes 
added to perennial ryegrass blends. 
Over the past two or three years, rye­
grass and Poa trivialis combinations 
have been used, allowing lower seeding 
rates to be used. Other costs that need 
to be factored in are the additional time 
and labor required for preparation and 

establishment, irrigation, fertilization, 
and pest control treatments.

Another substantial cost of fairway 
overseeding is regular mowing during 
the late fall, winter, and spring months. 
Once established, overseeded fairways 
need to be mowed at least three times 
per week and preferably on a daily basis 
in order to maintain consistent good 
quality conditioning. This consumes a 
significant number of labor hours and 
exerts additional wear and tear on the 
mowing units, which in turn shortens 
their life expectancy. The use of light- to 
medium-weight mowing equipment 
also is necessary to achieve top-quality 
results. For budgeting purposes, 
doubling the cost of the seed is often 
used as one means of estimating the 
total annual cost of fairway overseed­
ing, but many courses estimate that it 
costs them $100,000 or more to over­
seed fairways.

From an agronomic standpoint, 
winter overseeding can be thought of as 
trying to grow two plants with different 
management requirements in the same 
spot. When management practices are 
geared to favor one, the health and 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

11

quality of the other can be compro­
mised. With the establishment of an 
overseeding cover, significant compe­
tition and stress is exerted on the base 
bermudagrass. Thus, in the spring to 
early summer, there is the potential for 
deterioration in fairway conditioning 
and quality during the transition back 
to the base bermuda turf cover.

Even with management programs 
designed to gradually thin out the 
overseeding cover at the same rate the 
base bermuda is reestablishing cover­
age, problems are common. This is 
because environmental conditions are 
a major controlling factor in the results 
of the transition process. The worst­
case scenario is a cool and wet spring 
followed by a rapid buildup of high 
humidity and hot temperatures. This 
allows the overseeded species to de­
velop a mature character and at the 
same time retards the growth of the 
base bermudagrass. Then, with a quick 
decline in the overseeding species, a 
weak and thin bermudagrass turf cover 
is exposed. A few weeks to a couple of 
months then can be required to re­
establish good quality fairway condi­

tions. At some high-end resort and 
private golf courses in Florida, a budget 
contingency for sod is maintained, just 
in case a difficult overseeding spring 
transition occurs.

Winter overseeding has other im­
pacts on course management, too. 
Although the overseeding cover is 
present for only four to six months, for 
successful results this practice needs 
to be considered in the scheduling of 
other programs. This is particularly true 
in regard to weed control programs. In 
overseeding of fairways year after year, 
a progressive increase in both winter 
and summer annual weeds can be 
expected. During the winter and spring 
months, establishment of Poa annua 
and other volunteer weeds is a com­
mon problem that can affect course 
appearance. It is also difficult to pre­
vent invasion of goosegrass and crab­
grass during the spring to early summer 
when the transition process is under 
way.

agement, it is difficult to justify winter 
overseeding of bermudagrass fairways 
from the agronomic standpoint. Yet, 
most American golfers have been 
brainwashed to believe that green is 
good. Also, as noted earlier, a fluffy 
fairway lie is preferable to a tight 
semi- to fully-dormant bermudagrass 
lie by the vast majority of golfers. Thus, 
this practice no doubt will continue to 
be implemented at more courses from 
the Carolinas across to California. The 
best option at this point is to try to 
educate golfers that there is much more 
involved with successful winter over­
seeding than meets the eye, and keep 
our fingers crossed that the perfect year- 
round grass will be developed. But then 
would there be any need for Green 
Section Agronomists and highly skilled 
golf course superintendents? (Answer: 
Yes!)

What’s The Right Answer?

In consideration of the cost involved 
and negative impacts on course man­

JOHN H. FOY is director of the Green 
Section’s Florida Region. He has been 
making Turf Advisory Service visits in 
Florida and the Caribbean since 1985.

(Left) It is virtually impossible to prevent movement of some seed into non-target areas. If appropriate control measures are not 
used, volunteer establishment can create a significant weed problem. (Right) The Transition Blues. As temperatures and humidity 
increase in the late spring and early summer, a transition back to the base bermudagrass must be accomplished. Sometimes a rapid 
burnout of the overseeding cover occurs and this exposes a thin and weak bermuda base. Transition problems tend to be more 
pronounced in locations where other growth-limiting factors occur, such as shade or concentrated traffic.

12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Long-Term Aerification

A bentgrass fairway study compares hollow- and solid-tine core aerification.

by DRS. STANTON E. BRAUEN, WILLIAM J. JOHNSTON, and ROY L. GOSS

via HTC, STC, or alternate hollow- 
and solid-tine coring (H/STC). Aerifi­
cations were made at the following 
times: two times annually during 
March and October; four times 
annually during March, May, August, 
and October; and six times annually 
during March, May, June, August, 
September, and October. Aerification 
was done when soil moisture was 
below field capacity and never when 
the soil was considered to be wet. Soil 
cores following HTC were removed, 
and the turf, including non-aerified 
treatments, was topdressed with 
approximately 8 cu. ft./1000 sq. ft. of 
sand (1 to 2 mm, 3.6%; 0.5 to 1.0 mm, 
32.2%; 0.25 to 0.5 mm, 52.9%; 0.1 to 
0.25 mm, 8.4%; and < 0.1 mm, 1.3%) 
following each treatment.

Thatch depth, dry weight, and den­
sity were determined in July 1983 and 
again in November 1988. Field-satu­
rated hydraulic conductivity estimates 
were made during July and August 1989 
using a Guelph permeameter (Soil 
Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa 
Barbara, Calif.). Soil bulk density 
values were taken in September 1989.

Results

After five years of core aerification, 
the net increase in dry weight of thatch 
was different between coring methods. 
HTC was more effective than STC in 
reducing net thatch buildup. Two to 
four aerifications annually were highly 
effective in controlling the change in 
thatch depth and dry weight (Table 1). 
White and Dickens (1984) previously 
found four to six core aerifications 
annually were required to have a major 
effect on thatch or related soil proper­
ties. However, in this study, six corings 
annually did not completely maintain 
thatch depth or dry weight at pre-study 
levels.

Thatch density increased markedly 
with increasing intensity of aerification 
over the five-year period. High-density 
thatch provides a more tortuous path 
for water, which increases resistance 
and allows for greater infiltration and 
reduced surface runoff from bentgrass 
fairways (Linde et al., 1995). The re-

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

13

Saturated hydraulic conductivity in field plots was estimated using a Guelph 
permeameter. In general, saturated hydraulic conductivity was inversely related 
to the intensity of aerification.

TURF CULTIVATION by core 

aerification has many beneficial 
effects on turf. Better thatch 
control, less soil surface compaction, 

more uniform water infiltration, and 
improved surface aeration and rooting 
are often observed (Carrow et al., 
1987; Erusha et al., 1989; Dunn et al., 
1995; Lederboer and Skogley, 1967; 
Shildrick, 1985; White and Dickens, 
1984). However, since thatch substan­
tially increases pesticide sorption, re­
duction in thatch by coring may 
increase the potential for pesticides to 
move off the site (Dell et al., 1994).

