1949 fìnnURL COÌÌFEREÌÌCE
ÌIÌID-fìTLfìnTIC
RSSGCIRTIOn OF GREERKEEPERS

S P O n S O R E D BY
EílTOmOLOGY
URI VER.

SIT Y

OF

DEPARTÌTÌEÌÌT
ORRYLAnD

DR, ERnEST n, CORY, DIRECTOR

Table of Contents

Golf Course Construction in Relation to Efficient Maintenance . . . . .
0. J. Noer

5

Diseases of Turf ,..............C. Ko Hallowell

12

Water Conservation .................. .Fred Grau 18
New and Interesting Grasses«..«,

Fred Grau 26

Soil Physics (with special relation to green
construction),.....
,R. P. Thomas 32
Grub Control in Turf

..... G. S. Langford

Recorded, transcribed and mimeographed by
West Point Lawn Products,

West Point, Pa,

k2

GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO EFFICIENT
MAINTENANCE
By O.J. Noer
The subject assigned is Golf Course Construction in
Relation to Maintenance. Unfortunately, there is
little experimental evidence on which to base a discussion. It is necessary to draw upon observation
more than anything else. I feel that architects and
construction superintendents would do a better job of
construction had they had maintenance experience.
Then some of them would do things differently. There
have been a great many headaches for the first two
years or longer after play starts because there has
not been enough care taken in the construction of the
greens and other features to make the course better
from the standpoint of subsequent maintenance.
Good greens are the most important thing on a golf
course. Twenty years ago good greens were enough—
nothing else mattered. That is not quite true now.
Good greens are so commonplace that the golfer takes
them as a matter of course. He expects good greens.
As a consequence, fairways and tees have become uppermost in the minds of these men.
In areas where the native soil is heavy and the subsoil compact, drainage comes foremost in the construction of greens to simplify maintenance after they are
put into play. I like to think in terms of subsoil
and surface drainage. Both are equally important.
If the subsoil is tight and extremely heavy, tile
drainage is obviously required. Too many architects
install tile, but not in the right way. Some greens
have only one or perhaps two lines of tile. They
are helpful, but do not move water fast enough during
the critical periods; when there is a week or two of
heavy down-pouring rain. Surplus water should be
removed quickly so the soil does not stay saturated
over a long period of time. My own preference is for
a gridiron or herring bone system, in which the main
line bisects the green and the laterals make a
degree angle with the main. The system resembles a
tree in outline. The main line represents the trunk,
and the laterals the branches.
Tile lines should be spaced not more than eight to
ten feet apart where subsoil is heavy, and the lines
should be from twenty to thirty inches deep. The
trenches should be back-filled with a coarse material

such as pea gravel, as close to the surface as possible« In other words, up to the depth where the
cups are to be set. This method provides a porous
column to conduct water quickly down to the tile.
The subgrade should be built and contoured to facilitate drainage and not necessarily follow the final
surface contours that are established from a standpoint of play* In other words, it might be best to
have the subsurface slope slightly from the center
toward each of the adjoining tile lines. Then water
will follow the subgrade and flow over to the porous
material and pass down into the tile. This certainly facilitates drainage. I am sure you will not go
wrong by doing that. There may be a simpler way,
but I know that this one works. I do not think it is
always necessary to slope the grade from the center
towards each line. It might be possible to have a
subsoil gradient cross all the lines so the water goes
down through the topsoil until it reaches the subsoil
and then follows a natural course down to the tile
lines.
Enough thought is seldom given to subsurface drainage. The problem is different in some areas. In
Oklahoma, for instance, the water contains a considerable amount of salt. The quantity is not great and
yet, the accumulated effect is beginning to tell on
some of these greens. It is going to be necessary to
wash the excess salt out of the soil during the winter
time, and then an accumulation will not be sufficient
during the summer to be detrimental to the grass.
Surface drainage is extremely important. Too many
greens are built of the conventional type, v/ith the
slope from back to front
This is especially true on
the smaller courses. It is done, no doubt, to assist
the golfer so the green will hold any shot. Players
ordinarily walk on to the green from the fairway;they
never approach from the back. If the slope is from
back to front, the front part of the green, which is
used the most, is the last to dry out. The surface
water should move off the green in more than one direction. The quickest way to get water off any surface is by surface run-off, particularly where the
soil is heavy and compact. That is why greens should
be contoured so most of the water drains away as surface run-off, then good subsurface drainage can dispose of the gravitational water held by the soil.
It quickly will move out of the root zone either down
through the soil or the tile lines. There will be
much less trouble and it will be possible to go through

trying periods of heavy summer rainfall without extensive loss of turfo
We hear discussions pro and con regarding the necessity of using tile. Both advocates may be righto
Charlie Erickson of Minneapolis told me he thought
the use of tile in greens was the bunko He thought
they were never needed* At his course, Minikahda,
the subsoil was extremely good, and the passageways
between the soil particles were so large that every
green had a million drain lines instead of seven or
eight. Tile drainage wasn!t at all necessary there.
Tile would not be needed anywhere if a tent could be
placed over each green in the summer. Then, soil
moisture could be controlled. Drainage and soil condition would be immaterial. But, without such protection in summers when there is a week or ten days
of down-pouring rain, followed by exceedingly hot
weather, turf takes a beating if soil conditions are
not right. A blue color in the subsoil is an evidence of inadequate drainage. The soil is blue because the iron in it is in the ferrous or reduced
state. It is that way because the water saturated
soil is devoid of oxygen. If the soil has big enough
spaces it is seldom completely saturated with water,
then the subsoil will be brown or red because the
iron is fully oxidized. It is what the chemist calls
the ferric state.
Some architects place a coarse layer of gravel over
the subgrade, with tile underneath it. They depend
upon this porous gravel layer to trap the water and
lead it down to the tile lines. In many instances
these layers are from three to five inches thick and
then, of course, the topsoil is placed over it. This
method provides good drainage. There can be no question about that, but sometimes I wonder what would
happen in areas like West Texas, where the temperatures are high and the climate dry. Brisk winds and
hot dry weather would necessitate more frequent watering than would otherwise be needed. I am not prepared to condemn the practice because it may have
possibilities. However, if the surface soil placed
on the subgrade is a good one— a medium sandy loam
or one of a similar nature— I feel sure a gravel layer is not essential, provided the water can pass
through the surface soil and along through the subgrade to the tile lines. It is particularly true now
that we have the Aerifier and other means of preventing surface compaction and keeping the surface soil
in good physical condition.

7

Too little attention is paid to the topsoil used on
greens* It may mean many headaches during the first
few years while top-dressing to build a good soil
layer above the heavy soil. It would be better to
make the soil right when it goes on the subgrade.
More information is needed about the physical characteristics of soil, yet there are enough good
greens to justify the statement that a medium sandy
loam is the kind to use* The sand particles in a medium sandy loam vary in size and are not all uniformly
fine; the range is from fine to coarse* This provides large passageways in the soil to facilitate
movement of water and air* You have all heard me say
that the ideal soil is one of 50$ solids, 25$ liquids
and 25$ of gas or air* That is about the relationship in a medium sandy loam*
The amount of organic matter should never exceed a
quarter by volume, with 30$ &s an outside figure,
but somewhere between 20% and 2|5% is better* Farther
north many clubs use more organic matter* They get
by most times, but there is a chance for trouble during the unusual season* That is the time to be prepared for* One should be able to cope with whatever
comes* If the amount of organic matter is too high,
the soil stays too wet in periods of heavy rain. Then
in dry periods, localized dry spots develop. It is
extremely difficult to get peat and other humus materials to rewet themselves. They contain a waxy substance which tends to repel water. Excessive amounts
of organic matter keep the soil too wet in late winter and early spring, and make snowmold much worse.
With respect to silt and clay, I am of the opinion
that there should be some in any soil* I dislike
some of the mixtures used in Florida— that is
straight sand and peat. The silt and clay fractions
have a definite function from the standpoint of soil
performance* They are the materials that take and
temporarily hold potash, phosphate and some of the
other materials that a plant must have, and release
them later for the plant to use. Organic matter
does the same thing« So clay and silt have a useful
function, but the amount in soil should not be high.
To the soils physicist a sand is any soil containing
85% or more of sand particles. The other 15% may be
clay and yet the soil is a loamy sand. On the other
hand, a clay soil is any soil containing 30% of clay
particles« By increasing the amount of clay by 15$
a loamy sand becomes a clay soil* It takes large
amounts of sand to appreciably affect a clay soil,
but very little clay is needed to profoundly modify

a sando

That is something to be remembered.

