September-October 2004 The Right Consultant is a Valuable Resource ff* V.’ Contents September-October 2004 Volume 42, Number 5 1 The Voice of a Stranger The right consultant, when utilized properly, is a valuable resource to any golf course operation, big or small. BY JIM SKORULSKI 6 It Was 20 Years Ago Today ... The Turfgrass Information Center at Michigan State University. BY CLIFF HAKA 9 Making Every Drop Count Dealing with a restricted water supply in the Southwest. BY PATRICK J. GROSS 12 Developing Annual Bluegrass Cultivars for Putting Greens Work continues at Penn State University to tame this highly variable species. BY DAVID R. HUFF I In Search of the Silver Bullet The influence of microbial and organic-based products on putting green performance. BY FRANK S. ROSSI Rapid Blight Disease 27 Spawning of Cool-Season Grasses Good Stewardship Research reveals that certain Unique natural resources offer a cultivars tolerate rapid blight and may be suitable for overseeding. BY PAUL PETERSON, BRUCE MARTIN, AND JIM CAMBERATO 2 4 Capital Campaigning Presenting the right information can encourage golfers to vote “yes” on capital improvements. BY AN DREW ACKER means to demonstrate good environmental stewardship. BY STEVE KEALY Becoming Bilingual Use your Green Section Decoder to understand the language of golfers. BY CHRIS HARTWIGER J) ( ) Turf Twisters USGA USGA President Fred S. Ridley Green Section Committee Chairman Bruce C. Richards 12202 NE 31st Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Executive Director David B. Fay Editor James T. Snow Associate Editor Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D. Director of Communications Marty Parkes Cover Photo Consultants identify specific problems in the field and help devise viable solutions (Colorado Springs C.C., Colorado). THE VOICE OF A STRANGER The right consultant, when utilized properly, is a valuable resource to any golf course operation, big or small. BY JIM SKORULSKI Green Section agronomists consult on golf courses across the United States. With no specific products to sell, this extra set of eyes helps cut through marketing claims and identifies solutions based on research and proven experience (Kissing Camels G.C., Colorado Springs, Colorado). Consultants probably have been utilized in the golf industry for centuries. The legendary Old Tom Morris himself designed and consulted on the construction and maintenance of golf courses while he was the greenkeeper at St. Andrews. Records show that the legendary Drs. C.V Piper and R. A. Oakley, scientists with the USDA, were called upon by The National Golf Links in 1908 to help with the establishment of that golf course. Commercial consultants aligned with seed and other companies were used on golf courses well before that. Mr. E. J. Marshall, Green Committee chairman at the Inverness Club in 1920, lobbied the USGA and USDA to provide an impartial and authoritative source of agronomic information for the game of golf. His efforts spurred the formation of the USGA Green Section in November of that year. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 I CHOOSING THE RIGHT CONSULTANT The old adage “never bring a knife to a gunfight” is most appropriate when it comes to selecting a consultant. A golf course architect or pond specialist may not be qualified to develop a pro­ gram to improve your greens, and likewise an agronomist is not the ideal candidate to provide a detailed design plan for new greens or ponds. In many instances it is wise to begin the consulting process using a general consultant. An agronomic consultant will complete a wide-ranging review of the golf course, tackling all agronomic and management issues. An experienced agronomist, not unlike a good general practitioner, will be able to deal with the vast majority of golf course issues and will defer to specialized consultants (designers/engineers) when more specific advice, planning, or design work are necessary. A general agronomic consultant should be able to help compile information and prioritize recommenda­ tions provided from specialized consultants and designers. Agronomic consultants are also used to review architectural plans for agronomic sound­ ness and maintenance practicality. Each individual agronomist will likely have a special expertise but should be capable of addressing most manage­ ment issues on a golf course. Larger capital projects, including irrigation system redesign, major site drainage, golf course design, computer shade analysis, environmental permitting or site assessment, and renovating maintenance or clubhouse facilities, are better tackled by more specialized consultants or de­ signers. Those may include irrigation consultants, golf course architects and design consultants, drainage engineers, arborists, and environmental specialists. Designers and engineers will consult with each other and develop new design plans and oversee the construction or installation of larger projects. Selecting effective consultants is not unlike choosing a building contractor, golf course archi­ tect, or a financial planner. The people you select must have the appropriate knowledge and experi­ ence to get the job done correctly. Local or at least regional knowledge is helpful. They must also be credible, able to communicate effectively, and get along with a wide range of personalities. More importantly, they must possess a high level of integrity if their recommendations are to be credible and in the best interest of the golf course. There are some consultants who lack General consultants help identify and solve a wide range of agronomic and management issues in the field. When addressing more complicated issues, the consultant may call upon more specialized resources to help solve the problem. One of the Green Section’s early responsibilities included providing a non-commercial informa­ tional service for member clubs. The advisory service was limited during the early years, but the service was expanded considerably in 1953 when the Turf Advisory Service was introduced by the Green Section. There are many types of consultants to choose from. Agronomic consultants are helpful in diag­ nosing and solving agronomic problems, to help educate course officials, prioritize maintenance needs, confirm the need for and plan programs and capital projects, introduce new research and ideas, or act as an objective third party to evaluate management programs and bring a fresh perspec­ tive to the golf course. There are many types of specialized consultants who focus on specific areas, such as irrigation, drainage design, architecture, pond management, environmental planning, business and marketing, nutrient management, trees, facility design, and safety. Agronomic consultants may be affiliated with the USGA, regional golf associations, private entities, or universities or extension agencies. There are commercial consultants who are employed by companies to help sell products and provide their customers with product support and/or agronomic advice. Consultations may be requested by the superintendent, general manager, course official, or owner. Many golf course super­ intendents already have worked or eventually will work with a consultant of some sort. Choosing the right consultants, understanding their role, and preparing thoroughly for the process are critical to maximizing the benefit of the meeting. 2 GREEN SECTION RECORD credibility but may be attractive to the unwary, offering miracle cures that are often too good to be true. They usually are not in business for long, but they can leave an expensive path of destruc­ tion and disappointment. Good reputations follow good consultants in this industry, and the opposite is true for those with questionable pasts, so do your homework when selecting the right person for the task. In the best of worlds, the consultants you choose to work with should be independent and must be objective if their recommendations are to serve the best economic interest of the golf course. Commercial consultants will also strive to provide effective information, but there may be a bias to their recommendations. For example, the financial planner who is affiliated with a brokerage firm may promote mutual funds and other invest­ ments sold by that brokerage company. The financial planners recommendations may be effective, but there may be equally or more effective and less expensive opportunities with other investment companies that you will not hear about. Be aware of any affiliations a consul­ tant may have and consider what implications any company or product associations may have on the recommendations you receive. It is not imperative to choose a consultant who has a pleasant personality, but it is helpful. An effective relationship requires trust, and it is often more effective to work with someone who has a positive and constructive attitude. Developing a team concept based on mutual trust and respect will provide the greatest benefits. It is imperative that the consultant possess strong communication skills! The consultant should be convincing and have the ability to effectively present even the most technical information to the layman. Any visit should be followed with a timely and concise written report that details the observations and recommendations made during the visit. In some instances, it may be useful to ask the consultant to speak to golf course officials or address the membership. The consultant should be comfortable with public speaking for that purpose. PREPARING FOR THE CONSULTANT: MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS “Be prepared” is the Boy Scout motto that many of us learned long ago. Those words are critical in our jobs, especially when dealing with a consul­ tant who has a finite quantity of time to spend on the golf course. It is always a good idea to contact any consultant prior to an initial meeting to ask what information and records will be help­ ful for the visit. Past maintenance records, includ­ ing diagnostic information, fertilizer and pesticide records, soil and water test reports, budget and labor information, the number of rounds played, photographs, and the reports from other consul­ tants (if pertinent), can be useful for agronomic consultants. Be prepared to answer questions about cultural practices, current heights of cut and mowing frequencies, irrigation practices, labor issues, and golfers’ desires or expectations. There must be no secrets if the consultant is to be effective and helpful, so be willing to bare your soul. DEVELOPING AN AGENDA Develop a written agenda prior to the meeting to maximize your time with the consultant. The agenda does not have to be a complex document, but it should contain the primary objectives or issues that you wish to be addressed during the meeting. The agenda will keep the consultant and meeting attendees focused on the important issues and areas of concern on the golf course. Try to include the names of key people who attend the visit or who are the decision makers at the golf course. Those people may be critical during the visit and should be copied for any follow-up reports. Speaking from personal experience, a prepared agenda is one of the most helpful tools you can provide to a consultant working under tight time constraints and a heavy workload. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY It is important to encourage interested parties to participate in the meeting or site visit. But it is also important to keep the group manageable in size to remain efficient and adhere to the critical agenda items. A group of three to five (in­ cluding the superintendent) is ideal, but larger attendance Consultants often provide multiple and creative options to correct an agronomic problem that best fits the golf course financial situation. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 3 is never discouraged and may be necessary in some instances. It is important that the right people attend the visit. Those include the super­ intendent, the chairman or members of the Green Committee, influential board members, directors, the general manager, golf professional, or those who ultimately influence the decisions made on the golf course. Those who do not attend the field visit can submit agenda items or perhaps be invited to meet briefly with the con­ sultant prior to or immediately after the visit to voice their concerns. A “wrap-up” meeting at the end of a course visit can be very helpful and a good way to avoid potential misunderstandings that may have arisen while in the field. WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITH A CONSULTANT Agronomic consulting is somewhat unique from other forms of consulting in the golf industry. It deals not only with the science behind green­ keeping, but also involves dealing with various personalities and club politics. Agronomic con­ sultants often have to play detective when trying to provide explanations and develop sound recommendations. The following will help ensure your experience with a consultant is both beneficial and positive. • Consultants often are called in to calm the waters after a problem has occurred, but the consultant will be more effective in the long run if visits are scheduled on a routine basis. An annual checkup can prevent a small problem or potential issue from developing into a costly and unpleasant situation. Regular site visits allow the consultant to become familiar with the operation and nuances of the golf course at different times of the season. A routine site evaluation also provides a historical written record of the progress that has been made and where additional resources and improvements are required. That can be invaluable for maintaining continuity in future planning and golf course operations. • Experienced consultants can usually sense a personal or political agenda or recognize a loaded question. But it is a good idea to forewarn a con­ sultant as to any possible hidden agendas or per­ sonal vendettas that might surface during a site visit. Most consultants strive to stay above political and personal disputes and instead opt to provide positive and constructive recommendations that will move the golf course forward. • Do not expect the consultant to be a hench­ man who will validate all of the superintendents practices or support programs that promote individual playing preferences. A consultant, paid by a golf club or municipality, will have the best interest of the entire golf course and the golfers in mind. There will be times when disagreements over programs or policies occur, and that is healthy and one of the reasons to bring in a fresh set of eyes. But many times the consultant will support the programs