Soil compaction in heavily trafficked 
areas of golf course fairways is often 
a problem, especially on heavy, wet 
soils, as frequently occur in the Pacific 
Northwest. Aerification with hollow 
tines, generally followed by sand top­
dressing, is commonly used to relieve 
this stress, but the aerification fre­
quency needed, the turf disturbance 
caused, and the time and labor required 
are not always desirable. Aerification 
with solid tines rather than hollow tines 
has been used to some degree to reduce 
surface disturbance and labor require­
ments. However, core aerification may 
enhance turfgrass injury due to stress, 
increase weed establishment, decrease 
turf quality through disruption of the 
turf surface, and possibly slow water 
percolation through creation of a com­

pacted zone of soil below the depth 
of coring tines (Erusha et al., 1989; 
Murphy, 1993; Shildrick, 1985).

A compaction zone, if present, may 
be different between hollow-tine coring 
(HTC) and solid-tine coring (STC) due 
to the differences in downward forces 
imposed by tine structure on soils. This 
study was designed to measure the 
effects of HTC and STC over several 
years on thatch development, soil bulk 
density, and hydraulic conductivity in a 
bentgrass fairway-type turf.

Experimental Methods

A five-year study was conducted on 
a fine sandy loam soil at the Turfgrass 
Field Laboratory at the Washington 
State University Puyallup Research and 
Extension Center, Puyallup, Wash. 
Core aerification was performed by 
HTC or STC on a well-established 
bentgrass fairway turf. At the beginning 
of aerification treatments in 1983, there 
were 1.6 to 1.9 inches of thatch. The turf 
was routinely clipped at 0.75 inches, 
fertilized at 131 lb./A (3 Ib./lOOO sq. ft.) 
annually with 21-7-14, and irrigated to 
prevent stress. A Greensaire II aerifier 
(Ryan/Ransomes America Corp., 
Lincoln, Neb.) was used in aerification 
and was equipped with 0.5-inch diam­
eter hollow or solid tines. Treatments 
consisted of 0, 2, 4, or 6 aerifications 
annually between March and October 

Table 1
Net change in bentgrass thatch depth, dry weight, and density 
after five years due to 0 to 6 core aerifications per year.

Number of 
annual core 
aerifications

— Net change in thatch - 
Ashed 
dry weight (kg m 2)

Density (kg m

Depth (cm)

0

2

4

6

3.0 a

2.7 ab

2.2 be

2.0 c

1.6 a

1.0 b

0.6 c

0.2 d

-2.7 d

2.5 c

6.4 b

11.0 a

Mean of 36 10cm cores averaged over coring methods. Means within columns not 
followed by the same letter are different by Fisher’s protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Coring Method

sponse in thatch to aerification inten­
sity was the same for all aerification 
methods.

Since HTC, to some extent H/STC, 
and increasing the number of annual 
core aerifications were all effective in 
reducing net thatch development, it 
seemed that physical removal of cores 
was an important factor controlling 
thatch development in bentgrass fair­
way turf. Improved soil biological 
activity due to frequent aerification plus 
sand topdressing following aerification 
may have been important in reducing 
thatch in these treatments.

Soil bulk density, following five years 
of coring at the 4- to 5-inch soil depth, 
was not affected by aerification method 
or by increasing the intensity of aerifi­
cation (Fig. 2). However, there was a 
trend toward soil bulk density steadily 
increasing as the number of annual 
aerifications increased, which may in­
dicate the development of a compac­
tion zone below the depth of tine 
penetration over a period of time. 
Field-saturated hydraulic conductivity 
below the aerification zone (4 inches 
below the turf surface) was slightly 
greater with STC than HTC or H/STC. 
However, Murphy et al. (1993) re­
ported that when aerifying a moist or 
wet loamy sand putting green soil pro­
file, saturated water conductivity was 
49% greater with HTC than STC. They 
also reported that STC provided short­
term benefits, required repeated appli­
cations, and exhibited the potential 
for development of a cultivation pan. 
Field-saturated hydraulic conductivity 
was, in general, inversely related to the 
intensity of aerification annually. Two 
corings annually had a marked reduc­
tion in hydraulic conductivity with 
little additional decrease caused by 
additional coring annually.

Conclusions

HTC was more effective than STC in 
controlling change of thatch dry weight 
over a 5-year period. H/STC tended to 
be intermediate in performance. Two 
aerifications annually had a positive 
impact on change in thatch; however, 
six aerifications annually were required 
to have a major effect on thatch or soil 
properties. Soil bulk density below 
the depth of tine penetration was not 
changed by method of coring. How­
ever, soil bulk density below the aerifi­
cation zone consistently increased as 
the number of annual corings in­
creased, which suggests that long-term 
use of core aerification, especially in 
heavy soils, may result in development

14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

of a compacted zone. Field-saturated 
hydraulic conductivity 4 inches below 
the turf surface was reduced by in­
creasing the number of annual corings, 
but soil receiving STC retained the 
ability to conduct water to a greater 
extent than that receiving HTC. 
Hydraulic conductivity values suggest 
that a compacted zone below the depth 
of tine penetration may be formed 
earlier with HTC than with STC, par­
ticularly when STC is conducted on 
soils that are dry and easily fracture in 
the compaction zone.

DRS. BRAUEN and GOSS are retired 
from Washington State University. DR. 
JOHNSTON is an Associate Professor in 
the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 
at Washington State University, where he 
conducts turfgrass research, teaches, and 
advises undergraduate and graduate 
students.

References

Carrow, R. N., B. J. Johnson, and R. E. 
Bums. 1987. Thatch and quality of Tifway 
bermudagrass turf in relation to fertility 
and cultivation. Agronomy Journal, 79: 
524-530.
Dell, C. J., C. S. Throssell, M. Bischoff, and 
R. F. Turco. 1994. Estimation of sorption 
coefficients for fungicides in soil and turf­
grass thatch. Journal of Environmental 
Quality, 23: 92-96.

Dunn, J. H., D. D. Minner, B. F. Fresenburh, 
S. S. Bughrara, and C. H. Hohnstrater. 
1995. Influence of core aerification, top­
dressing, and nitrogen on mat, roots, and 
quality of “Meyer” zoysiagrass. Agronomy 
Journal, 87: 891-894.
Erusha, K. S., R. C. Shearman, and D. M. 
Bishop. 1989. Thatch prevention and con­
trol. Turfgrass Bulletin, 10(2): 10-11.

Lederboer, F. B., and C. R. Skogley. 1967. 
Investigations into the nature of thatch and 
methods for its decomposition. Agronomy 
Journal, 59: 320-323.
Linde, D. T., T. L. Watschke, A. R. Jarrett, 
and J. A. Borger. 1995. Surface runoff 
assessment from creeping bentgrass and 
perennial ryegrass turf. Agronomy Journal, 
87: 176-182.
Murphy, J. A., P. E. Rieke, and A. E. 
Erickson. 1993. Core cultivation of a 
putting green with hollow and solid tines. 
Agronomy Journal, 85:1-9.

Shildrick, J. P. 1985. Thatch: A review 
with special reference to UK golf courses. 
Journal Sports Turf Research Institute, 61: 
8-25.
White, R. H., and R. Dickens. 1984. Thatch 
accumulation in bermudagrass as influ­
enced by cultural practices. Agronomy 
Journal, 76: 19-22.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

15

Core aerification was conducted on the bentgrass fairway research plots at the 
Washington State University Research and Extension Center, Puyallup, Washington, 
during the five-year study of long-term aerification techniques.

