pro

c

e e
ÒO\rA
o*

a * *

\N eS
- f u t »

ta*

s

ixsso
pvo c e *

o*

sS
-fvvMx»
^

C O ^

e t e 0

°

e

Proceedings
Of The Joint

Western Canada
And

Northwest Turfgrass
Association Conference
And

Proceedings
Of The

27th Northwest Turfgrass
Conference
October 2-5, 1973
Harrison Hot Springs
British Columbia

PRESIDENTS MESSAGE

It has been a pleasure to have served the Northwest
Turfgrass Association this past year as its president.
I am certain that strong regional organizations such as
this serve an important role in providing benefits to its
members. To most of us the Conference in the fall is the
climax to the turf season and we anticipate that this yearfs
Conference in cooperation with our Canadian neighbors
will be outstanding.
I want to thank the Board of Directors for their support
and cooperation, and in particular to single out Dick Haskell
and Roy Goss for their continuing contributions to this
Association. They are the ones who really make it go.

NORTHWEST TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION

1973 Officers
John Zoller

President

Milt Bauman

Vice President

Dick Haskell

Treasurer

Roy L. Goss

Exec. Secretary
Board of Directors

Bud Ashworth

Hangman Valley Golf Club
1029 S. Garry
Liberty Lake, Wa 99019

Milt Bauman

Seattle Golf Club
210 N. E. 145th St.
Seattle, WA 9B177

Wayne Dean

City Parks & Ree. Dept.
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901

Cliff Everhart

Manito Golf & Country Club
Box 8025 Manito Station
Spokane, WA 99203

Dick Fluter

Oswego Lake Country Club
20 Iron Mountain Blvd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034

Carl H. Kuhn

Irrigation Consultant
Box 443
Mercer Island, WA 98040

Ron Proctor

Rainier Golf & Country Club
1856 S. 112th Street
Seattle, WA 98168

Rich Schwabauer

Waverly Country Club
Box 1100 S.E. Waverly Dr.
Portland, OR 97222

John Zoller

Eugene Golf & Country Club
255 Country Club Road
Eugene, OR 97401

WESTERN CANADA TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

As host of the first Joint Turfgrass Conference
(Western Canada Turfgrass Association and Northwest
Turfgrass Association), I welcome you to Harrison.
Our committees have worked hard to make this first
Joint Conference a successful one, and hopefully this
will mark the beginning of a period of meaningful cooperation between the two associations.
The WCTGA has truly come of age. However, we must
now guard ourselves against becoming complacent about
having realized some of our objectives. This Conference
should provide us with the necessary momentum to continue
in our efforts to build a better organization.

WESTERN CANADA TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION
1973 Officers
Heinz Knoedler

President

Ruby Aston

Secretary-Treasurer
Board of Directors

Bob Bailey

Walt Spelay

Peter Dotto

Bob Symonds

Owen Hamilton

Doug Taylor

Eric Hughes

Ben Viersen

Richard Krahn
George Pfieffer

/

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Physiology and Climatic Effects on Turf—James B. Beard
Continuing Education for Golf Course Superintendents—Nick Geannopulos
Sulphur-Coated Urea—J. D. Beaton
Nitroform, Its Characteristics and Performance in
Growing and Establishing Turfgrass—C. Robert Staib
Urea-Formaldehyde Reaction Products are not All Alike—Jim Chapman
Annual Fertilizer and Pesticide Cost—Richard Schwabauer
Pros and Cons of Fertilizer Pesticide Combinations—E. C. Hughes
Pesticide Legislation—Canada and Brit. Columbia—C. L. Neilson
Washington State and EPA Pesticide Laws—Art Losey
Beautification Around Turfgrass Areas—Herbert E. Jones
Face Lifting Tired Greens—W. H. Bengeyfield
Methods of Establishing Turf on Putting Greens—Milt Bauman
Managing Contrasting Soil Areas on Golf Courses—Roy L. Goss
Sand-Sawdust Greens vs. Irrigation—C. H. Kuhn
Playfield Problems—Construction and Maintenance—Roy L. Goss
Irrigation for Landscaped Areas
Panel Discussion—C. H. Kuhn, Moderator
Concepts and Design of Open Space—Clive L. Justice
Overwintering Diseases of Turfgrasses
in Western Canada—J. Drew Smith
Minimizing Turfgrass Winter Injury—James B. Beard
Compatability of Trees, Shrubs and Grasses—W. H. Bengeyfield
Golf Course Design—Its Frustrations and Rewards—Norman H. Woods
Agronomic Research Report—Roy L. Goss
Ryegrass, Bluegrass and Fescue Evaluations
In Washington—Stanton E. Brauen
Turfgrass Disease Research—Progress Report—C. J. Gould
Effect of Plant Growth Regulators on Poa—Alvin G. Law
Agronomic Research Report—D. K. Taylor
Turfgrass Observational Trials—Ron Ensign
Acknowledgements
Northwest Turfgrass Association Attendance
Western Canada Turfgrass Association Attendance

9
.. 12
17
28
33
38
40
43
54
60
62
67
74
79
83
89
91
96
104
110
114
121
125
127
134
138
141
145
146
151

PHYSIOLOGY AND CLIMATIC EFFECTS OF TURF 1
James B. Beard2

This is a rather broad title that could be developed
in many ways under the time limitations for this talk. The
three major areas of emphasis include (a) an actual description of the individual climatic factors and how they
are controlled, (b) the physiological reactions occurring
in the turfgrass plant as affected by climate, and (c) climatic stresses, especially their physiological cause, and
methods to minimize or prevent damaging effects. I have
chosen to emphasize the third aspect.
First, I should define some of the key terminology
involved. Three terms that are sometimes used interchangeably and can be confused are climate, weather, and environment. Climate is the composite state of the atmosphere for
a particular region over a period of many years and encompasses the weather variations. This contrasts with weather
which is a condition of the atmosphere at a specific time
and place. It involves a description of the conditions at
a specific time and place. It involves a description of
the conditions at a particular point in time in contrast
to climate which involves an overall description of the long
term environmental characteristics of the area. Finally,
the
environment is the aggregate of all surrounding conditions influencing the turf. Turfgrass culture involves
manipulation of the environment in order to favor growth
and development of the turfgrasses.

—'To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/professor of Turfgrass Science, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Over the period of a year turf is subjected to numerous
environmental stresses which we attempt to modify, minimize,
or even prevent through our turfgrass cultural practices.
Envirpnmental stresses can be divided into three types:
(1) atmospheric; (2) edaphic (soil); (3) biotic (man-traffic).
This paper will be concerned primarily with the atmospheric
types of environmental stress. The major environmental
stresses that turf may be subjected to include (a) heat,
(b) scald, (c) low temperature, (d) drought (summer dormancy) , (e) winter desiccation, (f) flooding, (g) shading,
and (h) atmospheric pollutants.
*

*

*

The first seven types of stress were then discussed in
detail based on research conducted at Michigan State University.
*

*

*

The professional turfman should become as knowledgeable
as possible concerning environmental stresses. There are
five major aspects with which he should be concerned.
A. First, are the specific symptoms associated with
turfgrass damage caused by each of the major types of environmental stress. Recognition is a very important prerequisite to determining the specific cause of damage so
that the appropriate steps can be taken to correct it or
to prevent it in the future. The specific criteria that
can be utilized in recognizing a particular type of environmental ßtress include (a) the time of year, (b) associated
environmental conditions, (c) soil conditions including
topography and drainage, and (d) particular turfgrass
species or cultivar that has been affected.
B. Second, he should have a clear understanding of the
conditions that favor the eventual development of a specific
type of stress. By knowing the conditions that favor a
particular type of stress, he can be prepared in advance
to take steps to enhance recovery through overseeding or
reestablishment. He can also forwarn his membership or

employers that conditions are favorable for a particular
type of stress and can outline to them ahead of time the
particular steps that he is taking to minimize damage
from these stresses. In this way, he will assure his
employers that he is on top of the situation. One should
keep in mind that no matter how good the professional
turfman or how well he exercises his options in preventing
environmental stress, there is still the potential under
certain situations for a severe loss of turf to occur in
spite of his efforts. This is due to the fact that we do
not have turfgrass cultivars available which tolerate all
types of environmental stress that may occur over a period
of time.
C. Third, is an understanding of species and cultivar
tolerances to each type of stress. One can then assess the
particular stresses most likely to occur in a given situation
and select the particular turfgrass species and cultivar
most likely to survive in this situation.
D. Fourth, he should have an understanding of the
cultural practices that can be utilized to minimize environmental stress. Basically, this involves manipulation of
(a) the environment surrounding the turf, or (b) adjusting
the physiological condition of the turfgrass plant so that
it is more hardy and able to survive the environmental stress.
Quite frequently this involves a reduction in the hydration
level (water content) within the plant tissues and a reduction in the growth rate.
E. Finally, the fifth involves an understanding of
the cultural practices that can be utilized to enhance
recovery of the turf from each particular type of environmental stress. Depending on which type of stress has
caused the damage, there are certain steps that can be
taken to reduce the chance of further damage and enhance
recovery of the surviving turfgrass plants.

CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR GOLF 1
COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS
Nick Geannopulos 2

Have you ever had one of those days when you were able
to sit down and relax for a few minutes without interruption?
If so, perhaps you may have silently asked yourself some
very penetrating questions like: "Why did I select this
profession as my life-long career?"; "Am I a good superintendent?"? "Why am I not as highly respected as my neighboring
superintendents, even though my members freely admit that
my turf is 100 percent better?" and "What can I do to improve
my situation?"
These are questions that every professional person asks
himself sooner or later. Unfortunately, not all of these
people will take the step that is so important—making a firm
decision to do something positive about the situation. They
simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, the other fellows
just get the lucky breaks," or "My members will never appreciate me regardless of what I do." If this is your attitude,
then there is little need for you to read further.
However, for those of you who are genuinely interested
in becoming better golf course superintendents, the remainder
of this article should prove useful.
The Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
has steadily improved on, and added to, its basic precept
of providing meaningful educational services to its members,
as well as to the turf industry in general. Since the organization of this association on September 13, 1926, every
effort has been made to live up to the objectives adopted
at that time.

1/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Des
Plaines, Illinois.

Dedication to better turf and better golf, specifically:
1.

To promote research and the interchange of scientific and practical knowledge pertaining to the care
of golf courses and turfgrass operations.

2.

To emphasize more efficient and economical golf
course operations and increase prestige for GCSAA
and its individual members as well as the profession
of golf course superintendency, which encompasses
the production, maintenance, and improvement of
turfgrass.

3.

To encourage cooperation with other associations
and organizations whose interests parallel or
complement those of GCSAA, and to stress justice,
benevolence, and education to and for its members.

Conference and Show
The most widely known of GCSAA1s programs is undoubtedly
its annual International Turfgrass Conference and Show. The
45th such Conference and Show will be held February 10-15,
1974, in Anaheim, California.
It is fairly certain that this will be another recordbreaker for GCSAA. More than 4,500 persons are expected to
attend and the Show will have nearly 150 exhibitors in more
than 400 booths. This, in itself, is an educational experience of a practical nature which no progressive superintendent can afford to miss.
The educational sessions, spread over 4-1/2 days and
utilizing the knowledge and experience of nearly 50 well-known
speakers (including more than 30 golf course superintendents) ,
represent a value that cannot be turly measured. How can
anyone place a monetary value on knowledge acquired; knowledge which may mean that a superintendent can drastically
improve the playing conditions at his course or make more
efficient use of available men, equipment or material?
Certification Program
This relatively new program, established on September 1,
1971, is beginning to gain momentum and popularity throughout
both the association and other turf-oriented organizations.

Perhaps a few figures will corroborate this.
15 months of operation, the program has:

At the end of

1.

received over 240 prepaid applications, which
represents more than 10 percent of the eligible
membership?

2.

recognized 145 members as Certified Golf Course
Superintendents ?

3.

earned the reputation of offering a comprehensive
and difficult, but fair, written examination
(approximately 50 percent of all certified members
have failed one or more sections of the examination
and of these, approximately 50 percent have been
successfully re-examined)?

4.

sold 40 Certification Manuals to non-superintendent
GCSAA members who wished to use the manual as a
reference source?

5.

received over 20 inquiries from both turf and nonturf associations with respect to design, scope,
and operation of the certification program (for
consideration of certification within their organizations) ?

6.

generated enough interest that more than 15 articles
have been written by other groups about our efforts.

Seminar Program
The most recent GCSAA educational effort, a series of
intensive, short-term seminars, became operational in April,
1972. This program, too, is rapidly gaining wide-spread
acceptance among the membership because of its direct educational benefits. Before this fiscal year is over, six
two-day seminars will have been offered to GCSAA members.
The seminars are scheduled for Chicago, Columbus (Ohio),
Hartford (Connecticut), Los Angeles, Tampa, and Washington,
D.C.
This initial seminar, entitled "GCSAA Management SeminarI", offers intensive training in basic accounting procedures.

It includes simulation exercises in budget analysis, cost
analysis, and fixed and variable ratios as related to a
hypothetical golf club operation. Based on past, current,
and future enrollment figures, nearly 200 members will
have attended this first seminar, and the executive committee has instructed the director of education to develop
at least two additional seminar topics for implementation
in 1973. Priority is to be given to pesticides, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and "people relations."
The seminar program fulfills the prime objectives of
the association by providing for an interchange of practical knowledge, emphasizing more efficient and economical
golf course operations, and providing educational benefits
to and for members.
Successful completion of a seminar, which is contingent
upon passing a nonmandatory written examination, also benefits each participant in that he receives an achievement
certificate, transmission of a congratulatory letter from
GCSAA1s President to a club official (selected by the participant and accreditation toward certification re-examination
requirements if the participant is in the Certification
program.
Of course, the greatest benefit of attending a seminar
lies in the fact that the participant acquires more knowledge and experience in his profession—he has done something positive about upgrading his professional status.
Scholarship and Research Fund
This agency, founded in 1956 and dedicated to providing
financial aid for turfgrass students and research projects
and to the dissemination of turfgrass knowledge, has functioned admirably during its years of existence. As of this
year, nearly a quarter of a million dollars has been awarded
to 469 students and 72 research projects at more than 50
colleges and universities throughout the U. S. and Canada.
A record number of scholarship applications (163) and
fourteen research grant applications were received this

year. These requests amounted to more than $88,000.00 and
created severe selection problems since the fund had only
$36,760.07 available for distribution. After very careful
consideration, fifty-three students were awarded scholarships totalling $23,450.00, and nine research grant applications were approved totalling $13,170.00.
The GCSAA firmly believes that the Scholarship and
Research Fund program is of value to its members and the
entire turfgrass industry. Over thirty percent of the
scholarship recipients have become superintendents and it
is obvious that all members benefit from turfgrass research
endeavors. In addition, the very fact that GCSAA makes
such awards ensures that our colleges and universities are
made aware of the existence of the profession and this, in
turn, encourages them to recognize turf management programs.
Slide and Film Library Program
A further indication of the association's desire to
provide up-to-date technical information to its members
lies in this area. During the past 2-1/2 years, several
hundred color slides and five color and sound films have
been obtained. The films are available to any GCSAA
member, chapter, or bonafide educational institution on a
cost-free loan basis; and as soon as the slides are properly catalogued, they, too, will be available on the
same basis.
The five films, with approximate running times, are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

"The ABC's of Putting Green Construction" (2 3 minutes)
"Courtesy on the Course" (18 minutes)
"Water Movement in Soil" (27 minutes)
"Drainage System for a Difficult Green" (15 minutes)
"Your Experimental Green" (20 minutes)

Summary
The principal function of GCSAA is membership service,
and high on our list of priorities is providing a wide array
of educational material and opportunities. With more than
3,500 members in 90 chapters, our obligation is to assist
each superintendent in keeping pace with new developments
and methods which will make his work more effective, more
efficient, and more economical.

SULPHUR-COATED UREA 1
J. D. Beaton 2

Introduction
Most of the conventional, water-soluble nitrogen fertilizers commonly used in agriculture are not ideal for application to turfgrass. One of their most serious shortcomings
is rapid release resulting in excessive growth shortly after
fertilization followed by inadequate N supply later in the
growing season. Rapid flushes of growth are undesirable
because they may reduce the quality of playing surfaces and
interrupt scheduled uses of turfgrass areas. In addition,
heavy growth will result in higher mowing costs.
More uniform turfgrass production can of course be obtained by frequent small dressings of the quickly soluble
N sources. However, such repeated applications are an inconvenience and they tend to be expensive where labour costs
are high. Also, it may be physically impossible to apply
the fertilizer when it is needed most.
Other disadvantages in the general use of fast-acting
sources of N include:
(a) massive applications in excess
of recommended rates may be harmful, especially to sensitive species and varieties; (b) soluble nitrates not taken
up by the crop or held in the soil can be lost through
leaching and run-off and may eventually contaminate ground
waters and surface streams; (cs) nitrogen from some fertilizer products may be lost through volatilization and
decomposition; and (d) poor efficiency in terms of plant
growth per unit of applied N.

1/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/chief Agronomist, Cominco Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.

Much effort has been directed to the development of
slowly available fertilizers which release N at rates more
nearly matching the requirements of plants for this nutrient.
The most important slow release N containing products now
commercially available in North America for turfgrass fertilization include ureaforms, methylene urea - urea, isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), polymeric semipermeable coatings on
soluble N sources, and activated sewage sludge.
Current annual consumption of the ureaforms and the methylene urea - urea products is estimated to be between 60,000
to 80,000 and 200,000 to 230,000 tons, respectively (J. A.
Long, 1973, personal communication). Use of isobutylidene
diurea is believed to be approximately 5,000 to 7,000 tons
yearly (John T. Hays, 1973, personal communication; J. A.
Long, 1973, personal communication). Total N supplied by
all of the various slow-release fertilizers now sold in the
U. S. is probably about 50,000 tons annually. (John T. Hays,
1973, personal communication).
Acceptance of slow-release nitrogen products will likely
become much greater when their high cost is substantially
reduced. One promising approach for production of reasonably priced slow-release N fertilizer is to coat common N
fertilizer materials with relatively insoluble, inexpensive
materials such as elemental S (Beaton & Fox, 1971). The
remainder of this paper will be devoted to discussions of
the production, properties, uses, and effectiveness of
sulphur-coated urea (SCU).
Production
A.

Manufacturing Facilities

Processes for the production of SCU have been studied
by the Tennessee Valley Authority for over 16 years. This
work has progressed from early bench-scale trials to the
use in 1967 of a small pilot plant with an output of 150
pounds per hour (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 a). A new
pilot plant was built in 1971 with a design production
capacity of one ton per hour (The Sulphur Institute, 1972
b). Plans are now proceeding for construction of a ten ton
per hour plant at TVA, representing a scale-up by a factor
of 10 (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 a).

Pilot-scale SCU plants have been built within the last
4 or 5 years in England, Germany, Switzerland, and possibly
in other countries (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 a) . One
fertilizer manufacturer (Imperial Chemical Industries
Limited) in England is currently producing SCU in a plant
with a capacity of 10,000 tons per year (Carpentiei; 1973) .
There are also very recent reports of SCU pilot plants being
built in Korea and Taiwan (Nelson, L. B., 1973, personal
communication).
B.

Manufacturing Process

The basic process involves formation of a S shell around
each urea particle by spraying atomized molten S on a rolling
bed of preheated urea particles (Beaton & Fox, 1971? The
Sulphur Institute, 1972 a). A light coating of petroleum
wax is applied on top of the S coating to seal pinholes and
cracks, which would affect the controlled release properties.
The wax may contain small amounts, usually less than 0.5%
by weight, of microbiocides such as coal tar to prevent its
being attacked by soil microorganisms. Finally, a small amount
of conditioner is added to give good product handling characteristics. Greater details of this pilot plant process have
been reported previously (Beaton & Fox, 1971? Bixby & Beaton,
1971? Rindt et al., 1968? The Sulphur Institute, 1972 b).
It is possible to manufacture SCU with coatings composed of only elemental S (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 a).
In the absence of wax or other additives, approximately
40% more S is needed. A typical analysis of this newer type
of SCU is 35-0-0-22 with a 22% dissolution rate. The significance of dissolution rates will be discussed later in this
paper.
One of the most important considerations in the S coating
of urea is the size and physical surface characteristics of
the urea being treated (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 b). The
urea should be spherical, smooth and closely sized. Granular urea is preferred to air-prilled urea because the larger
particles of the former are easier to coat and require less
S to obtain a given controlled dissolution rate (Tennessee
Valley Authority, 1972). One fertilizer producer in western
Canada makes a urea fertilizer by a spray drum granulation
process (Phillips, 1971) which is especially well-suited for

production of SCU. TVA has developed on pilot-scale a
pan-granulation process for producing urea suitable for
sulphur coating (The Sulphur Institute, 1972 b; Tennessee
Valley Authority, 1972).
C.

Cost of SCU Fertilizers

The N supplied in SCU is estimated to be about 30%
more expensive than it is in uncoated urea (Tennessee Valley
Authority, 1972). Transportation and handling costs of
the N in SCU are expected to be about 15% higher than they
are for N in conventional urea fertilizer. Costs of producing, marketing, and applying SCU are probably about the
same as for ammonium nitrate. There are reports, however,
of the ICI produced SCU selling in England at prices comparable to those charged for ureaforms (L. B. Nelson, 1973,
personal communication).
According to TVA estimates, a total capital investment
of approximately $2,700,000 is required to construct a SCU
plant with an economical production capacity of 500 tons
per day or 150,000 tons per year (Tennessee Valley Authority,
1972). Most any modern ammonia plant can produce urea or
SCU and urea plants can be readily converted to the production of SCU.
Properties
A.

Typical Analysis of SCU materials

Products from the early TVA pilot plant had a typical
analysis of 35-0-0-19 (S). Improvements in operating procedures in the new pilot plant at TVA have made it possible
to reduce coating thickness and to produce SCU materials
containing more N, e.g., 39-0-0-10 (S) with total coating
weights of about 14% and dissolution rates of around 20%
(The Sulphur Institute, 1972 a).
B.

Rate of Release of N from SCU Products

The controlled release property of SCU is expressed
as the percentage of urea which dissolves following immersion
of the product in water under controlled conditions for 7
days. Dissolution rates of 20 - 30% in 7 days, followed by
1% or less daily thereafter, are usually considered suitable
for most agronomic situations.

Varying small amounts of urea are usually released
soon after SCU products are applied to soil due to imperfections in the S coating of some granules. However, the
mechanism of controlled release of N involves gradual seepage of water into granules followed by diffusion of dissolved
urea solution through pores in the sulphur coating.
C.

Factors Influencing Release of N from SCU

Release of N from SCU is influenced by several other
factors including amount of coating, soil temperature, and
flooding conditions. Small increases of only a few percent
in coating weight will greatly delay the liberation of N
from SCU granules (Terman & Allen, 1970? Tennessee Valley
Authority, 1972). Increases in soil temperature between
50 and 86°F accelerated the dissolution of SCU (Allen et
al., 1971). Under flooded conditions, formation of insoluble coatings of substances such as iron sulphide on
the S coatings may retard the movement of urea out of SCU
granules (Giordano & Mortvedt, 1970).
D.

Favorable Physical Properties of SCU

Although SCU was developed primarily as a controlledrelease N fertilizer, it has several other favorable properties which should increase its usefulness (The Sulphur
Institute, 1972 a; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1972). Less
dustiness and breakage during handling and transport of SCU
are anticipated since it is more resistant to abrasion and
about twice as hard to crush as air-prilled urea.
The coating reduces hygroscopicity and caking of SCU,
even in locations with high humidity. Greater ease in
storing and spreading of SCU will be of particular importance in developing countries which may lack adequate handling and storage facilities.
Because granules of SCU are considerably larger than
air-prilled urea, less segregation will likely occur during
the formulation, transportation and application of bulk
blends containing this slow release N source.
The coating on SCU prevents undesirable chemical
reactions with other fertilizer materials such as triple
superphosphate.

If slow-release N characteristics are not required,
coatings of only 3 - 4% by weight of S followed by a 0.5%
by weight coating of oil and microbicide are sufficient to
substantially increase resistance of urea to wetting and
breakdown when esqposed to humid conditions. Sulphur coatings of about 10% by weight without a further coating of
wax and microbicide will also result in high quality granules. Both regular, controlled-release SCU and the products
with thin S coatings appear promising for widespread use
by bulk blenders.
E.

Plant Nutrient Sulphur Supplied in SCU

Substantial quantities of sulphur, which is an important
plant nutrient, will be supplied through fertilization with
SCU. Sulphur is becoming increasingly deficient in North
America (Beaton et al., 1971) and this nutrient is known to
have a number of beneficial effects on the growth and quality
of turfgrasses (Beaton, 1970; Grau, 1972 a, 1972 b).
During the degradation of SCU granules, sulphur in
the coating will gradually oxidize to sulphate and become
available for plant uptake (Mays & Terman, 1969). The
amount of S provided by breakdown of SCU coatings should
be sufficient to meet needs of most turfgrasses. However,
in severely sulphur-deficient areas, the S may not be converted rapidly enough to satisfy plant requirements during
the first growing season after application. Under these
conditions it will probably be necessary to provide some
soluble sulphate to meet the initial S needs of turfgrass.
Effectiveness of SCU for Turfgrass
The economics of using SCU products on various
were reviewed several years ago by Diamond and Mays
Their summary showed that definite savings could be
particularly in situations where split applications
water-soluble N sources are normally used.

crops
(1970).
realized,
of

Another review of crop responses and related benefits
from SCU was made in 1972 (Diamond & Myers, 1972). This
review indicated that one of the greatest potential uses of
SCU is on warm season forages harvested several times each
season. Also, SCU was reported to be an excellent fertilizer

for turfgrasses in several trials. When compared with a
single application of soluble fertilizer, SCU gave less
growth immediately after fertilization, but better growth
toward the end of the season. Less clipping removal and
a longer lasting improved turf colour were two other important benefits of SCU dressings.
Results of studies in Alabama, Indiana, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas showed that SCU has excellent properties as a lawn turf fertilizer (Tennessee Valley Authority,
1972, Unpublished Report on Sulphur-Coated Urea). The
important advantages of SCU were relatively small clipping
removal, good colour during the growing season, and excellent fall growth. In addition, turf fertilized with SCU
maintained its healthy appearance longer in the fall than
did treatments with certain commercially available, slowrelease fertilizers costing several times as much. Moreover, single applications of SCU were as effective as
monthly additions of soluble fertilizers for the production
of both total and uniform growth. Other suggested uses for
which SCU seems well suited are grasses in parks, recreation
areas, golf courses, highway rights-of-way, roadcuts, and
newly completed construction projects.
Response of Tifway bermudagrass to several SCU products,
ammonium nitrate, and ureaformaldehyde was studied by Mays
(1972). He found that early season growth and appearance
of the grass were slightly better with single applications
of SCU, with dissolution rates of from 15 to 30% in 7 days,
than similar quantities of N supplied as ammonium nitrate
in 5 monthly increments. Total grass growth was comparable
for these two N sources. Twice as much ureaformaldehyde was
required to reach the same level of growth and appearance
as was obtained with additions of either SCU or ammonium
nitrate. Mays concluded that SCU was a promising material
for fertilization of most turf areas except golf greens.
There is general agreement that SCU is unsatisfactory
for golf greens. A study conducted at Agassiz, B.C., in
1970 showed that much more SCU, 2 to 4 times as much, than
sewage sludge or ureaform was removed from closely mowed
(1/4") bentgrass (Taylor, D.K., 1973, personal communication).
Mowing was done three days after application and irrigation.