and practices in place if they are sound and justifiable. • Be honest and do not withhold information from a consultant when answering questions and touring the golf course. The information is in­ valuable when trying to solve a problem and formulate new recommendations. Similarly, do not purposely avoid problem areas on the golf course during a site visit. Those areas, like the truth, usually surface and come back to haunt you at a later date. • There is nothing more frustrating to a consul­ tant than to repeatedly hear, “Great idea, but that won’t work here.” One benefit of using a consul­ tant is to bring in a fresh set of ideas. Do not automatically dismiss new ideas because they vary from the status quo or are not politically popular. The consultant should be hired as an expert, so be willing to present and implement those ideas that are provided to improve the golf course. • The level of negativity seems to be increasing on many golf courses. Some golfers appear to take delight in tearing apart their own golf courses. It is easy to become consumed by what is wrong with a golf course, failing entirely to acknowledge all that is right. A consultant can be helpful in pointing out the positives and provide constructive criticism and advice when it is necessary. Keep it positive! • A consultant should not be expected to be a hatchet man! Most consultants would choose to work with a golf course and its superintendent in a positive aspect, always looking at ways to improve management practices and make the golf course as good as it can be with the resources available. There are times when personnel changes are inevitable and justified, but don’t hire the outside stranger solely to do the dirty work. • A good consultant will work with a golf course and the resources available to it. They may not always save the golf course money. A good con­ sultant will provide realistic recommendations and an idea of the resources that will be required 4 GREEN SECTION RECORD to improve the golf course to meet the golfers’ expectations. It is then up to the golfers to decide whether or not to provide the additional re­ sources that are required to implement the programs and practices. • Utilize a consultant’s strengths. Complex design questions and planning should be left to an archi­ tect, while turf quality and playing conditions should be left to the agronomist. All consultants will happily provide an opinion on just about anything. It’s in their blood. Just treat it as an opinion and leave the conclusive answers to the experts in their field. • Comparisons between golf courses, racehorses from different eras, or favorite whiskies are in­ evitable and can be amusing when taken in the proper context. However, it is easy to become consumed by comparison, as is often the case with golfers. Many Green Section agronomists are asked why the greens are always faster, the fairways greener, and the water colder at the course down the street. In reality, conditions are often very similar at both golf courses. Con­ vincing golfers of that can be a challenge. Com­ parisons can be helpful if they are realistic and used constructively to obtain the resources needed to improve a golf course and meet the expectations of the golfers. But little good will come from unrealistic comparisons or expectations. • Too often an agronomic consultant is utilized to solve problems after a major architectural project is complete. Utilize an agronomist to review the plan before it is implemented to assure it is sound from an agronomic standpoint (i.e., surface and internal drainage, growing environ­ ments, traffic flow, rootzone materials, orientation, etc.) and capable of supporting good quality turf. The consultant will also provide quality control guidance to further assure the project’s success. It is money well spent. • Unscrupulous consultants are few and far between, but inevitably a new name or face will show up and raise quite a stir. Often they prey on the unwary by offering the latest and greatest recommendations, which mostly are unproven remedies. Their fame is usually short lived, but not before they wreak havoc on golf courses, operating budgets, and super­ intendents. Do your homework before selecting a consultant and avoid those offering novel approaches that seem too good to be true. They probably are. An impartial consultant can be most helpful with material selection and developing quality control programs and grow- in practices that help assure a project’s success. The premise of this article is not entirely to promote the role of consultants in golf or to promote the Green Section Turf Advisory Service. The value of good consultants will quickly become evident to anyone who employs their services. The goal of the article is to offer some ideas to aid you in selecting the right con­ sultant for the job and to maximize the experi­ ence. If you still remain wary of the idea of utilizing an agronomic or specialized consultant, consider the following words of H. H. Hilton in the book Golf Greens and Green-Keeping: “The voice of a stranger who has had any experience of the game is always worth listening to. He appears on the links with an open mind; his mind is not warped with the prejudices of many years’ association.” The words of the stranger may be critical, and not all the recommendations feasible, but an objective evaluation can point out failings and weaknesses that are not fully understood, prevent expensive mistakes before they occur, and help make the golf course the best it can be. Quote from H. H. Hilton in Golf Greens and Green-Keeping, edited by Horace G. Hutchinson, Country Life Limited, London MCMVI,p. 168. Jim Skorulski is a senior Green Section agronomist in the Northeast Kegion, where he consults with golf courses around the New England states and eastern Canada. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 5 It Was 20 Years Ago Today... The Turfgrass Information Center at Michigan State University. BY CLIFF HAKA Every successful discipline advances when its literature becomes more accessible. The discipline grows, contributes to communal knowledge, and thus enhances society. In this respect, turfgrass is no different than medicine or chemistry. Attempts to test a theory or address a problem start with the identification of relevant research or articles dealing with the practical appli­ cation of research findings. This typically starts by consulting an index that gathers articles under subject headings, as Index Medicus does for medical inquiries. Looking back to the late 1970s, turfgrass research had a significant problem — there was no pubheation that indexed the current literature of turfgrass. Dr.James B. Beards outstand­ ing Turfgrass Bibliography: From 1672 to 1972 indexed the literature of turfgrass for the years indicated, but for years beyond 1972 there were only general indexes, such as Agriculture Index, to consult. These more general indexes provided few citations to turf-related materials for systematic research, prac­ tical application, or the education of new turf managers. As a major sponsor of turfgrass research, the USGA Green Section was well aware of the problems created by the absence of such an index. “Funding requests would be received by the USGA Turfgrass Research Com­ mittee proposing to duplicate studies that had already been supported and completed, but the investigators had no way of knowing this,” recalls Jim Snow, National Director of the Green Section. “Worse yet, the results could not be provided to practitioners, such as golf course superintendents, so that the findings could be applied.” Why was there no index to the literature of turfgrass? It was a matter of economics. Indexes are expensive to 6 GREEN SECTION RECORD produce. First, there must be access to the literature itself. Next, staff must be hired and trained to review individual articles, assign appropriate index terms from an established thesaurus, and possibly write a short summary or abstract of the article. Finally, the results of this process need to be compiled for delivery to the end-user. This is a labor- intensive process that requires a substan­ tial number of subscribers to establish a sustainable model. This explains why, for example, there are numerous indexes for business topics, since virtually every university, college, and junior college offers courses in business. Consequently, there is a huge market for business indexes at the libraries of these institu­ tions. But in the 1970s there were rela­ tively few institutions offering turfgrass programs, a fact that discouraged com­ mercial index publishers from producing an index for turfgrass. Thus, a niche for control of and access to the literature of turfgrass research remained open for some non-profit organization with an existing strength in the subject to meet the small but growing demand for information. THE RIGHT PLACE, THE RIGHTTIME In the early 1980s, the USGA Turfgrass Research Program approached Michigan State University (MSU) to have the Libraries start producing such an index. Why MSU? Primarily because the MSU Libraries already had a substantial collection of turfgrass literature, built with the O.J. Noer Collection as a foundation. So the cost associated with accessing turfgrass materials to index them was already being handled. So it came to pass in 1984, with substantial financial support from the USGA, that the Turfgrass Information Center (Center) was established at MSU, with the explicit charge of producing an index and abstracting service for turf­ grass literature, and making this available to turfgrass students, scholars, and prac- titioners.The dissemination device came to be known as the Turfgrass Informa­ tion File (TGIF).The first records went into this electronic database in 1984, 20 years ago. THE EARLY YEARS Now that we are well into the era of the Internet, it may be difficult for some to understand that remote access to an electronic database, which is what TGIF is, was virtually impossible in 1984. During the early years, as records began to build within the database, the only way to conduct a search and cap­ ture the results was to call or write the Center staff. Staff would transpose the question into a search strategy that was run against TGIF, providing a list of citations and abstracts for relevant articles, much as it does today. These results were then sent back to the requestor via mail and later fax. This laborious process was not particularly encouraging, and substantial frustration ensued. Technological advances during the late 1980s eventually allowed sub­ scribers to “dial in” to TGIF and search the database directly. In theory this pro­ vided the “direct access” that users desired, but the reality of searches con­ ducted over regular phone lines proved far less satisfying. Lost connections and the inability of users to construct effec­ tive searches when the connection did persist continued a trend of user frustration. However, one important activity never faltered. The staff continued to index the literature, and the amount of materials covered within TGIF was exploding. Searches on an ever-wider variety of topics were now producing substantial lists of relevant materials, if one could only get to the database. Fortunately, just at the point when user frustration seemed as if it would cause the effort to be abandoned, the Internet and World Wide Web arrived to provide the mechanism that would make TGIF and every other electronic database easily accessible throughout the world. THE CHALLENGE CONTINUES With a mechanism for successful delivery finally in place, additional attention was focused on the following factors: Searchability. For those using todays Google search engine, concerns about how to search a database might not seem to be much of an issue. But in the mid-1980s search engines were not developed, nor were the texts of articles adequately encoded so as to allow for free-text keyword searching. This is why TGIF initially appeared with a sophisticated “power search” that required users to be extremely precise in their searching. The complexity of this search was a challenge for many users, however, and so, with the advent of more effective keyword searching capability, the decision was made to provide an alternative search option requiring the user simply to enter one or more keywords associated with the desired topic. This, along with the con­ tinued availability of the “power search,” provides appropriate TGIF access for users at all levels. Full Text Availability. Upon re­ viewing the results of a TGIF search and reading the abstract of retrieved articles, users frequently wish to read the full article. Unfortunately, most TGIF users are not located in the immediate proximity of a library where these materials can be consulted. A process has always been in place where - back to 1929, with the exception of the latest two years. • Whenever available, Web links to full­ text access provided by other publishers, including universities, organizations, and the commercial press. The Center is aggressively pursuing further opportunities to provide addi­ tional full-text access, but the vast majority of the indexed literature is under copyright protection. This re­ quires the copy­ right holder to grant the required permission before TGIF can include these items. This is a slow process, but one that will be consistently pursued. Pre-1984 Materials. Since its inception in 1984, TGIF has focused on index­ ing current litera­ ture, but it has not had the resources to go back and comprehensively index materials The staff at the Turfgrass Information Center review individual turf articles, assign appropriate index terms from an established thesaurus, and write a short abstract of the article.These efforts result in a searchable database of turfgrass literature for turfgrass researchers, practitioners, and students. by users can request that a copy of the desired item be sent to them from the MSU Libraries for a nominal charge. This is not the same as immediate access, however, which is what a super­ intendent dealing with a pesky turf infestation would prefer. Therefore, extensive efforts have been made to provide direct access to full text from the TGIF whenever possible. This has produced the following full-text access to date: • All USGA Green Section-sponsored research reports submitted between 1983 and 2000. • All USGA Green Section Record (and predecessors) articles back to 1921. • The complete back file of the Journal of Turfgrass Science (and predecessors) published prior to 1984. During the last two years, generous grants from the Toro Foundation have allowed this work to commence, and approximately 40% of the pre-1984 materials have now been processed. We look forward to the time when all retrospective materials have been incorporated into TGIF, thereby facilitating historical research initiatives. Fiscal Sustainability and the Campaign to Endow the Turfgrass Information Center. Generous sup­ port from the USGA, as well as from the MSU Libraries, allowed the Center to operate and produce the TGIF during the early years when there was a minimal amount of subscription-gen­ erated revenue to support operations. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 7 Is the turfgrass literature of your association or organization being made available to the TIC? If not, then make it happen! The expectation was that subscription revenue would eventually swell to allow the Center to be self-supporting. Un­ fortunately, that hope has not been realized, and subscriptions still cover only a fraction of the associated costs. Therefore, the Center still operates at a significant yearly deficit. The operation of the Center continues because the MSU Libraries underwrites the costs not covered by subscription revenue. This situation is unlikely to be allowed to continue indefinitely, however, as budget fluctuations, such as are currently being endured, force hard decisions regarding expenditures. Bluntly put, libraries don’t normally produce indexes, but rather they simply purchase from among those that are available. This reality brought the Center to the brink of termination in the late 1990s. What saved the Center, and conse­ quently TGIF, from extinction was a decision to pursue a fund-raising cam­ paign to establish an endowment of sufficient size that the interest would cover the majority, or possibly even all of the annual costs of operating the Center. This would ensure that, should a future director of the MSU Libraries be required to withdraw some or all of the annual support for the Center to achieve budget reduction targets, fund­ ing would be available to ensure the continuation of the Center and the production of TGIF. This was the motivation to initiate the Campaign to Endow the Turfgrass Information Center, which was started with a pledge of $1 million by the USGA. Generous donations from the American Society of Golf Course Architects, the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, the Royal and Ancient, the Scott s Company, Arthur Hills, Harriett and James B. Beard, and others have 8 GREEN SECTION RECORD pushed the campaign well beyond the $1.6 million level, but there is much left to be done to assure the ongoing financial stability of the Center. RECENT ACTIVITY The process of indexing and supplying copies of indexed materials requires a collection of these materials to be assembled. The MSU Libraries con­ tinues to subscribe to a wide array of turf-related periodicals, but the overall collection has been significantly en­ hanced by two recent acquisitions. The first of these is the slides of O. J. Noer, which have been received from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, with the O.J. Noer Foundation as trustee. This unique collection pro­ vides visual documentation on turf topics over a range of decades and gives the TGIF an opportunity to include visual images to complement and enhance text descriptions. The Center has also received a gift of the collection of Dr. James B. Beard, which is generally acknowledged to be the finest personal compilation of turf- related material in existence. It includes international coverage of the turfgrass research and management literature, including books, periodicals, and tech­ nical reports. With its arrival, the Center became the strongest public repository of turfgrass literature in the world. TODAY AND BEYOND Although the existing collection is out­ standing, new publications are constantly appearing. The staff of the Center must be alert to identify and acquire all appropriate literature, for without the literature in hand, the indexing and abstracting cannot occur. Toward this end, we encourage your consideration of the following question — Is the turfgrass literature of your association or organization being made available to the Center? If not, please consider encouraging those responsible to make this happen. As this collection continues to grow, so does the indexing of this material within TGIF, which is rapidly approach­ ing 100,000 entries. This enables users to search effectively on topics as diverse as seed priming, disease control trials, new cultivar management issues, tree removal politics, green speed agro­ nomics, bermudagrass genetics, and cultivar alternatives, as well as other non-golf but turf-related issues such as managing lawns in shade. Beyond the continuous indexing of current literature, the Center is focusing on the completion of retrospective indexing prior to 1984, providing addi­ tional direct access to the full text of indexed literature, and the completion of the Endowment Campaign to guarantee the ongoing sustainability of the Center and thereby TGIF. It is our hope, upon securing sufficient funding for the Endowment, that subscription access to the Turfgrass Information File can be ended, thereby insuring that all students, researchers, and practitioners, regardless of financial standing, can access the TGIF and thereby assist in moving the turfgrass industry forward aggressively. We hope that you will consider supporting this Campaign so that 20 years from now those involved in turf can look back with pride, knowing that a key component of the turf industry, an index to the literature of turf, was insured by your actions. Cliff Haka is director of libraries at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich. MAKING EVERY DROP COUNT Dealing with a restricted water supply in the Southwest. BY PATRICK J. GROSS Mark Twain once remarked, “Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” With much of the southwest United States experiencing a fifth year of drought, fights over water have already begun in San Diego, Reno, Las Vegas, and other parts of the region. The urgency of the situation was highlighted by John W Keyes, III, a commissioner with the Bureau of Reclamation, with the following remarks to the Colorado River Water Users Association in December 2003: “We are now on the cusp of the most severe drought on record. One more year will push us over the edge. This drought is even worse than that of the Dust Bowl years during the 1930s.” Given the stark reality of a restricted water supply, superintendents are implementing a variety of water conservation measures to make every drop count. APPROACHES TO GOLF COURSE WATER CONSERVATION Improving irrigation efficiency: Some people incorrectly assume that if the sprinklers are turn­ ing and water is coming out of the nozzles, then everything is fine. In reality, such a system can be wasting a significant amount of water because of worn or inefficient nozzles, head spacing, fluctu­ ating pressures, or lack of precise timing and controls. Despite sophisticated engineering and advances in irrigation technology, the rotary sprinklers typically used on golf courses are incapable of providing 100% water distribution uniformity (DU). Rotary sprinklers are listed in three DU categories by the Irrigation Associations Certified Golf Irrigation Auditor manual: • 80% DU is considered excellent (achievable). • 70% DU is considered good (expected). • 55% DU or less is considered poor. Obviously, the lower the uniformity, the longer the system must be operated to adequately irrigate all areas within a given zone, resulting in wasted water and energy. Performing a water distribution audit can identify problem areas so that appropriate improvements can be made. Audits can be done by a Certified Golf Irrigation Auditor, or superintendents can perform their own audits. A key aspect of the audit is a catch­ can test, in which calibrated plastic receptacles are placed in a grid pattern approximately 12 to 15 feet apart and each sprinkler in the zone is operated a minimum of 15 minutes. After recording the amount of water in each receptacle, it is possible to analyze the data and calculate the distribution uniformity within a particular zone. Then adjustments can be made to the system, including the replacement of nozzles or the adjustment of pressure regulators. A two-year survey of six golf courses performed by the Center for Irrigation Technology documented an average water savings of 6% per year simply by replacing sprinkler nozzles. Improving soil properties: When water resources are limited, it is more important than ever to focus on basic maintenance programs to improve soil properties so that every drop of SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 9 water can be used by the turf. Routine aeration along with the use of appropriate soil amend­ ments or wetting agents will insure good water infiltration and minimize runoff. Reducing irrigated acreage: Another strategy is to eliminate irrigation in out-of-play areas. Considering that the rough comprises approximately 50% of the total golf course acre­ age, it makes sense that a significant amount of water can be saved by restricting irrigation to Considering that the rough comprises approximately 50% of the total golf course acreage, it makes sense that a significant amount of water can be saved by restricting irrigation to primary playing areas.This is easier to do at courses with a well-designed irrigation system that provides single-head control and part-circle sprinklers along the edge of the fairway or primary rough. primary playing areas. This is a necessary policy, but it can be unpopular with homeowners next to a golf course who may have paid a premium to live next to lush, well-manicured turf. Reducing or eliminating water in sections of the course while maintaining an acceptable appearance is easier to do at courses with a well-designed irri­ gation system that provides single-head control. Replacing full-circle sprinklers with part-circle heads along the edge of the fairway or primary rough can further reduce the total amount of water applied. It also is important to have a priority plan that details where irrigation will be eliminated on the course if severe water restric­ tions are imposed. The following is a suggested list of priorities for irrigation: 1. Greens. 2. Green banks. 3. Fairway landing zones. 4. Tees. 5. Remaining sections of fairways. 10 GREEN SECTION RECORD 6. Primary rough and trees. 7. Secondary rough. Establish low-water-use grasses and plants: Turfgrass breeding and research efforts over the past 15 years have focused on developing grasses with lower water-use rates. Unfortunately, new and established courses have been slow to take advantage of these improved grasses and incorporate them into golf course design. One way to get a firsthand look at these grasses is to establish a new variety on a par-3 fairway or section of the practice range so golfers can see and play on the grass while the superintendent becomes comfortable with management prac­ tices. Demonstration plots using native grasses and low-water-use plants also can be established behind tees, on hillsides, or other out-of-play areas and gradually incorporated in other areas of the course. In some cases, local water agencies are offering rebates to golf courses to replace turf with low-water-use plants in out-of-play areas. While most of the native grasses and plants use less water, they can be slow to establish and may require extra labor for weed control for the first few years after planting. Another important issue that needs to be addressed is winter overseeding, which uses extra water but is viewed as an economically essential practice at desert resorts. Already, a few courses in Las Vegas and Phoenix have taken the bold but necessary step of suspending winter overseeding to conserve water. As a compromise, other courses are considering limiting overseeding to tees and fairways. Explore the use of recycled water: Drought intensifies the need to investigate other sources of water. While there is still a “yuck factor” associ­ ated with recycled water, it is nonetheless a suit­ able source of water for most turfgrasses. Many courses would welcome access to recycled water, but the main impediment seems to be the expense and disruption caused by the installation of large delivery pipes. One way to overcome this roadblock is the construction of smaller on-site water reclamation facilities at golf courses, an emerging trend in California. Focus on managing and documenting irrigation practices: A restricted water supply places additional emphasis on maintaining and managing the irrigation system for maximum efficiency. Raising and leveling low sprinklers, repairing leaks, eliminating irrigation overspray, along with monitoring and adjusting the control Whoever said you need green grass to play golf? People will still find a way to enjoy the game despite severe water restrictions in some areas. ■Ml system on a daily basis, should be given high priority. Some superintendents make irrigation decisions based on feel rather than an objective analysis of weather station data and soil moisture levels. A more disciplined approach to irrigation scheduling will be needed as restrictions are imposed. It also is important to keep accurate water-use records to justify irrigation decisions now that regulators are carefully scrutinizing golf course irrigation activities. • Provide ample information about any water restrictions in your area and what you are doing to conserve water. In this way, golfers realize that brown spots or discolored areas of the course are not the result of neglect or mismanagement but rather a carefully planned effort to conserve water. • Share information with golfers, neighbors, and your community on how they can save water on their lawns and gardens. MANAGING GOLFER EXPECTATIONS Many people equate golf course quality with lush green turf conditions. Keeping the entire course lush and green is not realistic during times of drought, but that does not mean the golf course is unplayable. While managing golfer expectations can be a challenge during times of drought, there are several things that can be done to re-educate golfers about water conservation and playing conditions: • Golf professionals, marshals, superintendents, and any other staff members who have contact with golfers should steer conversations toward playing conditions, not turf color. Prominent championships, such as the British Open, are often played at courses with less than eye-popping green conditions, yet the playing surfaces are fast, true, and challenging. • Establish demonstration holes on the golf course where irrigation is applied at various con­ servation levels, such as 60%, 70%, and 80% of ET, to give golfers a firsthand look at water conservation options. Small, professional-looking signs can be placed near demonstration plots to inform golfers of your experiments. CONCLUSION Recovering from the drought in the Southwest will require several years of above-average rainfall to restore water levels in Lake Mead and other prominent reservoirs. As a result, water conserva­ tion measures and limited turfgrass irrigation may become a way of life for many golf courses in the region. This can be a difficult time for policy makers and golf course superintendents, but prudent conservation measures can insure that every drop of water is used efficiently and nothing is wasted. REFERENCES Zoldoske, D. F. Improving Golf Course Irrigation Uni­ formity: A California Case Study. CATI publication #030901. September 2003. Roche, Paul J. Auditing a Golf Course Irrigation System. Golf Course Management Magazine. May 2004. pp. 109-115. Pat Gross is the director of the Southwest Region of the USGA Green Section. He visits golf courses in California, Nevada, and Mexico, where water quality and irrigation issues are a major concern. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 II ponsored Research You Can Use Developing Annual Bluegrass Cultivars for Putting Greens Work continues at Penn State University to tame this highly variable species. BY DAVID R. HUFF Poa annua L., the Latin name for annual bluegrass, has long been recognized for providing high quality turf of fine texture and high shoot density that is uniform and tolerant of close mowing.1 In 1927, legendary USDA agronomists Piper and Oakley14 described the value and high quality of Poa annua for golf course putting greens. More recently, Warwick16 observed that if grown in a monoculture, Poa annua provides an excellent putting surface. However, not everyone reached the same conclusion concerning the utility of Poa annua. While some turfgrass agronomists have encouraged the use and cultivation of Poa annua as turf,7,1517 others have focused on its eradication as a weed.2,12 In fact, most instances of Poa annua literature describe the grass as an invasive weed whose eradication should be pursued at all costs. This article focuses on the utility and genetic improvement of Poa annua for use as putting surfaces. VARIABLE WITH A WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION Poa annua is one of the world’s most widely distributed invasive weed species and, in all its forms, is found on every continent. The mechanisms that enable this grass species to disseminate its progeny so widely and enable it to survive, adapt, and persist in such a wide range of environmental conditions are currently not known. One thing we do know is that Poa annua is a highly 12 GREEN SECTION RECORD variable species. It contains forms that behave as annuals and other forms that behave as long-lived perennials. Traits typically associated with either annual or perennial forms are listed in Table 1. Basically, the annual form has a bunch-type, upright growth habit of low shoot density and is found in open fields, orchards, and meadows. Plants of the annual form tend to behave more as annuals in that they are non-creepers and are prolific seed producers. The perennial form has either an upright growth habit of diminutive stature or a more prostrate, spreading growth habit capable of rooting and producing new shoots from the upper nodes of the decumbent shoots. In addition, the perennial form produces a high shoot density that contributes to the appearance of a rather tight turf. The perennial biotype of annual blue­ grass also is more restricted in the timing of seed formation than the annual form, and it allocates more of its resources (photosynthates) into vegeta­ tive growth rather than seed produc­ tion. As a result, the perennial form is almost exclusively found growing in closely mowed turfs such as old, estab­ lished golf greens. Thus, one’s percep­ tion of whether it is a weed (either Table I Comparison of characteristics typically associated with either the annual or perennial forms of Poa annua “Annual” Annual Bluegrass “Perennial” Annual Bluegrass Favored by constant surface disruption Favored by surface stability (little disruption) Produces lots of seed Dominates soil seed bank Produces little to no seed Scarce in the soil seed bank Quick to germinate, quick to flower Slower to flower Extremely sensitive to environmental stresses (heat, cold, drought) Likely more tolerant of environmental stresses (heat, cold, drought) Easier to kill with chemicals, although numerous reports of evolved resistance Individuals reproduce throughout a growing season Most individuals die within a season Lots of small lime-green tufts on a golf green More likely to tolerate herbicides Individuals reproduce during a specific period during a season (typically spring only) Most individuals live multiple seasons and perhaps some are long-lived Lots of variable-size, variable-color patches on a golf green Tolerates close mowing heights Adapted to close mowing heights Low shoot density, course texture, tall stature High shoot density, fine texture, short stature Ugly, bad Beautiful, good Table 2 Number of daughter tillers produced at the time of flowering (anthesis) of the parent tiller Source of Poa annua Number of Daughter Tillers Rough Fairway Greens I-3 4-8 > 9 PENN STATE’S BREEDING PROGRAM When the annual bluegrass breeding program was initiated in July 1994 thou­ sands of Poa annua samples were col­ lected from existing golf course greens. To date, the project has collected and evaluated tens of thousands of Poa annua plants. These early selections exhibited a wide range of genetic variation in nearly every imaginable trait, including tiller density, color, seedhead produc­ tion, disease resistance, and environ­ mental stress tolerance. Subsequent col­ lections have yielded similar variability. Improvements to these initial collec­ tions have been achieved by successfully applying several fundamental principles of plant breeding. Primarily, the breed­ ing process has improved turf quality regarding not only shoot density, color, and uniformity of appearance, but also in increased tolerance to several biotic (disease) and abiotic (environmental) stresses. (anthesis) of the parent tiller. The results are presented in Table 2 and indicate that Poa annua plants evolve an increas­ ingly perennial nature as the level of turfgrass management increases. This process continues on the golf green until eventually plants become entirely perennial and lose the ability to set viable seed altogether. It is these later classes of evolutionary products, those that still set viable seed and are highly perennial and those that do not set viable seed and are entirely vegetative, that have served as the raw material for cultivar development in the Penn State Poa annua breeding program. annual or perennial forms) or a valuable putting surface (a highly evolved peren­ nial form) depends on which form is present in the turf. ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL? The problem in designating an annual bluegrass plant as either an annual or a perennial is that there is a range or spectrum of variability of what ecolo­ gists call “life-history characteristics” that exists within the species. One way to measure the perennial nature of a particular Poa annua plant is to deter­ mine if it grows faster than it dies. In other words, one needs to consider if a growing shoot (also known as a tiller, the basic unit of a grass plant) replaces itself before it flowers, because once a tiller flowers, it dies. And if it does, how many replacements does it produce? If a tiller replaces itself with just a single daughter tiller before it flowers (i.e., a one-to-one replacement), that would seem to be a precarious position for a perennial to be in because any number of mishaps or events could easily eliminate the one vegetative off­ spring. In addition, most of the tiller’s energy would be invested in seed versus a single vegetative tiller offspring, and so the parent tiller would likely be sur­ vived by its seed progeny and not by its only vegetative tiller. This tiller would be behaving as an annual plant. How­ ever, if a tiller were to produce many tillers before it flowered (i.e., many-to- one replacement), it would be behaving as a perennial plant. In experiments conducted at Penn State University, we measured a range of annual bluegrasses for this trait by counting the number of daughter tillers produced at the first sign of flowering After an effluent water line broke at one of the trial sites and the plots went unwatered for ten days, plot differences were evident.The Penn State annual bluegrass (back right) was better able to handle the lack of water when compared to the local, native annual bluegrass plot (back left). SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 13 Currently, the breeding program has designated a set of the “top-12” cultivars. These cultivars currently are being evaluated on various golf courses and university research facilities around the world. The encouraging news from preliminary reports is that these cultivars are performing well, even better than expected. For instance, at a trial estab­ lished at Barwon Heads G.C., located on the southern coast of Victoria, Australia, half the plots were irrigated with potable (drinkable) water, while the other half were irrigated with high- salinity effluent water. Planted along with the Penn State annual bluegrasses were plots of the local, native Poa annua and several cultivars of creeping bent­ grass, including Penn A-4, Seaside II, Mariner, and Penncross. Poa annua is known for its inability to tolerate high saline conditions, whereas bentgrasses are known for their ability to tolerate high saline conditions. The first year’s data from this mul- tiple-year study (courtesy of J. Neylan, Australian Golf Course Superintendents Association) indicates that the Penn State annual bluegrasses are not only surviving the high salinity of the efflu­ ent water source, but they are demon­ strating higher turf quality than bent­ grasses in many instances. Moreover, during the late summer of 2004 (February-March), the effluent water line broke and the plots were unwatered for 10 days. The Penn State annual bluegrasses fully recovered, while the local native annual bluegrasses died, demonstrating improved drought resis­ tance in some strains of this highly variable species. STRESS TOLERANCE Stress tolerance is an important factor that contributes to perenniality. After all, does it really matter how much better turf quality specific selections may have if the plants have little or no inherent ability to tolerate environ­ mental and biological stress? In order to be perennial, turfgrasses must be able to survive and persist month after month, 14 GREEN SECTION RECORD season after season, year after year, through all kinds of heat, cold, disease, and traffic stresses, whereas plants with annual life cycles can simply die and survive these stressful periods as seed. Most of what we know about Poa annua is based on the annual or less- evolved perennial types. For example, both high and low temperatures repre­ sent the major environmental limita­ tions to distribution and growth of Poa annua. It is generally believed that this lack of tolerance to extreme tempera­ tures makes Poa annua a weak turf for at least some part of the year in most loca­ tions. Despite this general observation, strains of Poa annua have been observed to perform well in irrigated turf areas subjected to the desert heat of Arizona (D. Kopec, 1998, pers. com.). Duff4 also reported significant differences among strains for heat tolerance. At the other temperature extreme, Dionne et al.3 reported finding significant differences among strains for tolerance to freezing temperatures. Poa annua also is widely known for its susceptibility to many turfgrass dis­ eases, including dollar spot (Sclerotinia honweocarpa), anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola), and pink snow mold (Monographella nivalis). However, the Poa annua breeding program at Penn State has identified strains exhibiting excel­ lent field resistance to anthracnose and dollar spot.6,8 Thus, while most scientific efforts regarding Poa annua have been directed towards its eradication, control, or lack of stress tolerance, those research efforts aimed at determining and identi­ fying strains possessing improved stress tolerances have generally been successful. INVADE AND ADAPT The evolution of Poa annua from wild, weedy, annual forms to the perennial forms adapted to golf, lawn, and athletic field turf has been documented by plant ecologists and plant evolutionists as a classic example of rapid micro- evolution.1011,13 When Poa annua first invades a turf area, it typically does so as Poa annua exhibits a range of perenniality as shown by the number of daughter tillers produced at the time of first flowering of the parent tiller. Early in the breeding program the initial collections of Poa annua exhibited a wide range of genetic variation in nearly every imaginable trait. seed of the annual form. The seedlings become established in damaged or weakened open areas of turf, and through phenotypic plasticity they adapt to the given management condi­ tions of that particular turf (i.e., mow­ ing height, moisture availability, and fertility). Poa annua has a unique ability to adjust the height of its flowering culms so that it is capable of flowering and setting seed under nearly any mowing height (i.e., as low as 0.10 inch). Cross­ pollination events among annual blue­ grass parents produce a range of geneti­ cally based morphological variation. Turf management programs act as powerful selection forces. Over time, subsequent generations of Poa annua begin to take on the characteristics of a perennial form and ultimately adapt to the particular turfgrass management program. Thus, with every generation, Poa annua evolves and adapts in response to the specific cultivation and manage­ ment practices of a given turf. On old golf course putting greens this evolutionary process results in strains of highly evolved perennial annual bluegrasses that are becoming known as greens-type Poa annua.36 These greens-type Poa annua strains are perennials that possess a short stature and extremely high shoot densities, and are vegetatively aggressive. Seedhead production may be a fact of life in any Editor’s Note: More about this research and other USGA-funded research projects can be found on the USGA’s Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online at: http://usgatero, msu.edu. REFERENCES 1. Beard, J. B. 1970. An ecological study of annual bluegrass. USGA Green Section Record 8(2):13-18. 