1)
c
e
s

m

(

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

c
i
l

u
a
r
d
y
H

)
4
c
e
s

m

(

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

c
i
l

u
a
r
d
y
H

Figure 4. Effect of number of annual aerifications for 5 years 
on field-saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil below

Number of core aerifications per year

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A-4, Not Your 
Parents’ Bentgrass

New management techniques for a new bentgrass variety.

by CUTLER ROBINSON, CGCS

Bayville golf club began as 

.a vision to build a world-class 
' golf course in Virginia Beach, 
Virginia. Every aspect of this project 

focused on having a great golfing 
facility; all other amenities were sec­
ondary. The selection of Tom Fazio as 
the golf course architect heightened 
the anticipation for a great golf course. 
When I was selected as superintendent 
in January of 1995, the honor, impend­
ing challenge, and responsibility were 
daunting.

The plans for the project as prepared 
by Fazio Golf Course Designers were 
very detailed and thorough. The selec­
tion of grasses and plant materials was 
consistent with what would be con­
sidered standard for the area. The 
owners and architect maintained a 
keen sensitivity to the surrounding 
environment and mandated that only 
native grasses, shrubs, and trees be used 
in the out-of-play areas. The fairways, 
tees, and primary rough turf were to be 
planted to 419 bermudagrass, with 
Crenshaw bentgrass specified for the 
greens. However, during the winter of 
1995,1 was introduced to the new Penn 
series of bentgrasses.

Keith Hall, Dave Donovan, and Bud 
Brown showed me the new Penn A-l 
at their project, the Pointe Golf Course 
in Powell’s Point, North Carolina. My 
interest in these new bentgrass varieties 
was piqued further when Dr. Melodee 
Fraser showed me slides of Penn A-4. 
After viewing the slides, it was clear 
that these new grasses offered a surface 
density similar to high quality perennial 
Poa annua (Poa annua var. replans}. 
The density of the stand of turf was 
truly amazing. Continued fact-finding 
provided evidence that the new bent­
grass varieties would survive and even 
thrive under management regimens 
generally associated with champion­
ship preparation. With research in 
hand, I proposed to Bob Stanton (the 
club’s development chairman) and Tom 
Marzolf (Senior Design Associate) that 
we seed our greens to A-4 creeping 

16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

bentgrass. With the guidance and assis­
tance of USGA agronomists Keith 
Happ and Stanley Zontek, it was 
agreed that A-4 would be used on the 
greens at Bayville Golf Club.

The greens were built in strict com­
pliance with the USGA recommenda­
tions for putting green construction. We 
attempted to balance pre-plant nutri­
tional levels in the greensmix by utiliz­
ing a combination of organic and 
synthetic materials. We formulated our 
pre-plant nutrition to balance our soil 
fertility while including natural organic 
sources of nitrogen.

The pre-plant fertilization for the 
greens at Bayville Golf Club were as 
follows:

shoots of the plants were bunched so 
tightly that the mowers had a tough 
time removing the previous day’s 
growth. Even after mowing, the sur­
faces appeared puffy. Lowering the 
height of cut and mowing more fre­
quently improved the appearance and 
playability of the turf. During the spring 
of 1996 we learned the height at which 
the grass could be cut was limited by 
the equipment, rather than the turf. It 
may be hard to imagine, but for this 
turf, lowering the mowing height did 
not negatively affect turf health. We 
tested various mowers and setups to 
find the lowest effective mowing height. 
If scalping occurred, the crowns sent 
up new shoots quickly. The bruised 

Product
Harmony­
greens fertilizer
Harmony- 
HI K fertilizer
Lebanon- 
starter fertilizer
Scott’s STEP
Dolomitic lime
Calcitic lime
Aqua root

Analysis Description
14-3-6

natural organic/bridge product

Rate
5 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.

6-2-12

natural organic/bridge product

5 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.

10-18-18

greens starter fertilizer

5 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.

granular micronutrient package
magnesium & calcium source
pH adjustment & calcium source
humate source

2 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.
10 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.
5 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.
2.5 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft.

Fertilizer selection and rates of appli­
cation were based upon soil testing and 
experience.

The greens were seeded with A-4 
during the summer of 1995. After the 
rough grading and finished contours 
were completed and approved on each 
hole, bermudagrass sprigs and sod 
were planted, and sand was placed in 
bunkers. This timeline meant establish­
ing bentgrass during the extreme heat 
of June through August. However, this 
proved to be the right decision and 
resulted in a more mature turf when we 
opened in November of the same year.
As the turf matured through the fall 
of 1995, we found that lower mowing 
heights improved playing quality and 
general turf health. The crowns and 

areas healed completely in a few 
days.

While experimenting with mowing 
procedures, we also were fine tuning 
our topdressing program. As with any 
good topdressing program, our goal 
was to apply the topdressing material at 
a rate that matched growth. We wanted 
to manage thatch and the mat layer. 
However, we quickly learned that 
working the sand through such a tight, 
dense turf was a challenge. Any par­
ticles over 0.50mm sat on the surface 
and damaged mowers and affected 
playability. Eventually, and with per­
sistence, a weekly schedule of light top­
dressing provided the consistent blend 
of thatch, air, and soil desired. The top­
dressing also provided a degree of 

resiliency that allowed frequent use of 
rollers to improve ball roll and the 
firmness of the putting surface.

The propensity of A-4 to form such 
a dense mat creates a potential threat of 
excessive thatch accumulation. Main­
taining the lowest height of cut pos­
sible, along with weekly topdressings, 
helps us keep thatch under control. 
These practices also provide a firm, 
smooth putting surface. Our mowing/ 
player preparation practices for 1997 
were as follows:

Procedure 

Number of
times in 1997

Double cut (.100") 

169

Double roll (Salsco) 32

Single cut (.100") 

93

Single roll (Salsco) 

157

It may seem extreme or excessive to 
mow and roll so frequently, but we 
consider these procedures essential to 
control thatch and satisfy our players. 
The costs of these procedures are offset 
by the turf’s tolerance of environmental 
extremes and disease pressure. Pesti­
cides and hand watering were not 
needed as much as we thought.

Over time, we also learned to stream­
line our procedures to maximize our 
results and minimize labor. During 
normal conditions, two people can top- 
dress and brush the greens. We use the 
Grains Keeper Brush to work the top­
dressing into the surface. This tool 
allows us to complete this much- 
needed task ahead of the play while not 
affecting surface quality or damaging 
the turf. The Grains Keeper Brush has 
proven to be an excellent investment.

The use of an extremely clean and 
uniform topdressing material keeps 
mower damage to a minimum. During 
our experimental period, our equip­
ment manager, Mike Flint, kept the 
mowers in tip-top condition. His efforts 
have been integral to our success, along 
with carefully selecting a topdressing 
material.

Our topdressing program continues 
to be fine-tuned. We now attempt to 
apply 30 to 35 topdressings per year. 
Environmental conditions guide us as 
to the rate of sand applied and the 
method by which it is worked into the 
turf. On most occasions, we topdress 
behind the mowers with a pendulum­
type spreader and then broom the 
greens with the mechanical brush. The 
mechanical brush is not overly abrasive 
to the turf canopy. The upright growth 
pattern of the A-4 turf seems to allow

A-4 has a propensity to form a dense organic mat. By maintaining the lowest height of 
cut possible, in addition to applying weekly topdressings, thatch accumulation is kept 
under control.

the brushes to glide over the canopy. 
Under environmentally stressful condi­
tions (extreme heat and high humidity), 
the sand is hand watered in, rather than 
brushed.