Sensitivity of SCU granules to fracture may also restrict
use of this fertilizer on golf greens (Hays, J.T., 1973, personal communication) . During periods of hot weather, breakage of SCU by mowing operations will result in release of
excessive amounts of N and cause burning unless the greens
are watered immediately (Ensign, R.D., 1973, personal communication) . However, late season additions or applications
during off-season, non-use periods may be satisfactory in
cool season areas. In Idaho, late winter applications of
SCU to greens have improved turf colour (Ensign, R.D., 1973,
personal communication). This beneficial effect on colour
persisted until the following spring.
The suitability of SCU for golf greens is also being
questioned in Florida (Volk, G»M., 1973, personal communication) . The major concern is that SCU granules, as now
supplied, are too large for efficient use on close cut
turf. Special procedures such as brushing, verticutting,
etc., which are necessary to get this N source down into
the turf for research purposes are considered impractical
for routine management of closely mowed turf.
None of these difficulties is expected to be serious
when SCU is applied to fairways where cutting heights are
usually considerably higher than on greens.
Summary
One promising approach for production of reasonably
priced slow-release N fertilizer is to coat common N fertilizer materials such as urea with relatively insoluble,
inexpensive elemental S. The basic process developed at
the Tennessee Valley Authority for producing sulphur-coated
urea (SCU) involves formation of a shell around each urea
particle by spraying atomized molten S on a rolling bed of
preheated urea particles. A typical analysis of TVA 1 s present SCU fertilizer is 39-0-0-10 (S) with total coating
weights of about 14% and dissolution rates of around 20%.
Manufacture of SCU with coatings composed of only elemental
S is possible.
A pilot plant with a design production capacity of one
ton per hour of SCU is currently being operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Construction of a larger plant at

TVA with a capacity of 10 tons per hour is being planned.
Pilot-scale plants have been built or are being built in
England, Germany, Switzerland, Korea, and Taiwan. One
fertilizer manufacturer in England is currently producing
a SOU product in a plant with a capacity of 10,000 tons
per year.
The N supplied in SOU is estimated to be about 30%
more expensive than it is in uncoated urea. Transportation
and handling costs of the N in SCU are expected to be about
15% higher than they are for N in conventional urea fertilizer. However, an English produced SCU material is reported
to cost about the same as ureaform.
In addition to its slow release characteristics, SCU
has several other important advantages including resistance
to moisture and caking, increased compatability with other
fertilizer materials, and supplying S which is another
essential plant nutrient.
Considerable savings have been predicted from using
SCU on agronomic crops, especially in situations where split
or repeated applications of water-soluble N sources are
normally used. One of the greatest potential uses of SCU
is on warm season forages harvested several times each
season.
There are strong indications that SCU has excellent
properties as a lawn turf fertilizer. The important advantages of SCU are relatively small increases in clipping
removal, improved growth and appearance of grasses throughout the growing season, and excellent fall growth. Moreover, the beneficial effects of SCU applied late in the
growing season may persist into the following spring. Also,
single applications of SCU are as effective as monthly additions of soluble fertilizers for the production of both
total and uniform growth. Other suggested uses for which
SCU seems well suited include grasses in parks, recreation
areas, highway rights-of way, roadcuts, and newly completed
construction projects.
Current forms of SCU are unsuitable for golf greens because of the sensitivity of granules to fracture. In addition, substantial quantities of SCU are mechanically removed
during mowing of closely cut turf. On fairways where mowing
heights are usually higher, SCU is expected to be a very
satisfactory source of slow-release N.

REFERENCES
Allen, S.E., C.M. Hunt, and G. L. Terman. 1971. Nitrogen
release from sulphur-coated urea, as affected by coating
weight, placement, and temperature. Agron. J. 63 (4):529-533
Beaton, J.D. 1970. Role of sulphur in turfgrass fertilization. Proc. 8th B. C. Turfgrass Conf., Victoria, B.C.
April 23-24, 1970. pp. 33-52.
Beaton, J.D. and R.L. Fox. 1971. Production, Marketing
and Use of Sulphur Products. Chapt. 11 In. FERTILIZER
TECHNOLOGY AND USE (2nd. ed.) (R.A. Olson et al, eds.).
Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wis. pp.
335-379.
Beaton, J.D., S.L. Tisdale, and J. Platou. 1971. Crop
responses to sulphur fertilization in North America. Tech.
Bull. 18, The Sulphur Inst., Washington, D.C.
Bixby, D.W. and J. D. Beaton. 1970. Sulphur-containing
fertilizers: Properties and applications. Tech. Bui. 17,
The Sulphur Inst., Washington D.C.
Carpentier, A. 1973. Visit report No. 643, The Sulphur
Inst., London, England.
Diamond, R.B. and D.A. Mays. 1970. Agro-economics of
sulphur-coated urea. Proc. Assoc. Southern Agr. Workers
67th Annual Convention, Memphis, Tenn., Feb. 1 - 4 , 1970.
Diamond, R.B. and F.J. Myers. 1972. Crop responses and
related benefits from SCU. Sulphur Inst. J. 8 (4): 9-11.
I
Giordano, P.M. and J.J. Mortvedt. 1970. Release of nitrogen from sulphur-coated urea in flooded soil. Agron. J.
62 (5): 612-614.
Grau, F.V. 1972 a. Sulphur for turfgrass.
and Turf. 11 (2): 22, 48, 54, 60, 64.

Weeds, Trees

Grau, F.V. 19 72 b. Does your turf need sulphur?
Crops with Plant Food. 56 (1): 22-25.

Better

Mays, D. A. 1972. Response of Tifway bermudagrass to
soluble and slow-release N sources. Agronomy Abstracts
of 1972 Annual Meeting, America Society of Agronomy.
Miami Beach, Fla., October 29 to November 2, 1972. P. 146.
Mays, D.A. and G.L. Terman. 1969. Response of coastal
bermudagrass to nitrogen in sulphur-coated urea, urea,
and ammonium nitrate. Sulphur Inst. J. 5 (3): 7-10.
Phillips, A.B. 1971. Impact of new technology on marketing. In. Searching the Seventies, Proc. Fertilizer
Production and Marketing Conf., Memphis, Tenn., Sept. 15-17,
1971. pp. 43-48.
Rindt, D.W., G.M. Blouin, and J.G. Getsinger. 1968. Sulphur
coating on nitrogen fertilizer to reduce dissolution rate.
J. Agr. Food Chem. 16 (5): 773-778.
Tennessee Valley Authority Staff. 1972. Tailoring of
Fertilizers for Rice. Bulletin Y-52, Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals, Ala. pp. 38-42.
Terman, G.L. and S.E. Allen. 1970. Leaching of soluble
and slow-release N and K fertilizers from Lakeland sand
under grass and fallow. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc.
30: 130-140.
The Sulphur Institute Staff. 1972 a.
report. Sulphur Inst. J. 8 (4): 2-5.

SCU - A progress

The Sulphur Institute Staff. 1972 b. Sulphur coated urea
TVA's new pilot plant. Sulphur Inst. J. 8 (4): 6-8.

NITROFORM, ITS CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE 1
IN GROWING AND ESTABLISHING TURFGRASS
C. Robert Staib 2

There have been tremendous advancements in turfgrass
culture as you have witnessed and practiced in just the
past decade. Refinements have been made in practically
every segment of the industry.
One of the leading headliners in the new age of turf
culture is the vastly improved fertilizer technology. Until
recently a turfgrass fertilizer could only be defined as one
having a distinctive odor of organic origin that would grow
green grass. In fact, there really were no valid criteria
for quality fertilizers. There were only two choices: natural organics, available at one price, and manufactured
agricultural nitrogen fertilizers, available at another
price. Differences existed primarily in their analyses
and safety. The organics had low nutrient contents, but
were relatively safe to use on grass. Synthetics had higher
analyses and had to be used with care.
The trend, starting in the
onward, is toward high analyses
used with complete safety, at a
quently as possible. These are
and VIVA LA DIFFERENSE!

sixties and continuing ever
fertilizers which can be
reasonable cost, as infreindeed quality plant foods,

Nitroform, being one of the first of the new breeds to
appear on the scene, continues to offer turf managers and
landscapers the means to establish and maintain quality
plant materials with built-in safety and longevity at an

1/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/Turf Products, Synthetics Department, Hercules Inc., San
Francisco, California.

economical cost. In addition, its high analysis (38% N),
and in particular, its high level of water-insoluble nitrogen (71% of total N) enables fertilizer formulators to
build a wide variety of quality turf foods with high W.I.N,
contents, more so than from all other nitrogen sources.
Nitroform® is Hercules1 trade name for ureaform, a
reaction product resulting from combining urea with formaldehyde at a ratio approaching two to one under carefully
controlled prescribed conditions. Under these conditions,
a chain-reaction occurs, referred to as polymerization,
whereby a series of low molecular-weight polymers of methylene ureas are formed (condensed) on a belt passing through
a drier. The reaction is complete when three fractions of
methylene ureas are condensed in the desired apportionment
and before any additional reaction would form products from
which nitrogen would be completely unavailable. The finished
product contains no free formaldehyde and but a trace of
free urea.

NH 2

o
li
- C - NH 2
UREA

o
n
+ H - C - H =
FORMALDEHYDE

|UREA| - CH 2 - fUREAl - CH 2 - lUREAl - CH 2 - |UREA| - CH 2 -UREA
UREAFORM
Desired specifications for the manufacturer of ureaform
are based on the proportions of water-soluble, cold waterinsoluble, and hot water-insoluble methylene ureas existing
in the final product. The lightest molecular-weight methylene urea is water-soluble while the next two polymers in
the chain containing more urea and - CH 2 - radicals are
considered water-insoluble. These three fractions exist
in Nitroform in nearly equal proportions. The higher molecular-weight methylene ureas contribute 27 units of the 38
total units of nitrogen in Nitroform as water-insoluble
nitrogen.
Though the first fraction of methylene urea is considered
to be water-soluble, it is soluble only to the extent of
about one-gram soluble in 250-cc of water. Compare this to
urea at one-gram soluble in one-cc water.

You may ask the question, how does this relate to
nitrogen availability for growing turf? Let us make an
interesting comparison. Nitroform is like a well-seasoned
old oak log ready for the fireplace on a cold winter's
night. It takes a while to get kindled, but once it does,
just one good-sized log will provide comforting warmth all
evening long.
All the nitrogen in ureaform is made available by the
action of soil microorganisms. The more water-soluble
fraction can be likened to fresh green organic residue. It
is easily nitrified. The cold water-insoluble fraction is
intermediate in its resistance to micro-biological attack,
and gives up its nitrogen correspondingly. The hot waterinsoluble fraction is the most resistant, yet the bugs
stubbornly, over a longer period, chew it up.
In controlled laboratory nitrification studies where
there exists an optimum environment for soil microorganisms
at a constant temperature of 83°F., nitrification of these
fractions proceeds thus:
Fraction I (water-soluble)
Fraction II (cold water-insoluble)
Fraction III (hot water-insoluble)

4 to 6 weeks
5 to 6 months
2 to 3 years

It is important to bear in mind that nitrification of all
fractions commences immediately following application, and
continues concurrently, all fractions releasing nitrogen
together but at varying rates.
We suspect that many different kinds of organisms react
on ureaform, and that resistant polymers of methylene urea
actually influence the propagation of micro-biological
species capable of doing the job. This may be why one finds
the longer you use ureaform, the better the observed response.
Speaking of these organisms, it is well
note that ureaform
actually nourishes these fine creatures of the earth just
as effectively as any natural organic medium. All the carbon goes to provide energy while they carry on their work
and reproduce themselves.
Nitroform then, reacts in the soil in a "natural organic
manner", and as such, contributes to the well being of the
soil as well as feeding the vegetation growing upon it.

Knowing how ureaform works in the soil teaches us how
to use it for feeding turf and other good plants. Remember
the little bugs first! Also, remember the oak log on a
cold winter night! It must be properly kindled to get the
most out of it. It is advisable to apply a reasonably good
quantity of Nitroform the first time you use it. For fine
turf and ground covers, I recommend 20 pounds of product
per 1,000 sq. ft. - equivalent to 7.6 pounds of actual
nitrogen. This may seem like a lot of N to apply at one
time. If you are about to embark on a Nitroform program,
forget old concepts for just that one initial application.
Nitroform will not burn, even at double that rate! You
want to establish a reserve of nitrogen in the soil as
quickly as possible. This amount influences the build-up
of the microbial population necessary to do a fine job of
making nitrogen available to the plant. Following that,
only nominal increments are periodically applied at rates
of N according to that recommended for particular varieties
and climates. Now, you can go back to the old concepts.
You just don f t have to be as careful as you used to be. Another
way to look at it
The bigger the deposit, the greater
the interest! You don't lose any of the principal; it just
keeps right on working.
Now, regarding these new quality fertilizers. How do
you define them? The Penn State University College of
Agriculture Extension Service set up a criterion that is
being widely accepted. Penn State is recognized as having
an excellent turf program.
In a report, Turfgrass Fertilization, prepared by
John C. Harper, II, Extension Agronomist, is defined a
turf-grade fertilizer as a complete fertilizer having an
approximate 2-1-1 ratio, containing 10% or more nitrogen
and having 35-percent or more of the total nitrogen as
water-insoluble, W.I.N. It is this nitrogen which is the
key to quality. Any nitrogen fertilizer containing pnehalf the nitrogen from Nitroform will have 35-percent of
the total nitrogen as W.I.N. If all the nitrogen is from
Nitroform, then 71-percent of total nitrogen will be W.I.N.
One of Sears most successful fertilizers is a 30-3-6 with
71-percent of total nitrogen as W.I.N.
Formulator-suppliers in this area have more capability
of providing quality fertilizers at reasonable prices because no other organic nitrogen available anywhere has this

high W.I.N, content. Economy is important! Nitroform
nitrogen by itself or in mixed fertilizers is more economical than most commonly used organic or other slow-release
nitrogen sources.
Nitroform can be blended in any desirable amount
according to your own local needs. You can buy it straight
for direct application or blend it onsite with natural organics for top-dressing or for general maintenance. Combining Nitroform with natural organics is often a fine
idea. The synergistic effect on the microorganisms is
soon obvious.
Probably the most dramatic response you will see from
Nitroform is when it is incorporated in the seedbed when
establishing new turf. Twenty pounds of Nitroform plus
adequate levels of phosphorus and potassium per 1,000 sq.
ft. will produce a solid uniform stand of turf possibly
sooner than from other nitrogen sources. This slide
comparing this rate of Nitroform to the highest level of
ammonium sulfate which could be safely tolerated in establishing turf sod in Puyallup in November illustrates this
point. The picture was taken the following February. No
additional N was applied to either side. Note that this
occurred during the winter months.
What about Nitroform during the winter months? In areas
west of the Cascades, it will continue to respond to microbial activity, though at reduced rates. As long as there
is sufficient warmth in the soil for micro-biological
activity, Nitroform is releasing nitrogen. When temperatures drop, the plant's demand for nitrogen is decreased
or eliminated. Nitroform will be available when temperatures again favor plant growth. In turf during the winter
months in the warmer areas of the Northwest, Nitroform continues to influence green color and texture even though
growth may have slowed considerably.

UREA-FORMALDEHYDE REACTION PRODUCTS 1
ARE NOT ALL ALIKE
Jim Chapman 2

In 1948, Dr. Clark (1) reported that a solid, slowly
available nitrogen product could be made by reacting urea
with formaldehyde. The nitrogen availability from ureaformaldehyde was shown to be dependent upon the ratio of
urea and formaldehyde and the chemical and physical properties of the reaction mixture. The nitrogen release characteristics can be estimated chemically by identifying the
percent nitrogen which is insoluble in cold water and hot
water. In addition to a chemical analysis, the nitrogen
release characteristics of urea-formaldehyde reaction products can be determined by using grass as an indicator
plant.
The water soluble nitrogen fraction of most commercially
available urea-formaldehyde formulations is approximately
one-third of the total nitrogen. Scott f s ProTurf Fertilizer
is a urea and formaldehyde reaction product which contains
approximately two-thirds water soluble nitrogen. The reaction product is identified as methylene ureas. The
analysis is shown below.

I/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
I/o. M. Scott Company, Bellevue, Washington.

Total Nitrogen (N)
32%
1.3% ammoniacal from ammoniated phosphate
20.0% water soluble from urea and methylene ureas
10.7% water insoluble from methylene ureas
Available phosphoric acid P2O5 f r o ï n ammoniated phosphate
5%
Soluble Potash (K^O) from potassium sulfate. . . .
3%
The 1.3% ammoniacal and the 20% water soluble nitrogen
make up the cold water soluble which is the more readily
available fraction. The 10.7% water insoluble nitrogen
consists of cold and hot water insoluble fractions with
approximately half of the nitrogen soluble in hot water.
Added together, the three total the 32% guaranteed nitrogen analysis. The analysis panel is a helpful tool in
evaluating the nitrogen characteristics of a product.
The cold water soluble (CWSN) fraction is essential
for initial response since it is more readily available
to the plant. The cold water insoluble nitrogen (CWIN) of
which 45-60% is soluble in hot water consists of larger
methylene urea molecules that must be biodegraded by microorganisms before it is available to the plant. This fraction
extends the turf response well beyond that which is provided by the cold water fraction. The hot water insoluble
nitrogen fraction (HWIN) consists of even larger molecules
and requires a longer time to become available as shown
in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - The Approximate Turf Response from Various
Nitrogen Fractions in a Methylene Urea Product*
Days After Treating
0

7

14

21

28

35

Cold Water Soluble N (CWSN)
Cold Water Insoluble N (CWIN)
Hot Water Insoluble N (HWIN)
*Methylene urea fertilizer used in this study was Scotts
ProTurf Fertilizer 32-5-3.

The response period can be extended by applying heavier
rates of nitrogen but the same general relationship exists
as shown above.
The relative amounts of the three nitrogen fractions
(CWSN, CWIN and HWIN) are controlled primarily by the U/F
mole ratio (the ratio of the molecular weight of urea to
the molecular weight of formaldehyde), and the reaction
conditions. Examples of U/F ratios are as follows:
1.3:1 = moles urea to 1 mole formaldehyde. This ratio
will often result in approximately 33% Cold
Water Soluble Nitrogen.
2.0:1 = 2.0 moles urea to 1 mole formaldehyde. This
ratio will often result in approximately 66%
Cold Water Soluble Nitrogen.
The 2.0:1 ratio will often result in a product which
contains more soluble nitrogen and therefore releases nitrogen at a reasonably fast rate.
It is technically possible, although not practical, to
make a urea-formaldehyde fertilizer in which the nitrogen
is completely unavailable to the plant. These type products
could contain equal molar amounts of urea and formaldehyde
(U/F 1.0: 1.0). The other extreme would be a fertilizer with
a nitrogen release rate similar to that of urea. This
material would contain a large quantity of urea and a small
quantity of formaldehyde. Release rates between these
extremes that support different levels of response are
possible.
Scotts research personnel have been conducting laboratory and field experiments with methylene ureas and ureaform
fertilizers spanning a twenty year period. Fertilizers with
U/F ratios ranging from 1.3:1 to 3:1 have been tested on
many grasses and under different climatic conditions. Products that are made with ratios of urea to formaldehyde as
low as 1.3:1 are often slower to green the turf and have a
short residual at rates of 1 - 4 lbs. of Nitrogen/1,000 sq.
ft. Products with higher ratios of urea to formaldehyde

(1.5:1 to 2.0:1) produce a more rapid greening and longer
residual response when applied at 1-2 lbs. Nitrogen/1,000
sq. ft.
Figure 2 demonstrates a typical turfgrass response for
a low (1.3:1) and a higher U/F mole ratio (1.5:1 - 2.0:1).
All urea-formaldehyde reaction fertilizers are not
alike. The graph shows that the initial response in the
first 9-23 days was greater for the 1.5:1-2.0:1 U/F mole
ratio treatment. The residual response based on the clipping
yield between the fifty-fourth and the sixty-fourth day
was greatest for the turf treated with the 1.5:1-2.0:1 U/F
ratio as compared to the 1.3:1 ratio (39 grams vs. 25 grams,
respectively). These data show that the lower U/F mole
ratio at equivalent rates of nitrogen result in initial
greening and a lower level of response during the growth
period than the higher U/F ratio fertilizer.
Fertilizers with U/F ratios from 1.5:1 to 2.0:1 are
considerably safer to use than soluble sources of nitrogen.
This is especially true at heavier rates and under conditions
which are conducive to turf phytotoxicity.
In conclusion, extensive testing of fertilizers with
various U/F mole ratios have shown in our program that
ratios as low as 1.3:1 U/F provide slow response and do
not achieve the same level of total or residual response
as higher ratios evaluated under the same conditions. The
fast release rate of soluble nitrogen sources cause excessive initial growth and increase the likelihood of turf
injury.
The nitrogen release rates of U/F ratios in the 1.5:1
to 2.0:1 range support early and adequate levels of initial
greening plus a sustained growth response at light rates of
nitrogen. These are fertilizer benefits that are most useful in any professional turfgrass maintenance program.
REFERENCE

(1)

Clark, K. F., J. Y. Yee and K. S. Love, Ind. Eng. Chem.,
40_, p. 1178, 1948.

ANNUAL FERTILIZER 1
AND PESTICIDE COST
Richard Schwabauer 2

The direct comparison of fertilizer and pesticide costs
among country clubs cannot be made. Evaluations of costs
must be made by considering the climate, length of growing
season, type of soil, type of turf, area of turf, and
quality of turf required by the particular facility.
Waverly Country Club is a private club, 75 years old, and
located on a silt loam soil in the Willamette Valley of
Oregon. We have dry summers and wet winters. The bentgrass-Poa annua turf must be mowed 12 months of the year.
Fertilizers used include soluble, slowly available,
simple and mixture types. The distribution of these materials is made using the cyclone spreader, drop spreader,
and spraying.
Pesticides are used to prevent infestation by fungi,
to control soil insects, and to control weeds. Granular,
wettable powder, and emulsifiable concentrate materials
are used and may be either contact or systemic action on
the particular pest. Distribution methods include cyclone,
drop spreader, or spraying.

¿/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
^/superintendent, Waverly Golf and Country Club, Portland,
Oregon.

ANNUAL FERTILIZER COSTS *

Material

$3,700.00

Labor
Greens
Applications
Hours
Cost

18
125
$420

Tees

Fairways

8
80
$275

9
72
$256

951.00

Total Material and Labor Cost

$4,650.00

ANNUAL PESTICIDE COSTS *

Material

Fungicide

Herbicide

$1,700

$180

Insecticide
$275

$2,155.00

Labor
Applications
Hours
Cost

Greens
16
250
$835

Tees
4
36
$124

Fairways
2
70
$227

Total Material and Labor Cost

Three Year Average

1,186.00
$3,341.00

PROS AND CONS OF FERTILIZER 1
PESTICIDE COMBINATIONS
E. C. Hughes 2

At the outset let me state that this report is a combined presentation. Dr. Gerber, Entomologist, and Dr. D.
Ormrod, Plant Pathologist, B.C.D.A., Cloverdale, have added
their inputs to mine for their respective fields.
The use of fertilizer combinations have generally not
been advocated by the B. C. Department of Agriculture. In
fact the B. C. Committee on Pesticide Use several years ago
went on record as being opposed to their use generally. The
reasons primarily centered about the opinions that:
1) Many of the pesticides in such mixtures may not be
specific for use for specific problems
2) Such mixtures may be subject to overuse, being
applied
a) at times when not being needed, or
b) being applied in excess by successive periodic
applications as specified for fertilizer needs
along with danger of injury
3) Fertilizer pesticide mixtures may be applied to/on
other crops resulting either in injury or creating
residue problems in crops for which such pesticides
may not be approved.
Reaction from the trade at that time was actually quite
critical. Generally, it was felt such statements were unjustified with reference to the use of pesticides.

¿/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
¿/Field Crops Specialist, Canada Department of Agriculture,
Surrey, British Columbia.

Relative to more specific reactions is the availability
and use of specific pesticides. Insecticides such as chlordane, aldrin and other chlorinated hydrocarbons are not
allowable in B. C. In special instances such as for earthworm control in golf greens special use permits for chlordane are granted by the Chief Pesticide officer, but generally
these long term residual insecticides are not available.
Another factor is timeliness and retention of adequate active
ingredients during the period of need. Many treatments, i.e.
sod webworm or leather-jacket treatments are required in
early spring and/or late fall for best results. At these
times heavy fertilizer applications, especially of nitrogenous forms may cause excessive growth and increase turf
winter injury. Untimely applications may result in loss of
insecticide and lack of control. Conversely, insects because of their mobility usually will move to zones of toxic
chemical and can be controlled probably better than other
pests.
Fungicides have somewhat the same problem. Mercurial
fungicides though still registered for turf use have been
withdrawn from B.C.D.A. recommendations because of their
toxicity and possible hazard to the environment. Other
fungicides such as benomyl are quite unstable and may
degrade if retained for too long a period in storage prior
to use. Timeliness in use is probably more cirtical than
with insecticides. Proper combinations applied in the
spring can give maximum fertilizer response and some control
of spring diseases. In all fairness however, it should be
noted many of these diseases (i.e. Fusarium patch) are best
controlled by several successive applications of the fungicides spaced one to two weeks apart. Such treatments, of
course, are too often for most fertilizer treatments; hence
fertilizer/fungicide treatments would require supplemental
fungicide treatments especially for curative treatments.
Herbicides are similar to fungicides in that their use
depends usually upon specific treatments dependent upon
weed species and may require successive treatments. Proper
use of fertilizer alone will give a good measure of control
of most easy to kill weed species. Herbicidally, most
plants are affected more by foliar application than by
granular treatments. In trials in 1964 in New Westminster,
2,4-D granules at rates up to 5 lbs. a.i. per acre alone
caused grass injury with only 40% clover control and 70% /

broadleaf weed control, whereas 300 lbs. 20-10-5 plus 2-1/2
lbs. 2,4-D applied every 4 weeks provided 90% control for
both clover and weeds. Other trials have shown the need for
more specific treatments such as mecoprop for clover and
chickweed control, dicamba for knotweed? but these same
trials indicated more of the specific herbicide is needed
for specific weed problems than is usually available in
combined mixtures.
Generally, sprays were more effective than granules and
the specific spray was required at the proper rate for weed
control of the specific hard to eradicate species. Fertilizers improved the weed control by their ability to improve
grass growth and "crowd out" the weedy species.
In summary, to me the "pros" of fertilizer pesticide
combinations indicate fair measure control of the disease,
insect or weed problem, partially because of pesticide, but
largely because of grass response to the fertilizer treatment. The "cons" actually indicate for best control, we
require use of the pesticide in the manner most necessary
for the particular problem. This is particularly noticed
in severe problem cases of disease or in other instances
where repetitive treatments are necessary for these severe
infections or infestations.

A

PESTICIDE LEGISLATION 1
CANADA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
C. L. Neilson 2

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Joint Conference, Northwest Turfgrass Association and Western Turfgrass Association,
I would like to thank you for this opportunity of participating in your Conference.
While I can't lay claim to any great knowledge of how
to produce and maintain the best turf, I can assure you that
I have over twenty-five years experience in destroying turf
with a collection of tools called golfclubs.
But before launching into specifics, as they concern
pesticides and pesticide use in British Columbia, I think
it might be useful to you to know that in Canada all pesticide registration comes under Federal jurisdiction. In
other words, there are no Provincial requirements in so far
as pesticide registration is concerned. They are registered
once federally and such registration or registered use applies
across Canada. However, there are four or five provinces
in Canada who do have their own individual pesticide regulations—but these are aimed at how and where pesticides are
sold and insuring proper pesticide use. In British Columbia
all pesticide regulations are administered by the Department
of Agriculture—under my direction.