2. Breuninger,J. 1993. Poa annua control in bent­ grass greens. Golf Course Management 61(8):68-73. 3. Dionne,J.,Y. Castonguay, P. Nadeau, andY. Desjardins. 2001. Freezing tolerance and carbo­ hydrate changes during cold acclimation of green-type annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) ecotypes. Crop Science 41:443-451. 4. Duff, D.T. 1978. Disagreement arises over variant of annual bluegrass. University of Rhode Island Turfgrass Research Review 3:1-3. 5. Hanson, B. D, and C. A. Smith. 2000. Diuron- resistant Poa annua is resistant to norflurazon. Weed Sci. 48:666-668. 6. Huff, D. 1996. Poa annua for golf course greens. Gounds Maintenance January, pp. G2-G10. 7. Huff, D. 1998. The case for Poa annua on golf course greens. Golf Course Management 66(10):54-56. 8. Huff, D. 1999. For richer, for Poa. USGA Green Section Record 37(1):11-14. 9. Kelly, St.T, G. E. Coats, and D. S. Luthe. 1999. Mode of resistance of triazine-resistant annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Weed Technology 13:747-752. 10. Law, R. 1977. The turfgrass potential of Poa annua ecotypes. Journal of Sports Turf Research Institute 53:117. 11. Law, R., A. D. Bradshaw, and P. D. Putwain. 1977. Life-history variation of Poa annua. Evolution 31:233-246. 12. McCarty, B. 1999. Controlling Poa annua in bentgrass greens. Grounds Maintenance 34(5): 17-20. 13. McNeillyT. 1981. Ecotypic differentiation in Poa annua: interpopulation differences in response to competition and cutting. New Phytologist 88:539-547. 14. Piper, C.V., and R. A. Oakley. 1927. Annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Bulletin of the USGA Green Section 7(7): 128-129. 15.Vermeulen, P. 1989. Consider Poa annua for your new green. USGA Green Section Record 27(5): 17. 16. Warwick, S. 1.1979. The biology of Canadian weeds. 37. Poa annua L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59:1053-1066. 17. Zontek, S.J. 1973. A positive approach to Poa annua management. USGA Green Section Record ll(2):l-5. David R. Huff, Ph.D., is an associate professor of turfgrass breeding and genetics at the Pennsylvania State University. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 15 future commercial cultivar of greens- type Poa annua. The main problem, cur­ rently, is not the production of seed­ heads, but rather the lack of any seed supply of an improved Poa annua for golf green use. Greens-type Poa annua may begin to appear on golf greens as young as 10 years old. Such a rapid evolutionary event is an indication of the extreme selection forces existing on golf greens (primarily mowing height and wear). The selection pressures of the green environment are so intense that on greens as young as 60 years old, it is common to observe a special type of Poa annua known as dihaploids. Dihap- loids occasionally produce a flower stalk, but they are absolutely seed sterile and thus exist entirely as vegetative perennials. Such dihaploids represent some of the densest, finest, and highest- quality turf strains yet observed.8 REALIZING THE POTENTIAL Over the years and throughout the world, turfgrass scientists and geneticists have described the potential to breed improved strains of Poa annua for the golf industry.410 This is due to the high turf quality and the enormous amount of morphological variation present in the perennial forms of Poa annua. How­ ever, the main obstacles that need to be overcome for the successful cultivation of Poa annua seed for the commercial market are 1) low seed yield, 2) the indeterminacy of seed maturity, and 3) the control of undesirable forms of Poa annua within seed production fields. Overcoming the first two obstacles has been among the goals of the Penn State breeding program, with limited success to date. Overcoming the third obstacle through reliance on chemical control may only delay the problem, as several herbicide-resistant strains have been reported among plants of the annual form.5 9 We have thus been researching production practices (i.e., rotating seed production fields on an annual cycle) that will reduce this obstacle to an acceptable level. Without doubt, the cultivars of perennial greens-type Poa annua will have their share of unforeseen problems, and our breeding program will continue its search for genetic solutions. Our focus is to develop commercial seed supplies for golf courses that have or would like to have annual bluegrass greens. Currently, golf courses that have annual bluegrass greens do not have an adequate seed source for use in routine maintenance, renovations, or new con­ struction. The ulimate goal of Penn States greens-type Poa annua breeding program is not to replace creeping bentgrass as a golf green putting grass, but rather to offer an alternative for situations where annual bluegrass is simply a better choice. ponsored Research You Can Use In Search of the Silver Bullet The influence of microbial and organic-based products on putting green performance. BY FRANK S. ROSSI W®“urfgrass research is a burgeoning scientific discipline and is investi­ gating the most important chal­ lenges facing golf course superinten­ dents. A growing number of scientists are interested in the basic aspects of heat stress, winter injury, lethal diseases, and soil nutrient management. Often, the science has implications that might elude the practical golf turf industry. Science does not always take a direct path from A to B. In every scientific endeavor there is a question to be asked and answered through trial and error. The challenge for todays “want the answer now” world is patience. Not every study has a practical application, but often it is a piece of a more complex puzzle. The fact is, we know preciously little about the dynamic nature of the golf ecosystem. Much of our current think­ ing is derived from practical problem solving research (e.g., product evalu­ ation studies). Getting to the underlying biological mechanism is tedious, expen­ sive, and time consuming. As a result, long-term needs are sacrificed for solving immediate problems. As the scientist strives to understand, the superintendent seeks to solve. Superintendents function in a “what did you do for me today?” environment created by overzealous golfers and owners. Pressure for perfection in turf under severe conditions breeds despera­ tion. There is no time to understand the problem; superintendents need solu­ tions and they seek a silver bullet. Ironically, turfgrass product manu­ facturers claim to have the solutions. I am regularly baffled by testimonials 16 GREEN SECTION RECORD The objective of this research is to critically evaluate commercially available microbial- and organic-based products and compare them to traditional nutrient sources for effect on putting green performance. from superintendents and well-meaning sales staff who try to explain how cer­ tain products solve problems. Of course, it is entirely reasonable that some products can solve specific problems. Pesticides are developed to control specific pests, and certain fer­ tilizers may provide a more desirable response for a specific turf and soil type. In every case, however, they pro­ vide only short-term solutions. In doing so, they can distract superinten­ dents from long-term thinking. Golf turf managers are regularly inundated with a variety of microbial- or organic-based products that are touted as providing enhanced perfor­ mance, i.e., more roots, less disease, stress tolerance, improved quality, etc. In some cases the manufacturer provides inde­ pendent research data taken out of context to position a product as filling an important niche. However, upon closer examination of these products, it appears that small amounts of nutri­ tional supplements included in the formulation produce a visual response that can be provided with a less expen­ sive nutritional source. In addition, manufacturers have been reluctant to fund meaningful research that compares their products against other similar products and traditional nutrient sources. The objective of this study is to critically evaluate commercially avail­ able microbial- and organic-based products and compare them to tradi­ tional nutrient sources for effect on putting green performance. METHODOLOGY Products from a variety of companies were compared to traditional liquid and granular nutrient management pro­ grams in a completely randomized experiment with three replications. Treatments were applied to a mixed stand of creeping bentgrass (Penn G-2) and annual bluegrass growing on a sand-based green (pH 7.8) constructed to California specifi­ cations and subjected to 30,000 rounds of simulated non-metal spike traffic. Applications commenced on June 10,2003. Liquid sprays were applied weekly on Wednesdays, and granular and drench treatments were applied on Fridays throughout the season. A CO2 backpack sprayer fitted with Teejet XR8015 nozzles was calibrated to deliver 2 gallons of water per 1,000 square feet. Plot maintenance included mowing seven days a week at 0.100 inch with a grooved roller. The green was irrigated to 80% ET on an as-needed basis to avoid localized dry spots. Straight sand topdressing was applied every three weeks. Products were sampled and analyzed by the Cornell University Analytical Laboratory according to Infant Formula protocol as published in the Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990: 1106-1107). Data were collected for quality, shoot density, rooting, clipping production, tissue nutrient content, and ball roll distance. In addition, disease incidence and insect activity were monitored. RESULTS: PRODUCT ANALYSIS Processing products for analysis with the ICP instrument is orders of magni­ tude more sensitive than would be required for standard product labeling required by law. As a result, we have found significantly more nutrients in many cases than what is reported by manufacturers. However, with this process we are not able to assess the level of available nutrients or additional chelating agents such as amino acids, humates, etc. TURF QUALITY CORRELATION Turf quality ratings were excellent (>7.0) for most treatments, except for the Organic Gem product. In general, turf quality ratings were correlated to nitrogen rates. Pearson correlation coefficients were as high as 90% when turf quality was analyzed against nitrogen rates. Interestingly, there were some products that did provide a high level of turf quality that were not entirely correlated with nitrogen rates, specifically the Plant Food programs and the Advanced Microbial Solutions (AMS) product Super Bio Life in combination with the standard fertility treatment. The AMS treatment in combination with standard fertility was consistently above the standard fertility treatments alone. When using any product it is important to assess the impact of fertilizer in the product and its subsequent impact of turf visual quality.These two treatment plots show how different nitrogen and iron levels contained in the treatments altered turfgrass quality. The product analysis results reveal the variety and levels of nutrients found in the products.The nitrogen (N) levels are mostly consistent with those reported by manufacturers; however, there are substantial differences among levels we report and current labels. That is to say, what they report on the label is not consistent with the amounts of nutrients found in our analysis. Potassium (K), iron (Fe), and calcium (Ca) tend to be exceedingly high in many products, and this most likely relates to the reported benefits these nutrients are thought to afford for color and stress tolerance. Of particular con­ cern are several products with very high levels of sodium. Several of these prod­ ucts are produced from ocean-derived materials such as seaweed and fish waste. The Emerald Isle program did not always provide the highest turf quality ratings, but were rarely different from the standard fertility program. This was significant in that the nutrient levels applied to the turf were a fraction of those provided for other programs. It is likely that the high iron levels in the Plant Food products resulted in significantly higher quality ratings than other products. However, there were several programs with high iron levels, such as Griggs Brothers products, that were not rated as high as the Plant Food products. The 2003 growing season in Ithaca, N.Y., was warm and wet. Temperatures were slightly above normal for the season, and rainfall was well above (> 8 inches) normal. Oddly, there were no significant pest outbreaks, and it is SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 17 worth noting that every treatment did provide turf quality acceptable to the most discriminating clients. GROWTH RESPONSE An ideal product would produce high turf quality (color, density, and unifor­ mity) with minimal clipping production and adequate root growth. Growth responses were similar to turf quality ratings in that they were well correlated with nitrogen rates. However, there were some instances where clipping production was almost twice the amount of the standard fertility (data not shown). In contrast, there were some treatments with high levels of nitrogen that did not result in significant growth surges. This might be related to the timing of clipping collec­ tion that was performed when treatments may have been in a down cycle. The standard fertility treatment pro­ duced a relatively consistent growth rate throughout the season, while pro­ grams from Helena Chemical and Floratine fluctuated over the season. In contrast to clipping production, rooting did not appear to be influenced by nitrogen rate. In fact, there were little significant differences except for the increased rooting in response to Tricho- derma applications and low rooting levels from the Organic Gem product. Few products produced any significant rooting below 6 cm, and there were no significant differences among the products at these depths. TISSUE NUTRIENT CONTENT Tissue nutrient levels fluctuated signifi­ cantly throughout the season, making interpretation very difficult (data not 18 GREEN SECTION RECORD shown). In general, tissue nitrogen and iron levels were consistent with appli­ cation amounts. However, this was not always consistent with turf quality ratings. There were several dates when potassium levels were significantly dif­ ferent and consistent with potassium application rates. This was true for phosphorus and manganese, but sur­ ping weights might be expected to produce an effect on ball roll. However, there were no significant differences among treatments for ball roll on the