No matter the conditions, a wetting 
agent is applied once a month on top 
of the topdressing sand and watered in. 
We proactively attack hydrophobic soil 
conditions. Offering the players a high- 
quality product immediately following 
each maintenance procedure is para­
mount.

The greens are aerified four times a 
year with A" quadratines. We treat in 
March, June, September, and Novem­
ber. The use of these smaller tines offers 
agronomic benefit while not adversely 
affecting playability. The small holes 
also heal quickly. Coring procedures 

are supplemented by four to six Hydro- 
Ject treatments per season.

We have experienced few disease or 
insect problems. During environmen­
tally stressful periods the A-4 has per­
formed beautifully. It has demonstrated 
excellent recuperative potential follow­
ing drought stress, much better than 
other bentgrasses I have managed.

The occurrence of Poa annua has 
been so minimal that a little hand pick­
ing and plugging in April eradicates this 
scourge. Maintaining a healthy stand of 
turf through the stressful summer is the 
best method of annual bluegrass pre­
vention.

A general misconception of guests 
to Bayville is that the new type of grass 
on our greens is the reason our surfaces 
are so enjoyable to play. The reality is 

Equipment maintenance is as important as ever when dealing with the new bentgrass 
varieties. During our learning and experimental period our equipment manager, Mike 
Flint, kept the mowers in top condition. His efforts have been integral to our success.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

17

that the grass can be managed to its full 
potential because the factors affecting 
its growth have been carefully skewed 
in its favor. The following factors have 
influenced the results achieved at 
Bayville:

• Use of golf spikes that do not 
pierce the leaves of the grass (non- 
metal).

• Meticulously constructed USGA- 
spec greens on sites that offer good light 
and air flow.

• Sound management via equip­
ment availability and labor resources 
(through the support of the club’s 
board approving equipment and labor 
resources).

• Establishing a variety of grass that 
has been genetically predisposed for 
specific playing characteristics.

Bert Crawford, green chairman at 
Bayville Golf Club, and I have worked 

closely to maximize player satisfaction 
at the club. His advice and guidance 
have had a positive impact on the 
product we offer. One bit of advice he 
gave regarding the management of our 
A-4 greens has held true. He said, “Life 
is an adaptation.” I believe much of the 
success we have experienced with this 
grass is due to our willingness to be 
flexible and our ability to adapt specific 
procedures that provide the desired 
results. The staff is extremely flexible 
and understanding of the dynamics of 
environmental influences on turfgrass 
growth. Textbook or outlined proce­
dures could never supplant in-the- 
field, on-the-spot decision making.

We have found that players of all 
skill levels adapt very well to Stimp- 
meter readings above 11 feet when this 
playing condition is offered on a con­
sistent basis. The greatest challenge to 

the average player is stopping the ball 
on the putting surface, especially when 
the hole is playing downwind. For us, 
it is clear that healthy, firm, and fast 
putting surfaces heighten the enjoy­
ment of golf. As turfgrasses and main­
tenance practices continue to improve, 
more and more people will be able to 
experience the exhilaration of playing 
championship conditions.

CUTLER ROBINSON has been a golf 
course superintendent since 1982. Cutler 
was the superintendent at Elizabeth 
Manor Golf and Country Club in Ports­
mouth, Virginia, from 1986 until he 
assumed the duties at Bayville in 1995. 
He became a Certified Golf Course Super­
intendent in 1990 and has continued his 
postgraduate work in plant physiology, 
pathology, and weed science at VPI, work­
ing toward his master's degree.

The following table is based on the management of Elizabeth Manor Golf and Country Club 
during 1994 as compared to the management of Bayville Golf Club in 1997.

A-4 Greens Management Cost Comparison to Penncross
Bayville Golf Club (A-4) with USGA green construction (1997) vs. Elizabeth Manor Golf and Country Club 
(Penncross with 25% Poa annua) with push-up/soil-based green construction (1994 management procedures)

Procedure

Mowing

Rolling

Topdressing

• All dollars at 1997 cost (i.e., supplies and labor)
• Bayville has 150,000 sq. ft. of bentgrass, Elizabeth Manor has 100,000 sq. ft.
Cost/ 
1997 
1000 sq. ft.
Cost

Elizabeth Manor 
1994 Total

Bayville 1997

Cost

Cost/ 
1000 sq. ft.

5524 man-hours*

38,668

257.79

3200 man-hours

22,400

224.00

785 man-hours

594 man-hours 
176 tons of sand 
at $42/ton

5,495

4,158
7,392

36.63

27.72
49.28

200 man-hours

150 man-hours
120 tons of sand 
at $22/ton

1,400

1,050 
2,640

14.00

10.50
26.40

IPM

labor and management

no significant difference

Plant Protectants

disease, insect, and 
weed control

12,280

81.87

Fertilizer and 
Soil Treatments

Equipment 
Maintenance

Aeration

NPK, micros, 
Primer, misc., etc.

parts: bedknives, 
reels; fuel, etc. 
labor/technician, 
900 man-hours*

Quadratine and 
Hydroject 
360 man-hours

7,750

51.67

12,500

83.33

2,520

16.80

disease, insect, and 
weed control

NPK, micros, 
agents, misc., etc.

parts: bedknives, 
reels; fuel, etc.
labor, 400 man-hours

Verti-Drain, coring, 
and Hydroject 
240 man-hours

10,500

105.00

7,500

75.00

5,500

55.00

1,680

16.80

Hand Watering

400 man-hours

2,800

TOTAL

18.66

$714

400 man-hours

2,800

28.00

$615

Equates to $0.10 (ten cents) per square foot in additional maintenance costs per year
(for a course with 150,000 sq. ft. of bentgrass = $15,000/year additional cost)

Not included: cost of management, equipment depreciation, storage, and insurance

*A11 hourly rates based on $7.00/hour average wage, except equipment maintenance, which is based on $15.00/hour 

18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Introducing A New Creeping Bentgrass Cultivar 
Through Interseeding: Does It Work?

It sounds like a good idea, but there are drawbacks.

by PATRICIA SWEENEY, Ph.D., and KARL DANNEBERGER, Ph.D., 
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

lishment. Within a few weeks of seed­
ing, superintendents often observe 
small seedlings germinating. However, 
after the turf fills in, how do we know 
how much of the new cultivar is 
present?

Assessing the Effectiveness 
of Interseeding

We looked at the effectiveness of one 
method of interseeding for incorporat­
ing new bentgrass cultivars over a four- 
year period. The putting greens used in 
this study were located on a golf course 
and established to Penncross creeping 
bentgrass. The greens had little if any 
thatch at the time of interseeding and 
had full canopy cover. Over the four- 
year period from 1994 to 1997, the 
greens were interseeded once with 
Providence and ProCup, and four times 
with G2. The procedure for interseed­
ing the greens was similar all four years.

Prior to seeding, greens were aerified 
with /2-inch or %-inch tines and the 
plugs were removed. Greens were then 
topdressed and dragged. Seed was 
applied between 0.25 and 0.37 pounds 
per 1,000 square feet. The greens were 
then verticut or dragged to work the 
seed into the coring holes and turf. A 
second seeding at 0.25 to 0.37 pounds 
per 1,000 square feet was applied. 
Verticutting or dragging was again used 
to incorporate the seed. The greens 
were immediately watered, fertilized, 
and maintained to promote seedling 
establishment. The greens were initially 
cut at 732" with no baskets. After inter­
seeding G2, mowing heights were 
gradually reduced to %" over the next 
six to eight weeks.