Contours on greens are not only important for surface drainage, but from other standpoints too. In
the early twenties it was customary to build greens
that resembled the Rocky Mountains, insofar as surface contour was concerned, A few architects still
do it that way, but fortunately, not many. We have
gone from hand mowing to power mowing, and it makes
no difference x^hat we think about hand versus power
mowing— the workmen on the course will settle that
question. It is hard to get men to push hand mowers,
even though one might prefer to have the mowing done
that way. The change to power mowing must be taken
into account during construction. Contours on the
greens should be sweeping slopes, and not the familiar abrupt banks. Steep banks are not good practice
anywhere. Long sweeping slopes on and around the
greens— and banks around tees— enable more effective use of power mowing equipment.
Since I do not play golf I may be more critical
about the location of traps than the golfer is. My
viewpoint is from the maintenance angle. I do not
like to see large traps out in front and to the side
of the green anymore than is necessary. Very often
the approaches directly in front of the greens have
the worst turf on the fairways. One of the first
things asked is: What can be done to improve turf
on approaches? In many instances, the best thing is
to widen the areas to lessen traffic congestion both
by the players and by machines. In most instances
this is the reason for poor turf. The same situation
prevails on many greens where provision was not made
to distribute traffic off the greens to the next tee.
Everybody follows the line of least resistance; instead of walking over a mound, the low path is taken.
There are many instances where soil compaction due
to traffic congestion has been responsible for poor
turf. Building the green so traffic is distributed
over a wider area as the players walk from green to
tee greatly simplifies the matter of maintenance.
Fairway drainage has not received enough attention
on many courses, particularly where the soil is
heavy. I have in mind a course in St. Louis— and
there are more like it in other areas— where efforts to improve fairways have not been too successful. Seepage out of the side hills in the fall and
early spring needs to be corrected before turf renovation. I have some pictures which illustrate the
necessity for drainage to intercept seepage.

When a new course is built requirements for lime to
reduce acidity of soil should be satisfied well ahead of seeding, and the fertilizer needed to get a
good stand of grass should be applied. It is much
easier to get a good stand of grass at the start than
to improve it later. The tests conducted by A.E.Rabbitt show that when soil has an adequate amount of
fertility, much less seed is needed to secure a uniform and good stand of grass. Where funds are limited the thing to do is to apply lime, if needed,
along with plenty of superphosphate and \^ork them in
to the soil. This is the one time they can be mechanically incorporated with the soil. Saving should
be at the expense of nitrogen because it can always
be put on after growth starts. However, it is important to use some nitrogen before seeding on soils
which are very low in organic matter. Otherwise,
growth will not be satisfactory.
Tees are also important. In this belt from Washington across through Indianapolis, St. Louis, Louisville to Kansas City, the question crops up continuallys What can be done to improve the character of
our tees? In the first place, many clubs build tees
too small during the construction. Nobody can maintain good grass on tees of postage stamp size. There
must be enough area on the tee for grass to repair
itself under the playing conditions which prevail on
the course. If play is heavy, tees must be larger
than if play is light. On a course like Old Elm in
Chicago, where the course is crowded when there are
25 people playing at one time, turf does not get the
abuse that it does on public courses where it is not
uncommon to have three or four hundred players go
over the course every day of the weekend and almost
that many during the week. So size is important.
Then there is the matter of shade. In many instances
there Is altogether too much shade for some of our
grasses to survive. There is the further complication of tree roots. When tees are large and not too
shaded, good turf depends upon the kind of grass.
Maybe Fred Grau has the answer. I'm sure I do not
have an entirely satisfactory one. But I will say
this, one cannot expect bluegrass or fescues to make
a satisfactory tee in this area or farther north.
The bluegrass doesn't make a close enough knit turf
to keep out crabgrass, clover and some of the other
weeds. I don't think fescue is vigorous and sufficiently fast growing to repair itself under heavy
play. •
Many years ago there were complaints about the tees

at one course. I got them to make two tees, considerably larger than the old oneSo One was seeded
to red fescue, and the other was planted into a vegetated strain of bent. Before play started anyone
would have chosen the fescue tee, but it went to
pieces by midsummer of the first season. Even in
Toronto, where climatic conditions are most favorable, the fescue could not repair itself fast enough
under the moderate amount of play. The bent tee was
much better, so that is what was finally adopted for
all their tees. The tees were enlarged and cut extremely close with a power greens mower to keep turf
tight. Players dislike fluffy grass on tees which
is the reason for close cutting of bent with a
greens mower.
There are some excellent zoysiagrass tees on two of
the courses in Louisville. Tees on one of the
courses were much smaller than one would expect. Yet
the zoysia turf was surprisingly good. This grass
does well there when adequately fertilized and properly cared for. I do not intend to imply that zoysia
is what you should plant. Maybe the combination of
bermuda and bluegrass is a better answer. It is
something to be tried, but the selection of the best
grasses for tees is still something which requires
more study.

DISEASES OF TURF
By
C.K. Hallowell
I'm fresh from the Pennsylvania Farm Show, having
just come down last night. The thing that I got
out of the show is that such a multitude was there.
More people than ever seemed to be coming to see
the show— 85,000 on Monday, 135,000 on Tuesday and
I don't know how many were there yesterday as I left
there late yesterday. I think there were two main
things I got out of the meetings at the show. In
farm production— and our golf course production is
not too far away from that— the emphasis is being
put on quality. During the war when it was easy to
sell products, people got away from thinking about
quality, but there was no doubt about it that every
meeting you sat in and everyone you talked with was
emphasizing quality. So I think you are also going
to hear about that this year in golf courses. People are going to look for and demand a little bit
better turf all the time, and rightly so.
The other thing emphasized was efficient production.
You appreciate that in your golf course maintenance
game. Mechanization and anything to do the job better with less labor are being sought. I bring it
along as a contribution to you, as I think that is
what you are up against in the golf course game. In
19>+9 it will be producing better turf and doing it
more efficiently. .
The control of turf diseases is just one phase of it.
I have tried to determine when the first turf disease control was done. Many of you, who have been
in the golf course game for twenty years or more,
realize disease control was started by the Green Section during the mid-twenties under the direction of
Dr. John Monteith. The finding out the right fungicides to control the different diseases was a remarkable piece of work, and it is too bad there was ever
any lapse in such experimental work. I hope you agree with me that somebody should continue the work
in research on turf diseases. Let it never be laid
aside, but let it never have all or too many of the
Experiment Stations working on it. The fine thing
about Fred Grau's work as Director of the Green Section is the co-ordination of all the research work—
getting one or two Experiment Stations to work on
certain problems and others to work on different

problems.
In Pennsylvania for the past few years there has
been research along the lines of turf diseases.
What I have to report to you today is from observations
of what has been done in Pennsylvania. In
l
kl the Penn State College Research Department put
a graduate student down in Philadelphia area to do
some field work under Dr. Wernham, who was then directing the turf disease research program. Since
the turf disease program is more severe in Southeastern Pennsylvania than at State College, it was
decided to do the fungicide comparison work in the
Philadelphia area during the summer months. At the
end of the season of 194-1 the results indicated a
material which came to be known as Thiosan was a
helpful fungicide in controlling large brownpatch.
The fungicide was later named Tersan. As the result
of the finding the golf course superintendents went
into that war period, when mercury was taken away
from them, with a feeling they still had a helpful
fungicide. The new material, Tersan, does have some
variations in the control of turf diseases, but is
widely used in controlling large brownpatch. The material never retards the turf which is a factor since
large brownpatch occurs at a period when the temperatures are likely to retard the growth of grass.
As a result of the x^ar the research work was discontinued. When the war period was over and things began to get back to normal again, the golf course men
raised the question with the College of whether they
were going to continue the disease control research
program.
Finally it narrowed down to the stage of
11
Yes, we are going to do it, but personnel is extremely limited...There is nobody here we can find to put
in the field with the students." At that time there
were no graduate students available to come out to
do the work and that was due to the war. The work
for the summer would be done if a man could be located to do the work. A few of us got together and
put it up to the School Board and the School Superintendent to find someone— someone in that area who
could carry out the work. They recommended a science
teacher. So three years ago this work continued in
the field. Dr. Thurston, who is in charge of turf
research at Penn State College, Joe Valentine and a
few others met to decide what materials would be
tried and how the work should be carried on. Nobody
had any idea that we could get very far the first
year. One material put into that comparison was a
cadmium material that had been given to the College