— T o be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/Provincial Entomologist, Canada Department of Agriculture,
Victoria, British Columbia.

In respect to our Federal scheme, new Pest Control
Products regulations were passed on October 25, 1972, which
updates former regulations and introduces several new
concepts. The Federal or Canada Department of Agriculture,
Plant Products Division continues to administer these regulations. There may be some lapse of time before these new
regulations are implemented.
A few of the major new points in these regulations are:
A. Control products are classified for labelling and
pest registration purposes into three (3) categories in order
to direct marketing and limit the availability of certain
products to persons authorized to use them from the point
of view of occupational or environmental risk. (This will
compliment Provincial regulations.)
Category 1 - Restricted Products: the sale of these
are dependent upon the purchaser (e.g. Pest Control Applicators) showing proof of having obtained a permit from the
Minister or his designate, or a permit or other official
concurrence from a Provincial regulatory authority. Restricted products will be so labelled and the conditions of
the restriction set forth on the label.
Category 2 - Commercial Products: These products would
constitute the major proportion of control products. The
label directions and limitations are sufficient to ensure
safe use in commercial activities such as agriculture, forestry, institutional and industrial activities. Some of these
products may also qualify for the domestic category.
Category 3 - Domestic Products: These products intended
to be sold to the home owner for non-commercial activities.
They must meet safety criteria in respect to occupational
and environmental risks (e. g. container disposal in regular garbage). To be sold in food outlets both the oral
and dermal LD 50 must be above 5000 mg./kg.
Superimposed on certain products in Categories 1 and
2, there will be some restrictive measures imposed on the
purchaser and user.

1. Signable Product - This procedure is the least oner
ous and simplest restrictive measure which may be imposed on
the sale of a pesticide and it provides for several valuable
functions. By documenting the sale of certain pesticides,
statistics reflecting intensity of use on a relatively speci
fic regional basis may be accumulated. The record of the
purchaser!s name and address facilitates a follow-up on the
use of the pesticide, if required, to assure that its use
continues to satisfy the conditions under which it was registered. In the event of any incident involving the product, a record of the purchase is available to the regulatory agency. The designation of a pesticide as a signable
product facilitates the control of its sale through dealers.
The control of sale by this simple means allows the dealer
to become more than a casual participant in the regulatory
process, and at the time of the sale he can verbally reinforce the label precautions which are necessary to the safe
use of the product, whether they relate to occupational or
to environmental risk. Finally, the psychological effect
on the purchaser is beneficial in that the special precautions attendant on the safe use of the product are emphasized. Misuse or use contrary to the terms of label under
these circumstances is a responsibility which rests clearly
with the user, and implies a flagrant disregard of instructions. The precautionary measures to be taken in respect
to the safe use of a signable product should not be difficult, and they should be well within the capability of the
average user to whom the product is made available. If
there is any doubt of this, consideration should be given
to subjecting the product to a more severe restrictive
measure.
2. User Permit - This procedure imposes a more severe
restriction than that of merely signing for the product.
The requirement to obtain a "user permit" derives all of
the advantages expressed in (1) but additionally requires
the purchaser to document the purpose and location of the
use. Further, the issuance of the permit, its cancellation
or its denial is at the discretion of the regulating agency
designed as the appropriate authority.

Depending upon the reason for imposing the restriction,
such as a concern for water quality, occupational risk, or
wildlife hazard, the authority to issue such permits may be
delegated to any appropriate agency. A well informed dealer
system may be able to function to some degree in this respect,
but local capability and policy would determine how this regulatory measure is best implemented.
It is conceivable that a "user permit" could be issued
on a seasonal basis, where the time to obtain a permit in
each case would unduly impair the capability of a knowledgable user to control a pest. Seasonal permits for certain
pesticides could be issued at the discretion of the regional
authority to persons considered to be sufficiently qualified,
such as bona fide farmers, or licensed pest control operators.
3. Project Permit - When a pesticide application such
as for certain aquatic, forest or vector control programs
has special environmental significance, a "project permit"
may be required. This form of restrictive measure imposes
a more rigorous restriction on the use of a pesticide than
the "user permit", and at the same time imposes an increased
responsibility on the issuing governmental agency.
Application made for a project permit should be accompanied by detailed information on the product to be used,
the project to be performed, the persons in charge and the
equipment and conditions under which the project is to be
carried out. The issuance of the permit is dependent upon
an on-site inspection and approval of the project by the
issuing agency, and the permit shall also set forth the conditions under which the project may be carried out.
B. Control devices will now require registration,
e.g. electric dispenser plug in.
C. Packing standards will come under the new regulations .
D. Import into Canada for the importer's own use will
require:
1.

Authorization from the District Supervisor.

a) Products must have been accepted for registration under the regulations for the use stated on
the importerfs declaration.
2. The laws in force in the place where the product
is to be used are not inconsistent with the proposed
importation and use.
3. The amount that can be imported for private use
is drastically cut and can be only of a stated weight
or volume.
In British Columbia we do have pesticide regulations
which will be affected by the new Federal regulations. However, we have been the leaders in pesticide regulation in
Canada and their new regulations reflect some of our philosophy and practical experience. We do not expect to have
to make any drastic change in our present regulations.
In respect to Pesticide Regulations in British Columbia,
we entered the field of pesticide management through regulations in the early 1900's when some pesticides could only
be obtained by signing a poison register. However, it was
not until 1965 that we really became actively involved in
Pesticide Management Regulations, for in that year "An Act
to Amend the Pharmacy Act in B. C." was passed. This act
gave the Minister of Agriculture much broader powers to regulate the sale of pesticides, pesticide applicators and
the sale of veterinary drugs.
Why are provincial regulations needed? The Canada
Pest Control Products Act certainly provides parameters
under which the public is assured that registered pesticides will perform as stated on label claims. Similarly,
pesticide tolerances established and monitored by the Food
and Drug Directorate give further assurance that our food
or health is not being unduly endangered by pesticide. This
simply means that pesticides are no problem when used
according to directions.

However, we all know that there are pesticide problems, most of which result from improper handling either
during actual application or during transport or sale, and
it is here that Provincial regulations are important.
In retrospect, I believe many of the present pesticide
problems are the result of an oversell in past years by
industry and government on the advantages of pesticides
without sufficient effort being devoted to the problems
associated with pesticide misuse. Coupled with this, of
course, has been the upsurge in environment concern which
has resulted in considerable inquiry of the necessity for
pesticides as opposed to alternate methods of pest control.
In July of 1966 B. C. Regulations Providing for the
Sale, Distribution and Keeping of Agricultural Pesticides
in Open Shops became effective. These are administered by
the B. C. Dept. of Agriculture and are aimed at keeping
pesticides away from food, having more knowledgable people
selling pesticides, having certain pesticides available only
on signature and from this combination acquaint the user
with better pesticide practices. The Regulations established
two classes of pesticide sales licenses based on the degree
of toxicity of products being sold, and one of the conditions
of licensing is that one or more of the staff be certified,
by examination, that he has a certain knowledge of pesticides .
At the present time we have 523 Licensed Pesticide
Dealers (See Below) and 823 Certified Pesticide Dispensers
(i.e. persons who have taken and passed our examination
and who work in the licensed stores). In addition, many
of our Pharmacies sell a limited number of pesticides.
LICENSED PESTICIDE DEALERS FOR 19
District
Fraser Valley
Vancouver Island
Cariboo

License Class
A
B
A
B
A
B

Number
202

68
69
15
24
9

District
Peace River
Coast
Kootenays
Okanogan

License Class
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B

Number
17
1
5
2
33
2
61
15

Despite the- upgrading, which has occurred in these stores,
we have not been satisfied for some time with the state of
knowledge of many of our Certified Pesticide Dispensers.
However, it did allow sales to continue and was an improvement over what we had prior to the instigation of the
Regulations in 1966.
In 1972, we instituted a new approach to upgrade these
Pesticide Dispensers. As old certificates expired re-qualification by examination was held. Those who obtain a mark
of 50 - 65% are issued a one year certificate, but if the
mark is above 65% a four year certificate is granted.
As a method of encouraging Pesticide Dispenser candidates
to become more knowledgable and thus obtain a 4 year certificate, we are holding tutorial sessions with groups of 10
- 12 candidates wherever and whenever possible. In addition
to these tutorial sessions, large courses are held as the
need arises.
I would suggest that chemical companies in the past have
not put sufficient effort into informing and training their
dealers, and in particular the staffs of such dealers, about
their various products.
I appreciate there are problems involved with such
training, but I suggest that they have a responsibility
in this area which needs considerable attention.
To date, under our present regulations certification
is not necessary for everyone who sells pesticides—only
one of the staff need be qualified as a Certified Pesticide
Dispenser. However, it is our belief, based on experience,

that change should be made in the Regulations to make such
qualification mandatory.
I mentioned earlier that these Regulations also regulated how pesticides were stored within licensed stores.
In this regard, we also believe after over five years experience that certain changes are needed. We are not happy
with certain aspects of how pesticides are handled in some
large department stores and supermarkets—particularly as
they relate to shopping cart buying and to check-out procedures. Similarly, we are not happy when we find certain
extremely toxic pesticides stored on low shelves in some
stores and being handled by children. It would seem that
some changes to remedy such practices are justified in the
near future.
We are now trying to accommodate pet shops and stores
which handle only wood preservatives in respect to Pesticides . Our examinations in the past have been too demanding
for these groups, but we have recently revised and changed
examination standards whereby it is now possible to obtain
a Revised Pesticide Certificate limited to the dispensing
of pesticides that are labeled for use on pets or for wood
preservatives only.
Under these Regulations we have also greatly restricted
the use of the insecticides aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, DDT,
heptachlor and chlordane. We have not banned their use as
they are available under permit for very restricted use, and
we have issued some 75 such permits. As a further means of
implementing the intent of the Regulations to restrict and
reduce the use of these six insecticides, the B. C. Government announced they would accept unwanted pesticides. Over
the past two years, we have accumulated approximately 50
tons of pesticides of every description. We know from this
exercise alone, that a high percentage of householders who
returned these pesticides did not know anything about them
and they were a potential danger in the hands of such people.
It 1 s still far too easy for the uninformed to buy highly
toxic products in almost any quantity.

A way must be found to restrict the availability of
such toxic products to the uninformed user and thus preserve their use for the more knowledgable commercial
users, and it appears that our new Federal regulations
will attempt to do some of this.
In May, 1969, our Regulations Providing for the Sale
or Provision of Services Involving the Use or Application
of Pesticides came into effect. These are also administered
by the Department of Agriculture.
Basically, these Regulations cover only the commercial
applicator, but they have also provided a strong persuasive
tool for other pesticide applications on private and crown
land.
There are several ways of regulating pesticide applicators. One province does it by licensing for a certain
group of chemicals, we chose to do it by "area of work"
as we thought it suited B. C. better. Consequently, we
established seven classes of Certified Pesticide Applicators.
We now have licensed firms in these categories shown
below. One firm may be licensed in more than one category.
It is also interesting that 85% of the 277 licensed firms
(many of which are one man operations) are in the Lower
Mainland and about 70% of these are in the landscape and
garden business.

Licensed Firms
Agriculture & Crop Pest Abatement
49
8
Forest or Forest Product Pest Abatement
49
Non-Ag & Non-Forestry Veg. Control
Landscape & Garden Pest Abatement
155
Mosquito & Biting Fly Pest Abatement
9
Structural Pest & Product Fumigation
30
Fish, Bird & Wildlife Management
0

Certified
Applicators
158
604
379
740
107
173
18

Perhaps an even more interesting point is that approximately 2,179 persons have taken courses and passed as Certified Pesticide Applicators. We have also encouraged public
officials from Parks Boards, School Boards, Department of
Highways, Railways, Hydro and Telephone, Forestry firms and
others to take these courses and become more knowledgable.
The response has been excellent.
We have had only three years experience, but we now
know who is applying pesticides on a fee for service basis
and also what pesticides are being applied to Forests and
Crown Lands. We also know that the knowledge of Pesticide
Application in many cases is very limited. Many of them
had not been previously aware that there were sources for
consultation and advice, and obviously they were not always
following label directions. With the experience we have
gained, it is now our intention to intensify the education
and training in pesticides and pesticide use for certified
applicators in each of these seven categories of work.
Yet another forward step in pesticide management has
been built into these Regulations. While there is provision to allow pesticide use on private land by the owner
or lessee, there is also a clause requiring that where a
licensee or permit holder proposes to apply any pesticide
over a large tract of land or to any body of water, that
plans and maps of the operation must be submitted for approval prior to treatment. Through this clause, and with the
co-operation of our B. C. Government Interdepartmental
Pesticide Committee (Agriculture, Forestry, Fish & Game
Branch, Health and Highways) we are now reviewing and
approving applications from Forestry firms, Federal Dept.
of Transport (airports), U. S. & Canada Border Commission,
B. C. Hydro, B. C. Highways, B. C. Forestry, B. C. Dept.
of Recreation & Conservation, U. S. Corps of Army Engineers
(pipelines) and others. See Appendix I.
Despite this, some changes are needed to insure that
all pesticide legislation is under Provincial and not regional, municipal or city statute and also that all treatment
on Crown Land is only done under permit. We expect to make
these changes in 1973.

The net result of this program has been a re-examination
of pesticide policies of the various firms and agencies, instigation or upgrading of training programs by those applying
pesticides, upgrading of application equipment and techniques
and above all, a better appreciation of both the good and
bad that can result from pesticide use. I believe it has
also been a means of educating many of those violently
opposed to pesticide use. As stated earlier, we intend to
step up this education process and believe industry should
do likewise.
It has been our experience that Provincial Regulations
are a necessary adjunct to Federal Regulations. In British
Columbia we have been able to manage pesticide use to a
degree which was previously impossible, and we hope to such
a degree in the future that problems associated with their
use will be on an ever reducing scale. Our Regulations do
not, nor should not replace grower meetings, calendar
recommendations, forums or other forms of education used
in promoting proper pesticide use. However, Pesticide
Regulations when properly written and administered will
alleviate or prevent many of the problems caused by improper
use of pesticides, thereby allowing continued use of these
valuable chemical tools.
In conclusion, I should mention that in British Columbia there is presently a Royal Commission holding hearings
respecting pesticides, and it is likely their report will
suggest some changes in our present pesticide regulations.

WASHINGTON STATE AND EPA1
PESTICIDE LAWS
Art Losey2

In 1901, when agricultural chemicals consisted of a
few fertilizers and pesticides, the first Washington state
pesticide law was passed to provide against the adulteration
of "Paris Green" which was at that time one of the few chemicals for the control of insects on horticultural crops. This
made Washington one of the first states to enact pesticide
legislation and since that time we have remained progressive
in this area.
Pesticide Laws
1901 - Chapter 22 - Providing against adulteration of Paris
Green.
1915 - Chapter 166 - Set up Insecticide and Fungicide Board
of laws on the correct labeling of pesticides.
1941 - Chapter 230 - Began the registration of pesticides
by the Department of Agriculture.
1954 - 15.56 RCW - Economic Poisons Act
1961 - 15.57 RCW - Washington Pesticide Act
1971 - 15.58 RCW - Washington Pesticide Control Act
Pesticide Application Act
1945 - Chapter 120 - Protection of pollinating insects and
licensing of commercial applicators.

y

To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs
British Columbia, October, 1973.
Washington State Laws

and Regulations, Olympia, Washington.

1951 - 17.20 - Regulating use of insecticides and herbicides.
1961 - 17.21 - Pesticide Application Act
1967 - 17.21 - Amended Pesticide Application Act
Federal Laws
1910 - First Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide
Act (Required the registration of pesticides.)
1938 - Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1947 - Amended Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide
Act.
1954 - Miller Amendment to Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act.
1959 - Amendment to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act to include nematocides, defoliants, desiccants, and plant regulators.
1972 - Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
At the present time, the Washington State Department
of Agriculture enforces two pesticide laws to protect the
health and welfare of the people of the state. Some of
the requirements of these laws are as follows:
The Washington Pesticide Control Act RCW 15.58 concerns
the distribution, storage, and disposal of pesticides —
1.

All pesticides distributed in the state must be
registered with the department.

2.

All pesticide dealers must be licensed.

3.

Each licensed dealer outlet must have a licensed
dealer manager who has passed the state examination.

4.

Any person giving technical advice or recommendation
of certain pesticides to the user must pass a state
examination and become a licensed pest control
consultant.

The Pesticide Application Act RCW 17.21 concerns the
use and application of pesticides —
1.

Any person applying pesticides to the lands of
another must pass a state examination, be insured
and obtain a commercial applicator's license.

2.

Any person employed by an applicator to apply pesticides must pass an examination and obtain a commercial operator's license.

3.

Employees of government agencies that apply pesticides must pass an examination and obtain a public
operator1s license.

The department has adopted many regulations under
these laws to provide for the safe distribution, transportation, use, application and disposal of pesticides.
In the short time I have left, I will outline the areas
of the Environmental Protection Agency's new Pesticide Control
Act that may effect your industry.
The new federal act became law on October 21, 1972,
and by the time all provisions of the act are implemented
in 4 years, most users of pesticides, all producers of
pesticides, and state pesticide control officials will be
aware of the broad powers of this act. At this time EPA,
industry and state officials are working on regulations
providing for, to name a few, certification of states to
issue "state registrations" reclassifying all pesticide
formulations into general and restricted use categories,
and standards for certifying commercial applicators and
private applicators (the grower).
EPA is faced with a large task of registering all intrastate pesticides where in the past they were involved only
with pesticides shipped interstate.
Was there a need for new federal legislation?
The best method for regulating the distribution of
pesticides to the user, and to his application of pesticides,

was control at the state level. Regulation of the storage
and sale of pesticides; of those individuals giving pesticide recommendations to the user? and of those applying
pesticides commercially was a responsibility of the states.
However, at least 20 states were not effectively restricting
pesticide usage and some of these states used pesticides
extensively. In the past few years, a number of states have
stepped up their pesticide programs. But too many reacted
with too little, too late. It is interesting to speculate
whether or not Congress would have taken all of the pre-emptive steps in the federal Act if all states had established
pesticide programs. But this is only speculation. The
fact is, the states did not get the job done, and Congress
acted.
OKI

We have a new federal Act.

What now?

Although EPA has the "big club", there are a number of
provisions in the Act and in the Congressional Records which
give EPA some flexibility and an opportunity to work with
the states. State agencies are closer to, and can be more
responsive to, problems within their own state, whether they
be pest control, health, or environmental problems. As a
state control official, with an understanding of agricultural problems, I have been encouraged by the indicated
desire of EPA officials to work with state officials and
others in establishing standards, developing regulations,
and implementing enforcement of the Act.
Sec. 24 of this Act gives authority to the states to
regulate the sale or use of any pesticide. It does not
permit the state to pre-emptively allow any sale or use
prohibited by EPA. A state is pre-empted from placing any
requirements on labeling or packaging that differ from
those of EPA. This is not a conflict. States can limit
sale or use without changing the label? for example, through
regulations, as Washington restricts the use of 2,4-D and
Carbaryl. This section also provides for states, certified
by the Administrator, to register intrastate products to
meet special local needs if such use has not previously
been denied, disapproved, or cancelled by the Administrator.
The registration to be reviewed by EPA will be deemed
registered under the Act unless disapproved. Under this

provision, states can accept a request for a registration
from a registrant; determine the need for local pest control; determine the efficacy of formulations to control the
pests with the detailed directions for use; and determine
any need for additional restrictions by evaluating local
use patterns. EPA retains the responsibility to approve
or disapprove on the basis of hazard to the public or the
environment. This provision will eliminate the unnecessary
funneling of local information from 50 states into Washington,
D.C. for study by persons who would find it difficult to
evaluate and give timely approval for local or minor uses.
At the present time our state law already covers most
areas required by the EPA act, however, the certification
of private applicators (the grower) proposes a new problem.
The law states in general that a restricted use pesticide
can be used only by or under the supervision of a certified
applicator. We have certified commercial applicators for
many years, but have never been faced with the job of
certifying growers (private applicators). It would be
difficult to require a grower to pass a written examination
before he could apply restricted use pesticides, which under
some proposed regulations may include most pesticides used
commercially. Fortunately, in the federal Act, there is
provision for separate and differing requirements for
commercial applicators and the private applicator or grower.
One means of certifying private applicators has been proposed which could be acceptable to EPA
that the private
applicator be required to obtain a user permit prior to
purchase and use of the pesticide. To obtain this permit,
the user would have to document the crops, location, and
acreage on the permit which would be either seasonal or for
a temporary period of need. Some requirements of competency
could be included as a requirement for obtaining a user permit. Washington state has required user permit for several
years and this system has worked well.
A few comments on EPA's classification of general use
and restricted use pesticides. The Act states that a pesticide shall be classified for restricted use if the acute dermal or inhalation toxicity of the pesticide presents a hazard
to the applicator or other persons; also, a pesticide shall
be classified for restricted use if its use without additional
regulatory restrictions may cause unreasonable adverse effects

on the environment. In establishing criteria on the first,
you can use some numbers as a guideline. Keep in mind
current thinking that classification will be by specific
formulations and uses and not technical materials or chemicals. Figures such as a dermal LD50 of less than 200 mg/
kg have been discussed. For inhalation hazard, the requirement of a respirator and specialized knowledge
possibly
an LD50 of less than 20 mg/1. or 200 ppm for gases or vapors
have been considered.
Regardless of numbers, the patterns of use, field experience and many other factors should be considered.
A few states have considered two categories
home
and garden use chemicals as general use; and commercial
agricultural pesticides as restricted use pesticides.
This is a serious mistake. This would make the restricted
use classification about as effective as the skull and
crossbones insignia would be if it were placed on all
pesticides. There should be three groups of pesticides:
the home and garden use formulations on the one end;
the most hazardous pesticides on the other end...those
of national significance; and in the middle
the large
group of commercially used pesticides, used by people whom
we continually alert to stop, read the label and follow
directions. We must continue to simplify and improve our
labels.
I feel that as long as the pesticide control official
can be responsive to local problems and needs, then the new
law will be workable. If we lose this local contact, then
the law is useless.

BEAUTIFICATION AROUND TURFGRASS AREAS 1
Herbert E. Jones 2

Much of the older plantings, as planted in earlier
years, do not fit into the required pattern of necessity
today. Since World War II the populative use of many of
the general public areas has changed. Areas geared to
handle hundreds, now must handle thousands, and with this
increase we get wear and tear, an enormous difference in
compaction.
We have had to utilize new methods, new soil compositions, new watering techniques, new feeding programs, new
work formulaes. But by and large little use has been made
of the technological availability of plant uses and information regarding the total balance between plant growth
and plant nutrient requirements in respect to these general
areas.
Let's look at one or two facets of plant use in the
beautification around our turf areas - plant growth in size
and shape, leaf-flower-fruit color - in looking at all these
latter points of plant growth, we must use a common factor
of tollerance, we can't have one without the other.
For example, if we want to use larger growing trees
for one or more reasons, we must be prepared to tolerate
within our budgets the cost of pickup of leaves. These
same points would apply to the flower and fruit problems
of such as the Prunus, Malus, or Sorbus trees.

—'To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
l/Horticulturalist, Grosvenor International Holdings, Ltd.,
New Westminster, British Columbia.

So very simply, the basics are to what use do we need
our support plants toward our turfgrass areas - windbreaks,
people guides, golf hazards, ground barriers, or just for
the general purpose of beautification.
Many the mistake has been made by developers of whatever - of doing your own (as we say today). Why? If you
are not qualified in this knowledge, get help, someone to
tell you what and how. So it costs extra bucks. Sound
knowledge, wise expenditures, proper plantings and balanced
maintenance will mean smooth flowing operations, balanced
budgets and the loss of many unnecessary headaches.
Plant wisely in tree-shrub support, forgetting not that these are the plants that supply oxygen for you and
those who follow.

FACE-LIFTING TIRED GREENS 1
W. H. Bengeyfield 2

There are all sorts of reasons and justifications for
renovating and 1working over1 old greens. The golf course
superintendent continually strives to improve his turfgrass
picture by intelligent fertilizing, aerating, top-dressing,
watering, and all the many other routine practices. However, there are times when further improvement can only be
achieved through renovation or more drastic action. Among
these situations one would include:
1.

The need for improved drainage.

2.

The need to improve the original soil or correct
soil layering.

3.

The need to correct compaction.

4.

The need to check thatch accumulation.

5.

The need to change the turf cover; i.e., from Poa
annua to bentgrass.

6.

The need for architectural changes.

7.

The need to improve traffic flow or wear patterns.

You can probably think of several more.
Although the above "needs" may seem obvious, it is surprising to find most clubs and green committees willing to
spend additional money for extra fungicides, aerations,
hand watering, sodding and all the extra costly manhours in

—'To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs
British Columbia, October, 1973.
•i/Western Director, United States Golf Association Green
Section, Garden Grove, California.

trying to "keep" a poor green going through each summer
even though it has a history of annual failure. It would
seem some clubs would rather do this than get to the source
of the problem and solve it once and for all. Apparently,
they prefer to spend more money on a green which annually
produces poorer turf quality than any of the others on the
course. "Spending more and getting less" is not a good
business practice. A good superintendent (and his records)
will soon point this out to his committee.
On the other hand, and in so many cases, we traveling
agronomists are prone to recommend complete rebuilding of
greens rather than trying to accommodate or solve a problem
in some less drastic manner. I'm afraid the country is
filled with greens that "should be rebuilt" but are actually
doing quite well because the superintendent has managed
them well and kept them going. But really, there are times
when complete rebuilding i£ the proper answer. And anything short of it an expensive substitute. We have all
heard the expression:
"Dear is sometimes cheap, and Cheap is sometimes dear."
I believe it!
But what about methods of face-lifting greens, short
of rebuilding, that under particular circumstances will help
us produce better turf? Here are some ideas we have come
across in visiting with superintendents throughout the West:
Problem - Poor surface and internal drainage of greens.
One Answer: Because of poor original construction, El
Macero Country Club, El Macero, California had excessively
wet greens with very poor surface and internal drainage
characteristics. Fortunately, the Green Chairman was Dr. Del
Henderson of the Department of Water'Science, University of
California, Davis, and he developed a series of tests intended
to improve drainage without rebuilding the greens. These
tests included:
1.

A series of 2-inch diameter holes on a 4-foot
triangular spacing. The holes were made deep
enough to reach a sand strata about 4 feet deep
in the subsoil.

/

2.

Perforated 1-1/4 inch plastic pipe was placed in
a 2-inch wide by 8-inch deep trench on 6-foot
spacings. The perforated pipe was surrounded
with pea gravel top-dressed with sand.

3.

On another green, slots (8-inches deep by 3/4inch wide) were made with a modified commercial
trencher on 6-foot spacing, backfilled with
gravel and top-dressed with sand. Individual
slots were drained by 1—1/4 inch diameter dry
wells extending into sandy subsoil at a depth
of 4 to 5 feet at intervals of 12 to 15 feet.