four dates in 2003. It is possible that with the number of variables involved in ball roll, any potential differences were not discern­ able. The close mowing height (0.100 inch) conducted daily during the season produced ball roll distances greater than 10.5 feet. It is significant that some treatments with large clipping weights did not result in reduced ball roll distances. SUMMARY It is hard to draw significant conclusions from one year’s data, yet some important trends have emerged. It appears that nitrogen exerts a dominating effect on turf quality and growth. The products contain a variety of nutrients, most of which do not appear to be absorbed in significant amounts by the plant except for N, Fe, K, and Na. There were no meaningful differences for rooting or ball roll. It is possible that the lack of significant environmental stress does not allow for subtle differ­ ences to be detected. This was evident by the overall lack of pest pressure noted on the plots. The study is expected to continue for two more seasons, and that might allow for more significant trends to emerge. Golf course superintendents are regularly inundated with a variety of microbial- and organic-based products that are touted as providing enhanced performance.The key is evaluating these products to see if their value is truly cost-effective. prisingly not significant on any date for calcium. This could be related to the calcareous nature of the growing medium and demonstrates further that if a nutrient is available in adequate amounts, supplying additional nutrients does not increase tissue levels. The most consistent and concerning response evident was the high sodium (Na) levels found in the tissue following product application. This was consistent for the ocean-derived products, notably Emerald Isle, Organic Gem, and Floratine. BALL ROLL An important functional performance measure is ball roll as measured by a Stimpmeter. Data presented to this point regarding turf quality and clip- IMPLICATIONS I understand the impulse to seek the silver bullet. Often, superintendents address a problem on the golf course with at least one hand tied behind their backs. Superintendents know that golf­ ers will not accept a disruptive long­ term solution. They cannot always rebuild a green, regrass a fairway, or re­ move unneeded trees and underbrush. I am often asked to speak at meetings of club managers, golf professionals, and avid golfers. I admit that I do “dummy down” my talks. Golfer expectations are pushing the limits of biology. There are no simple solutions to the challenges we face as an industry, so we must work together. Not all my scientific colleagues share my opinion. Some scientists feel that if we simplify the information, golfers will think there are simple solutions. Others recognize that a tsunami of data frustrates golfers and complicates super­ intendents’ efforts to communicate with members and management. It is critical for superintendents to work with scientists in developing a concise message for golfers. At the same time, golf course super­ intendents need to spend more time learning basic science. Most superinten­ dents come through college programs that stress the technical aspects of golf turf management but not the science. We need superintendents who under­ stand basic soil chemistry. The challenges we face as an industry require serious people thinking broadly for solutions. The answers are not simple and require all the interested parties to work together. If one partner is more interested in selling than help­ ing, the whole industry loses. When Greg Norman signed on to the GCSAA’s Environmental Institute for Golf, I became hopeful that he would be a strong advocate for super­ intendents. Support from recognized and respected figures is critical to creating the demand for long-term solutions to managing championship turf on a daily basis. Scientists must conduct research that seeks meaningful answers, not just short-term problem solving, and they must communicate the information concisely. Manufacturers need to recog­ nize and discuss the limitations as well as the benefits of their products. Super­ intendents must look beyond immedi­ ate problems and end their search for the silver bullet. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this research was provided by the GCSAA Environmental Institute for Golf, the TriState Turfgrass Research Foundation, the Hudson Valley Golf Course Superintendents Association, the Adirondack Golf Course Superintendents Association, and the New York State Turfgrass Association. Special thanks to the USGA Green Section Research Program for helping start this research in 2001. Frank Rossi, Ph.D., is associate professor of tufgrass science at Cornell University in Ithaca, N. Y. Table I The Influence of Microbial and Organic-Based Products on Putting Green Performance Root depth after treatment with a variety of microbial and organic-based products Trt*f Treatment 0-3 3-6 > 6 Total 0-3 3-6 >6 Total Depth (cm) on July 22 Depth (cm) on October 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 Standard Standard plus EcoGuard Standard plusTrichoderma Helena Chemical Plant Food 1 Plant Food II Standard plus Nutramax Half-rate Standard plus Nutramax Griggs 1 Griggs II Emerald Isle 1 Emerald Isle II Sustane plus BioGK Standard plus SuperBioLife Organic Gem Standard plus Floratine 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 l.l 1.5 LSD (0.05) 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 NS 2.0 1.9 2.4 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.3 1.4 2.1 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 NS 2.4 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.7 1.6 2.5 0.4 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 19 ^Sponsored Research You Can Use Rapid Blight Disease of Cool-Season Grasses Research reveals that certain cultivars tolerate rapid blight and may be suitable for overseeding. BY PAUL PETERSON, BRUCE MARTIN, AND JIM CAMBERATO Since 1995, the golf course industry has confronted a new disease enemy. Rapid blight disease has caused extensive and costly damage to annual and rough bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and occasionally to creeping bentgrass in the southeastern and west­ ern United States. First diagnosed nine years ago in California on annual blue­ grass putting greens3 the destructive disease has been identified on more than 100 golf courses in 11 states. Recently, rapid blight disease has been shown to be caused by a relatively obscure microorganism known as Labyrinthula, also referred to as a net slime mold? Labyrinthula is a single-cell organism that occurs in net-like aggre­ gations when growing in culture. This organism s ability to survive in plants that live in saline environments is one of its defining characteristics. Tradition­ ally, Labyrinthula spp. is known mostly to inhabit coastal environments, and some species have been shown to cause diseases in aquatic grasses. For instance, Labyrinthula zosterae is a pathogen associated with eelgrass, an important marine plant that serves as a nursery bed for larval shrimp, oysters, and scal­ lops. Catastrophic declines in eelgrass in North America and Europe during the 1930s and 1940s were probably caused by L. zosterae.3,4,6 Even though the occurrence of rapid blight on various cool-season turfgrasses has been associ­ ated with increased soil and/or irriga­ tion water salinity (Martin, Peterson, and Camberato, unpublished), the dis­ 20 GREEN SECTION RECORD covery of Labyrinthula affecting grasses grown on land was unexpected. When it emerges on golf courses, rapid blight symptoms appear as irregularly shaped patches of yellow (chlorotic) or brown (necrotic) turf ranging from 6 inches to 6 feet in diameter. Sometimes these patches have a darkened edge where the turf is water-soaked. Rapid blight can affect juvenile as well as mature turf. Over­ seeded grasses in the seedling stage at first mowing are particularly vulnerable to infection. Extensive damage can result and stands may be eliminated within a week if disease occurs at establishment. However, rapid blight also can be severe on putting greens of mature annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass. Rapid blight outbreaks appear to be associated with dry periods in the fall and spring. Dry weather increases soluble salts in the soil and plants, increasing the susceptibility of cool­ season turfgrasses to infection and symptom expression. The major source of the soluble salts appears to be irriga­ tion water, which typically has salinity levels ranging from 1.0 to 3.5 dS/m. Although rapid blight can result in extensive damage at establishment, it also can be severe on putting greens of mature annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass. Over the past year research was initiated to investigate the biology, epidemiology, and management of this emerging threat to the turf industry. Identifying specific cultivars with tolerance to the rapid blight pathogen would provide useful, timely informa­ tion for turfgrass professionals. The ob­ jective of this study was to evaluate 49 different cool-season turfgrass species for their relative tolerance to rapid blight disease. SCREENING FOR SUSCEPTIBILITY Forty-nine different grass cultivars representing a range of cool-season grass species were selected for this study. Seed of each cultivar was planted on sterilized sand/peat (85:15) in three- inch square plastic pots. The soil mix­ ture was amended with ground triple super phosphate at 0.1 g/kg soil and dolomitic limestone at 0.25 g/kg soil. Soluble fertilizer (24-12-12) was applied in two separate applications (just after establishment and prior to inoculation) at the rate of 1.5 mg/kg soil. Pots were placed in trays on the greenhouse bench and watered daily with deionized water for approximately three weeks to estab­ lish the grasses. Three days before inoculation, the watering regime was changed to artificial seawater at a con­ centration of 3.5 dS/m, and pots were irrigated each day to field capacity. Bulk inoculum of five Labyrinthula isolates was prepared by growing equal numbers of petri plates of each isolate in serum seawater agar (SSA) for approximately four days. Equal numbers of agar plugs containing each isolate were transferred into serum seawater broth (SSB) and quantified to 140,000 cells per ml. All plants were wounded prior to inoculation by trimming with scissors. Inoculum was applied to the treated plants at the rate of 1 ml per pot. A control solution containing SSB and Tween (0.25% v/v) was applied at the same rate as the inoculum to an equivalent set of cultivars (non-inocu- Table 1 Species, cultivar, and source of 49 different cool-season turfgrasses selected for this study Cultivar Source Species Weeping Al kaligrass Colonial Bentgrass Creeping Bentgrass Idaho Bentgrass Redtop Velvet Bentgrass Annual Bluegrass Canada Bluegrass Kentucky Bluegrass Rough Bluegrass Crested Dogstail Blue Hard Fescue Hard Fescue Chewings Fescue Sheep Fescue Slender Creeping Red Fescue Strong Creeping Red Fescue Tall Fescue Tufted Hairgrass Annual Ryegrass Fults Salty Alister Glory SR 7100 Brighton Penn A-1 Penncross Providence Seaside II SR 1119 Sandhill SRX IGPD Seed Research of Oregon Pennington Seed Turf-Seed, Inc. Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Turf-Seed, Inc. Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon GolfStar Jacklin Seeds Barracuda Turf Merchants, Inc. Greenwich SR 7200 Vesper Pickseed West Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Pickseed West Inc. Annual Bluegrass Valley Seed Service Reubens J. R. Simplot Company Arcadia North Star Kingfisher SR 2284 SR 2100 Laser Sabre II Winterstar Shade Star Bighorn SR 3100 SR 5100 Quatro Dawson Seabreeze SRX 55 SR 5210 Tomcat Seed Research of Oregon Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Turf-Seed, Inc. Turf-Seed, Inc. Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon DLF International Seeds Seed Research of Oregon Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Clemson University Barcampsia Barenbrug Acella DLF International Seeds Intermediate Ryegrass Lolium x hybridum Transeze Seed Research of Oregon Perennial Ryegrass Crested Wheatgrass Slender Wheatgrass Experimental Brightstar SLT Hawkeye Peregrine Penguin SR 4420 Ephriam San Luis Blue Moon Farms Turf-Seed, Inc. Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Seed Research of Oregon Arkansas Valley Seed Solutions Arkansas Valley Seed Solutions SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 21 Mean percent disease ranged from 0.63% in the slender creeping red fescue “Dawson” to 95% in the crested wheat­ grass “Ephriam.”The grass species most tolerant to rapid blight were the fescues, creeping bentgrasses, and alkaligrasses. With the exception of the creeping bentgrasses, the other bentgrass species (colonial, Idaho, redtop, and velvet) were all highly susceptible to rapid blight. Similar to bentgrasses, bluegrasses showed a wide variation in levels of tolerance among species. Canada and Kentucky bluegrasses were moderately tolerant to rapid blight (with the excep­ tion of the Kentucky bluegrass “North Star,” which was highly tolerant), whereas the annual and rough bluegrass species were highly susceptible. Annual ryegrass and some cultivars of perennial ryegrass were moderately susceptible, but other perennial ryegrass cultivars and the intermediate ryegrass “Transeze” were highly susceptible. Of the less commonly utilized grasses, hairgrass and slender wheatgrass were moderately susceptible to rapid blight. Crested dog- tail and crested wheatgrass were highly susceptible. Since epidemics of rapid blight have been associated with high-salinity irri­ gation water and soils, it was hypothe­ sized that grasses with high salt tolerance are also highly tolerant. Based on these experiments, for many grass types this proved to be true. Alkaligrass, creeping bentgrass (many cultivars), and the fes­ cues are considered moderately tolerant to tolerant of salinity and highly tolerant of rapid blight.1 Several of the grasses considered very sensitive to salinity, such as colonial and velvet bentgrass, as well as annual and rough bluegrass, were also highly susceptible to rapid blight. However, there were some notable exceptions in the correlation of salt tolerance and rapid blight suscepti­ bility. Crested wheatgrass, rated tolerant to salinity, was the grass most susceptible to rapid blight. Several perennial rye­ grasses also showed high susceptibility to rapid blight, although they rate Rapid blight symptoms appear as irregularly shaped patches of yellow or brown turf ranging from six inches to six feet in diameter. At times these patches have a darkened edge where the turf is water-soaked. In research trials,Transeze intermediate ryegrass showed a relatively high level of susceptibility to rapid blight disease (right = inoculated). lated controls). All plants (inoculated and non-inoculated) were covered with a clear plastic lid for 48 hours after inoculation, after which time the lids were removed and the plants continued to be watered daily with saline water. Plants were checked daily for disease symptoms. Plants were rated for percent of diseased foliage when the level of disease on the known susceptible perennial ryegrass check (“Transeze”) reached more than 50% infection symptoms. HOW DIFFERENT SPECIESAND CULTIVARS STACKED UP All of the grasses tested were susceptible to rapid blight, but there was a large variation in the level of susceptibility. 