for the research men to try on potatoes and apples*
It didn't seem to have a bit of promise or place,
but since it was available it was put on the turf
along with some eight or ten other materials* Comparison plots were put out, using mercury in the
form of Calo-Clor as the standard fungicide.
In a short time one material began to stand out,
showing a lot of promise in turf disease control.
It was most effective as to dollarspot. It was the
same year that Rhode Island reported a Puratized material was an effective fungicide* The same man
continued for three years in the work of carrying
out comparisons of the different fungicides* It often happens in research work, as it did in the turf
work, the first few years the results were outstanding; the control by the different materials was rather clear cut, some materials showing no control,
the check plot showing a lot of disease, and a few
materials giving excellent control* The findings
for the three years indicate the subject of turf
diseases should be studied further and the relationships of soil fertility, maintenance practices and
chemicals used should be studied* In other x^ords,
as we get into these newer chemicals, we find many
of them are selective. They are not as inclusive as
the mercuries* But, they do have a place, and it
may be the new fungicides may be used at less frequent intervals*
In view of what has been said here by 0*J. Noer, I
think we all realize that a properly designed golf
course is a helpful factor in controlling turf diseases* If we look after the fundamentals of golf
course construction, we may cut down our disease control problems* Good construction and good maintenance are helpful* Well selected strains of grass are
important in keeping disease control at a minimum*
Resistant strains should be used* Cultural practices
* such as mowing and fertilizing have a decided effect
'on the turf diseases*
Lime was found to have a place in controlling turf
diseases, although we have no reason to believe that
lime is a fungicide* Sometimes when the humidity
is high and the soil extremely wet, hydrated lime
checks disease* It has a place as a fungicide when
the weather is unusual, and it seems to be a tonic
to the grass* It was found that ten pounds of hydrated lime, put on when the turf was dry and poled
into the turf, was the maximum amount to use.

A few pictures will emphasize the different turf
diseases.
(Slides)
1. This is large brownpatch— outside ring active.
This is what you are trying to stop with the fungicide.
2. This shows dollar spot.
3c Snowmold— mercury applied in November is recommended.
b. Helminthosporium.
5* Aerifier" used in late October—velvet bent did
not heal.
6. Layering. It is futile to use chemicals with a
soil proposition like that. The use of the Aerifier is helpful to break up layers.
7o Two strains of grass, showing one free of disease
and one subject to disease.
8. Here are Arlington bent plots. There is no difference between treated and untreated halves of
the plot. Arlington bent was not seriously affected by disease.

We are not emphasizing that Arlington never has disease. Perhaps you got that out of the picture, but
some of you know a little differently. However, this
turf mostly recovers quickly after disease is checked, or the disease is of short duration. So I think
that when we are thinking about strains that are resistant to disease, you also have to consider the recovery possibilities of the turf. We have seen Arlington rather badly hit with dollar spot, where it
is used on fairways in the Philadelphia area, but it
never lasts long. When we are talking about bents
or bluegrasses for fairways, the question arises?
what about our bent fairways and disease? If strains
of bentgrass that recover rapidly are used, disease
is not going to be much of a problem. There may be
times when one of the cadmiums may be used to check
the disease. It is being used on tees.
In regard to leafspot on bluegrass there is no known
control. High cut, perhaps, but that is not possible on golf courses. The disease comes on lawns cut
at! 1*1*-2 inches, and often thins out the bluegrass.
I m not sure that leafspot on bluegrass is due to
moisture. Perhaps it is tied up with low temperatures in the spring of the year, rather than excessive moisture. It is destructive on bluegrass fairways and lawns in the spring of the year when rain-

fall has been limited. However, when the grass
should be growing and producing thick turf, this is
when leafspot comes in and does its destructive work.
Turf often partially recovers; leafspot does not often take it all out, but when the disease has run
its course, then the weather is detrimental to the
production of good thick turf. So the greatest handicap we have in this area to producing good turf on
our bluegrass fairxvays is that we have no solution
as to how to control leafspot.
I would like to comment again on the organic matter
layer that often gets into greens. We find organic
matter layer in fairways too, and something must be
done about it if bent fairway turf is to be satisfactory. There are implements to break up this layer,
such as the hollow-tined fork which does an excellent
job. But, you all appreciate how long it takes to do
a green with a man using the hollow-tined fork. Now
there is the Terferator and the Aerifier which can
be used and, I think, can be used effectively. We
have men who are using the Aerifier on greens in the
Philadelphia area, and it leaves the green rather
rough right after it is used, but with good maintenance practices, using the dragmat to break up the
soil cores and top-dressing afterx^ard, a good playing
surface can be restored in a very short time— 2Lf-1+8
hours. The undesirable organic layer is thoroughly
broken.
Dollar spot is a disease that affects good putting
surface. On occasional greens this disease is not
checked with the cadmium fungicide 531• When such a
condition arises, I would check the maintenance practices, and find out x>/hat was beloxv the surface of the
grass to see if there was a layer of material cutting
off the air and soil moisture. As mentioned, the
Aerifier xd.ll break up the layer. It may be possible
to check the dollar spot by an application of organic nitrogen fertilizer. It is important to keep the
turf on greens growing evenly; if there is such growth, turf seems resistant to disease.
It is common practice to water in the early morning,
often referred to as washing off the grass— and the
disease. Such a practice makes it possible to observe
any development of disease. It is fast becoming the
practice to start applying the fungicide when the disease first appears, rather than making applications
every so many days.
Large brownpatch varies in its outbreaks; often as

long as three years go by between serious occurrences.
This turf disease does become active when the rainfall
is excessive and there is both high humidity and high
temperature. During such periods is the time to determine the effectiveness of fungicides that might
control disease. To keep the turf free of disease
during spells of weather as described, able management is necessary. An excess of either water or
quickly available nitrogen fertilizer must be avoided.
It is important that when such weather arrives, the
turf should not be lush or soft, but be gro\/ing as
uniformly as possible. Care in selecting a fungicide
that will not check the growth of the turf is also
important. Several of the men in the Philadelphia
district have found that 10 pounds of hydrated lime
per 1000 square feet, applied when the turf is dry
and poled into the grass with a bamboo pole, will
check the disease during periods when weather conditions are unfavorable to turf. These men who use
lime do not classify it as a fungicide, but do find
it acts as a tonic when other methods have failed.
New chemicals, such as the cadmiums, are helpful but
they are selective. It seems to be necessary to have
available at the beginning of the disease period at
least three different fungicides5 namely, a mixture
of calomel and corrosive sublimate, Tersan and a cadmium such as 531•
Turf diseases always seem more abundant in higher cut
putting greens than where the cutting is i inch or
less. The low cut never allows an accumulation of
grass stems and leaves; always there is a new growth
of leaves directly from the base of the grass plant
or from a single stolon. There are strains of bentgrasses that are much more resistant to diseases than
are others and, at a few Experiment Stations, strains
of bentgrasses are being selected as to their resistance to disease.
The freedom of disease on any golf course is dependent upon the selection of the correct strains of
grasses, the securing and applying of the chemicals
proven to give the best control, and good cultural
and management practices. It is hoped that turf disease problems on your course will not be severe this
coming season.

WATER CONSERVATION IN TURF
By Fred V. Grau
Director, U. S. G. A. Green Section
In the efforts of the Green Section to improve playing conditions and to effect economies in turf maintenance we are trying to develop a national program
for water conservation. We cannot confine our work
or our program to any one area. Naturally, we think
a great deal about you fellows in Maryland and about
your problems because we are so close to them, but
we do have to think nationally. My thinking on this
problem of water conservation is definitely national,
but it has a very strong local application in every
part of the country.
Water is the most critical, national, natural resource
we have in the United States today. Virtually every
phase of our national economy depends upon water in
large quantities. Water is the most essential factor
for all living growth and development. If you took
the water out of a person, there wouldn't be more
than about a handful left. Every plant is from 80$
to 90$ water. Without adequate water on the earth,
all of us know xdiat would happen. The great deserts
of the world give mute testimony. But when water is
supplied, the deserts bloom like the rose.
Just why are we so interested in water conservation?
Most regions of the country have adequate natural
rainfall, you may point out. We probably won't run
all the way out of water. Maybe not, but why do cities tell yous "Don't water the lawn this summer.
We're running short of water." ? That's pretty plain
talk. If there was plenty of water, as in Erie, Pa.,
to cite an example, the people could run their lawn
sprinklers all summer, without ever turning them off,
unless the sprinklers wore out. In Erie, Pa., it
doesn't even cost anything to use all the water you
need. Obviously x«/ater conservation up there is not
what you would call a critical problem. But, in
places where you are told to cut down on water consumption in summer, there must be a shortage somewhere. And why are so many cities and their engineers
frantically seeking new supplies of water for the increasing populations of their cities. Some of them
are really up against it to get enough water to run
their industries and for their homes.
I x>zonder how many of you are familiar with the loss

of ground water throughout the middle west and on the
west coast. I can't give you very many details, and
I'm not going to give you very much data. What I
want to do is to start you thinking about this problem of water conservation. Never stop thinking about
it, as it is one of the most important issues with
which we are faced today. I'm going to give you the
reasons why you should be thinking about water conservation, even though I don't have at hand the exact
data to back up everything I say.
*

...