4.. On other greens, a 3-inch perforated plastic pipe
mainline with 1-inch perforated laterals in herringbone pattern at 18-foot intervals were installed.
All pipe was placed in 4-inch wide by 20-inch
deep trenches.
All drain lines were installed on a 2-inch gravel base,
then tile covered with 1/4-inch gravel to within a few inches
of the surface and finished with coarse sand. All mainlines
were constructed with outlets into lakes or long, gravelfilled trenches permitting seepage into the subsoil.
Tests showed that all types of drainage were effective.
However, test Number 4 produced the best, long range results.
Where drainage problems persisted in certain areas, it was
supplemented with test Number 3? i.e., narrow, gravel-filled
slots on 6-foot spacings.
Occasionally, we will visit a course having very wet
approaches and greens during the summer months when little
or no rainfall occurs! The wet areas are the result of a
poor irrigation pattern or poor irrigation management. Although drain lines may help the situation, a more likely
solution lies in correcting the irrigation problem before
the wet areas can occur.
Problem - To correct compaction, soil layering or to improve
the original soil.
One answer: A heavy aerification program (4 to 6
times annually) will surely help. The following schedule
might be considered as a model one:

Late May

Aerify with 1/2-inch spoons, remove the soil cores and apply 2
cubic yards of a moderate to coarse
sand per green. This should be
boarded or worked into the open
aeration holes until at least 90%
of them are full. Remove excess
sand and allow as little as possible to remain on the surface.

Late June

Same as late May.

Mid-July

Aerify with 1/4-inch spoons and
remove the soil cores. Do not
top-dress.

Early August

Same as July

Early September

Same as late May

Problem - To check heavy thatch accumulation
One answer: Follow a program similar to the one outlined above for compaction. In addition, schedule a minimum of five (5) mowings weekly for such greens and at least
2 or 3 very light vertical mowings monthly during the active
growing season. An application of hydrated lime at the rate
of 2 pounds per 1,000 square feet in the spring and again
in the fall will help increase biological thatch degradation.
Localized
though a heavy
ually due to a
sprinkler head

dry spots may frequently appear on greens even
thatch condition does not exist. This is uspoor irrigation pattern on the green and some
relocation or additions will solve it.

Problem - Desire to change turf cover.
One Answer: A long range program of aerification and/
or slicing in three directions followed with overseeding in
late June and early August will produce results. It usually
takes from 3 to 5 years. Each overseeding should be accomplished with 20 pounds of Seaside bentgrass or 10 pounds of
Penncross bentgrass per average green. When over to 50% to
60% of the green is in bentgrass, instigate a bensulide program of 8 ounces per 1000 square feet in early September and
early February.

Resodding of greens is quite acceptable if the sod is
grown on a soil very similar to that found in the greens.
If the soil is different however, trouble lies ahead. Further, the practice of laying sod is an art. It must be
carefully and properly done.
Problem - Making architectural changes or correcting problems
caused by traffic.
One Answer: It is difficult if not impossible to successfully "add on" to an established green. If this is
necessary, the entire green should be redone and recontoured.
However, if a green is in good condition but there is a need
for better contouring of the surrounding area, the work can
be successfully accomplished in many cases. A considerable
amount of fill material will be needed.
Sand bunkers directly affect traffic flow and patterns.
Through redesign and relocation of bunkers, traffic patterns or wear areas can be corrected.
Problem - "Dressing up" greens.
Some possible answers: One of the simplest and most
effective face-liftings of all for greens is to improve
its overall appearance. For example, appearance is always
improved if a fresh, clean flag and pole is used along with
a clean, white cup liner. You would be surprised what this
can do even for a 'brown1 green.
The opportunity to reshape or reoutline greens simply
by using the putting green height of cut should not be overlooked. Interesting shapes and designs are possible without
costing any money.
The procedures described above have been generally successful in improving greens. By using these techniques, a
superintendent can sometimes avoid a crisis without spending
very much money. Under very careful management, such greens
can, if necessary, last indefinitely. Face-lifting greens
can work, can improve the golf course and can give the superintendent time to proceed with future reconstruction on an
orderly basis if it is needed.

METHODS OF ESTABLISHING
TURF ON PUTTING GREENS 1
Milt Bauman 2
There are three methods to be discussed in the establishment of turf on putting greens. Seeding, Sodding and
Stolonlzing. Regardless of which method is used, the following standard procedures should be adhered to:
Proper drainage, both internal and surface, and a
properly mixed putting green soil mix. There are several
mixes available today that are successful, and I will dwell
but very little in this area. The U.S.G.A. Greens-Section
has a putting green mix that has been and is very successful. Our own Western Washington Research and Extension
Center has been very successful in this area of soils for
putting greens. I know that throughout the land today
there are many universities that have excellent soil mixes
for putting greens. Whichever mix that you choose, follow
the directions to the letter. Do not add or take away
from what is recommended, for if you do, it will definitely
change the end results.
After the green is shaped and contoured and the top mix
has been put on, fertilizer and lime should be added. The
top six inches should have 100 lbs. of dolomitic lime, 20
lbs. of single super phosphate, and 25 lbs. of potash per
1,000 sq. ft. This material should be rototilled or disced
into the top six inches. The top two inches should have
15 lbs. of urea-formaldehyde per 1,000 sq. ft. Assuming
that we have the proper drainage, soil mixture and fertility
level, we will dwell on this subject no more.
The methods I am going to talk about are not from any
book or any area of higher learning, but from experience
that I have had down through the years.

i/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2./ Superintendent, Seattle Golf Club, Seattle, Washington

The first method I will discuss is the one we know the
most about and the one that is the most widely practiced,
at least here in the Northwest. That is seeding.
The time of year most conducive to seeding, in my
opinion, is from May 1 to September 15. I have mixed
emotions upon which is the best time. August and September seedings have their advantages and disadvantages. The
advantages are as follows:
At this time of the year it is easier to keep
the surface of the ground wet while the seed
is germinating and getting established. You
have the whole winter for the green to establish sod without the golfer demanding to play
on it.
Some of the disadvantages are: During the seedling
stage the grass is very susceptible to "damping-off", and
if conditions become right, you can lose enough seedlings
that you will have to do some over-seeding. Also, at this
time of the year, the grass is susceptible to Fusarium.
Probably with the new systemic fungicides, this might not
be the problem it used to be. However, I don't know anyone that has used them under these conditions. I do know
with mercuries you have to cut the rate way down on bentgrass seedlings.
May, June and July seedings have the advantage of a
little more breeze to stop "damping-off". At this time of
the year, as a rule, Fusarium is not very active. The days
are long and the nights are warm. Some of the disadvantages-are an almost constant watering of the seedlings,
and as a rule, the golfer demands to play the green before
it is ready.
The next subject is seed .... This is a very controversial subject. There are many that will disagree with
the choice that I would make. East of the Cascades, I
would seed Penncross. West of the Cascades, I would
seed Colonial; and if I had my choice of the Colonials,
it would be Astoria. However, there are many new varieties
(at least new to the Northwest that might be better) but,
as yet, are not proven.

Rate of Seeding
For Penncross greens I would seed two lbs. per 1,000
sq. ft. if the budget could afford it. For Astoria, I
would seed 3 lbs. per 1,000 sq. ft. Too much seed will
cause the thicker stand to be more susceptible to "dampingof f ".
When seeding putting greens I have always used a hand
spike disc to set the seed. I generally apply half the seed
then spike disc it two ways, and then apply the rest of the
seed. The green then should be rolled and a slight topdressing can be applied, less than 1/16 of an inch.
After the seed has germinated and the stand begins to
grow, it should be mowed as soon as there is anything to
mow with a greens-mower set at 3/8". This is a good height
to cut the green until three or four weeks before it is
ready for play. The green should be mowed as soon as there
is a basket of grass to be mowed from it. At this time it
would be well to start a permanent mowing schedule (weather
permitting). Also, at this time light applications of
nitrogen should be applied, or again, urea-formaldehyde
(whichever the man doing the job prefers). If you are
using inorganic nitrogen, no more than 1/2 lb. of actual
"N11 per 1,000 sq. ft. should be applied at one time. Ureaformaldehyde should be used at manufacturers recommendation
however, at this time of the year it should be watered as
I have seen it burn severely under certain conditions.
When it is time to set the mower down for play, it
should be done in stages. For instance, if you are cutting
at 3/8", set the mower at 5/16", mow at that height three
or four times, then set it down to 1/4". Repeat this process until you have the desired cutting height.
Sodding Putting Green Turf
The second method discussed in this paper is the
sodding of putting greens.
Going back to the start of the paper, the greens should
be prepared for planting as we discussed earlier. The putting surface should be worked, firmed, and smoothed to the
same degree as you would want your finished putting surface,

for once the sod is layed it will conform to the base it
is layed on. If you have a rough, poorly prepared base,
your green will also be rough and will require many topdressings to overcome the roughness. So it cannot be
emphasized enough the importance of a firm, smooth bed
to lay the sod on.
The sod should be grown on the same soil mix that
you use in building your greens. This is very important.
If you put one type of soil on top of another, you will
have two problems. The most important being if the soil
on top is finer than your putting green mix, you will
build a false water table in the sod layer on top. This
will keep the water in the surface, and will slow up root
development below. There is a rule of thumb in water movement in soils. Coarse material will let the water drain
into finer material, but fine material will not let water
drain into coarse material until the soil reaches total
saturation. With this in mind, it is very important to
grow the sod on the same type of soil that it will be
used on.
For sodding greens I would lay the sod as in any other
sodding operation. We always place a chalk line down the
center of the area to be sodded, lay the first row on the
edge of the chalk line and proceed from there. The sod
should be placed tightly together. If the weather is warm,
the surface of the green should be wet down before the sod
is placed on it.
After the sod is down in dry weather it should be
watered and should be kept wet until the sod has knit.
Some people prefer to use a light roller after the sod
is down which is fine. From my own experience, the sod
will conform to the base it is place on. Irrigation and
mowing will do the firming as good as the roller.
The sod may be mowed as soon as it has grown enough
to cut grass from it. Again, I would cut this grass at
3/8" .
After it has knit, we like to aerify and top-dress
lightly to true the surface up. The aerification will
also help to establish roots below the sod level. At this
time I would apply 1/2 lb. of actual nitrogen per 1,000
sq. ft. If urea-formaldehyde is used, it may be applied
when you have finished laying the sod.

Again, as soon as the sod is knit and top-dressed,
you may start lowering your cutting height. Do not lower
the height too fast. Lower a little at a time.
Some of the advantages of a sodded green are: You
start playing on a mature grass; The waiting time to get
on it to play is very short. I have sodded greens where
play has started on the 16th day. This is way too fast,
of course, but it is possible. In a month after sodding
in growing season, a green should be in pretty good shape.
You can sod a green any time of the year except when the
ground is frozen.
Some of the disadvantages are: You have to have a
nursery to grow the sod on. It has to be established
just like planting a green, so this route is more expensive. It does not inconvenience the golfer as much as
seeding or stolonizing. It is harder to establish a
root system with sod. In the dry season it has to be
kept wet constantly or the sod will shrivel and pull apart
at the seams. If this happens, we always fill the cracks
with top-dressing and the grass will spread and fill the
cracks providing you don't let it dry out.
Stolonizing Putting Green Turf
The third method of establishing turf on putting green
is stolonizing. Again, the surface of the putting green
should be prepared in the same manner as for seeding or sodding, as again, the putting surface will conform to the
base the stolons are placed on.
The stolons should be purchased from a reputable firm
and should be free of weeds, especially Poa annua. There
are many varieties of creeping bents to choose from. Here
again, it is a matter of personal choice. Most varieties
will grow where any other bentgrass will grow. My own personal choice for our Northwest area, either on the east side
or the west side, is Toronto. It is proven on both sides
of the Cascades. It has good color and an excellent putting
texture. There are many new varieties being tested at this
time, and no doubt some of these will be outstanding; but
until such time as they are proven, I will stay with Toronto.

If you cannot afford a good maintenance program, I
would advise you not to use a creeping bent. Creeping
bents require much more maintenance than the Colonial
type bents. If you are not prepared to top-dress frequently and do considerable thatching, you should not use
creeping bentgrass. With proper maintenance creeping
bents will give you a tremendous putting surface. If they
do not get the proper maintenance, your putting surface
will be stringy and grainy and the green will develop a
tremendous thatch problem.
The rate of application should be ten to twelve
bushels of stolons per 1,000 sq. ft. If you skimp on
the stolons, the green will not cover as quickly as it
should and will leave open ground that will be susceptible
to weed invasion. There is an amount that seems about
right. Too many stolons piled on top of each other isn't
good either, as it will leave an air space for the stolons
to dry out. The right amount is the covering of the surface.
Some contractors have mechanical innovations to apply
the stolons with, and they do a pretty good job. Personally,
I like to use about four men with five gallon buckets. I
think they do a better job.
After the stolons are down they should be top-dressed
with the same material that is in the greens mix. The top
dressing should be applied heavy enough to cover most of
the joints of the stolon. The stolons should not be completely
covered as the top-dressing will cause a smothering action
and slow down the time of getting a grass cover on the
surface. I would say, as a rule of thumb, to cover about
two-thirds of the stolons with top-dressing. This would
leave a few stolons showing.
There will be many who disagree with what I like to do
after the stolons are top-dressed. I like to overseed with
l~l/2 lbs of Highland bentgrass per 1,000 sq. ft. This
will germinate in four or five days, and it will help keep
your stolons from moving with irrigation. It will give
you a solid cover much quicker than just the stolons. I
have done this many times and in three months, I have never
been able to find a Highland bentgrass plant. The creeping
bent crowds out the Highland unbelievably fast.

After the over-seeding, the main job until you have a
solid stand is to never let the surface dry out.
I feel the best time to stolonize greens in the Northwest is from May 1 until September 1. The warmer the temperature the faster the stolons spread.
With stolons, the same as seeding and sodding, they
should be mowed as soon as there is anything to mow. Again,
3/8" is a good height to start mowing. After the first
mowing apply 15 lbs. of urea-formaldehyde and 25 lbs. of
Milorganite per 1,000 sq. ft. This will force the grass
into a quick cover, especially so at the time of year indicated above.
After the stolons have a good cover, bring the cutting
height down to playing conditions in the same manner as
suggested for seeded and sodded greens.
At the beginning of this paper I did not mention soil
fumigation before planting. With most of our soil mixtures
today we use washed sand and soil amendments such as spagnum
peat, sawdust, vermiculite, loamite, dialoam and others.
With a mixture such as this, I don't feel it is worth the
cost and effort of fumigation. If, however, soil that
might have weed seeds, especially Poa annua, is used, the
greens should be fumigated. I feel the best and quickest
job can be done with methyl bromide at manufacturer's
recommendation.
This concludes what I have to say on establishing
turf on putting greens. I feel the best putting surface
comes from a well-kept, stolonized green.

MANAGING CONTRASTING SOIL AREAS ON GOLF COURSES 1
Roy L. Goss2

Modern trends for golf course putting green construction
specifies sand and some form of organic material for the top
mixture. The base material is usually of some highly permeable material such as pea gravel or pitrun (a conglomerate
of sand and gravel with little or no silt and clay). This
is designed for rapid surface drainage to provide stable
putting surfaces for both player traffic and machine maintenance in most seasons of the year. In the Pacific Northwest where golf is played essentially 12 months a year west
of the Cascades and perhaps for 7 months east of the Cascades,
it is essential that putting greens be constructed along
these lines. The cost of building greens has steadily risen
due to increased costs in materials and labor. Due to tight
budgets at the time of building, the selected, well-graded
materials are used only on the putting surfaces with little
budget left for sand or other materials on the aprons, collars and mounds.
Fairways are usually constructed only from the materials
on-site. If the soils are extremely rocky, surface layers
of more suitable material are sometimes used to cover the
rocks, particularly on the approaches to the putting greens.
Usually, this material is of minimal depth only to accomodate
golf shots and perhaps some aerification. For the most part,
however, no additional material is added to these areas.
This is where the problem begins and what this paper is about.
To understand the management of contrasting soil areas,
we must understand the soil characteristics sufficiently
well to know why grasses respond to irrigation and other

1/ To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
^./Agronomist/Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Western Washington Research and Extension Center, Washington State
University, Puyallup, Washington 98371.

management the way they do. It is a we11-documented fact
that sands retain much less water than sandy loam or soils
of heavier texture. Sands drain very rapidly whereas
heavier textures drain more slowly. The greater the degree
of compaction or disarranged textural properties, the slower
the resulting drainage.
There are two major problems regarding the management
of contrasting areas. The first is excessive accumulation
of water in front of putting greens resulting in standing
water, mushy ground, or mud holes left from maintenance
equipment. The second problem, which is of lesser importance, is fertility maintenance. Obviously, sands will
leach readily and fertilizers must be added in smaller
increments more frequently to those areas. Soils of heavier
texture retain more nutrients and can be fertilized less
frequently, perhaps with higher amounts per application.
Since fertilizer is a controllable variable and can be
easily managed, this paper will deal specifically with
problems relating to wet areas at the junction of contrasting soils. A suitable method for approaching this
problem can be outlined in three steps, as follows:
1. First investigate the sprinkler system to determine if the pattern is correct. The greens must be
uniformly covered by sprinklers placed around their
perimeter to insure proper irrigation of these sand
areas. If the sprinklers are adequately covering the
green and proper irrigation practices are carried out
on the green, then we can move to step number two. A
detailed explanation of what can be done with regards
to specific equipment for irrigating greens and fairways will be covered by Mr. Carl Kuhn in a separate
discussion, hence no reference will be made here to
types of sprinklers to help overcome these problems.
2

* Old Greens. In general, problems do not develop
with time but are more often created at the time of
construction. There are many exceptions to this rule,
however, such as problems with increased traffic,
heavier maintenance equipment and other factors which
cause a sealing, puddling, or compacting action on
soils that normally drain adequately. Due to this
incessant activity, soils lose their infiltration and

permeability rates. Infiltration is defined as the
rate at which the soil will accept water whether it
be from irrigation or rainfall. Permeability refers
to the rate at which the water will move through the
soil once it has entered the surface. Compaction or
puddling is generally restricted to the surface 2 to
4 inches of soil. If we could prevent the compaction
factor, we would probably have no trouble with contrasting soil areas provided the irrigation system was adequately designed and operated. The writer has observed
golf courses that experienced no problem with contrasting soil areas for a number of years, but with time,
the soils on the aprons and approaches lost their
infiltration rates, presenting problems to the golfer
and the golf course superintendent. Frequent aerifying
is one possible solution to improve infiltration rates.
Hollow tined aerifiers, slicing attachments, or continuous vertical slicing to a depth of 2 to 4 inches
are the tools available to the turfgrass manager. If
these practices fail, then we must procede to the
second step. Sub soil investigations will reveal
whether or not the soil has adequate permeability for
either rainfall or irrigation. If it is determined that
the subsoils are not adequately permeable, then drainage tile in addition to the mechanical treatment may
solve the problem; but, there is one important consideration. Although an adequate tile system is installed,
surface infiltration may be so low that water will
not actually reach the tile. All of these factors
must be known before spending money needlessly on tile
drainage.
If it is deterpiined that both the surface infiltration
and the subsoil permeability are too low to accomodate
adequate drainage, then it may be necessary to remove
the sod and several inches of the soil in these affected
areas. After removal of the sod and soil, the area
should have tile drainage installed and adequately backfilled with permeable materials. A minimum of 6
inches of gravel or pitrun plus 6 inches of sand should
be placed in these areas. The tile lines should be
installed to a minimum depth of 16" to the bottom of
the tile to insure adequate drainage. The sod removed
from these wet areas should not be replaced. It should
be discarded and the area seeded with a proper type of

grass or sodded with sod grown on similar material to
that which was replaced. Sand with organic additives
would be the most suitable material for the surface topping of these repaired areas since sand is a single
grain structure and will rapidly transmit water unless
the surface becomes sealed with decomposing organic
material or algal scum. Mechanical treatments or
certain chemical treatments will help to rectify these
surface conditions.
It is reasonable to extend this repaired area to a
distance of 40 to 50 yards in front of putting greens.
The farther the distance from the green, the more the
soil can be tapered or feathered so that the resulting
depth of sand may be only 3 to 4 inches deep.
One important factor in dealing with soils is to remember that many soils have suitable infiltration and
permeability rates if compaction or puddling or the
destruction of structure can be prevented. Since most
compaction occurs only to a depth of 2 to 4 inches, a
layer of highly permeable material can be placed over
these soils as a protection against compaction, hence
should permanently retain good drainage characteristics.
3. New Putting Greens. During the construction of
new putting greens, the same type of investigation
should be performed as described in point No. 2 above.
If the soils are too heavy, or if there are hard pans
or layers, or if the area is generally swampy, these
soils should be graded out during construction. After
grading, tile lines should be installed and replace
soil as described above. New courses are usually seeded
rather than sodded, hence there should be no incompatibilities between sod and soil. It is extremely important not to place a sod with fine textured soil over
coarser textured soils because water tables will become perched and infiltration rates will be so low
that these areas will often be wet.
With proper construction there is some leeway for poorly
operated or designed irrigation systems. We should
not have to design soils to compensate for something
that can be controlled accurately, but we still have
to deal with the human factor or with mechanical failur

hence proper soil construction will help to compensate some for these errors.
In conclusion, through proper construction, adequate
routing of traffic, proper management of irrigation systems
and close attention to the fundamentals of grass growing,
we can probably avoid many of the pitfalls of soggy approaches
to putting greens.

Drew Smith

Bob Moore

CONFERENCE SPEAKERS

Eric Hughes

J. D. Meredith

r

Doug Taylor—Angus Richardson

Mr. Grey

Gary Perks

Dr. Thomps

CONFERENC

Herb Jones

Dick Schmidt

Gordon Owen

Clive Justic

Mayor North

Art Losey

E SPEAKERS

Jim Beaton

Graham Drew

Bill Bengeyfield

Jim Chapman

C. L. Neilson

CONFERENCE SPEAKERS

Bob Staib

Bob Symonds

Rieh Schwabauer

t* WJtti

Carl Kuhn

SAND-SAWDUST GREENS V.S. IRRIGATION 1
C. H. Kuhn 2

How many years have we in the Coastal Range waited
for a solution to the age-old problem of unplayable greens
in the winter season? We tried many methods of greens
construction, all giving relief to the drainage problem
in some form, but none ever providing a total solution.
Now, with sand-sawdust greens, properly underdrained, it
appears that we have finally found a means to remove excess
water and thereby provide firm, playable year-around putting surfaces. Why then am I, an irrigation engineer,
addressing you on a subject which seems to have been solved?
Like so many of the advances by mankind, in spite of their
beneficial effect, side effects seem to crop up. We need
not be reminded about vital advances such as DDT and the recent ecological trend based on "side effects". Am I
telling you that sand-sawdust greens have latent problems?
Let us pursue the matter of sand-sawdust greens in answer
of that question.
It is no secret that sand-sawdust greens have superlative percolation capability, if properly designed and
constructed. This capability is necessary to carry away
water which would otherwise surface-flood green surfaces
and render them objectionable to golfers in winter play
(or, in some instances, during the summer when poor irrigation practices are involved). All too often during the
course of greens construction, the greens are masterfully
built to handle drainage and then surrounded on all sides
by whatever glacial droppings exist nearby. Aprons and
approaches are frequently constructed with soils of high
clay or silt bases, excellent for retaining water but
hardly known for their percolation capabilities. In effect,

I/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/c. H. Kuhn and Associates, Mercer Island, Washington.

we end up with an interface of high percolation material
against material of unknown percolation at the edge of the
green. This dissimilarity creates monumental problems for
the irrigation engineer. Invariably, we place sprinkler
heads around the periphery of the green ... full circle in
pattern ... and irrigate both green and apron with the same
heads. With improper precipitation rates or duration,
either artificially or by natural rainfall, we quickly see
that a given amount of water, which would breeze through
the greens drainage mix, concurrently over-precipitates
on the aprons. The results are frequently soft and unplayable aprons. How do we minimize the problem?
1. Construct aprons with pit-run material for a distance
limited only by the construction budget of the course.
Depths of this surfacing can be held down to 4 to 6 inches
with an acceptable top soil overlay. This would provide
a draining layer which would drain to the green drainage
system on the inside faces of the aprons and away from
the slopes to an intercepting tile on the outside of the
aprons. Obviously, this form of construction would give
some form of year-around drainage on the aprons.
2. Since we find poor irrigation practices often affecting
aprons as noted previously, effort must be taken to insure
that the irrigation system is properly designed. A proper
system is one that permits short cycles of precipitation
with the option of numerous repetitions to insure that the
precipitation rate and duration does not exceed the slowest
percolation rate of the green/apron complex. Depending
upon the amount of silts or clays in the apron construction,
irrigation cycles may get as low as 3 to 5 minutes each.
Additionally, sprinkler heads must be of a type which do not
permit back-drainage, the draining of lateral piping each
time an automatic valve is closed. This may be accomplished
by various check-valves designed specifically for the purpose or by utilizing individual valves under each head.
The system must be automatic, for no water man could hope
to run fast enough to cycle green heads for the short period
of time required here.
3. Dual greens irrigation systems have been considered as
a partial solution. It would be the intention of such a
system to provide part circle heads, one phase of which

irrigated the greens and one phase of which irrigated aprons
only. The attached sketch shows the difficulties with such
a proposal since greens tend to have oval peripheries and
sprinklers throw in straight lines. Additionally, this
type of system would be very costly. Each head would require individual timing since their arcs all differ.
In summary, the many benefits of sand-sawdust greens
can be enjoyed without disasterous side effects on aprons
or approaches if we follow good practices in selection
of materials for these areas and provide irrigation systems
which permit low and frequent application rates tailored
to the green-apron-approach soil with the least percolation
capability.

PLAYFIELD PROBLEMS 1
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
Roy L. Goss2

The principle problem relating to playfields and their
management can be enumerated under seven major categories:
1.

The use of materials at hand.

2.

The use of fill material of unknown origin.

3.

Inadequate drainage.

4.

Improper selection of turf.

5.

Low fertility program including micronutrients.

6.

Other maintenance including aerification, mowing,
watering and repair.

7.

Over use.

Selection of Materials
The playfield site should be carefully examined before
any construction begins. Investigation should b e conducted
in regard to subsoil drainage characteristics to determine
the need for tile drainage. If subsoils are highly permeable, the placement of drain tile is unnecessary and will
not function. The movement of water under conditidns of
unrestricted downward flow is vertical and will not enter
a tile line. If, however, the permeability rate of subsoils
is so slow that surface wetness occurs under normal rainfall or irrigation practices, then tile lines should be
used by all means.

V T O be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
^/Agronomist/Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Western Washington
Research and Extension Center, Washington State University,
Puyallup, Washington.