In November 1997, we took 28 indi­
vidual plant samples from a green. We 
used RAPD (Random Amplified Poly­
morphic DNA) markers, a molecular 

THE RELEASE of several new 

creeping bentgrass cultivars with 
higher shoot density finer tex­
ture, and greater tolerance to environ­

mental stresses has led many golf 
course superintendents to think how 
best to introduce these new cultivars 
into their existing creeping bentgrass 
greens. The most effective means is 
through total renovation. This consists 
of killing or removing the existing turf­
grass and then reestablishing with a 
new cultivar. The downside to this 
approach is the requirement to close 
the greens until the turf is established. 
This process could last as long as 
several months, during which time 
significant loss of play would occur.

An alternative method to total reno­
vation of greens is a practice that is 
known as interseeding. In interseeding, 
the new, desired cultivar is introduced 
into an established stand of creeping 
bentgrass over a period of time. The 
desired result is a gradual conversion of 
the existing putting green surface of 
an older cultivar to one containing the 
new cultivar without serious disruption 
to the green.

Many of the practices used in inter­
seeding are similar to or adapted from 
practices used to overseed bermuda­
grass greens with a cool-season turf­
grass during the autumn. Generally, 
interseeding practices consist of trying 
to provide the best seed-soil contact 
possible without totally destroying the 
existing turf surface. Verticutting, 
coring, and topdressing are used in 
various combinations in interseeding 
programs. The intensity of these prac­
tices is generally not severe enough to 
disrupt or limit play. Practices that 
attempt to limit the competitiveness of 
the existing turf, such as using plant 
growth regulators or mowing at a 
shorter height of cut also may be used.
Following the mechanical prepara­
tion, the new cultivar is broadcast or 
slit-seeded into the stand. The seeding 
rate, in many cases, is higher than the 
normally recommended rates for estab­

Aerification was used to disrupt the soil surface and prepare the putting green for 
interseeding a new cultivar.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

19

marker technique useful in fingerprint­
ing genotypes, to determine the pro­
portion of each cultivar on the green. 
We recognized there would be diffi­
culties in determining the amount of 
newly introduced creeping bentgrass 
cultivars in the greens. Creeping bent­
grass cultivars are synthetics, and thus 
are a mix of genotypes rather than a 
single genotype. Some of the genotypes 
present in the introduced cultivars are 
likely to be present in Penncross. It was 
unlikely that we could find a RAPD 
marker that could specifically identify 
a cultivar by being present in that one 
cultivar alone.

To make this study even more chal­
lenging, the green in question had been 
interseeded with three different culti­
vars over a four-year period. Ideally we 
would have sampled the green to get a 
base reading before interseeding. This 
would have given us a before and after 
picture of the population on the green.
Regardless of these obstacles, we still 
thought we could get some idea of how 
successfully the newly introduced culti­
vars had become established on the 
green if we could identify a RAPD 
marker that was prevalent in Penncross 
but rare in the interseeded cultivars. We 
germinated seedlings of Penncross, 
Providence, ProCup, and G2, and 
extracted DNA from the seedlings. 
After four months of screening primers, 
we identified one that produced a 
RAPD marker in 75% of the Penncross 
and ProCup seedlings, but not in 
Providence or G2 seedlings.

We amplified DNA from 28 indi­
vidual plant samples from the green in 
question using the primer that identi­
fied Penncross. Eighteen of 25 (several 
samples had poor amplification and 
were not used in the calculations) or 
73% of the samples had the distin­
guishing RAPD marker for Penncross. 
Based on probabilities, the remaining 
seven plants were also likely to be 
Penncross. Since the identifying marker 
was not prevalent in Providence or G2, 
we concluded that these cultivars were 
not present. Although we can’t rule out 
the possibility that a portion of the 
plants on the green might be ProCup, 
there is no evidence that ProCup would 
be any better at establishing than G2 
or Providence. We feel confident in the 
conclusion that there are few, if any, of 
the newly introduced creeping bent­
grass cultivars. Based on our work on 
this golf course, the greens are probably 
still Penncross.

Our study assessed the results of one 
method of interseeding new bentgrass 

20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

cultivars into existing stands of bent­
grass and may not be applicable when 
other methods are used to enhance 
establishment. Also, a more compre­
hensive sampling of various greens 
from other golf courses undergoing 
interseeding would be justified. How-

PROCUP G2 

PROV PENN

Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA 
(RAPD) markers were used to fingerprint 
or identify the proportion of each 
cultivar in the sample. Markers were 
determined for ProCup, G2, Providence, 
and Penncross creeping bentgrass.

ever, in the context of plant competi­
tion, our data are very compelling. 
Actually, it would be more difficult to 
explain a shift from Penncross to one 
of the interseeded creeping bentgrass 
cultivars.

The introduction of a cultivar into an 
existing stand of the same species 
would result in an extremely compet­
itive situation. This competition is 
driven by the fact that individuals of the 
same species share the same require­
ments for resources. In other words, 
individuals of the two cultivars are so 
closely related and differentiation for a 
niche is so small that exploiting niche 
differences is difficult. Given that the 
individuals of the existing cultivar are 
more mature and already established, 
they have a distinct advantage in cap­
turing resources such as light, water, 
and nutrients over the seedlings of the 
new cultivar. Almost all, if not all the 
advantages lie with the existing creep­
ing bentgrass cultivar.

What about the new seedlings ob­
served initially after seeding? Germi­
nation of seedlings does not depend on 
a competitive edge. Seedlings, given 
minimal space and moisture (soil con­
tact), germinate, then live off the nutri­
ents available in the seed. They don’t 
compete with established plants for 
nutrients, space, light, and water. The 
question of whether the new seedlings 
compete once they have used up the 
energy from the seed has not been 
addressed. Our results imply that once 
the seedlings are on their own they do 
not compete well with existing plants.
Practices that slow the growth of the 
existing turf prior to and after seeding 

have been suggested as ways to favor 
the new seedlings. This philosophy 
works when you’re attempting to favor 
one species over another, especially in 
the case of overseeding a warm-season 
turfgrass with a cool-season turfgrass in 
the autumn when the warm-season 
turfgrass is entering dormancy. The 
dormant warm-season turfgrass won’t 
compete much during the winter. But 
how do you favor one cultivar of bent­
grass over another? How can germi­
nating bentgrass seedlings compete 
with an established stand of bentgrass? 
Mowing at a lower height of cut should 
tend to favor the newer creeping bent­
grasses, but does this provide enough 
advantage for a seedling to out-com- 
pete an established plant of the same 
species? Our results suggest that it 
doesn’t.

We would suggest that for interseed­
ing to be successful, the existing creep­
ing bentgrass would have to be severely 
stressed and a significant amount of 
the turfgrass canopy removed. Practices 
such as a severe scalping of the turf 
may reduce the competitiveness of the 
existing bentgrass to a level that the 
new cultivar would have a chance. 
Practices that destroy the turf canopy 
and create open spaces could reduce 
competition from the existing creeping 
bentgrass plants and allow the new 
seedlings to develop. Further studies 
need to be conducted to develop effec­
tive procedures for interseeding, but 
given our results and current interseed­
ing procedures, introducing a new 
cultivar is best accomplished through 
total renovation.