A lot of people on their own farms in eastern Nebraska have had to redrill their wells, as the old wells
ran dry. The new well had to be drilled from 30 to
50 feet deeper than the old one in order to get down
to the water. That means the water level had dropped.
Huge war plants have pulled an unprecedented amount
of water out of the ground for cooling and for the
various industrial and manufacturing processes. Where
does that water go? It goes down into rivers, the
Gulf and the oceans, and naturally we have for all
practical purposes lost it. It is true that some of
the water has served its usefulness, but much of it
has been lost for future use for a long time to come.
What can we do about it? On our golf courses we have
to use water to grow grass. Should we even be concerned about water? We certainly should. All right,
you say, what shall we do about it? In the first place
we can use less water. I know what some of you are
thinking— that you can't use less water and still
keep greens in a condition to satisfy golfers. The
greens must be watered to keep a good color and to
keep them soft enough to hold the shot. It isn't
possible to get along with less water, you will say.
I'm not going to admit that. I'm going to point out
to you a classic example whereby less water was used
and still there is better
turf for the players. That
is our chief concern--4 to provide the very best playing conditions for the men who pay the bills. Let's
assume that you think you are now using what you believe is the minimum amount of water needed to run
your golf course, your park, or cemetery, or whatever
type of turfed area ycu~have. Nov/ don't get the idea
that this does not apply to you because you're not
watering big areas. It does apply, but let's start
with the greens.
Greens have to be watered every other night, or two
or three times a week or you cannot hold the ball on
the green. Let's look at some of the arguments, and
see what can be done. I am going to cite one instance.

At the moment the first one to come to mind is a
course in Memphis, Tennessee. I would not have believed this, had it not been verified by several
sources— but the story is being published in the
Winter issue of the USGA JOURNAL. They have Bermudagrass greens down there and, like most bermudagrass
greens, they required watering virtually every night
in order to hold the shots. So they were having all
kinds of trouble with thin grass, disease and weeds,
and the maintenance cost ran pretty high.
A change has occurred in the past three years. James
Hamner, superintendent at the Memphis Country Club
got an Aerifier for helping to prepare the Memphis
Country Club for the USGA Amateur which was held in
September 19^8. Jim has used the Aerifier very effectively. I arn just citing a principle now. In the last
two years Jim has aerified his greens, tees, and fairways thoroughly and at frequent intervals. During
the 19^8 season, regular aeration coupled with good
fertilizer practice, reduced watering to less than
half the quantity he had used previously. Now that's
a little hard to believe, especially so since previously they had been watering heavily and frequently
because the soil was too tight and heavy to absorb the
water. Jim had outstanding turf for the Amateur and
has provided the club members with better turf that
gives him much less trouble from weeds and disease.
The turf is thicker and healthier, and the maintenance
expenses have been cut way down. The consistent use
of fertilizer has had a lot to do with that. The deep
aeration has produced a stronger, healthier growth of
roots, which are able to forage deeper for moisture.
The heavier turf carries the play and holds the shot
even though the greens are dry. And the summer of
19^8 in Memphis was a dry one. It was not one of those
rainy summers, but the turf got along better with less
water than it ever had.
All right, you say, if I had tried that during the
19^8 season on my greens here in Maryland or Washington or Virginia, why, I wouldn't have any greens left.
That stands to reason because the soil and the grass
and the whole maintenance program have not been planned
for taking care of grass this way. The principle that
I am trying to get across to you is that using less
water and providing better turf for the golfers isn't
just applicable to bermudagrass greens. I concede
that bermudagrass is different from bentgrass. Maybe it doesn't require quite as much water as bent. I
can't speak with certainty about that, but we are beginning to get the same kind of evidence on bentgrass,

where a consistent aeration and feeding program has
been carried out. The possibility of using less water on bentgrass greens is particularly promising
now that we know that some strains of grass are more
drought tolerant than others.
Mr. Ferguson, who is now doing some graduate work at
the University of Maryland and has been digging into
all sorts of things, recently came across a book that
was lately published, which is called, "Water Congestion in Plant Tissues". I have not had time to read
it yet, but I assure you that I shall do so and I
shall give it a thorough going over. In this book
they point out and cite all kinds of evidence indicating that too much water causes congestion in the
plant tissues. This occurs when water occupies the
space between the cells, instead of staying in the
cells as self-respecting water should. Water has no
business between the cells. Something else should
be there. If you use too much water and the water
gets between the cells, then your plant is highly susceptible to disease. The structure is weakened when
water is where it shouldn't be, and that is why disease just flourishes. It is a lead, and we are definitely going to follow it up. It is painstaking
work. This is another argument in favor of using
less water. I don't want you to leave here saying
that first Grau is saying to use no top-dressing on
greens, and now he is telling us how to grow greens
without water. I don't go quite that far, and you
all know that. But, there is a place in this water
conservation program for each and every one of us.
I grant that those greens where less water is used
are going to be harder. Mr. Reinhart told me of a
sand-clay base for roads. Some of you are growing
greens on that kind of stuff. Actually, there is little difference in the physical make-up of some of our
best roads and some of our poorest greens. Maybe
that is why the greens are so poor. But if we will
prepare the soil and make it porous, and get the roots
down where they belong — instead of having them down
two inches, have them down twelve inches— then we
may be able to overcome the hard condition that prevails when greens are dry. We ought to be able to
produce good turf on greens that are kept on the dry
side.
One thing
years ago
corporate
there are

we can do today that we couldn't do a few
is to keep the greens in play and still inthe needed materials into the soil. And
some very interesting things coming up in

the future, whereby we can even put drainage into
the greens without taking them out of play« That is
going to be a neat trick— to provide downward drainage and horizontal drainage and still keep the green
in play. We wouldn't have thought it possible a few
years ago.
I want to have each one of you think about this water conservation program, starting with your greens,
and two years from now I would like to hear a practical discussion on "How Little Water I Used on Bent
Greens in the Summer of 1950". I think it would be
an extremely interesting subject. And it vail be of
value to find out whether or not we are going to be
able to provide conditions, whereby we will have less
of the disease that Mr. Hallowell spoke about this
morning. And this water congestion— it is a new
idea, but definitely one that will bear closer examination.
Greens aren't everything, but they are the first consideration on the golf course. Now let's take some
of our other areas— our rolling fairways, our rolling parkways, and cemeteries and airfields. At the
Turf Conference in Knoxville on the 6th of January,
Dr. Eric Winters and another man whose name I don't
recall, spoke of the loss of water on sloping turf
areas in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. The loss
of water and of plant nutrients on sloping ground is
pretty astounding* I'm not going to attempt to quote
anything on this subject as yet because we haven't
gone into it deeply enough, but I assure you we are
going to do it.
Our two undergraduate students are always looking for
a subject on which to write term papers, and you can
bet your bottom dollar that this is one subject they
are going to get into soon. They'll dig into the
literature— and there is plenty of literature— on
that subject. According to some authorities as much
as 60% to 80% of the rain that falls runs off the
sloping turf areas. Normal turf areas are supposed
to absorb rain and let it seep into the root area,
but our turf areas are not what you would call normal. They are decidedly abnormal because when you
have to mow fairways two and three times a week, and
you have to mow them when the ground is wet, and when
they are a mixture of sand and clay to begin with—
you have got a pretty good road surface that is going
to shed water. Under those conditions we don't always have the kind of turf that we think we ought to
have, or would like to have.

In the first place, we are going to get on high
ground, and see If we can help those poor devils
down stream from us so, that instead of the water
coming up to their second floor rooms, it can only
get up to the kitchen. They will thank you for it,
since they won't have to sit at their second story
windows, but can wade out the front door. I'm joking, yes, but every single person who contributes to
this water conservation program is going to help
with flood control.
Assume that there are b2 inches to
inches of rainfall a year. I doubt very much if more than 50% of
that rain actually nourishes our plants. I believe
that the other $0% runs off. If we could save a large
part of that $0%, which normally runs off, we would
be storing up ground reserves of water and taking our
root systems deeper to re-use a lot of that stored-up
x\rater. So there are lots of advantages to be gained.
How do we do it? To begin with, cultivation of the
soil under turf is entirely practicable, and we are
beginning to devise ways to do this. One of the ways
is through the use of various types of cultivating
equipment. One man In New Jersey is using a straight
disc, another uses a curved disc and another is using
an Aerifier. We have different types of cultivating
equipment, some of which are especially designed for
the job and some which can be adapted to the job.
Any way that will get water to soak into the soil instead of running off is worth trying. With water runoff, fertilizer is lost. One of the figures I heard
quoted at Knoxville was that 2% to 30% of applied
fertilizer was lost, when rain fell a certain length
of time on sloping land after the fertilizer was applied. Most of you can't afford that kind of loss;
it is a pretty big loss. If you reported that to your
board of directors or your green committee, they would
ask, "Isn't there some way we can cut that loss down?
We can't afford to throw away a third of our fertilizer." So there is a second reason why you should
be interested in water conservation, because it means
conservation of fertility. Instead of fertilizer being carried off, it is going to be carried down into
the soil where the grass can use it.
What I have just said is of particular importance to
you who do not water fairways. To those of you who
do water fairways, and I get this from unimpeachable
sources, after cultivation of fairways many run into
trouble because they are putting on too much water.
They have to cut their watering in half. That comes