Occasionally, subsoils are of adequate quality that
no extraneous material will need to be added with the exception of the surface layer.
During construction of school sites and other turfgrass facilities, the athletic fields or playgrounds are
situated in sites unsuitable for building construction.
Most of these sites are filled from excavations for buildings or from other borrowed material in the vicinity. The
quality of these materials is difficult to determine due
to depth of placement and extreme variability. Unless the
architect or contractor is well-informed on soil problems,
the athletic fields or playgrounds are frequently graded
out and planted regardless of the soil type. Obviously,
most of these fields fail to perform satisfactorily.
Selecting the Proper Turfgrass
Grasses for play and athletic areas should be selected
from a list of species known to be agressive, withstand
extreme wear and respond to general management conditions.
The only grasses that suitably fill these requirements
today are the improved Kentucky type bluegrasses such as
Merion, FyIking, Baron, Pennstar and a few others plus
suitable varieties of the fine-leafed turf type ryegrasses.
Perhaps the two most popular turf type ryegrasses today are
Manhattan and Pennfine. Both of these varieties of perennial
ryegrass blend well with bluegrass or respond favorably
when seeded alone. Other selected varieties include NK100,
NK200, Pelo and Norlea.
Bluegrass has the ability to spread by underground
rhizomes and will fill in bare spots due to thin stands or
damage from play. The ryegrasses do not creep or fill in
but do withstand considerable trampling and a certain amount
of compaction. A combination seeding of bluegrass and
ryegrass has produced some of our best playing fields.
One of the problems that result from combination
plantings of bluegrass and ryegrass is the extreme dominating vigor of ryegrass. The best fields have been
developed by planting bluegrass first at rates of 50 to
80 pounds per acre and after this has germinated and emerged,
the area is overseeded with ryegrass at the rate of 75 to
ICO pounds per acre. In this manner, the bluegrass is off

to a start and will compete successfully with the ryegrass.
In case that ryegrass and bluegrass are planted together,
the rate of ryegrass should be held to 30 to 35 pounds per
acre with 70 to 75 pounds of bluegrass per acre.
Bentgrasses and fine-leafed fescues do not form suitable playfields intended for heavy traffic. They should
not be used. The pasture type fescues such as Alta or
similar varieties have not proven highly successful on
playfields in many of our areas. The writer feels that
the best choice is bluegrass and fine-leafed ryegrass.
Fertility Programs
On modern constructed playfields composed chiefly of
sand and organic material, close attention must be paid to
fertility programs. Most of the plant nutrients regularly
leach from sandy soils from both irrigation and excessive
rainfall. For this reason it is important to conduct soil
tests annually at least for the first three or four years
to determine levels of potassium, phosphorus and calcium.
These tests serve as excellent guides to determine fertilizer needs.
It has been determined previously that fertilizers with
an approximate 3-1-2 ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium serves a playfield turf best in the Pacific Northwest. Nitrogen levels from such a ratio should be maintained
at 6 to 8 lbs. of available nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. per
season regardless of whether this nitrogen is from soluble
or insoluble sources. Soluble sources should be applied at
the rate of 1 to 1-1/2 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft.
per application after the turf is well established. Insoluble sources can be applied at higher rates provided there
is no danger of burn from potassium.
Burning of grass is a common phenononum from the use
of soluble fertilizers. There is no danger of burning if
the fertilizer is distributed from broadcast applicators
with water following immediately behind the fertilizer or
if it is applied when the grass leaves are dry.
Liming should be carried out as an annual practice
on sand fields in order to maintain good stands of bluegrass. The pH should be kept as near 6 to 6.5 as possible

and your soil test will determine the amount of lime to
apply. The soil test will further identify whether you
should use dolomitic limestone which also supplies magnesium or whether to use standard agricultural ground limestone .
Maintenance Programs
After the field is established it is very important
to maintain regular mowing programs. Turf that is to be
maintained at 1-1/2" high should be mowed first when it
is no more than 2" tall. Do not allow excessive growth
at any time. The more frequent the mowing the better the
grass will respond in developing density and a good turf.
Watering should be maintained during the dry season
to replenish the moisture in the root zone lost from évapotranspiration. This can be determined by examining soil
cores removed from the area. Automatic irrigation with
buried underground lines simplifies playfield and athletic
field irrigation.
There are a few situations where a permanent turf can
be maintained on athletic fields without a reseeding program. Goal mouths on soccer fields and scrimmage areas on
other fields receive considerable use and wear. These
areas should be overseeded annually with the same grass
mixture that was planted in the field at a suitable time
to improve the density and stand. If this is not practiced,
Poa annua, a shallow rooted weed grass, will fill in all
thin or bare areas.
Aerification or some form of spiking and slicing should
be practiced frequently on athletic fields to reduce or
eliminate surface compaction. This practice will increase
oxygen supplies to the roots and allow rapid water infiltration. Although a field may have been constructed from
sand, the accumulation of organic debris at the surface
may reduce the infiltration rate of water by producing a
thin seal at the soil/grass interface. These mechanical
treatments will help to eliminate this problem and induce
much faster drainage.

A Summary of Construction Methods
In summary, form the following methods of construction
have proved highly successful in the higher rainfall areas
of the Pacific Northwest:
1. Grade the base to the desired field grade. It is
not necessary to provide a large crown on a football
field. Flat fields respond equally as well as steeply
crowned fields, if they are properly built.
2. Install drainage lines if subsoils indicate the
need.
3. Place approximately one (1) foot of highly permeable material such as clean pitrun (sand and gravel)
with little or no silt and clay. If inexpensive
sources of sand are available, sand can be used for
the same purpose.
4. Sand mix - Sand particle size is the most important
factor in the top mix. Essentially, the sand particles
should vary between 16 and 60 mesh - standard screens
(1/4 to 1 mm). It usually is not possible to obtain
a sand that fits this exact classification, therefore,
it is reasonable to allow 15% of the sand particles
to be finer than the 60 mesh and 15 to 20% to be coarser
than 16 mesh. Organic materials such as ground bark
products or sawdust with particle sizes not exceeding
3/8 inch maximum are suitable additions to sand.
Twenty-five to thirty percent organic material should
be mixed with sand off-site and placed to a uniform
depth of 6 inches or more over the base material.
After the sand-organic mix has been placed and graded
and all other irrigation installations have been completed,
the following fertilizer applications have proven successful. Incorporate 25 to 30 pounds of single super phosphate
(20% P2O5), 20 pounds of potassium sulfate (50% K 2 0), and
100 pounds of dolomitic limestone per 1,000 sq. ft. This
material should be rotovated to a depth of 4 inches. Smooth
the field surface without excessive movement of the soil
to prevent fertilizer displacement. Finally, an addition
of a ureaformaldehyde (slow release) fertilizer applied to

the surface at the rate of 3 to 4 pounds of available N
per 1,000 sq. ft. lightly incorporated into the surface
inch of soil will provide a reserve of nitrogen. The
field should be planted with a suitable landscape seeder
or Brillion drill to insure proper placement of seed and
to provide some surface compaction. After seeding, an
additional light application (1/2 to 3/4 pound of nitrogen
per 1,000 sq. ft. from a soluble source can be broadcast
over the surface to provide soluble nitrogen for germinating seedlings.
Sands usually contain very small amounts of micronutrients; therefore, a complete trace mineral mixture should
be applied at the manufacturer's recommended rate to the
entire area either at the time of planting or subsequent
to the germination of the seed. Micronutrients should
also be applied once or twice annually as a maintenance
program.
In conclusion, there is one factor yet to be discussed,
and only briefly. That is excessive use of the playfield
area. There is no amount of good management that will compensate for excessive use. The best management practices
will provide greater use of the facility, but when the
grass is simply worn out from overuse, there is little
that can be done except to restrict the use or provide
alternate fields. Athletic fields and playgrounds can
also be designed to allow rotation of goal posts or
reversing direction of play.
The above suggestions and discussion in this paper
have proven highly successful on many athletic and playfield installations throughout the Northwest, and if they
are followed accurately and diligently, we can vastly
improve our playing conditions.

IRRIGATION FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS 1
PANEL DISCUSSION
Panel Moderator:

. . . . C . H. Kuhn 2

Panel Members: ,

Owen Hamilton 3
Vince Helton 4
Alf Hiebert 5
Bob Symonds 6

The panel represents the engineering, sales and contracting aspects of irrigation. This panel will approach
problems peculiar to landscaped areas, schools, parks,
athletic areas? golf course irrigation will not be considered by this panel.

—''To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 19 73.
2/c. H. Kuhn & Associates, Consulting Civil and Irrigation
Engineers, Mercer Island, Washington.
^/irrigation representative for Taylor Pearson, Ltd.,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
£/sales Manager for Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Ltd., Vancouver,
British Columbia.
^/Construction Supervisor, Terra Irrigation, Ltd., Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Owne r, Pro—Turf, Ltd., Irrigation Contractors, Burnaby,
British Columbia.

Summary

Mr. Kuhn addressed questions to each of the panel members aiming to reach the esqpertise of each member. Questions
were asked which reflected upon the following areas:
a. Need for accuracy in obtaining plot measurements,
static pressure, service make-up, etc.
b. Specific design criteria for athletic areas,
cemeteries, recreational areas.
c. Contractor problems encountered through improper
designs or specifications.
d. Use of rotors or sprays and desirable static pressure needed for each type of sprinkler (generalized).
e.

Use of booster pumps on low pressure services.

f. Reasons for not mixing rotors and sprays on same
battery.
g.

General rule of thumb for sprinkler spacings.

h.

Wind compensation; concern for winds over 5 mph.

i.

Automatic vs. manual system costs.

j. Vandalism protection during construction and after
construction.
k. Planning for future systems; installation of sleeves
and pipes for future lines.
1.

Shrub riser configuration (pipe coupling at grade).

CONCEPTS AND DESIGN OF OPEN SPACE 1
Clive L. Justice 2

Open space, that is green open space, is an essential
part of man's environment. From the beginning it has been
woven into the fabric of our western civilization and culture. Green space had its beginnings as a representation
or interpretation of the Garden of Eden. Through the course
of Western history, it has also had attached to it and has
come to represent many other concepts: paradise, moral
goodness, romantic love, the simple life, escape, and natural
beauty. When you mention open space, it conjures up or
brings to mind some or all of these things to each of us.
I think though, that the concept that has come along with
our culture as a physical object, and perhaps the strongest
common theme is the idea that open space is natural and
consists of green closely cropped grass on flat or gently
rolling land, with groups of free-standing, high headed
trees and a lake set in a low area or stream meandering
through - 'Nature preserved as Nature laid it out'. What
we imagine today to be natural open space is, in fact, manmade and emerged from 2500 years of pastoral agriculture the raising of livestock in Western and Northwestern Europe.
Grazing animals (the sheep, the cow and the goat) were the
agencies which formed this kind of Landscape. The open
spaces, meadows, pastures and fields were created out of
the forest. It is, perhaps, interesting to note in passing
that our cultures, concept and imagery of the forest is in
direct contrast, representing evil, darkness, unnaturalness,
wilderness, to our concept and imagery of open space. One
has only to read some of the old European fairy tales to
realize this.

i/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
-^/justice and Webb Landscape Architects Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

The pattern of village growth that emerged was a
cluster of buildings separated from the forest by these
meadows, pastures and croplands. Part of the meadow near
the vilalge became, over time, common ground. Villages
that expanded into towns incorporated commons within the
settlement. By the 18th century, this had become so imprinted into the culture that planned villages in colonial
America oftentimes included a built-in common or public open
space. Although originally pastoral in nature, the common
lost its agricultural uses and became a place for many group
and social activities: lawn games using a ball, archery,
horsemanship, military and athletic events, social dancing
and other public celebrations, religious ceremonies and
children's games.
The coming of the industrial revolution, and with it
the tremendous growth of cities, changed all of this. Towns
and urban areas were established with no direct connection
to pastoral agriculture. The city and the countryside
became two distinct and separate entities. While in the
past public or common open space in town's had been a natural outgrowth of the way of life associated with pastoral
agriculture, the new industrial towns and cities had no
carry-over from the past of open space, and the emergence
of a new philosophy of exploitation and subduing nature,
along with the work ethic, gave little rationale for the
provision of open space as a necessary part of the man-made
environment of urban areas. Because the development of the
west in North America was coincident with the industrial
revolution, we copied the new industrial cities of Europe
and the East in our urban development. In any event, there
was so much open space about, why save it? Better to fill
it up with development and people.
In North America, the movement to reintroduce public
open space into our cities and urban areas in the main had
its beginnings in the 1830's and 40 1 s, largely through the
efforts of two men - Andrew Jackson Downing, whose book the
"Theory and Tretise on the Practise of Landscape Design"
became the bible for the layout of private grounds and country
estates throughout North America, and Frederick Law Olmstead,

the first Landscape Architect in America, who did the design
and layout for Central Park in the then largest new world
city - New York. Incidentally, Olmstead also did the design
for Montreal's Mont Royal Park. It is interesting to note
that both these men took their model for open space from the
private estates and gardens of England and northern Europe
where the pastoral landscape had been developed, refined and
modified into an art form taken from the work of the landscape
paintings of Claude Lorrain and Salvator. The landscapes
of the great English estates were developed on a formula of
unbroken turf, sinuous streams, vistas amid clumps of trees
and a surrounding ring of woodland. The lawn became the
essence of symbol of beauty. Edmund burke wrote 'Most
people must have observed the sort of sense they have had
of being swiftly drawn in an easy coach on a smooth turf
with gradual ascents and declivities. This" he continues,
"will give a better idea of beautiful than almost anything
else." Samuel Johnson defined the sensation of happiness
as "Being swiftly drawn in a chaise over undulating turf
in the company of a beautiful and witty woman".
In 1858, ten years after Olmstead had prepared the
plans for Central Park, construction finally got underway.
The Chief Engineer reported to Council the new pragmatic
rationale for the Park: "Within the last few years public
opinion has been awakened to a sense of the importance of
open spaces for air and exercise as a necessary sanitary
provision for the inhabitants in all large towns, and the
extension of rational enjoyment is now regarded as a great
preventative of crime and vice." Central Park became the
model for all parks and urban open spaces in North America.
It had, at last, a real down-to-earth rationale which
fitted in the age of reason and pragmatism and the protestant ethic.
It is interesting, as another side, to note
that the naturalness of the English pastoral landscape was
directed into the actual wilderness in America. When the
first national parks were selected, Yellowstone and Yosemite, both Alpine Parks, it was primarily because the great
areas of these two wonders of nature conformed to and looked
like the English pastoral landscape.

Today we still carry with us the idea or myth of the
pastoral landscape, but we find that the needs and purposes of open space in today!s highly specialized urban
society are refined and compartmentalized. Open areas now
must have specialized functions and practical uses. Recreation and outdoor activities are now formalized, organized
and programmed, requiring specialized types and forms of
open spaces.
Golf requires a very specialized form of open space,
but is the only known example where the reverse occurred.
The game was invented solely to find a practical and justifiable use for all the sheep pasture land left in Scotland
after the crofters immigrated to England and North America.
This demand for specialized and special purpose open
spaces in our environment has left the Landscape Architect,
who considered himself the last of the generalists, hard
pressed to gather the technical knowledge and to encompass
in his designs the requirements of these specialized open
space functions. I know, in my own firm over the first six
or so years of the twenty we have been in practice, we
designed every conceivable type of landscape and open space •
from cemeteries to university campuses, golf courses, sewage
treatment plants and private residences. Gradually, while
we would tackle anything that came along, we began to specialize in schools, parks, and large institutional grounds.
In part, I believe, because of a fault or attribute common
to many Landscape Architects in possessing a missionary zeal
that landscape (grass and trees) will somehow save the world
and cure all its ills. Not surprising, as it is directly
traceable back to our culture's concepts of open space
mentioned previously.
We encountered many problems. We found, as an example,
that we had to design and plan open spaces, sports grounds
and playing fields, in canyons, on steep wooded hillsides,
and in swamps. This was land not considered suitable or
valued for any other type of development and had been
piously designated for parks. Today, however, canyons and

steep treed slopes and swamps are now becoming valued and
preserved as a part of our environment. When we suggested,
in order to retain these features, that the residents take
up skiing, hiking and nature study, we were told that soccer,
football and baseball were the activities required and the
only true functions of parks.
We also found that there was a decided lack of technical information on the construction and maintenance of
grass playing fields which had, we observed, to withstand
a morning practice and two games of soccer on a rainy November
Saturday. This technical information was slow in coming and
even slower in acceptance by Parks and School Boards. In
part, this was due to lack of funds, but more often due in
a large part to the reluctance of these Boards (and all of
us for that matter) to abandon the romantic concept of open
space and realize or accept that open spaces, like grassed
playing fields, must be designed, engineered, constructed
and maintained to withstand the intensity of use we have
today. We would not and did not long put up with or think
of accepting a highway designed for the horse and buggy to
meet the needs of today's transportation. Yet, it has taken
us much longer to abandon the horse and buggy design and
concepts for our open spaces. Luckily, through the work and
efforts of organizations like the Turfgrass Conference,
there is emerging a solid body of experience and research
findings that is now enabling the Landscape Architect to
design open space that is functional, beautiful and maintainable. Together we may yet save the world!

OVERWINTERING DISEASES OF TURFGRASSES 1
IN WESTERN CANADA
J. Drew Smith 2

Introduction
It has been considered (9) (14) that the distribution
of snow mold pathogens on grasses and cereals in Western
Canada was similar to the Scandinavian situation with Sclerotinia borealis Bub. & Vleug. in the extreme north and Typhula
spp. and Fusarium nivale (Fr.) Ces. further south. These
pathogens were thought to be of minor or local importance
compared with a sterile, non-sclerotial low temperature
basidiomycete - LTB (1) not reported from other countries.
While the latter is widespread and seriously damages a wide
range of crops, there are anomalies in the distribution of
the psychrophilic pathogens on turfgrasses. For example,
S_. borealis, and the LTB are found in Alaska and T. ishikariensis Imai in the Yukon (10). The latter fungus was reported
to be the most prevalent snow mold on turfgrasses in the
Peace River region of Alberta and adjacent British Columbia
with S_. borealis, F_. nivale, and T_. in earn at a Lasch ex Fr.
in successively decreasing frequency in spring 1968 (18).
Lebeau (8) reported epidemics of F. nivale in 1967 and 1968
in southern Alberta, probably in complex with the LTB. In
southern Manitoba Platford elt al. (11) reported that the LTB
was the cause of the most serious turfgrass snow mold but
an unidentified Typhula sp. and F. nivale caused damage to
bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) golf greens. In coastal regions
in the Pacific Northwest
nivale is the dominant turfgrass
snow mold (5) while farther in the interior, in Washington,
Oregon and Idaho Typhula spp. (T^. ishikariensis and T. incarnata) and F. nivale occur as complexes (17).

— To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
1/Research Scientist, Canada Department of Agriculture, Research
Station, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0X2.

There is a great lack of recent precise diagnostic
evidence on the causes and distribution of turfgrass snow
molds, particularly from the interior of British Columbia,
southern Saskatchewan, Montana, and Idaho and from all
except the coastal regions of British Columbia, Washington,
and Oregon. From some locations there are only isolated
observations. Surveys in Saskatchewan since 1969 have
yielded new records of F_. nivale, S_. borealis, 2 Typhula
spp. a sclerotial low-temperature basidiomycete, 2 other
unnamed sclerotial snow molds as possible pathogens or
antagonists (15, 16). This points to the need for increased
distribution and taxonomic studies in the Pacific Northwest as the groundwork for improving the efficiency of
breeding and plant protection research programs. This
paper summarizes the results of surveys since 1969 on the
distribution of snow molds in western Canada, considers new
information on the taxonomy and epidemiology and presents
recent information on control of disease on turf inoculated
with specific organisms or on natural infections where one
pathogen was dominant.
The Unidentified Low-Temperature Basidiomycete - LTB
In the prairies this was probably the most common
pathogen (or group of pathogens) on domestic Kentucky
bluegrass/creeping red fescue, Poa pratensis and Festuca
rubra turf often in complexes with F_. nivale, the sclerotial
low temperature basidiomycete - SLTB and Typhula spp. The
LTB was found also on finer turfs of golf and bowling greens.
Typical symptoms were also seen on domestic turf in the Peace
River region of northern Alberta and British Columbia. Its
distribution in western British Columbia is very uncertain;
Vaartnou and Elliott (18) did not find it in their 1969
survey in northern British Columbia. Fair reliance for
routine diagnosis of the LTB can be placed on the appearance of patches at snow melt when an abundant white fringe
of mycelium is present. Damage may, however, occur when
little mycelium is obvious and sometimes difficult to isolate in culture. Most isolates produce hydrocyanic acid
which can be used for confirmation. Merion bluegrass seems
particularly susceptible which is probably the main reason
why this cultivar is less frequently recommended for prarie
lawns.

In tests with artificially inoculated Kentucky bluegrass/red fescue turf in 1971/72 and 1972/73 with one fall
fungicide application, mixtures of mercurous and mercuric
chlorides, chlorneb, quintozene and daconil were most reliable in significantly reducing infection. For dosages
in these tests see (16). Benomyl, cadmium chloride, topsin, phenyl mercuric acetate, TCMTB, BAS 3460F and CA 72003
were less reliable or ineffective. Some materials were
associated with significantly increased damage. On a very
heavy natural infection on 'Merion1 bluegrass (82% av. on
check plots) only mercurous/mercuric chloride of 15 materials gave significant control (7.4% infection).
Fusarium nivale
This pathogen is now known to be widespread on all common turf species although it was first officially recorded
for Saskatchewan in 1971 (15). It was also found from the
Peace River region to southern British Columbia in 1973
often in complex with Typhula spp. In the colder areas it
is common on bluegrass and fescue turf receiving some heat
from water pipes, sewers and basements but it also develops
in these regions under heavy drifts. It is an important
factor in the winter killing of Poa annua greens in Saskatchewan and I have often isolated it from such cases. It
is usual to think of F. nivale as causing pink snow mold
which develops after snow melt in colder regions. However,
in such areas (in southern and central B. C. as well as
Saskatchewan) typical fusarium patch symptoms were apparent
on golf greens prior to the development of a permanent snow
cover in late fall 1972. In Saskatchewan this was probably
favored by the melting of an early snow fall in October.
All common turf species seem to be susceptible but in Saskatchewan bluegrass/fescue turf generally recovers more
rapidly from F. nivale attacks than those of the LTB. In
1971/72, using artificially induced infections, one late
fall application of quintozene, mercurous/mercuric chloride,
phenyl mercuric acetate or chloroneb significantly reduced
the disease. On a light infection which appeared on 1?. annua
following snowfall which melted in October 1972, phenyl
mercuric acetate, quintozene and chloroneb were outstanding
in preventing further disease development under a winter
snow cover (16). Under these conditions neither daconil,
thiobendazole benomyl topsin, BAS 3460F nor CA 70205 gave
significant control.

Sclerotinia borealis
On every Saskatchewan golf course visited in spring
1972 and 1973 this snow mold pathogen was found on one or
more Agrostis green. It was also found on creeping red
fescue and Kentucky bluegrass turf of lawns, golf courses,
and roadsides in Saskatchewan to Edmonton, Alberta, Beaverlodge and Dawson Creek in the Peace River region of Alberta
and British Columbia. It was found on F. rubra at the turf
plots at Agassiz. Diagnosis is simple and reliable, based
on locating black sclerotia 0.5-7 mm in length in leaf axils
and shoot bases.
From 1971 to 1973 the most severe outbreaks were associated with heavy snowdrifts resulting from snow fences or
branches placed on or around greens to prevent desiccation
damage. 'Penncross' bent seemed more susceptible than
'Seaside1 or 'Colonial'. In several tests since 1971 on
bentgrass greens from northern to southern Saskatchewan on
late fall application of quintozene chloroneb, benomyl or
phenyl mercuric acetate fungicide was generally effective
in reducing infection but other materials gave significant
reduction on occasion against naturally or artificially
induced infections (16).
Typhula spp.
Several Typhula spp. are associated with snow mold diseases of turfgrasses in western Canada (16). T. incarnata
Lasch. ex Fr. (syn. T. itoana Imai) (3, 22) which is also
implicated in turfgrass snow mold in eastern Canada and the
U.S.A. and in parts of the mid-west of the U.S.A. (19) has
not yet been found in Saskatchewan. It was isolated from
several golf green turfs during the 1973 spring survey in
central and southern British Columbia. A fungus with sclerotia resembling those of T. ishikariensis Imai (7) [syn.
T. idahoensis Remsberg (12) and T. borealis Ekstrand (4)]
was isolated in central and northern Saskatchewan and a
similar one collected at several points in Alberta and
southern British Columbia in 1973. Another undescribed
Typhula sp. was found at many places in these three provinces in 1972 and 1973.

Results from fungicide tests in Western Canada where
Typhula spp. were implicated are confusing. This may result
from the interference by IT. nivale, found at several locations
in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan in spring 1973 associated with either
incarnata, T. ishikariensis or Typhula
sp. Dr. D. K. Taylor's results indicate that Mercuric
chloride mixtures, quintozene, and chloroneb often give good
control of snow mold where Typhula spp. are involved.
Sclerotial Low-temperature Basidiomycete - SLTB
This unidentified pathogen was found on snow mold patches
throughout Saskatchewan and in the Peace River region of
Alberta and British Columbia from 1971 to 1973. Often it
was dominant and it has been shown to be pathogenic. Although it is a typical basidiomycete I have been unable to
induce spore production or to germinate the dark brown small
sclerotia which is one means of distinguishing it from the
LTB. It is effectively controlled by phenyl mercuric acetate, chloroneb, quintozene, and 5,6 dihydro 2 methyl-1,
4 oxathiin-3-carboxanilide fungicides (15).
Fungus with Orange Rindless Sclerotia - ORS
This unidentified snow mold fungus was collected from
many survey points in Saskatchewan and the Peace River region.
Although apparently absent in central and southern British
Columbia, it has also been collected from turf in Ottawa,
Ontario, by Dr. L. Werersub. The orange-colored rindless
sclerotia develop under the snow and are produced abundantly
on overwintered grasses and legumes of many species particularly where the snow is deep. Sporulation has been induced
and the apparently unnamed fungus is probably a Gliocladium
or Tubercularia. Its significance is not in disease production but in its possible antagonism to snow mold pathogens
(16) .

Discussion
It is probable that local variations in microclimate
are of greater importance in determining the prevalence and
the dominance of snow mold pathogens than the overall climate. On the present evidence, the geographic or climatic
distribution of the main snow molds is acceptable as a very

broad general principle. The range of some pathogens is
obviously greater than others - F_. nivale is an example of
one with a very wide range and the LTB one with a more
restricted one. I have suggested previously (14) that it
is not possible to correlate the distribution of these
pathogens to their cardinal temperatures. Nearly all will
grow (in culture at least) at freezing point or below.
When suitable microclimatic or cultural conditions are presented they are capable of causing epidemics.
It is apparent that we have much to find out about the
identity and distribution of snow mold pathogens. As new
areas are populated new amenity turf is established often
using management techniques and plant material adapted from
a different environment. As an example, there are now 35
golf courses with grass greens in Saskatchewan where a few
years ago only the main cities and towns had such facilities,
mostly with sand greens. Many of the greens on the new courses are sown with Penncross bent since it produces an excellent putting surface in milder climates but which is quite
susceptible to S_. borealis. Traditionally inorganic mercurials have been used for overwintering diseases but these
are generally ineffective against
borealis although
effective in preventing
nivale or the LTB. In the colder
areas of the northwest it has basn usual to make one application of fungicide in late fall before a snow cover develops, the premise being that this would prevent the inoculum
of snow molds dormant in the turf base from developing under
the snow cover. However, this prodedure is probably shortsighted in view of the events of fall 1972, when conditions
were favorable for an attack of fusarium patch to develop
on turf in many parts of Western Canada. It is axiomatic
that it is more difficult to cure disease than to prevent
it once established, and this proved to be so in this instance. Even where fungicides were applied post-attack,
severe pink snow mold appeared on many golf courses in
Saskatchewan in spring 1973.
The presence of more than one pathogen or possible
pathogen can cause difficulty in prescribing control measures. A Typhula attack may be superimposed on fusarium
patch as was the case in a course in northern Saskatchewan
in the winter of 1972/73, or fusarium patch may be concurrent

with disease caused by S_. borealis and the SLTB and
borealis may codominant. Turf pathologists have sought for
wide-spectrum fungicides, universal systemic fungicides, have
almost abandoned mercurials and we are now running into
problems with the development of resistance of turfgrass
pathogens to particular fungicides (2). There is some evidence that some fungicides inactivate competitive turf
fungi (16) thereby favoring the disease to be controlled.
That such antagonists are present is shown in the case of
the ORS fungus. Our exploratory studies have shown that
although little antagonism exists between F. nivale, LTB,
borealis and Typhula spp. in pure culture, some isolates or ORS have shown antagonism towards all these pathogens at low temperature. Since the ORS fungus is widely
distributed its role in snow mold development requires
further investigation.
LITERATURE CITED
1.