22 GREEN SECTION RECORD moderately tolerant to tolerant to salinity.1 The most tolerant grass tested in these experiments was “Dawson” slender creeping red fescue. This finding con­ firmed a field experiment conducted in 2001 on a South Carolina golf course with severe rapid blight, where “Dawson” was the only grass not affected by the disease. Three cultivars of rough blue­ grass, a colonial bentgrass, a velvet bent­ grass, and a chewings fescue were killed by the disease (Martin, unpublished). These experiments have shown several cool-season turfgrasses to be tolerant of rapid blight under conditions of moderately high salinity stress. Some of these grasses may be suitable for overseeding where rapid blight is a chronic problem. In South Carolina some golf courses are using seed blends of rough bluegrass and alkaligrass with acceptable results. Potential exists for the use of certain creeping bentgrass cultivars or slender creeping red fescues for overseeding as well, although rates of germination and establishment may be complicating factors to consider. In short, blending rapid-establishing susceptible grasses (rough bluegrass or moderately susceptible grasses like perennial ryegrass) with tolerant grasses (alkaligrass, creeping bentgrass, and slender creeping red fescue) is a promis­ ing strategy to reduce the risk of devas­ tating epidemics of rapid blight. Field experiments and further screening of species and cultivars for tolerance to rapid blight and for overseeding suit­ ability will be important now and in the future, especially under reduced- quality irrigation water. Editor’s Note: A more detailed edition of this article and many others in the USGA’s Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online at: http://usgatero.msu.edu. LITERATURE CITED 1. Carrow, R. N., and R. R. Duncan. 1998. Salt- affected turfgrass sites assessment and manage­ ment. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Mich. 2. Martin, S. B., L. J. Stowell, W D. Gelernter, and S. C. Aiderman. 2002. Rapid blight: A new disease of cool-season turfgrasses. Phytopathology (Abstr.) 92:S52. 3. Muehlstein, L. K., D. Porter, and F.T. Short. 1988. Labyrinthula sp., a marine slime mold producing the symptoms of wasting disease in eelgrass, Zostera marina. Marine Biol. 99:465-472. 4. Muehlstein, L. K., D. Porter, and F.T. Short. 1991. Labyrinthula zosterae sp. Nov., the causative agent of wasting disease of eelgrass, Zostera marina. Mycologia 83:180-191. 5. Olsen, M. W, D. M. Bigelow, R. L. Gilbertson, L. J. Stowell, and W D. Gelernter. 2003. First report of a Labyrinthula sp. causing rapid blight disease of rough bluegrass and perennial ryegrass. Plant Disease 87:1267. 6. Porter, D. 1987. Labyrinthulomycetes. p. 110-111. In M. S. Fuller and A. Jaworski (eds.) Zoosporic fungi in teaching and research. Southeastern Publishing Corp., Athens, Ga. Paul D. Peterson, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow; Bruce Martin, Ph.D, professor; and James Camberato, Ph.D, professor; Turfgrass Program, Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences Department, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, S. C. Figure I Rapid blight tolerance of 49 grass cultivars selected from different grass types and species evaluated in greenhouse inoculation studies, graphed by percent disease within each grass Transeze Shade Star Ephriam Fults Barcampsia San Luis | Dawson B Quatro B Seabreeze BBBBMSRXI55 ■MSR3I00 B Tomcat BBBI SR5I00 B Bighorn MB^MMMBBM SR52I0 B North Star ■BBBMBI^^^^H SR2284 BRuebens MM SR2I00 B Kingfisher B Arcadia o L- 0 u CD Q_ (/) Annual Bluegrass B Sabre II B Winter Star B Laser Percent Disease Ryegrass Other M Fescue M Bluegrass H Bentgrass SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 23 Capital Campaigning Presenting the right information can encourage golfers to vote “yes” on capital improvements. BY ANDREW ACKER Despite the recent dip in new course construction, the game of golf has enjoyed significant growth during the past decade. In particular, the number of public golf courses has ballooned by nearly 50 percent since the early 1990s. Many of these new public courses have excellent turf quality and archi­ tectural merit, and private clubs located in close proximity are being compelled to upgrade their facilities to remain competitive in the marketplace. When the leadership of a private club finds it necessary to campaign for a major capital improvement, seeking valuable input from the membership, developing a realistic budget, and offering a feasible financing plan are just as impor­ tant as commissioning a detailed architectural drawing. tend to arise on a frequent basis. And, finally, a qualified third party will have a proprietary database that can be used to compare the survey results to those of similar clubs. Such benchmarking can help shed light on the course’s competitive position in local and regional markets. The task of developing a realistic budget for capital improvements oftentimes is assigned to a golf course planning committee. Ideally, this committee should be composed of past and present members of the Green Committee and Board of Directors who, in total, represent every segment of the club’s mem­ bership. For technical expertise, the committee also should include the club’s professional staff and specialists appropriate to the task at hand, such as a golf course architect, a regional agronomist, an irrigation system designer, and/or a civil engineer. Once convened, a golf course planning committee’s initial task is to study the condition of the course and its infrastructure to One of the best ways of check­ ing the membership’s pulse in the early stages of a capital improve­ ment campaign is to circulate a well-crafted survey. To gather valuable input from the member­ ship, survey questions should be written in a manner that allows each member to rate his or her satisfaction with individual components of the course, such as the playing quality of the bunkers; the condition of the greens, tees, and fairways; and the enjoyment of the course’s layout. Given the right circumstances, it also can be appropriate to include questions pertaining to the course’s unseen infrastructure, such as the maintenance facility and irrigation system. Addition­ ally, a good survey should identify 24 GREEN SECTION RECORD It can be appropriate when surveying the membership to include questions pertaining to the golf course’s unseen infrastructure, such as the irrigation system. specific capital improvements that are most important to the membership and their general willingness to pay for these items. For several reasons, an objective third party is typically the best administrator of a membership survey. First, surveys conducted by a third party can provide greater credibility and objectivity for gathering important information. Second, a third party can share infor­ mation and offer guidance in dealing with unexpected political issues that determine the full scope of work needed in a master plan of improve­ ments. From here, a master plan can be developed by a golf course architect, and the committee can solicit cost estimates and begin the process of piecing together a realistic budget that is in line with the funding capacity of the club. After a realistic budget has been assembled, the next crucial step in culti­ vating membership approval for a large capital project is to determine feasible the loan, the club will be required to make a monthly payment of $11,102. If the club has 400 members, then each would be required to pay an additional $27.76 per month. A refundable assessment entails an up-front payment from each member with a refundable feature that becomes effective if a member leaves the club before the end of a specified depreci­ ation period. The advantages of this funding method are that the up-front assessment supports the financial future of the club and the refundable feature tends to encourage membership approval for a project. The disadvantage of this funding method, of course, is that each member is required to make a large, single payment. For example, at XYZ Country Club each member is assessed $5,000 to fund a proposed capital improvement. Assum­ ing a depreciation schedule of 10% per year for ten years, a member resigning from the club after five years would re­ ceive a refund of $2,500 or an amount equal to 50% of the original assessment. A non-refundable assessment entails an up-front payment from each mem­ ber covering the total cost of a capital To ensure that course improvements can be properly maintained in the long run, it is important to include needed maintenance facility upgrades in the capital project budget. improvement. The loan interest rate is fixed at 6% over a term of ten years, which equates to an annual principal and interest cost of 13.32%.To support financing options. The most common methods of funding capital improve­ ments are 1) a monthly capital dues increase, 2) a refundable assessment, and 3) a non-refundable assessment. Each funding method offers a club and its members a different set of advantages and disadvantages. A monthly capital dues increase is simply a means of generating extra income to cover the cost of financing a loan for capital improvements over a period of years. The advantage of this financing method is that most members prefer a low, monthly payment in lieu of a large, single payment. If a member chooses to resign from the club after the completion of a capital project, then he or she is excused from future payments. The disadvantage of this financing method is that taking out a loan will put the club in debt, thus threatening its financial future should a significant number of members resign unexpectedly. For example, XYZ Country Club borrows $1,000,000 to pay for a capital A good way to gather valuable input in the early stages of a capital campaign is to circulate a well-crafted survey that asks members to rate their satisfaction with individual course components, such as the bunkers. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 25 Joneses. After all, current industry sur­ veys show that access to a high-quality, well-maintained golf course is the primary reason for joining a private club. Andrew Acker is a consultant for the McMahon Group based in St. Louis, Missouri. His primary duty is to help private clubs make a convincing argument for needed capital improvements. Table I Satisfaction Survey for XYZ Country Club Survey results for XYZ Country Club indicating the need for significant capital improvements to restore membership satisfaction Satisfaction scale: I - very dissatisfied, 3 - neutral, and 5 - very satisfied Table 2 Course Improvement Support for XYZ Country Club Survey results for XYZ Country Club showing membership support for several capital improvements improvement. The advantage of this payment method is that it covers the complete cost of the project and thereby doesn’t threaten the financial future of the club. The disadvantages of this payment method are that it obliges the current membership to cover the entire cost of a capital project and that each member is required to make a large, single payment. In some instances, private clubs are established with a bylaw that sets aside a portion of the monthly dues in a capital reserve fund. The obvious advantage of this accounting method is that the club is capable of using existing assets to cover the periodic costs of large capital improvements. The disadvantage here would be that it increases the monthly dues that in turn might make it more difficult for the club to sign up new members during stressful economic times. One important detail in the process of developing a feasible financial option is evaluating which segments of the membership should pay for a large capital improvement. If the scope of the project is limited to golf course improvements, then logically those members who play most often are typically required to pay for the bulk of the improvements. If a social club member is granted limited access to the golf course, then he or she might be required to contribute a small amount. Additionally, senior members may be required to contribute, but at a reduced rate when compared to regular members. Developing an architectural master plan for a golf course is only one step toward the completion of a major capital improvement project.The other equally important steps are gathering input from the membership via a sur­ vey, developing a realistic budget, and putting forth an acceptable financing plan. In an era when public golf courses are being developed that rival and, in some cases, surpass the playing quality of private clubs, it is easy to recognize the importance of keeping up with the 26 GREEN SECTION RECORD On Course With Nature Spawning Good Stewardship Unique natural resources offer a means to demonstrate good environmental stewardship. BY STEVE KEALY lendale Country Club is located in Bellevue, Washington, a nearby suburb of Seattle. Our golf course has a unique situation: two salmon­ spawning streams cross the length of the property and provide the primary spawning habitat for the entire reach of each stream. Our interest in salmon and the environment has provided oppor­ tunities for us to get involved in a num­ ber of partnerships that have helped us not only communicate a message of good environmental stewardship, but also demonstrate it. We have been very active in the City of Bellevue’s Stream Team pro­ gram since 1989 and a member of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Pro­ gram for Golf Courses since 1991. Over the years we have completed many restoration projects on the course and have developed a very close partnership with the City of Bellevue. We continue to work with them on habitat enhance­ ment projects at Glendale and adjacent properties surrounding