from Denver, Memphis, Cleveland, Chicago and from a
sufficient number of places throughout the United
States that you have to begin to recognize this as
a fact, and not just something we have dreamed up.
You can get by with less irrigation water and also
with less rainfall by keeping soil cultivated in the
fairways, as well as other large turf areas*
Let me give you another example of why I became interested in this matter of water conservation. Salt
Lake City is one city where the water situation is
critical. They are struggling for water out there
and yet everything they grow has to be irrigated—
all of their farms, all of their golf courses have
to be irrigated* Yet, on an 18 hole golf course,
they are throwing $1700 worth of water on their fairways in one month. They have thrown away so much
water on their fairways, that they have shifted the
grass population from bluegrass completely over to
poa annua. Now that they have poa annua they have
to continue to throw tremendous quantities of water
in order to hold the poa annua * If they stop watering for one week, out it goes and then there would
be nothing left but dust.
What's the answer? They have got to become interested in water conservation because, when the squeeze
comes, they can't continue to spend $1700 a month
just for water. It isn't only the loss of water but
the cost of labor to apply it, and the loss of fertilizer, and the more frequent cutting of the grass.
This all adds up to a higher maintenance bill* Don't
get the idea that I'm talking against watering at
all. I'm not* What I am saying is, "Let's use less
water and save more of the natural rainfall."
One of the answers to their problem is going to be
shifting the grass population from bents and poa annua
to a grass that doesn't require as much water* They
should be interested in the types of grasses that are
more drought tolerant and still produce a good turf*
Also, their soils have become compacted due to frequent watering and traffic* The soils are very dense
and heavy and the water won't go into them; it simply
runs off* So they are not getting the value out of
the water they have applied* These are some of the
reasons why we have been watching the work of the Aerifier and other equipment. It seems that water applied from a sprinkler will hit the aerified areas
and immediately begin to sink into the soil*
Jim Haines, following the Agronomy Society meeting
2b

at Fort Collins, got himself an Aerifier and aerified
just one fairway, which was the worst one he had« He
then watered the fairway, and also an adjoining fairway, which was a little bit better, and he left that
one unaerified. The unaerified fairway had to be watered again in a week's time and the aerified fairway was not watered for two weeks, and it was still
in better shape than the fairway that had been watered twice« Water is a tremendous item out there, and
Jim Haines cut his water bill exactly in half« Although savings may not be so striking in regions
where rainfall is more abundant, I think there can
be no doubt that this problem of water conservation
demands the attention of every one of us«

NEW AND INTERESTING GRASSES
By Fred V. Grau
Director, U. S. G. A. Green Section
As I have said before, we in the United States Golf
Association must take the long-range, national view
point on many things and we have to do it in the
field of grasses as well. Many of you recall the
long and profitable work of the Green Section in developing new grasses, and you are familiar with the
length of time it takes to develop a new grass. A
very good case in point is the new B-27 bluegrass,
which we wall hear more about and which we are beginning to talk about more freely because we are
beginning to see some commercial supplies of seed.
Yet, it was 1936 when that particular selection of
grass was collected at Merion Golf Club in the Philadelphia area, and all this time it has been checked
and tested and increased until we can actually feel
a few seeds in the bag and know that, in the next
couple of years, there will be small amounts for you
to put in an acre or a couple acres of the new bluegrass.
Why are we so interested in this new bluegrass? I
think most of us pretty well realize that common
bluegrass, as we have it today, has weaknesses and
one of its principal weaknesses is its susceptibility
to leafspot. Leafspot seems to hit worst in the
spring, when the ground is moist, usually when temperatures are low. The fungus attacks the plant, goes
all through it, and weakens it to the extent that it
cannot recover and give you a dense turf to keep out
crabgrass during the summer. That is one of the principal reasons why most bluegrass becomes heavily infested with crabgrass throughout this area. B-27
bluegrass is highly resistant to leafspot. Seldom
do we find more than just a few flecks on the leaves.
It has another very interesting characteristic, and
that is it stands close cutting better than common
bluegrass. Much of ours is mowed at half an inch.
There is some evidence that it is more heat and drought
tolerant than common bluegrass. Seedmen give you 2b
pound,f 28 pound, or even 32 pound bluegrass,but it
doesn t change the character of the plant which that
seed produces. The common seed is still susceptible
to helminthosporium leafspot. B-27 seems to come absolutely true from seed and seems to be the kind of
turf we want.

We have a number of different improved strains, but
this seems to be the only one being grown and increased in Oregon at this time. It is being grown
in rows out there and we seem to be assured of good
production, so we can begin to talk about it. But
there is a lot of work that goes into the testing of
any new grass and, at the present time, I have just
received some reports of the tests that we have on
B-27« We have cooperative tests at 20 different experiment stations and 20 golf clubs throughout the
country. To get a cross section of the performance
of that grass under actual use, it is being seeded
into fairways, lawns and research plots alongside of
turf produced from seed from commercial strains of
bluegrass. This way we will get a direct comparison
and our story will be a whole lot straighter. All
right, that's just one.
Now, you're not particularly interested in this, but
I'm going to mention it because it affects so many
golf courses in the country— and that is our breeding and testing program at Tifton, Georgia. Interestingly enough, some of the best bermudagrass selections, coming out of that breeding program at
Tifton, are coming out of their pasture breeding program. Dr. Burton has been breeding bermudagrass to
try to find a better one for hay and pasture. Out
of that breeding program has come some of the best
turf strains which is another example of why plant
breeders and agronomists should be interested in both
turf and pasture phases of grass work. Dr. Burton
has some strains there that are superior to the common bermudagrass in many respects. Bermudagrass gets
leafspot just about as badly as bluegrass does. Most
of the bermudagrass that we saw down south this fall
was pretty badly infected with leafspot, and these
new strains are selected primarily on the basis of
their resistance to that disease, just as we've been
continually selecting bent strains for their resistance to dollarspot, brownpatch and other things.
The literature is full of improvements in grasses for
range and pasture, and their work is getting very well
under way in the Midwest and in the more arid regions.
They are just beginning to wake up to the possibilities. I have just picked up an interesting note in
the Agronomy Journal, yesterday, to the effect that
one of the finest mixtures ever seeded out on the
ranges in Montana has been a mixture of cool-season
and warm-season grasses. Now, that ties right in with
the work that we are doing, and makes It look as if
we are on the right track.

Nebraska has been doing some of that work— taking
their improved strains and blending cool-season and
warm-season grasses, and it's working out very satisfactorily for hay, pasture, forage and, from our
experience thus far, it looks as though it will work
just about as well for many types of turf.
Some of the more interesting grasses— I don't have
any real good pictures of them with me— are the
béntgrasses that we have been picking up. These
bent selections have been collected from all over
the country. You men actually are doing the selecting and we just pick up the good strains that come
out. For instance, in the Cleveland area they had
a very bad fall and lost a lot of grass on the fairways, and yet there were strains right in the middle
of the bad patches that were perfect so we pick
those up and now we're finding superior strains.
Those of you who were at our Field Day saw some of
our new bentgrasses that came through the summer in
fine shape, without irrigation or any treatment whatsoever for diseases or insects. Incidentally, the
19^8 season, in the Washington area was, I believe,
the wettest in history. It may have been exceeded
by one year, but it was about the wettest in a hundred years, which explains the excellent growth of
bents in this area. Just thought I'd throw that in
for what it is worth.
We may be vitally interested in those grasses that
have lower water requirements, more drought tolerance, greater resistance to disease and insects—
something that will give us higher quality turf with
greater efficiency and lox\rer cost. This is quite a
bit to ask, and we can't go too far in any direction
because we have to produce quality turf, turf that
will provide the playing surface we need and stand
up under the gaff. The gradual movement of the bermudagrass northward, I think, offers some real possibilities. More and more as I talk with the fellows,
I find them trying some of these bermudagrasses in a
small way— which is the right thing to do. Don't
go whole hog— give it a trial, see if it will work
under your system of management, under your soil and
climatic conditions. If it will, you can go ahead
in any direction you x^ant. Give it a thorough trial
on a small scale. It looks very good on sunny oneshot tees.
The picture is looking brighter for the zoysiagrasses
all the time. We're getting more and more work done
on it, finding out more about it and we have our