Broadfoot, W. C., and M. W. Cormack. 1941. A lowtemperature basidiomycete causing early spring killing
of grasses and legumes in Alberta. Phytopathology
31:1058-1059.

2.

Cole, H., and C. W. Goldberg. 1973. Fungicide tolerance, a rapidly emerging problem in turfgrass control.
2nd Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. Blacksburg (Abstract) 26.

3.

Corner, E.J.H. 1950.
genera. 740 p.

4.

Ekstrand, H. 1955. Hostsadens och vallgrasens overvintring. Statens Vaxtskyddsanstallt. 67:1-125.

5.

Gould, C. J. 1964. Turfgrass disease problems in North
America. Golf Course Reporter. May 1-9.

6.

Imai, S. 1931. Nisan Nosakumotsu no - Typhula - byo
ni tsuite (On some Typhula-deseases of agricultural
plants) Nihon Shokubutsu byorigakki - no (Ann. Phytopath. Soc. Japan). 2:386.

7

1936. On the causal fungus of the Typhula
blight of gramineous plants. Jap. J. Bot. 8:5.

-

8.

A monograph of Clavaria and allied

Lebeau, J. B. 1968. Pink snow mould in southern Alberta.
Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 48:130-131.
102

9.

, and M. W. Cormack. 1959. Development and
nature of snow mold damage in Western Canada. IX
International Botanical Congress. Montreal 1:544-549.

10.

, and C. E. Logsdon. 1955. Snow mold of
forage crops in Alaska and Yukon. Phytopathology
48:148-150.

11.

Platford, R. G., C. C. Bernier, and A. C. Ferguson.
1972. Lawn and turf diseases in the vicinity of
Winnipeg, Manitoba. Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 52:108-109.

12.

Remsberg, R. E. 1940.
Mycologia 30:52-96.

13.

R0ed, H. 1969. Et Bidrag til appklaring av forholdet
MeHorn Typhula graminum Karst. og Typhula incarnata
Lasch ex Fr. Freesia 9:219-225.

14.

Smith, J. Drew. 1969. Overwintering diseases of turfgrasses. Proc. 23rd N.W. Turfgrass Conf. Hayden Lake,
Idaho. Sept. 24-26, 65-78.

15.

. 19 72. Snow mold on turfgrass in Saskatchewan in 1971. Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 52:25-29.

16.

. Snow moulds of turfgrasses in Saskatchewan.
Proceedings 2nd Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. Blacksburg,
VA. 18-21 June 1973 (In press).

17.

Sprague, R. 1959. Epidemiology and control of snow
mold of winter wheat and grasses in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. IX International Botanical
Congress. Montreal 1:540-544.

18.

Vaartnou. H., and C. R. Elliott. 1969. Snow molds on
lawns and lawn grasses in Northwest Canada. Plant Dis.
Reptr. 53:891-894.

19.

Vargas, J. M., and J. B. Beard. 1971. Comparison of
application dates for the control of Typhula blight.
Plant Dis. Reptr. 55:1118-1119.

Studies in the genus Typhula.

MINIMIZING TURFGRASS WINTER INJURY 1
James B. Beard2

Winter injury of turf is difficult to understand because it results from the interaction of a nuntoer of environmental, soil, and cultural factors. Before a turfman can
initiate the appropriate cultural program to prevent winter
injury, he must determine the particular type or types of
winter injury that occur most frequently at various locations
on the golf course. This involves a study of the particular symptoms, including time of occurrence, soil type, topography, drainage characteristics, traffic patterns, and the
probability of environmental stress. Such information is
assembled over a period of years, and a specific program is
established in order to minimize the probability of winter
injury.
Causes of Winter Injury
The major types of winter injury are:
Desiccation
Direct low temperature kill
Low temperature diseases
Traffic effects.

This article has been excerpted from an earlier original paper
entitled "Ten Years of Research on Winter Injury on Golf
Courses: Causes and Prevention" Green Section Record. Vol.
10, No. 6. pp. 3-8. Nov., 1972.

be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs
British Columbia, October, 1973.
¿/professor of Turfgrass Science, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Note that ice sheet damage caused by oxygen suffocation or toxic gas accumulations underneath an ice cover
are not listed. Detailed investigations at Michigan State
University over 10 years indicate that this type of winter
injury rarely occurs. This is in contrast to the many
articles by individuals indicating that this is a serious
problem. Unfortunately, these earlier writers had essentially no information on which to base their comments other
than data from research with alfalfa. The winter injury
most commonly associated with extended periods of ice coverage occurs during freezing or thawing periods when standing
water increases the crown tissue hydration and subsequent
injury of the turfgrass plants when temperatures drop
rapidly below 20° F.
Preventing Winter Injury
Cultural steps can be taken to minimize the potential
for injury in the future once the cause or causes of winter
injury on specific turfgrass areas have been established.
The first prerequisite in minimizing all types of winter
injury is a healthy turf with adequate carbohydrate reserves and recuperative potential. This phase of winter
injury prevention is accomplished during the normal growing
season, particularly in the late summer-early fall period.
Practices to prevent or at least minimize the potential
for turfgrass winter injury can be divided into cultural
practices, soil management, and specific winter protectants.
The specific practices utilized in each of these categories are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that
a number of them apply to more than one type of winter injury. In some cases, the practice that is effective in
preventing one type of winter injury will actually increase
the probability of damage from another type. For example,
snow covers or winter protection covers used to prevent
winter desiccation will also maintain temperatures near
32° F which will enhance the probability of snow mold disease activity. This means that when such a practice is in
use, steps should also be taken to apply a preventive snow
mold fungicide application to the turfgrass area prior to
installing the winter protection cover.

55
3 t3
mO op>
»3
- rt

sir
3 tf

D¡OhH-3
3S t
3
H- iQ
3 CO
L (D
l-13£OHr+ ft 3

§S

DJ 01

ro 8

H O 3a <¡ iD

O 3 Di > D O ^3
13
Di0
M
DD
H-D
3i•Dö
ti Di D
H-X
3
H-D H
-»3Q Di
3
3
3 {
s D0
3
H-O t
(
3
3 01iDQ D
0
MD(
tD
<D
3
3
0-D D O
3 *Ü
DiK
H
-H
O
01O
33
3
t
3 33
01 013 O$
D
3
3
D
3
3
3JO
O
01D
1 P
3
Di
i0
00
3
0
3
t
i
D
i
t
H
-D
H
-D
H1
-O
t
f
D
D
H
-3
3
3
t
i
M
H
-3
D
3
0
1
0
1
i
01i
Di01D 1 O
ro
tí oo
n
>
o
3
n
3 <! 3
O
3
rt 3t
K O3-3t¡
O
Di
• (D pj
rt)

H) O

W

CD CD

en
D
g
D
01
K.
0
<
<D

z oí0 01Z t3
D
H- 3 •OO
3h
3
rt M
3
03
OD
i
3s
&£
&O
ti
O
P)t33 3
(
D
t
i
(D<D 010
1
MJ3
3
0
•D 3
H1
0 P
0—
)1O
H
D
3
1
0
1
^PQ
iQ
>
H
-3
0
)
3
3
3 0)3
3
H
t¡3
O
O-v0D
1(D 6
3 O O
3
3
3 P
3Ji P
0>
1 Di
D
O
0«
\U)
t
3
m
rt>

pT
<t> rt
tí O
H
Ot o
3£
r
fl> fl>
O
Di
r
Ht" HS
¡
O
3 3-

W
M< tJ
•3
fl>

I

EGH Qß«HTÖ

«

O) -P O) O <0 §
o
J
Q a -H CD CD +j
3 a a) o m x <o

_ pO
a

co CU

2 (ö xi tn <o -p co

5

-9

>P
o
>
- &> a
s

G

O -H ?
<0 Ü Ö* G

G <0

> >1co
•
-JH
+H
> IH -OH +

33
•h m «i
p
C> +oj Kft

O CD
HI
G rX
•O
HO
P

S3

t
•H

G

"I

•
<p
0a

H

•
<0
•H
hx
W -P

P XiÜ
C •
<P
0
a
8
«
u
.
.
a co
o •H
e
E
h
. <
c0
u (0
OH a
a1 c-H
>
e
h S

S3 P

&
co
®
p e
H
o
cu
30
Ot-H G
0
(0 P
•
«p
0 a
-S ti
o
c
a
c
x G '
Ö +J i l
•S1 2 s 3 w 5
® "H r

p «p
—sa«

a) ca
•Si
Ox> (0 a) o
t
po
0)
ç
a
-h
p0)g.TaJ)•O<e
« •§
>0
0 (0
•
H
U
H
£ a> • S g-s £ O0)fÖ-H
Ptí
uCOP
o a S
«0
p«
a«
o
4-1
sC0 <0
•g
H
to
oH^ G
(
0
<U P 0
SD -H •P
C
t
3 P(U G
•H
3
rH
<s.S
*
M

G RH

8.3

-p
•
&

•H -P
p
ao aoco
c

5

5

-P 3
d
G G3 ofc
CP
D -O
+J tp
•
H
«5 -P ¡
0 G
P
CD -H
P P -H

Ia

•H 10
ss

^

•a

p . v<

o o
O 3

O
3

8W

M
CD
3

H
Hi Hi
(D ip H
WHO

ni 3

H CD
(D rt

CL ft to
R
HÍSOí
•

ft
3

3 *Ö

»-3
H

1
g
ft

Pi

Hi
Hi
P-

O

rt CD
CD

H O

Hi

3
rt
CD

H

3

P> 3
s PIS >
H- O
g P>
*G
H rt S-g
CD W
H rt »O >0
M
3 rt 3 CD M
rt Hi
P- H H-H:
(D

H

H CD 3
3 Hl iQ P3
CD hti
CD CD
CD
H
3 5
CD

H ê 8
CD
CD

O
pi

rt

S "p .

pi

i lPi

pi

Ȇ rt
H H-

p. p.
O H-

OO
3
3
P«

N 0) O
.S S
p . p.
PR
S
<P S
H
C
L
S
S,*
CD
3

(D O
3

Hi

' S
H:

H|
H
CD
CD
N
CD

S rt
rt

p, p.
na IQrt

CD
W CD 3
10
H
CD
Hi
O
03
P- w H
PI M
3
w

— s
IO CD
«
ä
S
»0 £H

H H P-3
H PI

H CD CD
CD (D
Hi H- CO
O
W
Hi

S
iS
H|

Pi Hi
H8
N QSj W^ (DH O
CD
3 CD
3
W 3- p
iHi
•
rt CD W H
CD 3
3
Pi S
rt
rt S R c
P- CD PH
W
3
W
g vQ

H- M P
Wi
W ><p» W
3K pi
K
3 P-O HCD
r
t hi0
pP
Wi
O
P- pi 3
P
i
P-P
•PÖi HPir
t 3i
p- H
r
t
p
i
0
CD W
PPu rt3 3
• P- W ip
O

3
O

M

Pi

*

CD P O
H|
rt H-

P> O
ft 3*

rt
w

H-

M

OO

S-

w

(D

£
CD

W

cr
p»
H

g o

3
H
W P-

«:

pi
Hi

(D
3
rt

g

(t O

M PP- O

O

O

T) Uì
H »O
O CD

»
O

Hi W H
ft Hi
tP
•O H
O Pi

ip
H
Pi
w
w

I

g

B
3

3

W

w

w

H

Pi
w
w

(D

W

From a cultural standpoint, the proper control of plant
and soil water relations is the most critical factor affecting all phases of turfgrass winter injury. Techniques to
adjust the soil-water status must be achieved during the
summer period.
Finally, it is quite obvious that selection and planting
of the appropriate turfgrass species and cultivar can be
critical in minimizing the degree of turfgrass injury that
may occur. Annual bluegrass is very prone to all types of
winter injury. The bentgrasses are considerably less susceptible to injury, and also have a greater recuperative
potential from existing vegetative plant parts.
REFERENCE
Turfgrass: Science and Culture, by James B. Beard.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
pp. 1-658.

COMPATABILITY OF TREES,1
SHRUBS AND GRASSES
W. H. Bengeyfield 2

Anyone who has been charged with the growing of grass
on an area heavily populated with trees knows the headaches,
problems and inevitably the power of the "tree lobby".
Joyce Kilmer surely could not have known the problems he
would create for the turfgrass manager when in 1917 he
wrote, "I think that I shall never see - a poem lovely as
a tree" .
Let it be hastily recorded that turfgrass managers are
not necessarily anti tree. But, since our job is to grow
turf for sports and aesthetic reasons, we recognize the
fact that there are situations where trees and shrubs are
simply not compatible with grass. Especially if the grass
is expected to withstand any kind of traffic or use. That's
the crux of the problem:
A)

Is a solid, tight turf the requirement or

B)

Is the presence and beauty of a tree or trees the
requirement?

It seems that's the choice, the final decision one must make.
Trees and shrubs can cause turfgrass problems in at
least four or five ways:

1/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/western Director, United States Golf Association Green
Section, Garden Grove, California.

SHADE
1.

Avoid the planting of those trees having notorious
shade problems. A Norway maple is an example.

2.

When planting trees, use them sparingly and in
strategic locations. Don f t overplant. Remember,
what is a small tree today will be a giant awning
tomorrow.

3.

Whenever possible, remove excess trees during construction to avoid tree and people problems later.

4.

Practice judicious pruning.
but don't be timid either.

5.

Research is needed on the degree of light intensity
required for different turfgrasses; especially
during the winter months.

Don't denude an area

TREE ROOTS
1.

Shallow tree feeder roots do the damage not the
heavier, thicker tree roots.

2.

Tree roots vigorously compete with the grass plant
for both moisture and nutrients. Tree roots invariably win.

3.

Barriers are not the best means of tree root control. A tree root pruner (capable of approximately
a 15-inch deep cut) or small ditch digger is best.
Repeat as needed.

AIR DRAINAGE
1.

Poor air circulation means higher humidities in the
summertime and frost pockets in the fall, winter
and spring. The grass plant is the loser.

2.

Through pruning or actual tree removal, open channels for air movement across the turfgrass area.
Keep the prevailing wind direction in mind.

LEAVES, NEEDLES AND DEBRIS
1.

Certain tree types directly affect the turf under
the tree by smothering with leaves, debris and in
some cases with toxic exudates from the leaves,
needles, etc.

2.

Avoid planting of such trees and remove them completely if they are already present and causing
a turf management problem.

COMMON TREE TYPES TO BE AVOIDED
The trees we find causing the most problems for the
turf manager include:
Scientific Name

Common Name

Problem

Acer platanoides
Populus spp.
Populus fremontii
Salix spp.
Sorbus spp.
Eucalyptus

Norway maple
Poplars
Cottonwoods
Willows
Mountain Ash
Eucalyptus

roots and leaves
roots
roots, leaves & cotton
roots and leaves
roots
roots and trash

Check with your County Extension Agent for the names
of other "problem" trees for your particular area.
Write to the USGA Green Section for the publication
"Planting the Golf Course" for additional information
on desirable and non-desirable trees.
GRASSES
There are a few grasses that will do reasonable well
under shade conditions if given sufficient water and
fertilization from time to time.
The fine-leaf fescues sown at 5 pounds per 1,000 square
feet will do reasonably well in shady fairly dry situations .
Poa trivialis or rough stalk bluegrass will do well in
shady or wet situations.

Poa annua seems to survive rather well under shade.
Bentgrasses, especially Velvet bent tolerates shade
rather well.
PROPER PLANTING OF TREES AND SHRUBS
The characteristics most desirable for trees to be
used in turfgrass areas include deep rooting, light
of filtered shade, absence of litter, strong branching and a lack of insects and diseases. By carefully
selecting and placing trees, the designer may produce
beautiful vistas, enclosed spaces, provide beauty,
color, privacy and protection and make man's environment that much more enjoyable.
Trees should be planted in groups or clusters rather
than in straight row plantings. The placement of any tree
should be thoroughly and thoughtfully considered before the
actual planting takes place. The occasional use of single
specimen trees (in the right location) is desirable but
there is no need to make every tree or shrub a "specimen
planting." Further, when planting trees or shrubs, keep
in mind the mowing requirements of today as well as into
the future.
A park, golf course or any turfgrass area provides unlimited possibilities for the use of plant materials. However, if the primary goal is to provide a strong stand of
turfgrass for sports or aesthetic purposes, grass plant
requirements must come first and those of trees and shrubs
placed on a secondary level.

GOLF COURSE D E S I G N ITS FRUSTRATIONS AND REWARDS 1
Norman H. Woods 2

It has been said that every man is an expert
or
believes he is an expert
at three things. He can,
hopefully, do his own job well. He knows he could run a
pub with great success. And he is damn certain he could
design and build the perfect golf course.
I am, God help me, a golf course architect, and a member
of the American Society of Golf Course Architects. I have
been an architect for a long time, having designed 250 courses,
re-shaped many others, and am still building them.
Who needs a golf course architect? Many people have
asked, particularly when they find their favorite hole has
been changed around. Why can't old Smithers, who knows a
thing or two about growing grass, lay out a course for us?
After all, Smithers says, the old Scottish courses were
laid out sometimes by accident. They just looked around
the terrain, at the gradients and the places where a green
could sort of nestle into the contours, and the thing was
done.
There is a lot of tradition behind the game of golf,
and a great deal of mythology. A favorite myth is that a
golf course is 18 holes long for the following reason: four
men with a bottle of the dew of the glen would finish half
the bottle in ninety minutes
by which time they would
have played nine holes. Time to get back to the clubhouse,
so they turned around and played nine holes back. That
accounted for the bottle.

1/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/American Society of Golf Course Architects, Penticton,
British Columbia.

You don't have to believe that story, though I have to
report that many courses in Scotland, especially the seaside
links, run nine holes one way and nine holes back to the clubhouse. So maybe there was something in the story!
Nowadays, of course, it is not necessary to find the
ideal contours for the good golf hole. The bulldozer will
do the work that Nature used to do. So the architect has
machinery on his side, but I am going to suggest that the
modern-day architect has a great many other troubles on his
shoulders, undreamt of by the designer of long ago.
Not only must he know the game inside out, but he must
be something of an expert on agronomy and agriculture
not so important, this, because any university will help
with experts on the subject. But he must certainly be an
accountant, and know the finances of the club he is working
for, the state of the equipment, and what plans there are in
the future for new equipment. He must know the cost of land,
and its not bad at all to know the average age of the members, and whether they want a course that will test the pros
if they plan to stage a tournament, or whether they want a
"members' course", a pleasant place where they can score
well if they hit the tee shot 175 yards.
I remember talking to one chap who said he would like
to build the perfect "resort course". When I asked him what
he meant he told me: "My resort course would aim to please,
even if a little subterfuge was necessary at times. If I
were to bank up the sides of the fairway in the right places,
the ball would tend to jump back into the straight and narrow from a slice or a pull. The greens would be ever so
slightly like saucers, without being too obvious, and the
pins would be in the center of the saucer more often than
not. The traps would be there alright, but in locations
only found by the very worst of shots."
I expressed some horror at this theory, but my friend
went on to an even more shocking suggestion. "I might even
do a little tinkering with the yardage," he said. "Imagine
the delight of the tourist as he reported to his friends:
A great course! Why, I was hitting those par four greens
at 420 yards, according to the card."

Well, that's not in the category of golf course architecture, but I had to admit that my friend had one point that
I applauded. For he had put the love of sport into the game.
You remember, when golf was a game?
I would ask you to look around at the faces of the golfers these days. Dour, and solemn, their brows creased in
concentration, as if the fate of the world
their world
at any rate
depended on that approach shot to the green,
on that four foot putt. Are they really indulging in sport
when they stalk around the green, looking at the coming
putt from every conceivable angle? Are they happy golfers?
I suggest they have all been looking at too much television. For sport has gone out of the competitive golf. As
a rule the pros don't play for love of the game, but for
money. And this attitude must affect the golf course architect in his decisions.
What is a good golf hole?
the members who play the shot?

What are we trying to give

There must be the challenge. For many reasons. The
main one, the mistaken one, that a course without many obstacles means faster golf
many public courses now have
holes like freeways. As long as it's 500 yards from tee to
green, the distance factor on the course is satisfied, and
the long handicap man has his troubles in getting there with
three shots and getting his par. That's the theory. Don't
let him waste time in traps, or in the rough when his shots
go off the line.
But there's no reward there for careful placing of each
shot, the circumvention of obstacles, the strategy necessary
in the approach to the green. Hit the ball far enough, and
you're there. That's not golf.
I try to build a golf hole which demands a planned and
carefully executed tee shot, with the thought of the second
shot ever present. If the tee shot is off-line, then the
second shot must be masterly or the penalty paid. If I had
my way
and I have never been able to build a course that
is entirely to my way of thinking
I would place a hazard
right the re in front of the tee. Too often, even on our
best courses, I have seen the golfer miss - hit his tee shot,

top it, and go unpunished. The ball bounds away for a hundred yards or so up the fairway, and if the golfer makes a
good second shot, he's laughing. He should be crying.
My idea to make him cry is a very simple one, and an
old one. And although it has many advantages, I am never
able to put it into effect. I would simply forget to put
the mowers over the turf for the 75 yards ahead of the tee.
Better still, I would plant some cheap ground cover over
that area, the finest being heather. For the ladies, perhaps, the distance would be 50 yards, not 75 yards.
That would put a crimp in the topper, who now gets away
scot free. And, of course, it was the Scots who believed
in this theory, and still do. Not for them the expense of
mowing that area of 75 yards
equivalent to many hours
of work through 18 holes. Let the heather grow, and the
golfer who has topped the ball will have to hack it out
with a wedge, painfully aware that he must pay for his transgressions. But he will not squeal. He will know that crime
does not pay.
But what do I find when I suggest leaving a hazard in
front of the tees? I am Torquemada. I am a sadist, particularly in the view of the ladies, who insist they should
be permitted to top the ball to their heart's content,
bless 'em. And I find this mistaken view is especially
prevalent with our neighbours and visitors. They seem to
think that even if the tee shot is wildly hooked, they should
be able to play off shaven turf, from perfect lies. Happy
Hookers, all of them. So I am permitted from punishing them
to the full extent of the law. They plead a new kind of
Amendment, somewhat similar to the Fifth we hear so much
about. It reads "I decline to be penalized for my error
on the grounds that it might tend to bump up my score to an
astronomical total."
The main objection to any proposal to present such a
hazard in front of the tee is that it would tend to slow
up play. But anyone who has studied the funeral pace of
golf in this day and age knows very well that the golfer,
in his snail's pace from tee to green, has all the time in
the world for hacking out of the heather, exploding out of

traps, and indulging in all kinds of time-consuming endeavors. In the five and six hour game of golf, a man could
read War and Peace while waiting on the tees in one season,
and a woman could knit a few sweaters. It's not the hazards
that slow the game.
I never know why club managers and pros fail to see how
the game can be speeded up. Obviously, its on the 18th green,
and when that's taken care of with a few choice words, the
17th green and the 16th green, and so on. One marshall,
with the tact and firmness of a diplomat, could get the
game going splendidly. The only players who can move rapidly
are the ones on the 18th green. Get them off, and get the
foursome on the 18th fairway on the move. Then see that the
foursome on the 18th tee is hard on their heels. One man
in a golf cart with a marshall's band on his arm could take
an hour off a weekend's round of golf. It would help,
though it's a long way still from the old saying that "Golf
is a three hour game over 18 holes."
Not that I envy that marshall.
course architect.

I'd rather be a golf

There must be a basic reason why golf is so slow. The
blame lies with the pros seen on T.V. I know that there's
a lot of money on a putt, and pros play for money, not for
sport. But can any pro tell me why it's necessary to stalk
round the green, studying the line of the putt not only from
the front and rear, but from both sides? Whatever can they
learn from this inspection? What clues are to be found?
I am baffled.
But the hacker, watching his idol on the boob tube,
believes he has to do the same. He looks into the hole as
if to make certain that it is really there. He paces off
the putt, and inspects every inch to make sure that it is
indeed covered with turf all they way, free of traps, burrowing animals, snakes, and unexpected crevasses. The blame
partly lies with pros seen on T.V.
Then at last he putts.
Meanwhile a foursome waits on the 18th fairway. A foursome waits on the 18th tee. On the course, upwards of 140
golfers are waiting for that memorable putt, and there's
more in the clubhouse.

I try to build a golf course which will please both the
titian of the game and the 18-handicap golfer. The latter
play the shot, for there are more of them. I could make
mention of many fine holes I have created, pars 3, 4 and
5. A lot of them are risky but only for the low handicapper
who wants to gamble for his eagle or birdie, but in all cases
there is an entrance for the fellow, young or old, who gives
a whoop and a holler if he even bogies the hole. He is,
after all, the majority who keep the course going.
But I wonder how many golfers get their minds off the
figures and look around them to enjoy the beauty of a golf
hole? I believe the aesthetics of the hole to be very important. At Shaughnessy in Vancouver, B.C., and on many
other courses, I have insisted on quite a lot of money being
spent in a direction that has nothing to do with the score
on your score card. Blue spruce, wonderful Japanese maples,
even plum trees, bushes, flower plants and flowers, of all
kinds, round the tees and around the greens. This is part
of the reward, but more rewarding is when you come back a
few years later and see a beautifully maintained course and
all those trees, plants, flowers, etc. have eventually grown
to their full extent. I talked to many players, more or less
strangers, on their particular course and have asked them
a plain question, "Who designed this course?" None of them
seem to know, but in my conscience I am satisfied that a
monument has been left behind and many people will enjoy it
and, of course, curse it from time to time.
There's more to golf than writing down the par figures.
To some, a beautiful hole is one of the most splendid sights
in the world.
Though I have said I believe golfers should be penalized
for their sins, I do think they have one incontrovertible
right
they should be able to see the green and the bottom
of the flagstick with full clarity. That is why I believe
in making the green a target, even "propped up", if I can
put it that way. So I have often re-shaped greens with
large amounts of fill, raising the level so that the golfer
can play INTO the target. Blind holes are for fortune tellers.
A word about money. It is inevitable that the golf
course of the future must be linked with development of homes.
How else can they survive? They lose on the food. They
make money on the bar. But costs are so astronomical they

must have land that can be developed. Otherwise, they
must be 80 or 100 miles outside of a big city with its
high taxes. Palm Springs, and other places where golf
courses are ringed with homes and swimming pools, shows
the way.
Spare pity for the golf course architect. He is surrounded by self-appointed everts. When young men write
to me (as they do about once a month) they ask how they
should go about becoming a golf course architect. I tell
them they should apprentice themselves with a qualified
registered architect for a least five years. There's so
much to learn. They won't learn it out of books, for every
terrain, every circumstance of a club, is different. They
will only learn from bitter experience.
Spare pity. I've been called many things as well as
"The man who came to dinner." When Sir Cantankerous is in
a trap, it's a badly located trap. When young Curmudgeon
finds the rough with his drive, the architect was out of
his skull. When Mrs. Topper loses a ball in the water
hazard, the golf course architect is the one who should
drown.
Her husband, Mr. Topper, should design the course.
quote, "anyone can design a golf course", unquote.