If interseeding was successful, the 
dispersal of the new cultivar within the 
existing stand needs to be addressed. 
In other ecological systems, the intro­
duction of a new species results in a 
patchy appearance indicating non- 
uniform introduction of the species. 
Will the same quilt-like transition occur 
when one cultivar is introduced into 
another? We suggest that greens with 
patches of various bentgrasses would 
not be desirable and that management 
of such a green would be difficult.

DR. PATRICIA SWEENEY and DR. KARL 
DANNEBERGER are turfgrass professors 
in the Department of Horticulture and 
Crop Science at The Ohio State University. 
Their research work focuses on using 
molecular markers to evaluate shifts in 
turfgrass populations and to identify 
turfgrass cultivars.

ON COURSE WITH NATURE

Crooked Oaks Golf Course has century-old live oaks and maritime forest on the property. Wildlife and habitat enhancement, in 
conjunction with naturalization areas, is a key component of our efforts in the Audubon program.

CERTIFICATION:
A GRATIFYING EXPERIENCE
Seabrook Island and the Audubon Program become a natural fit.

by ALLAN H. PULASKI

I FIRST LEARNED of the Audubon 

Cooperative Sanctuary Program in 
late 1993. After learning more about 
this program, it became obvious to me 

that this was what golf needed — an 
organization that not only provided 
golf course superintendents with ideas 
and principles that could be imple­
mented at almost any golf course to 
protect and enhance their unique en­
vironment, but also had the support of 
the USGA and many of the proactive 
environmental groups.

The Club at Seabrook Island is a 
private club located on a barrier island 
(Seabrook Island) about 30 miles 
southeast of Charleston, S.C., and is 
comprised of two golf courses. The golf 

courses offer many different challenges 
both from a golfer’s viewpoint as well 
as from a maintenance standpoint be­
cause of their natural settings and 
completely different designs. The 
Ocean Winds golf course is bordered 
by sand dunes and salt marshes, while 
the Crooked Oaks golf course is routed 
through century-old live oaks and 
maritime forest.

As I learned more about the ACSP, it 
was apparent that this program could 
be a valuable addition to our manage­
ment of both courses. The ACSP would 
allow us to accomplish three major 
goals: 1) protect and enhance the en­
vironment that is an integral part of 
these golf courses, while simultane­

ously providing quality playing condi­
tions; 2) educate the membership and 
citizens of Seabrook Island that the 
environment and golf can co-exist with 
prosperity; and 3) compile the neces­
sary documentation to achieve certifi­
cation status with the program and to 
have our management practices docu­
mented properly.

One of the main concerns with im­
plementing such a program was how 
the membership, especially the golfing 
membership, would accept these prin­
ciples. The first person I asked to 
volunteer some time was a tennis 
member. Ann Kent is a very knowl­
edgeable person who provides a very 
non-partisan view. She also is involved 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

21

with many other organizations in the 
community. After two meetings we for­
mally assembled our Resource Com­
mittee for the program. The remainder 
of the group are five golf members, staff, 
and one town official, who is also a 
member. For us, the Outreach and 
Education category for certification 
was the easiest category to obtain 
certification and is the most important 
category that allows this program to 
thrive with positive results here at 
Seabrook Island.

The Club at Seabrook Island became 
a fully certified member of the ACSP in 
July 1996. We were all very proud as it 
was the first golf facility to achieve this 
designation in South Carolina.

Wildlife and habitat enhancement, in 
conjunction with naturalizing areas of 
turfgrass and providing aquatic buffers, 
is a key component of our program. We 
are able to incorporate these projects 
into other categories of the ACSP such 
as Water Conservation and Water 
Quality Management. As part of our 
continuing efforts to enhance wildlife, 
an emphasis has been focused on birds. 
Seabrook Island is located along the 
eastern flyway for migratory birds. 
Inventories of birdfeeders (78) and 
birdhouses (27) throughout the golf 
courses have been recorded, bluebird 
houses erected and monitored on the 
golf courses, an osprey nest erected, 
and wood duck boxes are planned.

Projects like these have really helped 
influence participation in and the 
popularity of the Audubon Program 
here at Seabrook. Other events such 
as the Birdwatching Ryder Cup Cham­
pionship conducted in May of 1997 
and the North American Golf Course 
Birdwatching Open in May 1998 pro­
vided great opportunities for people in 
the community to see how golf courses 
can fill an ecological role while serving 
as a recreational facility.

Our Integrated Pest Management 
(IPM) program is very detailed. This 
intense IPM program is a credit to the 
assistant superintendents and staff. Our 
goal is to protect and enhance habitat 
each year for this fragile environment 
we enjoy each day. At the same time, 
we must manage these two golf 
courses, making sound agronomical 
decisions that will allow for quality 
playing conditions and an enjoyable 
round of golf for our clientele. With 
the IPM program, my staff records golf 
course conditions daily. With this re­
corded information, we are able to 
compare and reflect upon past condi­
tions and their impact on the decisions 
involved with managing these two golf 
courses. As we compile more data, our 
management practices become more 
consistent each year, with pest control 
becoming more site specific.

When I evaluate the value of the 
ACSP personally and professionally, it 

is a win-win situation. Personally, it is 
an education process that is invaluable 
and allows me to experience nature 
firsthand. Professionally, the ACSP pro­
vides environmental guidelines and 
practices that golf course superinten­
dents can use not only to enhance 
and protect the environment, but to 
enhance their value as knowledgeable 
stewards of the environment at local, 
regional, and national levels.

Mother Nature provides the settings, 
wildlife, and panoramic views we all 
enjoy at Seabrook Island. The ACSP 
has provided Seabrook with many 
ideas and practices to protect and 
enhance this unique environment. It 
has been the support of the club’s 
membership and the efforts of the 
Resource Committee that have allowed 
the golf maintenance staff to implement 
these sound management practices. 
The experience has been very fulfilling 
for the Resource Committee at Sea­
brook. I guess that is why we work so 
hard to make it better every day.

ALLAN H. PULASKI is a second-genera­
tion golf course superintendent. He is the 
Director of Golf Course Maintenance at 
The Club at Seabrook Island, Seabrook 
Island, South Carolina. Allan is on the 
Board of Directors of the Carolinas’ Golf 
Course Superintendents Association and 
is a Public Relations Committee member 
for GCSAA.

The Ocean Winds Golf Course is integrally intertwined with the sand dunes and salt marshes. Our maintenance is carefully 
managed to successfully protect and enhance these environmentally sensitive areas.

22 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

NEWS NOTES

Peter Leuzinger

Correction

OUR APOLOGIES to Mr. Peter

Leuzinger, CGCS, for misidentify­
ing his golf course affiliation in the 
article “Environmental Commitment” 
in the July/August 1998 Green Section 
Record. Currently, Pete is golf course 
superintendent at The Ivanhoe Club, 
located in Ivanhoe, Illinois. Pete is a 
model in the environmental commit­
ment arena as he is the only superinten­
dent to have taken two golf courses to 
full certification status in the Audubon 
Cooperative Sanctuary Program: The 
Ivanhoe Club and St. Charles Country 
Club (St. Charles, Illinois).