greenhouses at Beltsville pretty well filled to the
limit of such space as \\re háve, with zoysia. It is
producing seed very heavily and we will greatly expand our acreage of zoysia turf at the station next
year, for further practical management studies.
That is the final answer, and until we have that we
can't go out and sell it widely yet. There's been
enough zoysia scattered around the country since
1930 that we have some pretty good ideas of what it
will do, but there are still many things to be found
out about it. Here, L believe, for one of the first
times I know about, we are thinking about seed production of a new grass, about which we know very
little. Usually when a new grass comes in, people
start producing seed of it. and then when we begin
to run into problems, we siart to study it. But in
this case, we are studying the problem of seed production before it ever gets in the field, which is
a good way to work it when it can be done.
When many of you go over to the meeting at the station on the first of February, you will see a lot of
that work in the greenhouses. More of the breeding
work and development work on new grasses is being
sent out to experiment stations in a coordinated
turf program. By and large these stations have excellent plant breeders, and we'd like to see them do
the work. They have the facilities and the land, and
more and more we are falling into the role of coordinating all this work. The program is getting so big
that we do not have a lot of time for detail— but
rest assured that it will be done as soon as we have
the personnel to do it. There are many more things
I could say. I prefer, I think, to show you some
pictures. Many of you have seen some of them. I
think I have some new ones and \jq can have a discussion on some of those new grasses in which you are
particularly interested.
Would you call that a good piece of turf? This is
the Z-9 strain of Japanese lawngrass which produces
no seed. There is a nice cushion between ball and
soil. That turf is very firm, it is disease free and
altogether this zoysia has been a very satisfactory
piece of turf— well fertilized, no irrigation, no
insect damage nor any disease. For that reason we
are giving it a lot of attention and, because of its
drought resistance, we are making new plantings of
zoysia as rapidly as possible.
Here on the lawn at Beltsville, we put in some common Japanese lawngrass and you can see the spots 2b

inches apart which turn brown in the wintertime«
This is one of the things that has held it back, because for a long time we didn't see the possibilities of keeping a green color through the winter by
growing another grass with it. That brown, strawcolored stuff is zoysia, but the path down which you
are looking, has just as much zoysia as the brown
stuff at the right. That path was originally bluegrass. The zoysia crept through it and now we have
a combination of zoysia and bluegrass that looks for
all the world like bluegrass, and that is what we
are looking for. That has been going on for some
time, and we are quite encouraged.
This is zoysia and bent— bent overseeded in the
fall of 194*7• The green strip down there is virtually free of crabgrass and provides an excellent
playing surface and sturdy turf that can combat
drought. But we can't say yet that it, or any other
grass, is the right combination with zoysia, but we
are studying them all.
There is B-27 bluegrass seeded in with zoysia, and
that has been one of the more satisfactory plots
that we had. Common bluegrass is just to the right
of the B-27 bluegrass and you can see there is quite
a striking difference. (Question from the floors
"How old is that seeding?") That seeding is exactly
one year old. (Questions "At what time was it seeded?") It was seeded in early September, 19^7That was a plot of the Z-52 strain of zoysia with
bluegrass, which was growing in the green house from
which we harvested seed. V/e chopped it up into
squares and planted them in half an acre of lawn at
the Station. I'll try to show you those steps. Now,
this is a slow, tedious, costly way of doing it.
What v/e are seeking is a rapid, low cost method of
planting a vegetated grass into existing turf, which
I don't think is too much to ask. Here v/e're cutting
it into blocks. Here we're shaping those plugs to
fit down into the Aerifier holes. V/e aerified the
lawn first— see those little plugs in the Aerifier
holes? Then v/e put those little plugs in the Aerifier holes. That is slow and laborious, but it
serves the purpose here. There they are being pushed down into the holes and stepped on. But you can
hardly find those plugs all summer. They v/e re there
and they were growing, but they blended so perfectly
with the bluegrass, it v/as hard to tell one from the
other.

You are familiar with our U-3 bermudagrass, which
was planted in the middle of July. Four weeks later
we had a solid fairway turf. We fertilized that very
well. We have to recognize the individual characteristics of these grasses. Bermudagrass requires
heavy fertilization, especially nitrogen. Zoysia can
utilize heavy fertilization, but it also can get along without it. We've got Zoysia Japónica turf at
the Glendale Station that we know has not been fertilized in 20 years, and yet it is a perfect covering
and practically weed-free. Of course, if we had used
fertilizer it would look nicer. There is U-3 bermudagrass with different cool-season grasses seeded
into it. The first little triangle in the foreground is Chewing's fescue, which didn't amount to
very much. Alta fescue, a late fall seeding, which
is wrong, didn't catch too well. The best we have
here is bentgrass overseeded on bermuda, and it
makes a very nice turf. It is a mixture of seeded
bent, 1/3 each of Highland Colonial, Astoria Colonial and Seaside. Here we are trying to grow a mixture of U-3 bermudagrass and some of the vegetated
bents, C-l on the left, C-19, C-27 and C-15- C-27
has not done so well. One of the best plots we have
is U-3 bermuda with B-27 bluegrass. It produces a
turf that is so tough you can't knock a divot out
with a full 8-iron shot.
My talk wouldn't be complete unless I showed you a
picture of our 17 acre front lawn at Beltsville. This
was seeded in September 19^7 with 75 pounds to the
acre of Alta fescue. It got brownpatch in the summer
of 19^8 but, aside from appearance, it didn't seem
to suffer any. It is in good shape now. This lawn
was designed for looks only, at a fifty mile an hour
speed. The grass is coarse but, as it gets older,
it gets finer. It is in general use on laxrns in Washington, DoCc and Baltimore and over a large part of
the United States.

SOIL PHYSICS
(With Special Relation to Green Construction)
By R.P. Thomas
I think that the soil structure of your greens and
fairways is one of the most important things with
which you folks are confronted. Poor physical conditions of soils limits and, oftentimes, masks other considerations and problems of growing grass. I
am going to try to explain some of the things you
will be confronted with, and things you will have to
consider if you want the best you can obtain in your
soils. You folks aren't interested in soils just
for the sake of soils. You are primarily interested
in growing grass in it, and building a suitable foundation for the players. In other words, you want to
give the golfers a satisfactory turf so the ball can
be played correctly. A lot of trouble that we have
attributed to various things in the past may be attributed to an unsatisfactory physical condition of
the soils.
First, I wish to enumerate some of the terms we use.
I think all of you folks are familiar with them but,
in order to get us all thinking along the same lines,
I will describe some of them briefly. We speak of
anything larger than one millimeter as gravel. Anything from that size down to .05 of a millimeter, we
call sand. Then we go down from there to the next
smaller sized particle, which is silt. The next size
is clay or colloidal material. In terms of millimeters, anything from .002 mm down, we call clay.
The silt range is in between the clay and the sand.
Now you are interested in soil from the standpoint
of getting it so plants will root deeply. If we
happen to have adverse weather conditions, you do
not want to have to apply water extremely frequently. When the grass is deeply rooted, the roots feed
over a much larger area, and you do not have to water so often. Nov/ these plant roots are living, just
the same as you and I are living. They require oxygen just the same as you and I require oxygen, and
they give off carbon-dioxide just the same as you and
I give off carbon-dioxide. And a good soil is just
teeming with an enormous quantity of micro-organisms.
Even though their size is below that of the clay particles, these active micro-organisms give off carbondioxide. It is the same as if we were to put about
670 people in this room, and if they remained here

any length of time, there would be a lot more carbon-dioxide and a lot less oxygen in the room. We
get the same condition in the soil.
What I am trying to emphasize is the necessity for
having spaces in the soil so the air and water can
move about— and especially the air. If you have
soil that is almost saturated with water— and many
of you approach that condition in your greens every
day— then you are taking up the spaces in the soil,
and you have greatly limited the amount of air that
can occupy the soil. I have a diagram, and I shall
try to point out to you what I mean. I told you
that the size of the clay particles is from .002 of
a millimeter and down. These minute particles are
surrounded with water, even when the soil is air dry.
You can realize that this is a pretty thin film of
water. Its thickness will run around 1/10 of a micron or 1/250,000 of an inch. You have all seen
drawings of these things— where they draw a soil
particle and then draw a different colored line to
represent the moisture film. But that doesn't really
help you to visualize the size of the moisture film
around a soil particle. Oftentimes the moisture
film depicted will be as large as the soil particle,
and will represent more the picture of a grain of
sand. So you have a rather distorted viewpoint in
regard to the size of the moisture film as related
to a soil particle. I have tried to make drawings
here that will show the moisture film in true relation to the particle size. This large particle is
just up in the silt range. In other words, the intermediate size between sand and clay. These smaller particles are down in the clay range; they are
about 1000 times their actual size. You can see that
the green represents the film moisture that exists
around a soil particle. The water is held to the soil
particle by an attraction between the moisture and
the soil particle. It holds this film against gravity.
If it wasn't held against gravity, all the water would
run off. There is an affinity between the moisture
and each soil particle. To illustrate this point,
even when we are approaching the minimum amount of
water that can be obtained by a plant, the moisture
is held by a force 1000 times that of gravity. So
you can see what the plant has to compete with, and
hov/ closely this water is held to the soil particles.
I want to get across to you, that when we have these
fine particles and they have a moisture film around
them, then there is no air space. All the air space
is occupied by water. When you have the soil pretty