For,

And Finally
Rod Gibson writes in The Miami Herald: "These golf
course Designers remain rugged Individuals who seem to have
only one common point of agreement among them
not to
agree, with each other about their respective Design Philosophies. One Golf Course Architect's praising another is
about as common as a public appearance by Howard Hughes.
"What does all this mean to the average golfer? Not a
Hell of a lot really. The average golfer is a Duffer, slicing
his ball into a lake here and forrest there? sometimes barely
dribbling the ball beyond the Woman's Tees. All the different subtleties of design which the Golf Course Architects
bicker seem lost on them." Sobering thoughts, those!

AGRONOMIC RESEARCH REPORT 1
Roy L. Goss2

The following is a summary of agronomic research
activity at the Western Washington Research and Extension
Center, Puyallup, Washington, during 1973.
Nutritional
The putting green nutritional program is nearing the
end of the fourteenth year of management and the following
conclusions can be drawn:
Nitrogen
Rates as high as 20 pounds of available nitrogen per
1,000 sq. ft. per season can be used if close attention is
paid to nutrient levels of phosphorus, potassium, sulphur
and minor elements. In plots at Puyallup the important
element seems to be sulphur. Without sulphur applications,
plots receiving the highest level of nitrogen do not respond to nitrogen treatments. We do not recommend this
level of nitrogen, but we are only looking at it for experimental purposes.
Nitrogen applied at 12 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. per
season continues to produce the best quality turf. The
best quality turf at this nitrogen range is produced with
very low levels of phosphorus with 8 pounds of K 2 0 and 3
pounds of sulphur per 1,000 sq. ft. per season.
The 6-pound nitrogen application per 1,000 sq. ft. does
not produce turf with satisfactory color through all seasons
of the year without applications of sulphur. Sulphur tends

¿/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
—/Agronomist/Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Western Washington
Research and Extension Center, Washington State University,
Puy allup, Washington.

to increase the color of the turf and compensates somewhat
for the low levels of nitrogen. Soil test values at the
end of 19 72 indicate that phosphorus is remaining at high
levels while potassium is barely hanging on at acceptable
levels even at 8 pounds of K 2 0 per 1,000 sq. ft. per season.
It is, therefore, concluded that we must continue to apply
potassium or run the risk of potassium deficiencies.
In regard to sulphur, all plots receiving this element
are of superior quality regardless of the nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium treatments. Plot evaluations immediately
following the cold, desiccating periods of December and
January of last year indicate that plots receiving sulphur
were less injured than those not receiving sulphur. Likewise, the sulphur plots retained a higher degree of color
during the hot summer months than others.
Slow release fertilizer experiments conducted since
early May, 1973, indicate that two (2) applications per
year of most of these materials were maintaining adequate
color and growth on bluegrass turf. The level of nitrogen
applied was 4 and 8 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. per season.
The rank of quality is as follows: Sulphur-coated urea;
Agriform; IBDU; Blue Chip Nitroform, with others rating
below these. There were little differences in quality
between sulphur-coated urea and the agriform product
while IBDU and nitroform were only slightly less in quality
and of about equal value. Any one of the first four (4)
listed slow release products would serve very well in any
turfgrass program at two applications per year. Other
sources need more than two applications.
Poa Annua Control
Three years1 data have been collected on preemergence
control of Poa annua. Out of the materials tested, only
bensulide and tricalcium arsenate have produced Poa free
turf. Bensulide applied in one single application at the
rate of 15 pounds of active ingredient per acre per year
has not controlled Poa annua. Bensulide applied at 12
pounds active ingredient per acre every 3 months, has produced Poa annua free turf. This can be attributed to

maintaining a level of toxicity throughout the entire year
in the germinating zone and rooting zone of Poa annua. Tricalcium arsenate has consistently produced Poa free turf,
but some learning experiences must be recognized. The area
must be well drained and the arsenic level adjusted according
to soil texture. Eighteen pounds of tricalcium arsenate
per 1,000 sq. ft. was applied to these plots the first year,
and maintenance rates of 4 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. divided
into equal applications of early spring and early fall,
have been practiced. Sands require much less arsenic to
maintain a level of toxicity. The exact level is not
clearly known, but somewhere in the range of 6 to 8 pounds
of tricalcium arsenate per 1,000 sq. ft. will possibly
produce enough toxicity if maintenance applications are
practiced.
Other Poa annua preemergence materials are being tested
including Emblem, a product of Mallinckrodt Chemical Company.
Moss Control
Two separate experiments at three different sites were
established to test products produced by Ortho and 0. M.
Scott Company in the spring of 1973. The Ortho products
are essentially ferrous or iron compounds while the 0. M.
Scott products are other chemicals and for reasons of
proprietary rights materials will not be mentioned in this
report. One or two of the Scott products may be released
in the near future for moss control. Both the ferrous
applications and the Scott applications produced excellent
control of moss with no phytotoxicity to mixed bentgrass
turf. An interesting comment on the Ortho material is the
extremely well-formulated pellets which lends itself to
ease of application. This is a great improvement over
the usual formulation of ferrous sulfate or ferrous ammonium
sulfate.
Agrostis - Poa Pratensis - Festuca - Lolium Variety Trials
Considerable effort was given this year to the establishment and rating of over 2,000 plots of bent, bluegrass,
fescue and ryegrasses. Since detailed reports of these
will be presented by C. J. Gould and S. E. Brauen, no further comment will be made in this report.

Cooperative Disease Research
Evaluations were made in regard to turf response to
fungicidal treatments for Fusarium Patch disease and Typhula
snow mold disease. Efforts were made to determine which
products were phytotoxic and others that may stimulate
better color, growth or density. In general, all products
containing sulphur produced turf with better color, density
and growth characteristics. Other quality ratings are
being reported by C. J. Gould.
Advanced Management Studies on Agrostis Cultivars
Four replications each of the following bentgrasses
have been established at Farm 5 for advanced management
studies to determine their response to mowing, fertilization
and disease control: Arlington, Nimisila, Northland,
Waukanda, Yale, Keen's 36, Arrowwood, (Keen's 53), MCC-3,
Wayne Huffine Oklahoma, Smith's 721, 732, 736 (Saskatchewan),
UCR 30 (Youngner), Penn No. 5, Hayden Lake, Kingstown,
Novobent, Emerald, Prominent, Tracenta, Bardot, Highland,
Penncross, A-75 (Scott's), and Boral.
These plots were established on methyl bromide fumigated ground on September 6, hence, they are just being
established. More information will be reported on this
in 1974.

RYEGRASS, BLUEGRASS AND FESCUE EVALUATIONS
IN WASHINGTON
Stanton E. Brauen 2

A new variety evaluation program was undertaken at
Puyallup this past year for the purpose of evaluating the
adaptability of presently available varieties of ryegrass,
bluegrass and fescues for turf in this area. The program
is a cooperative one involving Drs. Goss and Gould.
The collection of these selections started in the
fall of 1972. Through numerous contacts with plant breeders,
seed companies, and their representatives in many countries
throughout the northern hemisphere, we have assembled and
now established 271 varieties or selections of these three
grasses. An additional 134 introductions of fescues and
bluegrasses were obtained.
The grasses were seeded in July, 1973, at Farm 5 of
the Western Washington Research and Extension Center. Bluegrasses and fescues were seeded in four replicates and ryegrasses in two replicates. Individual plot sizes are
4-1/2 x 5 feet. Introductions were seeded in smaller 2 x 2
foot plots.

i/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
^/Assistant Agronomist/Extension Agronomist, Western
Washington Research and Extension Center, Washington
State University, Puyallup, Washington.

There are a total of 115 bluegrasses now established.
All are being managed at the 1-1/2 inch cutting height. In
addition, 56 varieties or selections of bluegrasses were
selected from the 115 varieties and are being managed at
the 3/4 inch cutting height. There are a total of 91 selections of red, chewings, hard, and sheep fescues in these
trials. These are cut at 3/4 inch. There are 55 ryegrasses
being cut at 1-1/2 inches.
Data has been obtained at this time on emergence, general vigor, density of stand and color. Ratings will continue to be made with regard to dormancy, color, general
appearance, leaf texture, spring recovery, and perhaps
thatch accumulation. Tentative evaluations have been made
with regard to disease infection. These have included observations on rust and Helminthsporium on the bluegrasses,
Fusarium and Helminthsporium on the fescues, and general
disease infection on the ryegrasses. Observations on the
appropriate grasses are expected to be made with regard to
pythium, red thread, powdery mildew, and perhaps other diseases as they occur. The evaluations should continue for
several years.

TURFGRASS DISEASE RESEARCH—PROGRESS REPORT1
Charles J. Gould 2

One hundred and thirty-six cultivars and selections
are now being tested in cooperation with Drs. Roy Goss and
Stan Brauen, and with partial financial support from the
Green Section Research and Education Fund of the U.S.G.A.
The goal is to find one or more varieties or selections with
suitable color and texture that are more resistant to Fusarium nivale than are the varieties now being used.
Both seeded and stolonized types of Agrostis were obtained from 46 sources in nine different countries from
Poland to New Zealand. Forty varieties were planted in
1971, 63 in 1972, and 32 in the spring of 1973.
An 8-foot burlap fence was placed around the plots in
1972. This, combined with unusually favorable weather for
the fungus, resulted in two heavy outbreaks of Fusarium
during the winter and enabled us to select 19 promising
varieties to be planted this year in large-scale tests on
management and disease resistance - a full year ahead of
schedule. These varieties are: Kingstown, Emerald (Smaragd), Penncross, Prominent, Tracenta, Arlington, Nimisila,
Northland, Novobent, Waukanda, and selections from Yale C.
C., Keen (#36 and #53-Arrowwood), Huffine (MCC-3), Youngner
(UCR-30), Duich (Penn. State #5), Scott's (A74 or A75) and
Smith's (#721, 732, and 736). Bardot will be included because
of its apparent ability to recover rapidly from a severe
attack and the Hayden Lake selection and Highland will also
be planted for comparison.

i/1To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 19 73.
¿/Plant Pathologist, Western Washington Research and Extension
Center, Washington State University, Puyallup, Washington.

Fusarium Patch - Fungicidal Tests
Twenty-eight treatments were applied in the 1972/73
tests in cooperation with Dr. Roy Goss. The goals were:
to evaluate the effectiveness of certain new fungicides;
to compare frequent low rates of certain types with occasional high rates; and to determine the value of alternating different types of fungicides. Unfortunately, so
little Fusarium nivale appeared last year that the experiment will have to be repeated.
Although disease development was inadequate, we did
observe some differences between treatments in turf color
and texture. In general, the best looking turf was obtained where a dithiocarbamate fungicide (such as thiram
or maneb) was mixed with a benzimidazole or where applications of Fore were alternated with a benzimidazole (such
as Tersan 1991, Fungo, 3336). In view of these results,
and the knowledge that certain other fungi have developed
resistance to the benzimidazoles, we recommend against the
continuous use of only benzimidazole fungicides on turf in
the Pacific Northwest.
The new thiophanate compounds appeared quite promising.
Also promising were certain treatments involving occasional
high rates of fungicides, but the latter cannot be recommended until disease control data are obtained.
We appreciate the support for these tests from Mallinckrodt, Cleary, Upjohn, Chemagro and American Hoechst.
Control of Ophiobolus Patch
The main purpose of this experiment, conducted in cooperation with Dr. Goss, was to determine the possible inhibition of the strain of Ophiobolus, which attacks bentgrasses in western Washington, by adding soil from a field
in eastern Washington which had been found capable of inhibiting infection of wheat by a simij.ar fungus by Dr. James
Cook. Other treatments included lime, sulfur, certain fungicides, and different sources of nitrogen. Ophiobolus
has not yet developed in the plots. The best turf at present is showing in the plots fertilized either with Milorganite or those with ammonium sulfate, both with and without
ehlordane.

Typhula and Fusarium Snow Molds - Resistance Studies
In response to a request from the Inland Empire Golf
Superintendents1 Association, a planting will be made this
fall at Spokane of the same bentgrass varieties that we now
have in the plots at Puyallup. We will not only be observing their possible resistance to Typhula and Fusarium,
but also their cultural response under eastern Washington
conditions. It is entirely possible that the varieties
found best for western Washington conditions will differ
from those looking best in eastern Washington.
Two 5 1 x 5' plots of each of the 136 cultivars and selections will be planted at the Hangman Valley Golf Course
in an area specially prepared for this project by Superintendent Bud Ashworth, to whom we express our appreciation.
Dr. Stan Brauen and Professor Al Law will be cooperating
with Dr. Goss and me on this work.
TYPHULA AND FUSARIUM SNOW MOLD - Control with Fungicide
Dr. Goss and I are cooperating with Dr. Ron Ensign
(University of Idaho), Professor Al Law (Washington State
University), Bud Ashworth (Hangman Valley Golf and Country
Club), Vern Harvey (Hayden Lake Golf & Country Club), Al
Liotta (Pullman), and the Superintendents at the Elks and
University golf courses in Moscow to determine the best
control measures for both Typhula and Fusarium in the above
locations. Nineteen different single and combination
treatments were applied early in November of 1972, and six
more were put on early in March of 1973. Snowfall was
lighter and did not last as long as normal, so typical snow
mold attacks were below average. However, enough disease
did occur to indicate that PMAS (2 oz. in Nov.) and Borax
(30 oz. in Nov.) were much less effective than Tersan SP,
Caloclor, Terraclor, Proturf Fung. II, Daconil and Actidione
+ thiram in controlling snow mold. Both Typhula sp. and
Fusarium nivale were present at one or more locations but
the Typhula was somewhat more abundant.
Tersan SP was used at several rates and in various
combinations with other fungicides. Turf treated in
November of 1972 with Tersan SP (8 oz) plus Tersan 1991

(6 oz. in Nov. or 3 oz. in Nov. and 3 oz. in March) showed
considerable injury by April of 1973. Some other combinations
were also somewhat phytotoxic.
Most of the treatments used in 1972/73 will be repeated
in 1973/74 and certain new ones will be added.
We are very grateful to the respective superintendents
for their cooperation and to the Northwest Turfgrass Association and 0. M. Scott & Sons for their financial support
of this project.

is

OOOCÛOOOOOCONNCOOONtOOCgNOOtûNOONOOWCÛOOCO o®
01 aurif
aCDOOOtüCÜLO^^CÜ^CD^CDOO^Nhh-CDNÜ^ÜJOd) e- O

bù

•H

J3

ioocDcocD"TOQOoo'TCDcocgoocooooooooooO'crocD 00^
iNfflO«C05)(31fflDffle¡3 00OO(IlC)aiD0)Offim0)0)
Cid
rH rH
rH
'tûO'OOOON^'ï'^OON^M^MNOeDKOOCO^C]» "T O
e Jdv^ i^co^eú^^ojínNco^'íoo^N^üoxíNhaeDacD 00 ew cÖ o
rH C
C
tf 00).
OOO'eWMNMCU^ceiOONtONeUOO):.
cue: COW
>
*
H 0) S>> 61 tier •COt^C^CDCÛt^COjOt>rrTtecD(»C^t^t^r-COCOC3eDCDCDt>
a) X! -P
-p -p
CONTegeg"erNTO co"eregcgco"TO co000 COCDco^r"er0 egCD0 -er cg
tí
es a)
'CDco'00t^CD't>CO*CDCDt>e-t^CDC""CD*LOt^CDCD'IOeot-t> CD*CDe* CD CD
H
•
Ien §
CDCDCDT cm "TCDO 0 COCN0 -eTeg0 O 0 CD"er"T 0 CDTT cgco00 co eg
dad
t> C
D*aiai fr CO*aiCOco*co10 i> 0 OrH 0rH ciCiaiai00'cocococo'co" co
»
fcfl
V
0)tí-o
oeg0 cgO eiCD0 00eg"er•ereg"erCDC3 0 00eg•erCD00CDeg "er cg
co c
0
N
C
Ö
co o a0))
¡ta C
DLOt> t^ LOCD*t> co*ci t^ 10 LOai00"t> coCi 00*co t» e»CO00'ai 00"
>> u tí
egegCDeg0 0 ei"er0 "er"er0 00co 0 COei"erco O co •erCD"er0 0 00
HW O
'e» CDLO LO t> 0' co* e-o co' CO co' e- e- CD t> e« •Û CD co'0 e-' CD
16 ¿«W -i
Cití4CO T LO M 00 I (NtítítíII II II I
X yÇ-eiM i eg to'N ^ e; ^ 10 N 3Q I Ktí« ÑtítítíI 1 I I I
-CP
-P
OÄ
-Pco0)
X5
D OL JDV I C\I CD" N ^ N ^ L l N O OCDI W f e f e h l I I I tí I I I I
+J be
JH^CH
CD
tí
•H
g
e
r
tí
w
o
J
B
W
I
N
o
e» Ití
eg cn eg cm eg eg eg 1títítítí
e
g
T
e
g
1
0
en o3oS tí
tí
CD
o •tí
:CD00 ití
cgtítíi i i i i i i i i
82
i «o
"er eg
"er LO e
O TJ -d
00 - 0) 9 qa¿r 1 eg co
er
gl
0o0 e.otí
eg eg c:títítítícd i 1 i i
rH tí.
T3 tí
.Ni nt eg "e
CD
tí
3 3en0)
,a0)
(
1
)
S
-ptí
tí
e
:
e
»
c
d
e
gtíi i i l i i i i i
9X uefii e; o eg "T eg "er co
3
títí
otí0tí
O0
)tí
)en tí
OP
ger "e1
r0 e
12 38Gi eg cd co co e"
e
cd e
gg eg eg eg eg eg 1títítítí
Cg
Dg co tí
Te 0) o -H
c
¡
c
o
o
e
g
:t -m
er •
cd; títítíi i i itíi i i i
CT AONi eg cd cd co en
-H
•tí
pi-H3"
û en
3atí
(D
e
g
co cotí
eg og egtítítítí1 1 1 1 1
3
O
O
Ätí
«HrHtí £2 TOCi eg cd o co cmNT LO u
X O T)
0) en
NT 10CDCM 00 co MtítítíI I I I I I I I I
tío-päo<u 2 TOCi tg co co coe¡eg
(i)
tí
e
n
tí
i
3H 3
'il Tda£i eg -o CD oe.cm "^r io c\ 00 00 egtícn eg co icoegcoico eso 00 *er o
cn
cn
>
%- =
o o o cu .XBAjaxmi r e : r
co e g
X2 teKñ ,

> -H

£ &

<U
¡3 a
0 «H
£ -P
û) rH

O

u

C

=

g
§
è
s
38•

O ¡ tí :

-P '
3 , c0
Si? Sí

3
9
I
T
.
]c
wd •
iO
-"
i
.cd
<
I
Ö .H 0
I Y O
S
3
£
se:
d 'N
o CT
rH C
N C . ÑT LO CaD ot» 00

ge

B>SrH
So \rHCO z
Ci O co
c g? s - e-:
ed s

73 O :0
- tí CD
U Q

\

85
•o CD

•

Qû >>
.retOenOji :
-re
P .
P
ß H e—( (tí rH
0
O
0 0CJO5nCD I •
P S 1
rere4cm coree ; corec< orexi o corea o o e\ oo oreoo
C¿-To-€|
Irerereo e; »'re a co o i co « o o oo N o « o o o co
re -p £¿-£-í>jltdrereiorerererereio *re -re m -.re co lo in lo co m lo co m
£ Ä
re eel 0 re o N csi o w co o ocrereoo m 0 e. o oo re
£¿-6T-lj CO CD CD CO co CO CO CD CO lO LO CO CD CO CD CO CO LO CD CO CO
0
Pre
>O
E en
•H -O
X
O re
ra

i

i O O OC O0 CD o O Cdo•co • ireed Ce
d» ore ed co co
CD 00 <3001CD|> CO ODIODCO I> i! co coe - t00-00 CSD t>
1
INreO (3co core- ed co
O CO ' > o O c
oo co00 co o co
i II o o Ci co
t- ere cococooo co crei oco CO
00 01 O Ci
rP rP
oo -re ede e
o; 'O -o ooo
re, i o co Ore
ODo co o re
£¿-£-fr¡ c
• Ci e»00 ch-o t> 00 CI 00
o* LO co t>
Iio o co re CD t^ O 00 CO
C
O
c
o
I o co 00
'
reoco co co o
Co
d CO ii
£¿-6T-l! CO CO LOCOLOOD CO OD c
i co com c
oD D N N
hre
o
o
o
c
o
O
Ö
i
O
0
O -P
j
£¿-iz-sl I ed co ; ;reedrei
co
o ededcooo a a it^ a a a
0 e
n
rP
i
"î
£¿-T-S i ed co e;reedrelo ;d co00 Cd Cd >! t^ ed ed Cd
i
I
e.ree-,re'O ci iœ oo a a > a a
£¿-OT-fr¡ i e
I d co
CD
£L-ZZ-£i
i i ed co e dreedremCDCd co00 iCdedCd >i t^ Cd ed Cd
en
-dp Cre
-p -p
a re O 4 2L-8Z-ZÌ
Cdreedrelocoe, oocoiaed
a » t^ a a a
0 0
I
O
X -SP a d C¿-9-S¡ ed co'
e
.
re
c
\
re
m
e
d
c
o
c
o
w
0 rt
Cd Cdi i o cd Cd Cd I
0
i
LU
£¿-91-1»j ' ed co'edrecvrelocoed oo co edioomai>a a a a j
reio ej ooDJcolDte
cv"eded (
^d eo
do Cd
Z¿-TS-ZT¡ i ed co co co oírec^re
0
!
<
H
«I
<H •
•oed
ed •co co ed ae a a iiim i
3¿-£I-Il| ed co co co edre
0 en
0 E,
£¿-5-¿¡

LO

1

w

-re

-p

00

>>

-p

CO Cd '
- ;I
t0
^
aí cd
re

•aa
S
1 ss
S=
!O^
: a88 OD - e: co :
0 a
-p
Xi Q
U
OS e
SB
'mcût^cociOfPCdCDreincot^oociOr-icdCD
re iP iP rp iPrererpreCd CD CD CD CD
» 25
>> co
U Q

132

FUSARIUM P A T C H - C O N T R O L W I T H
O n putting green at Fircrest Golf L Country
Dick Gettle, Supt.
Purpose:
standard

To evaluate
types.

Club,

FUNGICIDES

Tacoraa, Wash,

of n e w fungicides

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

in c o o p e r a t i o n

in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h

with

certain

Applications:
In 10 gallons o f w a t e r (except # 1 2 - d r y ) per 1000 sq. ft. at approximately
3 w e e k intervals, starting Sept. 13 during an o u t b r e a k o f Fusarium w h i c h quickly subsided
and never redeveloped.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LI
12
13
14
15
16
18

Check
2
HOE 17411 (60%)
(20%)
6.1
Acti-thiram(4)+1991(2)
6
(4) "
8
(4)
2
BAY 18554 (2)
4
(4)
2
Cleary's 3336
BROMOSAN
4
M F - 5 65
5
2
FUNGO (50%)
M F - 5 7 1 - D r y + 1 gal w a t e r 6 8
8
TERSAN S P
2
TERSAN 1 9 9 1
8
FORE
2
1991/FORE - A l t
8

it

i
t

2
6.1

2
2
6 J. 6.1

CM
C
O
i
ti
> N <53
m
> 7 Ò
ra
C1
M 1 01
i
C
M
CM CM CO 0< ra r-l rl

2
2
6 JL 6.1

2
6

2
6

J. J

-

2
6.1

2
6J

-

-

-

-

-

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2
4
2
4
5
2
68
4
2
8
8

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

-

-

-

-

2
8
2
2

2
8
8

2
8

2

2
8
8

-

F

-

2
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
5
5
2
2
68 68
8
4
2
2
8
8
2
8
F

F « FORE at 8 o z / 1 0 g a l / 1 0 0 0 f t 2

-

2
4
2
4
5
2
68

-

7. 4
9. 4
8. 2
8. 0
7. 4 10. 0
6. 2
9. 8
6. 0 10. 0
7. 4
9. 2
7. 6
9. 4
8. 2
9. 8
7. 8
9. 0
7. 8
9. 8
7. 6
9. 6
7. 4 10.
8
9. 4
6
8 10.
8.
10.
6. 6 10.

1

1

C
tMC1
O

I 4-2-73

Materials

Density

Color

Applications

C
M
t1
M
O r-l C
c-:
CM
0*
3 co C
1 o.i-i 1 1 CM
O
r-l
C3

C
hO
C1
M
1

10. 0
10. 0
10. 0
10. 0
9. 8
9. 8
10. 0
9.,8
9.,6
10. 0
10. 0
6

9.6
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.6
9.6
10.0
9.4

0 9.
7.0 7. 9.0 7.0
2
2 7.
9.2
10. 0
8
8
7.
0 10. 0 10.0
2
8
0 0 10. 0 10.0
2 F
0 9.8 9.8

EFFECT OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON POA 1
Alvin G. Law 2

Plant growth regulators, if effective, could greatly
reduce the cost of maintenance of turf on city parks,
cemeteries, and general use turf areas. To this end we
applied a chemical (3-trifluoromethylsulfonomide-P-acetotoluidide) to ten varieties of Poa pratensis, and one
variety of Lolium. Applications were made on May 18,
May 29, and June 18, 1973. All plots were fertilized and
irrigated to maintain optimum growth and color on the
check plots. Each area was mowed three days prior to the
application of the chemical. Following treatment the plots
were not mowed for as long as 30 days. Height measurements
were taken prior to mowing. Data are shown in Tables I and
II.
While the height measurements do not give the best
indication of the possible effects of the growth retardant,
it is clear that various bluegrass species respond differently. For example, Cougar, Nugget, and FyIking, all
low-growing dwarf types, showed greatest response to the
growth retardant. Also, the effect of treating in May on
growth in July was very small (see % reduction Table II).
As a general observation there was no undesirable discoloration of the turf by any of the treatments applied.
It is probable that repeat treatments may be needed to
accomplish the desired effect. However, if we look at
the detailed data in Table I for the May 18 treatment, we
can conclude that for Cougar, Fylking, Lolium, and perhaps

To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
i/professor of Agronomy, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington.

Sodco, and Merion, a two pound per acre treatment would
eliminate the need for mowing for nearly 30 days. Treatments on May 29, and June 18 were much less effective on
all varieties.
Detailed data on the wear studies will appear in an
early issue of the Golf Superintendent.
Data are being accumulated on the effect of N-serve
on controlling the release of nitrogen in ammonium sulfate
as part of an effort to reduce costs of repeated fertilizer
applications.

TABLE I.

Turf Height in Centimeters on June 26, 1973 after Indicated
Number of Days Growth

Treated May 18
30 da. regrowth
Variety

W/a

Treated May 29
20 da. regrowth

2#/a

Ck.

l#/a

2#/a

Treated June 18
5 da. regrowth
Ck.

l#/a

2#/a

2#/a*

Ck.

Cougar

4.3

3-3

9-3

4.0

4.3

9-3

4-3

4.3

5.6

5-0

Fylking

6.6

4.3

13-3

6-3

7.3

13-3

5.3

5-0

5.3

4.3

S- Dak.
Cert.