the course. In 1997,1 was asked by the Stream Team coordinator to talk to Patty Shelton, a fifth- and sixth-grade science teacher at Odle Middle School. Patty wanted to start a “salmon in the class­ room” program, but she needed fund­ ing to get started. The school district had problems supplying new books and surely would not be able to fund her request for the needed equipment. I met with Glendale course officials who were very supportive of the project, and they donated $1,200 to purchase an aquarium and related equipment for the school. Each year since 1997, Patty’s students have successfully raised salmon in their Steve Kealy (left) shows off a grown salmon that has returned to Kelsey Creek to spawn. classroom. Coho salmon eggs are sup­ plied by a local Washington State hatchery, and they spend the next 90 days or so at the school. During that time, the kids learn about salmon life cycles and discuss current issues that affect stream habitat and salmon sur­ vival, including pesticide use, urban development in and around sensitive areas, and water quality issues. They also explore things they can do around their homes to prevent storm water contami­ nation of nearby water bodies. When the fish have grown to the level required for release into the stream, Glendale pays for bus transportation for the fish and the kids to the golf course. (The school district has no money to pay for field trips, either!) The kids really enjoy the release of the fish into the stream. Representatives from the City of Bellevue school district, mayor’s office, and Storm and Surface Water Utility are present, and they talk to the students about the importance of their project. Some of the kids get emotionally attached to the fish because they invest a lot of time in their care and feeding over the previous three months. Many kids have names for their adopted fish and are really excited to release them with the hope that they will return to spawn four years later. Although the quantity of salmon raised and released by the kids is rela­ tively small (300 per year), the learning experience is great. Student interest in the subject matter is enhanced because they raise the salmon themselves. Best of all, the salmon project spawns a last­ ing sense among the students of the importance of getting involved per­ sonally in environmental stewardship. Glendale Country Club is very proud of its partnership with Odle Middle School and the City of Bellevue. Be­ sides the positive public relations aspect of being involved with the school and city, it’s just the right thing to do. This project was one of several “outreach and education” activities that contributed to our achieving certification as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary in 1998. Development of these partner­ ships was very easy and did not take a lot of time or money. Most schools are struggling from budget shortfalls and they welcome any offered assistance. If I had known how simple it was to get involved with a school and help make a positive impact on its program, I would have done so years earlier. We look for­ ward to continuing our support for the students and the environment, and we’re pleased with the positive impact our golf course is creating in our community. Steve Kealy serves as golf course super­ intendent at Glendale Country Club (Bellevue, Wash.). SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004 27 All Things Considered Becoming Bilingual Use your Green Section Decoder to understand the language of golfers. BY CHRIS HARTWIGER Golfers,present company included, are an interesting lot. They will play in the rain and hunt for golf balls in snake-infested streams, and they • “Did you mow the greens today?” Origin: Ex-Green Committee mem­ bers who know something about turf maintenance. are masters at pointing out the obvious. Is it really necessary for golfers to say that the bunkers are inconsistent every time they tee it up? In my travels as a USGA agronomist, I have learned that golfers also speak a different language. This language sounds much like English, but the words and phrases have a much different meaning. However, with a little luck, a good set of ears, and help from the “Green Section Decoder,” you too can be on your way to becoming bilingual. After nearly ten years traveling throughout the Southeast and conducting hundreds of Turfgrass Advisory Visits, I thought I had heard them all. But every year there is another one to add to the list. Like many of you, my eyes have glazed over, my brain has become foggy, and I’ve been reduced to scratching my head more than once over the gems shared with me by well-meaning and very concerned golfers. Below are a few of my favorites and what they really mean. • “There’s no grass on the fairways.” Origin: The senior men’s group. Translation: I’m having trouble getting my 11 wood in the air. • “We want to take this course to the next level.” Origin: Any members who watch golf on television or who have just played a course with a budget at least twice as big as their own. Translation: I know our course can be better and I’m not sure how, but repeating this phrase over and over is gratifying. 28 GREEN SECTION RECORD Translation: I’ve just finished my warm-up on the practice putting green and I cannot get the ball anywhere close to the hole. It can’t be me, because if it is, I’m going to have my wallet cleaned out by my buddies today. The maintenance staff must be at fault, and not mowing the greens is the only thing I can think of. • “The greens are too fast” or “the greens are too slow.” Origin: Golfers who have changed putters more times than they have changed socks. Translation: These statements basically say the same thing: I putted poorly today. The green speed is wrong. If the greens were the speed I wanted, I would have putted better. • “The bunkers are inconsistent.” Origin: Most golfers. This is one of the biggest complaints heard today. Translation: I don’t get up and down as often as I think I should. I should be able to get up and down just Eke the professionals on TV despite never prac­ ticing and using equipment that hasn’t been properly fitted for me. Author’s Input: Today’s golfer does not realize bunkers have never been con­ sistent, they are not consistent today, and they will never be consistent. • “The rough is too long.” Origin: Players of all shapes and sizes who insist on hitting their driver on every tee shot because it is the club that flies the longest. Translation: I’m having trouble hitting Origin: Happy golfers. Translation:! just shot my career round. Author’s Input: There is nothing that brings a course to perfection faster than a career round. • “The course is perfect, but...” Origin: Any course official. Translation: This is a tricky one and looks surprisingly similar to “the course is perfect” phrase, except it is followed by the infamous “but ....” Upon hear­ ing this phrase, a superintendent is advised to head to the nearest word processor and begin polishing up the resume because the end is near. The language of golfers can be puzzling. While the Green Section Decoder is a fun look at the challenges that golf course maintenance and the golfers bring to a superintendent, there are a few important points to be made. All too often superintendents and course officials fail to completely diag­ nose problems on the golf course. Taking criticism or comments at face value sometimes causes us all to miss the real problem and in the process implement solutions that are not going to work. Raising mowing heights so that the critics believe there is now grass on the fairways may silence them, but is there another group at the club that will resent the changes? Will re­ building the bunkers and shipping bunker sand halfway across the country really make the bunkers more consis­ tent? Every solution to a real or per­ ceived problem is going to involve people in addition to agronomy. Take the time to learn the language of golfers and you will not only become bilingual, but your career will prosper. the dreaded enigmatic straight shot. • “The course is perfect.” Chris Hartwiger is an agronomist in the Green Section’s Southeast Region. USGA GREEN SECTION NATIONAL OFFICES Northwest 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 j snow@usga. org Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D., Director of Education kerusha@usga. org Green Section Research P.O. Box 2227 Stillwater, OK 74076 (405) 743-3900 Fax (405) 743-3910 Michael P. Kenna, Ph.D., Director mkenna@usga.org Construction Education Program 720 Wooded Crest Waco,TX 76712 (254) 776-0765 Fax (254) 776-0227 James F. Moore, Director jmoore@usga.org 904 Highland Drive Lawrence, KS 66044 785-832-2300 JeffNus, Ph.D., Manager jnus@usga.org •Mid-Continent Region Paul H. Vermeulen, Director pvermeulen@usga. org 9 River Valley Ranch White Heath, IL 61884 (217) 687-4424 Fax (217) 687-4333 Charles “Bud” White, Senior Agronomist budwhite@usga. org 2601 Green Oak Drive Carrollton, TX 75010 (972) 662-1138 Fax (972) 662-1168 •North-Central Region Robert A. Brame, Director bobbrame@usga.org P.O. Box 15249 Covington, KY 41015-0249 (859) 356-3272 Fax (859) 356-1847 Robert C.Vavrek, Jr., Senior Agronomist rvavrek@usga. org P.O. Box 5069 Elm Grove, WI 53122 (262) 797-8743 Fax (262) 797-8838 •Northwest Region Larry W. Gilhuly, Director lgilhuly@usga.org 5610 Old Stump Drive N.W, Gig Harbor, WA 98332 (253) 858-2266 Fax (253) 857-6698 Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist mnelson@usga.org P.O. Box 5844 Twin Falls, ID 83303 (208) 732-0280 Fax (208) 732-0282 •Southwest Region Patrick J. Gross, Director pgross@usga.org David Wienecke, Agronomist dwienecke@usga.org 505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121 Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 542-5766 Fax (714) 542-5777 •Mid-Atlantic Region Stanley J. Zontek, Director szontek@usga.org Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist dbevard@usga.org 485 Baltimore Pike, Suite 203 Glen Mills, PA 19342 (610) 558-9066 Fax (610) 558-1135 Keith A. Happ, Senior Agronomist khapp@usga.org Manor Oak One, Suite 410, 1910 Cochran Road Pittsburgh, PA 15220 (412) 341-5922 Fax (412) 341-5954 •Southeast Region Patrick M. O’Brien, Director patobrien@usga.org P.O. Box 95 Griffin, GA 30224-0095 (770) 229-8125 Fax (770) 229-5974 Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist chartwiger@usga.org 1097 Highlands Drive Birmingham, AL 35244 (205) 444-5079 Fax (205) 444-9561 •Florida Region John H. Foy, Director jfoy@usga.org P.O.Box 1087 Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 (772) 546-2620 Fax (772) 546-4653 Todd Lowe, Agronomist tlowe@usga.org 127 Naomi Place Rotonda West, FL 33947 (941) 828-2625 Fax (941) 828-2629 Mid-Continent Florida REGIONAL OFFICES •Northeast Region David A. Oatis, Director doatis@usga.org James H. Baird, Ph.D., Agronomist jbaird@usga.org P.O. Box 4717 Easton, PA 18043 (610) 515-1660 Fax (610) 515-1663 James E. Skorulski, Senior Agronomist jskorulski@usga. org 1500 North Main Street Palmer, MA 01069 (413) 283-2237 Fax (413) 283-7741 ©2004 by United States Golf Association® Subscriptions $18 a year, Canada/Mexico $21 a year, and international $33 a year (air mail). Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and correspondence 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 educational 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 per­ mission 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. ® Printed on recycled paper What is a reasonable number of people to keep on our maintenance staff during the winter months? We are in a northern, seasonal climate and are always watching our budget. (Wyoming) This question is com­ monly asked of superinten­ dents by members of the Green Committee or Board of Directors, particularly when there is snow on the ground and the budget is tight. Most 18-hole golf courses located in the northern U.S. keep an average of 3-4 employees in addition to the mechanic and superintendent during the winter to perform annual maintenance on equipment, monitor conditions across the golf course, remove snow from roads and parking areas, and handle golf course setup duties when conditions war­ rant winter play. An exact number depends upon specific requirements, includ­ ing extensive snow plowing, accumulating debris from trees, etc., when the course is open to play, and any in­ house projects. Some courses are fortunate to have talented staff that can conduct in­ house improvement projects to the golf course or grounds, resulting in significant savings to the club. W It i Ki", : ; S j < --------- —-------- ---- — — should be presented when attempting a recovery shot. There is nothing in the Rules of Golf stating that a bunker needs to be prepared in any particular manner. For our championships, the sand in the bunkers is packed with a mechanical bunker rake, using only the tires of the machine. Every attempt is made to eliminate ridges in the surface of the bunker. The sand is then hand-raked with a leaf rake that creates a soft condition, allowing for the possibility of a cuppy lie in the bunker. Balls do not often bury, but they may not always sit up on the sand. There is no such thing as a perfect bunker — only perfect golf shots! LJlf the covers under con­ sideration are the standard permeable woven materials, they have many uses, includ­ ing protecting against desic­ cation and hastening spring green-up. But they will not prevent cold temperature freeze injury (“ice damage”). Various types of non-perme- able covers and insulating materials are utilized to a greater extent to prevent winter freeze injury, and they may be worth considering if the winter damage continues or becomes more severe on your greens. There are no easy answers to winter prob­ lems, as we are often at the mercy of the weather. It is a good idea to have a few covers available to promote recovery in the spring should it be necessary. However, follow your superintendent s advice and use the money instead to eliminate fall and winter shade and improve surface drainage. Our members have heard that there are different setup criteria used for bunkers being prepared for a championship. Is this true? (Virginia) Bunker preparation for USGA championships has evolved over the years. Keep in mind that bunkers are hazards, and a challenge E Greens on our golf course experienced ice damage last winter. A group of us play at another course where they use covers to protect all their greens from ice. We believe they would be effective at our course as well, but our superintendent disagrees and feels we would be better off spending our money in other ways. What do you think? (Massachusetts) www.usga.org