Green Section Internships Awarded

FOR THE SECOND YEAR, the USGA Green Section awarded internships to 

outstanding turf management students. During 1998, the Green Section 
provided the opportunity for 14 students to travel with members of the Green 
Section staff on Turf Advisory Service visits for one week between the months of 

May and August. The goal of the internship program was to provide students with 
a broader view of the golf course industry and the opportunity to learn about golf 
course maintenance through the perspective of the Green Section agronomists. The 
students selected for travel during the 1998 season included:

Name

University

Year in 
School

Advisor

Jeffrey Borger

Penn State University

Junior

Dr. Tom Watschke

D. Cort Centanni University of Georgia

Roger D. Cole

Purdue University

Senior

Senior

Dr. Keith Karnok

Dr. Clark Throssell

Charles R. Ford

University of Nebraska

Senior

Dr. Garald Horst

Travis W. Gannon North Carolina State 

Senior

Dr. Rich Cooper

University

John E. Jordan

Texas A&M University

Dr. Richard White

Graduate 
Student — 
M.S.

Mark G. Kann

University of Florida

Junior

Dr. Grady Miller

Douglas P. 
McCullen

Oregon State University

Senior

Prof. Tom Cook

Art Schaub

Cornell University

Dr. Frank Rossi

Graduate 
Student — 
M.S.

Brian C. Smith

Virginia Tech University

Senior

Dr. Dave Chalmers

Michael A. Souza California Polytechnic 

Senior

Dr. Dave Wehner

State University

Eric J. Sowatsky

Michigan State University Senior

Dr. Jim Crum

Sean Tully

Matthew
Wasserloos

Colorado State University Senior

Dr. Tony Koski

University of 
Massachusetts

Graduate 
Student — 
M.S.

Dr. Nancy 
Garrabrants

Physical Soil Testing 
Laboratories*
The following laboratories are accredited 
by the American Association for 
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), having 
demonstrated ongoing competency in 
testing materials specified in the USGA’s 
Recommendations for Putting Green 
Construction. The USGA recommends 
that only A2LA-accredited laboratories 
be used for testing and analyzing 
materials for building greens according to 
our guidelines.

BROOKSIDE 
LABORATORIES, INC.
308 S. Main Street
New Knoxville, OH 45871 
Attn: Mark Flock
(419) 753-2448
(419) 753-2949 FAX

EUROPEAN TURFGRASS 
LABORATORIES LIMITED
3 Cunningham Road 
Springkerse Industrial East 
Stirling FK7 7SL Scotland 
Attn: John Souter 
(44) 1786-449195
(44) 1786-449688 FAX

N. W. HUMMEL & CO.
35 King Street, P.O. Box 606 
Trumansburg, NY 14886 
Attn: Norm Hummel
(607) 387-5694
(607) 387-9499 FAX

THOMAS TURF 
SERVICES, INC.
1501 FM 2818, Suite 302 
College Station, TX 77840-5247 
Attn: Bob Yzaguirre I Jim Thomas 
(409) 764-2050
(409) 764-2152 FAX

TIFTON PHYSICAL SOIL 
TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
1412 Murray Avenue 
Tifton, GA 31794 
Attn: Powell Gaines 
(912) 382-7292 
(912) 382-7992 FAX

TURF DIAGNOSTICS 
AND DESIGN, INC.
310-A North Winchester Street 
Olathe, KS 66062 
Attn: Chuck Dixon
(913) 780-6725
(913) 780-6759 FAX

^Revised January 1998. Please 

contact the USGA Green Section 
(908-234-2300) for an updated list 
of accredited laboratories.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER1998 

23

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
Chasing Color 
Many of today’s golfers 
think that if the turf grass 
isn’t green, it is dead.

by PATRICK M. O’BRIEN

OVER THE YEARS, I have spoken 

I at hundreds of Golf Association 
'meetings on topics ranging from 
Poa annua control to putting green 

reconstruction. No topic stirs up the 
pot more than the debate over whether 
or not to overseed dormant bermuda­
grass fairways for winter play. The 
desire to play on green fairway turf all 
year round is a popular notion, but few 
golfers understand that they are giving 
up long-range course improvements to 
have green fairway turf during the 
winter.

Today, fairways are being overseeded 
more than ever for various reasons. 
Historically, resorts throughout the 
South overseeded to attract golfers 
during the winter months. Resort 
courses have always placed a premium 
on the winter golf season since most of 
their play occurs at that time of the 
year. Over the past 10 to 15 years, new 
housing developments associated with 
golf courses in the South have over­
seeded to help sell real estate. Munici­
pal and daily-fee courses have also 
been overseeding to entice golfers to 
play during the winter months. Even 
private clubs today are being lured 
into this practice. The primary reason 
most private courses overseed is for 
aesthetics. Television tournaments have 
encouraged demands for Augusta-like 
perfection and wall-to-wall green grass. 
But, even if your budget can afford 
fairway overseeding and the required 
maintenance that accompanies it, you 
need to ask if it is worth implement­
ing. I find many courses can’t afford 
this luxury maintenance practice and I 
hate seeing maintenance dollars being 
wasted on overseeding when there are 
so many other needs.

At most board meetings when over­
seeding is discussed, a cost estimate is 
assumed. Unfortunately, course officials 
and sometimes golf course superinten­
dents assume that the major expense 
associated with overseeding is the 
seed itself. I’ve witnessed many course 
officials approve overseeding based on 

24 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

seed cost, when the additional equip­
ment and labor expenses required can 
significantly exceed the cost of the seed. 
An overseeding cost worksheet (Table 
1) developed by Bill Anderson, golf 
course superintendent at the Carmel 
Country Club, Charlotte, N.C., pro­
vides a line item expense report that 
can be used to estimate fairway over­
seeding costs. These items include the 
additional seed, fertilizers, herbicides, 
growth regulators, water, labor, and 
equipment costs that may be associated 
with fairway overseeding.

This fairway overseeding cost work­
sheet is invaluable to assist course 
officials with the development of a new 
budget that would include fairway 
overseeding. By filling out this expense 
report, many courses will realize that 
this strategy may not be cost-effective.
Many courses may decide that other 
course improvements merit approval in 
place of fairway overseeding. Whether 
fairway overseeding costs are $25,000 
or $300,000 today, these expenses may 
be better allocated to other long-term 
improvements, such as cart paths, irri­
gation systems, turf equipment, main­
tenance buildings, drainage, new putt­
ing greens, etc. These improvements 
will last much longer than the six to 
eight months of temporary fairway 
aesthetics.

The aesthetic and playability benefits 
associated with fairway overseeding 
are not always achieved. A poor spring 
transition and the resulting slow re­
covery back to the base bermudagrass 

can cause poor summer playing con­
ditions. As soon as the bermudagrass 
recovers in the late summer, overseed­
ing occurs again and the cycle just re­
peats itself. Some years, even the over­
seeding is poor, and neither the winter 
nor the summer fairway surface is very 
good. Other intangibles include the 
fairway disturbance and wetter con­
ditions for three weeks in the fall 
during seeding establishment, and the 
potential for more weeds with the 
limited herbicide options.

The decision to overseed fairways is 
a decision that must be made by each 
individual course. Avoid the common 
pitfall of copying what neighboring 
courses may be doing, as it may not 
be the best for your site. While fairway 
overseeding is inherently neither right 
nor wrong, it is vital that the course 
considers the required costs and agro­
nomic practices before making the 
decision. By considering these factors, 
the course can make a decision on 
overseeding that is appropriate for their 
situation.