well watered, as you try to keep it, you have eliminated a large percentage of the pore spaces which
could hold air. Looking down at this cross section
of soil, we can see there is no definite arrangement, and a large part of the air space has been eliminated. Even if there were an air pocket down below, the air could not move out. If you had a root
down there, active, giving off carbon-dioxide and
taking up oxygen, you can see it would be greatly
hindered. But if you have some large openings in
the soil so the water film vail not take up all the
space between the soil particles, there is a chance
for air to move in and out. When you have a rather
small particle size and a high moisture content,
which most of you try to keep in your greens, you
have greatly reduced the possibility of replacing
with oxygen the carbon-dioxide that is generated in
there. In other words, you have limited its ability to get air. This is what we term "reduced" conditions, and the plant roots will not live under such
conditions. It's pretty much the way it was here
last week. The lecture room at the Farm Bureau Show
was so crowded that people would open the door, see
how thick the air was, and come back out again.
Plant roots do the same thing. They are not going
to stay where they can't get requirements necessary
to live. That means the roots are going to stay up
where they can get air. If you have fine soil particles and they are kept well watered, the plant
roots are not going to go down. That was illustrated here yesterday by pictures of just such conditions.
The soil cannot breathe, and you have what is termed
a water-logged condition. Actually, it may not be
water-logged— there may be plenty of space down below that is not occupied by water— but the air cannot get down in there, and we have what is called
poor drainage. You can see that where you have such
conditions grass roots stay above these layers or
near the surface. These conditions are produced when
you frequently spread a little clay or fine-textured
soil over your greens. You are making it impossible
for air to get down there. You need only a fraction of
an inch of these materials to completely cut off air
from the soil. So what happens is that the old roots
down below become inactive, and new roots will grow
only near the surface, and your grass is going to go
out.
I have a chart here in proportionate sizes showing
the relationship between the water film and the soil
particles. You may have your soil in a condition in
which there are the right proportion of the large and

the small particles— a mixture of sand and clay.
Natural channels result from this arrangement. In
other words, we would have channels to serve as
breathing spaces for the soil. But if you take these
particles and squeeze them around like this, like
rolling a ball of soil between your palms, then you
have the same effect as when you puddle soil. You
are working the soil particles in with the water
around them, and you are lubricating that soil so you
get all these little particles worked into the larger air spaceso As a result of this you have insufficient air in the soil. All these small particles are
blocking the air and water channels. They may be
occupying most of these air or water spaces. There
can't be any water or air movement. When this pore
space is taken up by a film of water there is no water movement through this area. The water is usually
held so tightly by the soil particles that the water
can not move out nor more water move in. Most water
movement is through the larger channels found around
the large particles or granules. So when you get
these particles so close together that there is not
room enough for the normal film of water, and that
film is going to be the same size regardless of the
size of the soil particles, then you have eliminated
all possibility of air getting down in there, and all
possibility of water movement in the soil. You all
know when you puddle soil— work it around and get
the soil particles together— then you have a condition such as this one with no or little air space.
Then, when that dries out, it is all lumped together
and it dries just like a brick. Of course, no water
can move through it even when it is dry.
Now, in soil structure, we have other terms which we
use. We use the term "pore space". Pore space is
the space between the soil particles. Part of the
pore space is occupied by water. In this instance,
where the soil is largely clay and it has been'well
watered, all of it is occupied by water. Here, where
there is a mixture of both large and small soil particles, the pore space is a mixture of air and water.
Now, if you were to take a square foot piece of this
soil out of your golf course, and if you were to
break it up, the more you broke it up the more soil
particles you would have. You wouldn't be able to
get it back into that same square foot space. If you
keep breaking it up, you can increase the volume by
as much as thirty percent. That is because each one
of these particles has air spaces around it, and when
you break up the soil, you get more air space than
is normally present. Now that space that exists be-

tween the particles is your pore space. The smaller the particles are, the greater is the pore space.
In a sand soil there may be as low as k0% pore
space. A clay soil may run up to about 70y° pore
space. The optimum is around 60
Now, when we compare the weight of soil with the
weight of water, we have what is termed the "apparent specific gravity". In other words, an expression of the x^eight of a given volume of soil as compared with the weight of the same volume of v/ater.
If a soil has a specific gravity of 2, it means that
a certain volume of that soil would weigh two times
as much as an equal volume of water. Dr. Grau had
some pictures of soil from greens. One soil sample
was from a good green and one sample \^as from a poor
green, and yet both soils had the same mechanical
analysis— that is they both had the same amounts of
sand, silt and clay. One of them had an apparent
specific gravity of around 1.2— that would be the
good soil. And the specific gravity of the poor soil
would run up 1.6 to 2.0. That would mean that in the
poor soil, even though they had the right proportion
of sand, silt and clay, they had worked them in there
together so the fine particles fitted into all the
spaces, and there was no air space. The soil was
very dense.
Now this is one of the things you are up against.
Maybe you have the right proportion of materials in
your green, but if the particle arrangement isn't
right, you are going to have poor soil, and a poor
green. We can't examine the soil in place and tell
very much about the particle arrangement because the
particles are so small that one soil looks pretty
much like another. We can't take a core of soil and
just look at it and determine what the arrangement
of the particles is like. Vie could if we could magnify it enough, but we haven't worked out a satisfactory technique for that yet. So we have approached
this by taking that core of soil and weighing it and
comparing that weight with the weight of an equal
amount of water. That is how we determine whether
the soil particles are arranged too close together
or if they have air spaces between them. There can
be a considerable variation in the arrangement of
soils of the same composition. Soils men are trained to look for certain characteristics by which they
can tell if there is sufficient air present in the
soil. If I had two plugs here and one of them was
water-logged and one of them wasn't, it would be possible for me to tell the difference between them. Ex-

perience teaches you how to gauge those things. So
much for that. I'm trying to tell you that the particle size and arrangement of the particles are both
very, very important. They determine the movement
of air and water through the soil.
I want to get across to you that if your soil is air
dry or has a low moisture content, it might be satisfactory. You should get a satisfactory growth of
grass. But if you come along and raise the moisture
content, you have lessened the ability of that soil
to breathe by as much as fifty percent. So if the
soil is watered frequently, you may have an unsatisfactory grass growth, but if you were, to let that
soil dry out near the minimum moisture level, your
grass growth might improve due to this arrangement
of particles in the soil and more available air. In
soil we want large particles to hold the channels
open. We need particles in the smaller range in order to hold water. Water exists only on the surface
of the small particles so if you only have large particles, you don't have enough surface for water to
exist on. That is what you have in sand— a small
surface and low waterholding capacity. You pretty
nearly have to water twice a day to make the grass
grow, when you have a limited amount of surface to
hold water. When you get down into the smaller particles, you have an enormous amount of surface to
hold water. Just to give you an idea of how this isif you have a square foot of sand, six inches thick,
you will have somewhere around a half acre of exposed surface. That is if you could skin those sand
particles' and spread the skins out it would cover an
area of half an acre. Now contrast that with a silt
loam or some other finer-textured material. An equal
amount of silt loam would probably have from ten to
twelve acres of surface to hold water. So when we
go from sand to finer materials we increase the surface many times. This is very important because all
you people want your soil to hold water, and the only
way you can hold it is on the surface. Soil particles
can only hold a certain amount of water on the surface. If this film thickness gets beyond one-half
of a micron, water has to move on down, as it just
can't be held against gravity when it gets beyond
that thickness. So if we have all coarse particles
there isn't surface enough to hold sufficient water.
But we do need some coarse particles to provide air
space, and to form channels so water can get down in
to the soil.
Yesterday we were talking about v/ater run-off. V/ater