If a golf course’s budget can allow 
for fairway overseeding as well as 
long-term goals, I have no problem 
with the private courses allocating 
funds for this expenditure. Otherwise, 
I’d vote for a good long-range plan, not 
lush, green fairway turf from October 
to May.

PATRICK O’BRIEN is the director of the 
Green Section’s Southeast Region.

TABLEI
Overseeding Cost Worksheet at Carmel Country Club, Charlotte, N.C.

Units Required
@ 400 lbs. per acre
12,000 lbs.

Total Cost

$13,200

Item
Seed

18 holes (30 acres) 
Additional Fertilizers
18 holes (30 acres) 
Additional Herbicides
18 holes (30 acres)

Unit Cost

$1.10 per lb.

$50 per acre

$60 per acre

Additional Growth Regulators

18 holes (30 acres) 

$215 per acre

Additional Water

18 holes (30 acres) 

L/S

30

30

30

Additional Labor

18 holes

Additional Equipment

Drop spreader
Verticut reels
Vacuum
Fairway mower

TOTAL

$2,500 per hole

18

$2,000
$8,700
$23,500
$30,400

$1,500

$1,800

$6,450

$4,500

$45,000

$2,000
$8,700
$23,500
$30,400
$137,050

USGA PRESIDENT
F. Morgan Taylor, Jr.

GREEN SECTION 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
C. McD. England III
P.O. Box 58
Huntington, WV 25706

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David B. Fay

EDITOR
James T. Snow

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
Marty Parkes

©1998 by United States Golf Association®

Subscriptions $15 a year, Canada/Mexico 
$18 a year, and international $30 a year 
(air mail).

Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and corre­
spondence relevant to published material should 
be addressed to: United States Golf Association 
Green Section, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far 
Hills, NJ 07931.

Permission to reproduce articles or material in 
the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is 
granted to newspapers, periodicals, and educa­
tional institutions (unless specifically noted 
otherwise). Credit must be given to the author, 
the article’s title, USGA GREEN SECTION 
RECORD, and the issue’s date. Copyright 
protection must be 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, NJ 07931. Postmaster: Address 
service requested — USGA Green Section 
Record, P.O. Box 708, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 
07931-0708.

Periodicals postage paid at Far Hills, NJ, and 
other locations. Office of Publication, Golf 
House, Far Hills, NJ 07931.

Visit the USGA’s Internet site on the 
World Wide Web. The address is: 
http://www.usga.org

Turfgrass Information File (TGIF): 
http://www.lib.msu.edu/tgif 
(517) 353-7209

GREEN SECTION NATIONAL OFFICES:
United States Golf Association, Golf House
P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908) 234-2300 • Fax (908) 781-1736
James T. Snow, National Director 
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D, Director of Education
I^.csccirch •
P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900 • Fax (405) 743-3910 
Michael P. Kenna, Ph.D., Director

Construction Education Programs:
720 Wooded Crest, Waco, IX 76712 • (254) 776-0765 • Fax (254) 776-0227 
James F. Moore, Director

REGIONAL OFFICES:
Northeast Region:
P.O. Box 4717, Easton, PA 18043 • (610) 515-1660 • Fax (610) 515-1663
David A. Oatis, Director • Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist
1500 N. Main Street, Palmer, MA 01069 • (413) 283-2237 • Fax (413) 283-7741 
James E. Skorulski, Agronomist

Mid-Atlantic Region:
P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380-0086 • (610) 696-4747 • Fax (610) 696-4810 
Stanley J. Zontek, Director • Keith A. Happ, Agronomist • Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist

Southeast Region:
P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (770) 229-8125 • Fax (770) 229-5974 
Patrick M. O’Brien, Director
4770 Sandpiper Lane, Birmingham, AL 35244 • (205) 444-5079 • Fax (205) 444-9561 
Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist

Florida Region:
P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (561) 546-2620 • Fax (561) 546-4653 
John H. Foy, Director

Mid-Continent Region:
P.O. Box 1130, Mahomet, IL 61853 • (217) 586-2490 • Fax (217) 586-2169 
Paul H. Vermeulen, Director
4232 Arbor Lane, Carrollton, IX 75010 • (972) 492-3663 • Fax (972) 492-1350 
Brian M. Maloy, Agronomist

North-Central Region:
P.O. Box 15249, Covington, KY 41015-0249 • (606) 356-3272 • Fax (606) 356-1847 
Robert A. Brame, Director
P.O. Box 5069, Elm Grove, WI 53122 • (414) 797-8743 • Fax (414) 797-8838 
Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist

Northwest Region:
5610 Old Stump Drive N.W, Gig Harbor, WA 98332
(253) 858-2266 • Fax (253) 857-6698 
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director

Southwest Region:
505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 
(714) 542-5766 • Fax (714) 542-5777
Patrick J. Gross, Director • Michael T. Huck, Agronomist

DON’T CAST ASIDE

Question: Our membership complains each spring and fall about earthworm castings. I know 
the value of earthworms in turfgrass systems, but I cannot appease the membership. What can 
be done? (Maine)

Answer: Earthworms play a very valuable role in nutrient cycling, thatch reduction, 
and soil conditioning. There are no pesticides labeled for earthworm control, and using 
pesticides to combat earthworms is illegal. The British have contended for many years 
that the use of acidifying fertilizers, such as ammonium sulfate, provides very favorable 
results for discouraging earthworms. Sand topdressing the worst areas of fairways also 
will be helpful. Finally, continue to inform the membership about the value of earth­
worms in turfgrass management.

LONG-RANGE OPPORTUNITIES

Question: We are in the process of evaluating our operating budget. In particular, we’re looking 
at salaries and wages in comparison with the total budget, and our equipment replacement 
program. At an average course, what percentage of the total operating budget is the salaries and 
wages line item, and what type of guidelines are available for long-range equipment replacement? 
(Nevada)

Answer: On average, 60% of an operating budget is usually allotted for salaries and 
wages. If there is a variance of 10% or more above or below the average, take a close 
look at conditioning expectations compared to available staff to do the work.
With regards to equipment replacement, most courses find it necessary to spend an 
amount equal to 10% of their annual golf course maintenance budget for new 
equipment purchases. Replacement intervals will vary throughout the country 
depending on the equipment type, intensity of use, and how you care for the equip­
ment. As a general guideline, most fairway mowers and triplex units last five to seven 
years, utility carts and bunker rakes three to five years, walk-behind greens mowers 
three to five years, and string trimmers and smaller equipment two to three years.

TO EDUCATE GOLFERS

Question: During the spring and fall we experience a mottling effect and patchiness on our greens. 
I keep telling golfers that the effect is related to temperature. Is there an easy way to demonstrate 
this effect? (Maryland)

Answer: There’s not much that is ever easy! If a purpling or reddening effect is 
experienced, examine both the upper and lower side of the grass leaf blades. If it is 
cold temperature stress, most likely the exposed surface will exhibit discoloration 
(normally purple or red) and the underside of the leaf will still exhibit the normal 
green color. If the purpling or reddening effect is experienced on both sides of the leaf, 
then it may be a disease or nutrient problem. This technique doesn’t rule out other 
possibilities, but it does provide a starting point in your investigation.

10248824C0K000LBR0 SAMPL
PETER COOKINGHAM 
MSU LIBRARIES
EAST LANSING MI 48824