runs off simply because there aren't enough of these
large channels to carry it down. Water can't go down
in these microscopic channels. And if you have only
a few of these large channels, when soil is heavily
watered, the water can't all go down in. When you
get an area like this, where there are no larger channels, then what will happen? You can't pile the water up on the surface. It is going to run off, and
you will lose a lot of water as a result of this.
The water that does enter the soil is usually near
the surface and a lot of it is lost through evaporation too. But if you have enough of these large channels to get the water down into the soil, then you
reduce very materially the amount of water that will
be lost through evaporation. Below the soil surface
the temperature drops very rapidly and evaporation is
much less. Only the water that is carried off through
the air pores by gravity, or brought to the surface
by the film, is lost. That is why shading the ground
with a heavy turf is beneficial for limiting the
amount of water lost through evaporation. The moisture loss is almost directly proportional to the
height of the vegetative covering. That's because
evaporation increases very much as the temperature
increases, and the higher vegetative covering provides protection from the sun's heat. For each ten
degree rise in temperature you will have perhaps as
much as two times the amount of water evaporated.
So if the vegetative covering is not thick, the soil
temperature may rise from ten to twenty degrees, and
you can see how much more water will be lost through
evaporation. So you can see the value of a heavy
vegetative covering, as well as the necessity for having channels like this in the soil so the water can
get down.
Now, I'll illustrate this with something else. I have
some drawings here. Here is the surface of a good
soil— a normal soil with plenty of air space and pore
space, plenty of surface to hold water and the right
waterholding capacity. Now, if someone were to come
along and put a layer of finer materials, about two
inches thick, on top of this surface, the roots would
not go down through this added fine layer even though
there is plenty of moisture and nutrients in this covered layer. But the roots wouldn't go down because
the surface layer cut off the air to the soil below.
So all the roots would be congregated at the surface.
Nov/ let's consider this two inches of soil. Let's
say it has 50$ air space, or 50$ pore space, that can
be occupied by water. That is, this two inches of
soil could hold half of its depth of water, or one

inch of water. But we don't want it completely saturated, so we'll try to reach about half of its waterholding capacity— that is half an inch of water.
Now contrast that with a soil in which the roots
could penetrate eight to ten inches in depth. We
are trying to grow grass in two inches of soil with
a maximum waterholding capacity of half an inch of
water. We could have four times that amount of water, or two inches, in the deep soil. You would not
have to water nearly so often when there is no layer
of fine materials to limit the air and water movement.
The arrangement of particles is very important, and
I don't think I should leave it without saying something about the organic matter. The organic matter
is largely colloidal, and is very fine and fits around the mineral particles, like these black spots.
But you have to have it properly mixed in order to
get it around the soil particles. What does that
then do to the soil structure? It holds the mineral particles apart so there are larger spaces between the mineral particles. This gives more surface to hold water as well as larger openings for it
to move into the soil. When the organic matter is
mixed into the soil by man in an attempt to approach
the soil conditions set up by nature, it frequently
isn't mixed in well enough. The organic matter
should be distributed so it will aggregate the fine
particles and the clay and organic matter will act
as one unit. In other words, these smaller mineral
particles should be covered with the organic matter
so they will join together and act as one larger particle. When the organic matter is properly combined
with the clay then you have a structure approaching
silt. The soil behaves like silt because the small
particles are aggregated. Now, if any of you have
been in the western part of the United States, the
Great Plains region, and if you made a mechanical
analysis of the soil, you would find it was largely
clay and silt. You take that soil and crumble it
between your fingers and there is no coarse material
present. But the plants grow in this soil just as if
it were sand they were growing in, even though the
soil may be silt or silt and clay or even plain clay.
The soil behaves like sand because under natural conditions the organic matter is there aggregating the
fine particles so they act like larger particles.
This is very important. I question that you could
ever satisfactorily mix organic matter with fine textured materials and come out with a satisfactory soil
structure. It's very difficult to mix the organic

matter in properly, so what you are apt to get is an
aggregate of mineral particles and an aggregate of
organic matter particles. Then, when this gets wet,
it runs together and you have no place for air or for
water to go down, and your grass won't grow.
It is very difficult to materially improve a finetextured soile It is too difficult to mix these fine
particles with coarse particles. Now, if you have a
coarse-textured soil like sand, there are not too many
particles, then you can add finer materials to it and
the finer particles tend to aggregate around the large
ones. So you can improve the physical condition of
your coarse-textured soil, but it is very difficult
to go the other way. Probably many of you have tried
mixing sand with clay material, and not come out with
very satisfactory soil. It still won't take water,
and you still can't grow good grass in it. You may
improve it, but you won't approach the condition you
would have if you started with coarse-textured soil
and mixed finer materials with it. If you are going
to mix a fine soil with a coarse one, and many of you
do that, it should be mixed in a shredder or similar
machine before it is put on the green. You will never get a satisfactory mixture or soil structure after
it is put on the green unmixed. It is just impossible and I'm trying to point out why.
Some of you here in Maryland may be familiar with the
soil we call Penn soils. It is an Indian red soil
and there is a strip which runs across Frederick County, up into Carroll County and some in Baltimore and
some in Washington County. I mention these soils because they illustrate something I want to point out.
These soils have been built on since the first white
settlers came here, and you can go into those sections
today and find very large brick houses—houses with
ten to fifteen rooms. Now, they didn't have the money to build the houses; the money had to be made off
the land. Well, they came in there and cut down the
forest to make room for farms. The soil had lots of
organic matter and a desirable structure. So the
settlers removed crops year after year and didn't put
back the organic matter, and finally they had only
the fine materials left. That land today is worthless.
The farm investment people will lend money only on
the value of the improvements, the buildings. When
it rains it only penetrates to about the thickness
of a piece of paper. The fine surface soil dissolves
like sugar and all runs together, and then the water
can't get in, but just runs off the surface. And
that's what some of you are up against, trying to

grow grass on your fairways.
In other words, you want those finer materials aggregated. I would hesitate to say that you need %
or 10% or 15%> clay. Under some conditions, you
would need 30% clay, and under others,
Is too
much. You can't say definitely because it depends
upon how it is arranged with regard to your other
particles. I've seen that some of your greens are
75% sand— very satisfactory greens. And I've seen
others 25%> sand— very satisfactory greens. So I
don't think you can lay down any rule as to a specified amount of sand, silt and clay. You want to
bring together the materials that will provide you
with both large and small particles. In other words,
you want a soil structure so water and air can get
in and the water can be retained for root use. I
think that some of the implements we discussed yesterday may be approaching what we want to open up
the soil. Of course, this man-made improvement of
the soil structure may break down under rain. If
it is not too expensive, you can again reproduce
the type of soil you want.

GRUB CONTROL IN TURF
(Summary)
By George S. Langford
There are a large number of grubs that feed upon and
destroy the roots of grasses. These grubs are all
members of a very large beetle family known as Scarabidae. Some of the common scarabs that produce grubs
that injure turf are: the Japanese beetle, the Asiatic garden beetle, several species of May beetles
and the common green June beetle.
All of these beetles have similar life habits. There
is an adult beetle which feeds on the foliage of shade
trees and shrubs. These adults lay eggs in grassland
which hatch into the grubs that cause the injury.
After completing their growth the grubs go into a
resting or pupal stage and are transformed to adults.
When lawns or golf greens become heavily infested
with these grubs it becomes necessary to kill them
before they injure the turf or sod. Arsenate of lead
has been found to be effective for killing most turfinhabiting grubs. Recently DDT, Chlordane and some
of the other chlorinated hydrocarbons have proved
efficient for eliminating grubs, particularly the
Japanese beetle, in lawns and golf courses. Experimental work to date indicates that these new chlorinated materials give good control on many species
of grubs. However, it should be remembered that DDT,
Chlordane, etc., do not kill all insects efficiently.
There may be species of white grubs that will not be
efficiently controlled by the use of some of these
materials. A greenkeeper should attempt to have the
grub injuring his grass identified to find out whether research has shown that the particular grub can
be killed with one or more of these new synthetic
chemicals. If information is not available a small
test should be made before attempting to treat the
entire golf course.
Insecticides may be applied either dry or as sprays.
Regardless of how they are applied the proper poundage per acre must be applied. Spread the chemicals
evenly over the grass and then water them in thoroughly to avoid poisoning domestic animals. Treatments as follows will be found effective for controlling the Japanese beetle and many other closely
related grubs.

Arsenate of Lead; Apply 10 pounds of chemical on
each 1,000 square feet of surface. A simple way to
apply is to mix with sand 1 pound of arsenate of lead
to 10 pounds of sand, and broadcast evenly, or distribute with a small fertilizer distributor.
DDTs Apply 25 pounds of actual DDT to each acre treated. Use a 10 percent dust and apply 250 pounds to
the acre, or approximately 6 pounds on 1000 square
feet.
Chlordane; Apply at the rate of 10 pounds of technical Chlordane per acre. Use method of application
recommended for DDT. In recent years Chlordane has
been used extensively because of the rapid rate at
which it kills grubs.