12-5

11.0

16.0

9.2

10.6

16.0

5-6

4.3

5.3

4.6

Newport

10.8

12-3

15-0

6.8

8.0

15.0

7.0

5.0

5.0

5-0

Del ta

13.0

12.2

17-0

8.4

8.3

17.0

6.0

6.0

4.6

7-3

Wi ndsor

13-i

5-7

11.5

6.0

6-3

11-5

4.3

4.6

4-3

5-6

Sodco

12-9

6.3

11.6

6-7

5-0

11.6

5-6

4.6

4.6

5-0

13-6

11.0

15.0

6.7

7-7

15.0

4.6

4.3

4.0

5.0

Mer ion

10.8

6.0

9-3

6.4

6.3

9.3

5.6

4.3

4.3

6.3

Nugget

7-8

4.6

5-3

6.3

6.6

5-3

5.0

4.6

4.3

6.6

Lolium

6. 1

4.6

12.0

9-3

9-3

12.0

6.6

5-3

6.3

5-0

Average

10. 1

7-4

12.3

6.9

7-2

12.3

5.4

4.3

4.8

5-4

18

39

44

41

0

20

12

Pennstar

% Reduction

* Maleic hydrazide

Table II.

Turf height in centimeters on July 23, 1973, with indicated days
regrowth.
Treated May 29

Treated June 18

5 days regrowth—^

5 days regrowth-^
Ck.

1 #/a

2#/a

Ck.

l#/a

2#/a

Cougar

2.6

2.0

3.3

A.O

3.0

3.3

A.O

Fylki ng

2.9

2.6

3.6

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

S. Dak. Cert.

3.1

A.O

3.0

3.0

2.3

2.0

2.3

Newport

3.1

3.6

3.0

2.6

2.3

3.0

3.0

Delta

3.1

3.3

3.6

3.0

3.3

3.0

3.0

Wi ndsor

2.6

3.6

3.3

2.3

2.0

2.6

2.6

Sodco

3.3

3.3

2.6

3.0

3.3

2.3

3.0

Pennstar

2. A

2.6

3.6

3.3

2.3

2.3

2.6

Mer ion

2.6

3.0

3.3

3.0

2.6

2.3

3.3

Nugget

2.9

3.6

3.0

2.3

3.0

3.0

3.0

Lol i urn

2.6

2.3

2.6

3.0

3.6

A.3

A.6

Average

2.8

2.9

3.1

2.9

2.8

2.8

3.1

09

06

06

09

09

Var i ety

% Reduction

—All plots mowed July 18.
2/
— Maleic hydrazide.

These data represent recovery rates.

AGRONOMIC RESEARCH REPORT 1
D. K. Taylor 2

Turfgrass Variety Trials
Several varieties have been promising in trials conducted at the Agassiz Research Station over the period 19691972. These results are based on monthly observations over
the growing season and averaged over a 2-3 year period. The
trials were mowed twice weekly, at 3/4" and 1-1/2" for lawn
turf and 1/4" for bentgrass, clippings removed. Adequate
fertility and moisture levels were maintained for good
growth, while broadleafed weeds were controlled by herbicides as required. The following is a list of the more
promising varieties in each species, arranged in descending
order of attractiveness rating.
Fescue Chewings - Koket, Wintergreen, Highlight, Jamestown,
Rolax, Erika, Golfrood, Encota.
Creeping red - SAI 67, S59, Dawson, Wilton, Pennlawn,
Rasengold, Leo.
Hard - C 26.
Kentucky bluegrass - Nugget, K412, Birka, B101, Pennstar,
FyIking, Sodco, Baron, Golf, Merion,
Sydsport, Monopoly.

1/To be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
2/Turf Research and Forest Breeding, Research Station,
Canada Department of Agriculture, Agassiz, British
Columbia.

Bentgrass Colonial - Tracenta, Bardot, Enate, GS 2
Creeping - Penncross
Velvet - Kingstown
Perennial ryegrass - Manhattan, Pelo, Norlea
Seed Mixture for Lawn Turf
A three year study of mixtures of Boreal and Pennlawn
fescue, Merion and Park Kentucky bluegrass and Highland
bentgrass has confirmed the agressiveness of Highland bentgrass in lawn mixtures; and also, that the choice of variety
is very important to the success of a certain species in a
lawn mixture even when the bentgrass component was as little
as 6 to 8% by weight of the seeding mixture. Highland dominates some mixtures after one year and constituted 90% of
the turf after the second year. Although differences were
recognizable among seeding ratios of most mixtures studied
at the end of the third year, only with combinations of
Pennlawn-Merion did they appear to have any practical significance; for in all other mixtures one variety dominated,
outweighing any long term seeding ratio effect.
Pennlawn and Merion were much more competitive than
Boreal and Park respectively, indicating that choice of
variety is important to the success of a species in a mixture. Pennlawn and Merion appeared compatible in a mixture
and gave a reasonable balance in composition at the end of
the third year when seeded at 3:1 or 1:1 ratios by weight.
Grasses for Sportsturf
An assessment of turfgrass species and varieties for
sportsturf is underway at Agassiz. A total of 58 treatments
in a replicated study receive simulated wear treatments from
a spiked roller. Results over one winter indicate that perennial ryegrass-Kentucky bluegrass mixtures were most resistant to wear. With fall seeding establishment was excellent
with perennial ryegrass, but less successful with Kentucky

bluegrass. Seeding ratios of perennial ryegrass-Kentucky
bluegrass varying from 1:2 to 4:1 by weight have all resulted
in stands dominated by perennial ryegrass in June of the
following year. The ratio (1:2) @ 3#/1000 sq. ft. resulted
in a stand of 58% Manhattan perennial ryegrass: 42% Merion
Kentucky bluegrass.
Among the perennial ryegrass varieties, Manhattan,
Pennfine and Sprinter had excellent density, while NK 200,
Z9050, Stadion and Norlea were the easiest varieties to
cut. Sydsport Kentucky bluegrass was superior to Fylking,
Baron, Merion, and Nugget in speed of establishment and
density of cover.
Of the miscellaneous species under trial only Poa
trivialis and diploid timothy show some promise to date.
Fine fescues, crested dogstail, Canada bluegrass, and
colonial bentgrass gave poor performances under wear, while
Alta fescue failed to establish a good stand.
Snow Mold Control in the B. C. Interior
Winter damage to fine turf may be caused by Typhula spp.,
Fusarium nivale and other organisms which are presently
under study by plant pathologists. In the past, repeated
dosages of mercury products have helped to keep damage
caused by these fungi to a minimum. Now with the use of
mercury being curtailed other fungicides are sought which
will do this job.
The results of two years of trials indicate that Tersan
SP (chloroneb) at 9 oz. and Terraclor (PCNB) at 5 oz./lOOO
sq. ft. were most promising in the control of the Typhula
type of snow mold. Mixtures of these two fungicides at
full and half rates were very effective in disease control
but resulted in some turf burn when growth commenced.
Neither chloroneb or PCNB were effective in Fusarium
control, and where this disease is a problem in late fall
or over winter, fall applications of benomyl and maneb
are recommended.

TURF GRASS OBSERVATIONAL TRIALS 1
Ron Ensign2

In 1972, a turf grass observational trial was established on the Plant Science Farm at the University of Idaho,
Moscow. This trial included 22 bluegrass varieties or
breeding lines, two perennial rye varieties, six fescue
turf varieties, and three bentgrass varieties. Each entry
was planted in a 4' x 151 block which was duplicated. The
first block has been mowed weekly during the 1973 growing
period? one-half of the mowed block was rotary mowed at a
1-1/2 to 1-3/4 inch height, and the other half rotary mowed
at 1 to 1-1/4 inch level. The other 4 1 x 15' block was
allowed to grow and produce seed which has been harvested.
During mid-August these seed production blocks will be
burned. All plots were fertilized with an annual application of 4 lbs. of N, 2 lbs. of P, and 2 lbs. of K^O per
1000 ft 2 each year. The plots were irrigated with portable sprinklers.
Emergence notes were recorded, but due to generally
warm weather at the time of planting, these records do not
adequately describe emergence differences of some varieties.
Additional seedings were necessary for some. Notes on
texture in the fall of 1972, 1973 spring regrowth, regrowth
after April 13 (first) clipping, turf color during May, 1973,
and the heading dates for each variety are recorded on the
attached tables.
Texture
Bluegrass varieties which exhibited fine texture were
Adelphi, Arboretum, Cougar and P-164. Course textured bluegrass varieties include Garfield, Kenblue 74-34, Newport,
Prato, Sydsport, Belturf, and P-142. The other bluegrasses

¿/TO be presented at the Joint Northwest Turfgrass Association/
Canada Turfgrass Association Conference, Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia, October, 1973.
¿/Agronomist and Plant Breeder, University of Idaho, Moscow,
Idaho.

varied from medium to coarse texture. Pennfine perennial
rye has a finer texture in these plots than does Manhattan.
The fescues all produced relatively fine textured leaves
with Jamestown and C-26 showing excellent texture.
Spring Regrowth
Of considerable interest was the 1973 spring regrowth.
The early regrowth varieties were Delta, Kenblue P-29, Pennstar, P-142, P-164, and Ram #1. Pennlawn, Aberystwyth and
Barfalla were early spring growth fescues. The late spring
growth varieties were Baron, FyIking, Nugget (very late),
Manhattan rye, and Jamestown creeping fescue.
Varieties outstanding for regrowth after early spring
clippings were Arboretum, Delta, Garfield, Kenblue, Park,
P-142, P-164, Ram #1, Manhattan rye, and all of the fescue
varieties.
Regrowth patterns may change as the turf ages.
Color
Color differences of the turf were most noticeable
during May of 1973. These differences are recorded in the
table. Varieties which show dark green color are: Adelphi,
Baron, Kenblue P-29, Nugget, Victa, Belturf, P-164 and
Ram #1. The C-26 hard fescue also exhibited a dark color.
Light green varieties were Arboretum, Delta, Garfield, Kenblue, Park, and the ryegrasses.
Maturity
The early maturity varieties include: Kenblue, Pack,
Arboretum, Sydsport, and Newport. Late varieties were:
Kenblue P-29, Victa, P-164, Ram #1, Manhattan rye, and the
bentgrasses.
Future
Additional turf quality ratings are being recorded
during the 1973 growth periods. Color, regrowth and texture during hot periods are being noted. Fall dormancy

and color will also be recorded. To date no significant
disease developments have been observed, but will be observed during subsequent months.
Approximately 40 additional varieties are being planted
adjacent to the same plots. These will complete most named
varieties of bluegrasses, fescues, and ryegrasses grown for
seed production in the Northwest. New varieties or potential varieties are being solicited.

« ri

*J Ol
XX

ai

PO IN i i , IT

- œ o i ^ n m in in m ic in u

OMAMflir inmiooo r-

<M X
U M C
£ -3 1

n m m in
i i i i io i
nroio i r

yn in in vo imn vo y« m yo
- II I I
noo Q Tf
r- .-o,-, porr-l
m

v0 10 of 1*0f 10 10 CO 00
v0 VO 0010CD
*f

««iDOOiO

io r» in ro in mœininin*fn<r r- r- r- ve ir
w «ja»
CP U It
41

•J kJ iJ 3 1 !

>
41m4)
ilm
u m>
u4,
jJ

I U kJ TD

t<l kl "O :
mi « 4i

oi errS-5S

U > i-J X

«JX UX

>
ti
4) clQr'
-t <r
HUM
Xuuu
ou u
- ' * -ÜXW -

£ ü £ U Í ) WfefefeX £fefefefeb

£ U U £ I ^lO*lïO £ U e fe Xfefefefefefefefe I
fe £ £fex \ x X X.fefe

> 41
41 U

1

fefeS Ou X

> £

-hO "oO 3 4m1 41a tr 4»
£
O 2 55 J C
e V in . . >, C
3 • r-l M tfl ri 41
•3Ä XI XI X ,C
H X H H JÏ

ooo oe
iiii
CD r- r

o oo
m 4J o u
n ri (U
fe 05fefe

n

>. tr
>4
e e ee e

m -h m D m
>. e
m . ! *
O 41 O k> O e
o u mmEOrUoToI
U
O -u

•o liflwo
4) :
4)fe4) Of rU0 4
1
41 41 C 41
W 41 W O W

-sa
e Oliti
UO D

u -u I

e
-o
4J etr>
•
h Li
ai t
-hci
rife3 -H r-l
3
0 Oi4 41 U
ÜNH»ü

N 10 C :
4» . 3 3
2 O h k

m ai m m m
h 2 B. > 4

•O O I
4) U i
41 ir. :
jm N
3 3 41 H a Z

3Ü£Q
e e
i Ol Ol
cam

e m m
41 O
O 0>k> X
XX XX
XX Di ri
e n> ki
41 Okl 3 r—t
>r « 41 41 4»
TJ
< XX
< 10 O 41

il

3 - - kl
!ï
CP
• 41
kml ai
ek
l -r
3 >. >rkl XX
•i 4J M tfl rI ki TJ
«1 41 -H
o am r
* mfe> «
ki n ti ii o i
CPkJ M
„ X e u 4
i kl 30 C r r
kl
41 I
m i
in
et a X o. u s
•k» » kl

OD UHr
j m o 4i
a u fe
o U X X z fe > «o a
omtfiniOMDoiOHNmtfinior-oOffidr-ir IlOMDlPdr
144

•
T3 "O kiE
41 4»

4i T) s
M 41
4i 41
oc en
rinn |f

: 41
kl
C
M
«

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Photography - Heinz Knoedler
Coffee Breaks and Hospitality Hour
A.B.C. Landscaping Ltd.
2511 w. Broadway
Vancouver, B.C.

Imperial Paving
1307 W. Georgia St.
Vancouver, B. C.

A I M Steel
Annacis Industrial Estate
Delta, B. C.

Instant Lawns Ltd.
1055 Bayview Drive
Delta, B. C.

Agrico Sales Ltd.
2233 Quebec St.
Vancouver, B. C.

Jack Cewe Const.
1850 Hillside
Coquitlam, B. C.

Big Toys of Canada
18697 - 96th Ave.
Surrey, B. C.

Massot Nurseries
1606 Westminster Hwy.
Richmond, B. C.

Dial Contracting
3183 Norland
Burnaby, B. C.

Northern Ind. Ltd.
245 No. 8 Road
Richmond, B. C.

Harry Sharpe & Son
620 Malkin Ave.
Vancouver, B. C.

Pacific Coast Nurseries
12993 Harris
Pitt Meadows
Port Coquitlam, B. C.

Holland Landscapers
6969 Greenwood St.
Burnaby 2, B. C.
Harley Development
8719 Crest
Burnaby, B. C.

Pacific Irrigation
405 Industrial Ave.
Vancouver, B. C.
Taylor Pearson & Carson Ltd
5334 Lougheed Highway
Burnaby, B. C.

Golf Tournament Sponsored By
Pro Turf Limited
3215 Norland
Burnaby 2, B. C.

NORTHWEST TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION
ATTENDANCE

Maurice A. Aasland
Oak Harbor, WA

David A. Bobillot
Burton, WA

Chet Allbee
Spokane, WA

Norb Boyle
Seaside, OR

Bud Ashworth
Liberty Lake, WA

Jim Bromley
Orting, WA

Jerry M. Bacon
Vancouver, WA

Dave Brown
LaGrande, OR

Stan Bailey
Orting, WA

Herb Brown
Spokane, WA

Milton Bauman
Seattle, WA

C. M. Browne11
Albany, OR

Clayton Bauman
Kent, WA

Sy Byle
Eastsound, WA

James B. Beard
Ok emo s , Mi eh i gan

James Chapman
Bellevue, WA

Norris R. Beardsley
Spokane, WA

Sam Clarke
Bainbridge, WA

William Bengyfield
Garden Grove, CA

Ray Coleman
Maple Valley, WA

Tim Berg
Portland, OR

R. E. Collard
Friday Harbor, WA

J. L. Bishop
Tacoma, WA

A. Wayne Cooley
Albany, OR

Al Blair
Seattle, WA

Gary L. Cooper
Hubbard, OR

Lloyd G. Brown
Everett, WA

Dr. C. J. Gould
Puyallup, WA

Wayne Dean
Yakima, WA

Monty Cr Gravatt
Pocatello, ID

Arthur P. Dome
Seattle, WA

Gary Gunderson
Seaside, OR

Peter Dotto
Vancouver, WA

Bond Harman
Warm Springs, OR

Ralph Evans
San Jose, CA

Dick Haskell
Seattle, WA

Cliff Everhart
Spokane, WA

Vern Harvey
Hayden Lake, ID

Dick Fluter
Lake Oswego, OR

Omer Henderson
Lynnwood, WA

Edward Fluter
Portland, OR

Bernard Higgins
Anderson, WA

Ellington Forsyth
Penticton, B. C.

Donald A. Hogan
Seattle, WA

Larry C. Franks
Redmond, WA

Charles C. Hoke
Puyallup, WA

Ronald W. Fream
Los Gatos, CA

Harold J. Huffman
Burnaby, B. C.

Richard Gettle
Tacoma, WA

Robert V. Hughes
Glendora, CA

Neville G. Gladding
Seattle, WA

Frank H. Ingraham
Port Angeles, WA

Muri Goddard
Yakima, WA

Van Jackson
Washougal, WA

Dr. Roy L. Goss
Puyallup, WA

Walt Jefferson
Wenatchee, WA

Wesley M. Johnson
Union, WA

Tim Manion
Portland, OR

Bill Johnston
Camas, WA

Ben Malikowski
Redmond, WA

Harvey Junor
Portland, OR

Richard Malpass
Vancouver, WA

Art Kain
Seattle, WA

Norman W. Marshall,
Tacoma, WA

Alexander Kazai
Victoria, B. C.

Arthur G. Mars ton
Seattle, WA

Bill Keene
Mount Vernon, WA

Royce McCarley
Tracy, CA

Gardner Keith
Bellevue, WA

Douglass McDonald
Longview, WA

Donald Kolassa
Spokane, WA

Ken McKenzie
Renton, WA

Carl H. Kuhn
Mercer Island, WA

John V. Messmer
Kent, WA

Henry W. Land, Jr.
Seattle, WA

Robert L. Metre
Seattle, WA

Robert Larson
Bellingham, WA

Randy Meyers
Spokane, WA

Alvin G. Law
Pullman, WA

Leo Moen
Eugene, OR

Owen Leathary
Pocatello, ID

John Monson
Redmond, WA

Dick Love11
Bend, OR

Joe Much
Monmouth, OR

Joe Lymp
Sunriver, OR

Steve Nord
Seattle, WA

Gary H. Perks
Vancouver, B. C.

Ray Schmidt
Bellingham, WA

Dr. T. E. Pocklington
Fresno, CA

Bob Schoessler
Sequim, WA

Joe Pttenger
Yakima, WA

Richard A. Schwabauer
Portland, OR

Ron Proctor
Seattle, WA

Dr. Robert C. Shearman
Gervais, OR

Kenneth L. Putnam
Sequim, WA

Jack Shults
Cornelias, OR

Warwick O'Hara
Surrey, B. C.

Clarence Sowers
Vancouver, WA

Marvin Oiness
Bellingham, WA

Wally Staatz
Orting, WA

Thomas Opstad
Seattle, WA

Bob Staib
San Francisco, CA

Duane Orullian
Pocatello, ID

Rich Stipe
Portland, OR

R. J. Rickabaugh
Sisters, OR

Paul Stokke
Everett, WA

Henry Richert
Portland, OR

Junior Stovall
Spokane, WA

John S. Rogers
Vancouver, WA

Frank Trocinio
Eugene, OR

Robert J. Root
Tacoma, WA

Vern Turgeon
Seattle, WA

George Saunders
Leavenworth, WA

Daniel F. Volimer
Hayden Lake, ID

Dick Schmidt
Port Ludlow, WA

D. H. Walker
Kennewick, WA

Doug Weddle
Olympia, WA

Mr. A. Quentin White
Spokane, WA

Melvin West
Union, WA

Mr. G. Schmitt
Spokane, WA

John Zoller
Eugene, OR

Dr. T. E. Pocklington
Fresno, CA

Sam Zook
Medina, WA

Mr. Hugh Burbank
Kelona, B. C.

C. A. Schmidt
Deer Park, WA
Dr. Stanton E. Brauen
Puyallup, WA
Dr. K. J. Morrison
Pullman, WA
Mr. Ben Korsten
Sumner, WA
Mr. Rick Hoverson
Seattle, WA
Mr. Earl Morgan
Anacortes, WA

WESTERN CANADA TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION
ATTENDANCE

Mr. G. Domich
Fallis Turf Equip. Ltd.
581 No. 3 Road
Richmond, B. C.
Mr. B. Mullins
11418 - 74 A Ave.
Delta, B. C.
Mr. A. Smith
Qualicum Beach Golf Course
Box 138
Qualicum Beach, B. C.
Mr. Hoffler
Northern Ind. Ltd.
245 No. 8 Road
Richmond, B. C.
Mr. Hans Molholm
School Dist. No. 63
6875 Saanich Cross Road
Victoria, B. C.
Mr.. D. Millar
641 Thompson Ave. N.E.
Salem, OR
Mr. C. Gallant
Instant Lawns Ltd
1055 Bayview Drive
Delta, B. C.
Mr. Art Lindstrom
Prince George City Parks
Prince George, B. C.

Mr. N. Sheristobitoff
Site 19, Comp. 12, SS #2
Castlegar, B. C.
Mr. H. Knoedler
66 - 48th Street
Delta, B. C.
Mr. M. Hart
Burnaby Mtn
Corporation
4949 Canada
Burnaby, 2,

Golf Course
of Burnaby
Way
B. C.

Mr. D. Hartman
Corp. of Burnaby Parks
and Recreation
4949 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.
Mr. Art Goodwin
Prince Rupert Parks & Rec.
550 East 11th Ave.
Prince Rupert, B. C.
Mr. J. Crooks
Vancouver City Parks
2099 Beach
Vancouver, B. C.
Mr. F. Harris
Supt. of Physical Plant
School Dist. No. 57
1891 Sixth Avenue
Prince George, B. C.

Mr. E. Johnston
School Dist. No. 57
1891 Sixth Avenue
Prince George, B. C.

Mr. Percy Criddle
Glen Meadows Golf & C. C
1050 McTavish Road
Sidney, B. C.

Mr. J. McNicol
Supervisor of Grnd. Serv.
School Dist. No. 57
1891 Sixth Avenue
Prince George, B.C.

Mr. Perry Criddle
Glen Meadows Golf & C. C
1050 McTavish Road
Sidney, B. C.

Mr. C. N. Miller
Agrico Sales
2233 Quebec St.
Vancouver, B. C.
Mr. G. C. Hart
Buckerfields
P. 0. Box 7000
Vancouver, B. C.
Mr. Pat Mead-Robins
Butchart Gardens
Box 4010, Station A
Victoria, B. C.

Mr. Ron Criddle
Glen Meadows Golf & C. C
1050 McTavish Road
Sidney, B. C.
Mr. K. Warner
Vancouver School Board
5150 Barker Crescent
Burnaby, B. C.
M?. Jim Dennison
School Dist. No. 24
1383 - 9th Ave.
Kamloops, B. C.

Mr. J. Kampen
Mission Golf & C. C.
Mission, B. C

Mr. Steve Delawski
Burnaby Mtn. Golf Course
611 Ascot Street
Coquitlam, B. C.

Mr. R. Broome
Surrey Parks Board
2826 - 240th St.
Langley, B. C.

Mr. Keith Barwick
Corp. of Saanich
1400 Derby Road
Victoria, B. C.

Mr. D. Mitchell
Surrey Parks Board
765 West 66th Ave.
Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. W. Shvetz
Uplands Golf Course
24 Gorge Road East
Victoria, B. C.

Mr. V. Johnson
Surrey Parks Board
14245 - 56th Ave.
Surrey, B. C.

Mr. W. Felix
Univ. of B. C.
Physical Plant
Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. G. Haie
University of B. C.
Physical Plant
Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. J. Hancock
B. C. Provincial Govt.
Dept. of Public Works
Essondale, B. C.

Mr. Hans Ganss
Dept. of Public Works
4570 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. John Anderson
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby Mountain
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. N. Jacobson
Dept. of Public Works
4570 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. Bob Murphy
Chilliwack Golf Club
Chilliwack, B. C.

Mr. Vern Burnell
Burnell's Turf & Irrig. Ltd.
Box 2032
Rutland, B. C.
Mr. Ken Russell
c/o Hazelmere Golf Course, Ltd
18150 Campbell River Road
Surrey, B. C.

Mr. Angus Richardson
Buckerfields
P. 0. Box 7000
Vancouver, B. C.
Mr. Ralph Charlton
Peace Portal Golf Club
P. 0. Box 130
White Rock, B. C.

Mr. R. Krahn
12927 - 87 A. Avenue
Surrey, B. C.

Mr. John Bull
Peace Portal Golf Club
P. 0. Box 130
White Rock, B. C.

Mr. Martin Moore
Dist. of N. Vancouver
123 East 23rd
N. Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. G. Chaster
B.C.I.T.
3700 Willingdon
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. Frank Townsend
B. C. Provincial Govt.
Dept. of Public Works
Essondale, B. C.

Mr. R. Selig
Beach Grove Golf Course
Beach Grove, B. C.

Mr. A. Kazai
Victoria Golf & C. C.
1110 Beach Drive
Victoria, B. C.

Mr. Hugh Crawford
Tswassen Golf Club
Tswassen, B. C.

Mr. C. Lewis
Surrey Parks
14245 - 56th Avenue
Surrey, B. C.

Mr. Fred Moss
City of Powell River
6910 Duncan Street
Powell River, B. C.

Mr. B. Laing
School Dist. No. 14
Oliver, B. C.

Mr. Melvin Gunn
Lawn A Mat of Vancouver
7680 Winston Street
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. Gunter Edel
340 First Street
New Westminster, B. C.
Mr. Jack Martin
Cherry Grove Golf & C. C.
Oliver, B. C.
Mr. A. Vanidour
School Dist. No. 68
395 Wakesiah Avenue
Nanaimo, B. C.
Mr. Larry Burnett
School Dist. No. 68
395 Wakesiah Avenue
Nanaimo, B. C.
Mr. Zoltan Szy
School Dist. No. 37
Delta, B. C.
Mr. A. Saenger
Park Superintendent
28325 McTavish Road
Mount Lehman, B. C.
Mr. Klaus Fischer
Dept. of Public Works
4570 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.
Mr. Doug Griffith
City of Penticton
171 Main Street
Penticton, B. C.

Mr. Jack Hoekstra
City of Prince Rupert
960 - 11th Ave. East
Prince Rupert, B. C.
Mr. Jim Dickie
Richmond Golf & Country Club
910 Steveston Highway
Richmond, B. C.
Marjorie L. Todd
5815 Yew Street
Vancouver 13, B. C.
Mr. Andy Esterle
Vancouver Golf Club
771 Austin
Coquitlam, B. C.
Mr. George Martin
Box 623
Invermere, B. C.
Mr. John Lindsay
108 Mile Golf Course
108 Mile House, B. C.
Mr. R. Krueger
The Toro Co.
3200 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Mr. M. Brooks
Capilano Golf Club
420 Southborough
West Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. Don Palmeter
Glacier Greens Golf Course
P. 0. Box 138
Lazo, B. C.
Mr. D. Bacon
Corvallis Country Club
Corvallis, OR
Mr. George Karst
Hope Golf & C. C.
Hope, B. C.
Mr. J. Negraeff
2159 York Place
Port Coquitlam, B. C.
Mr. Karl A. Kolb
#2 Old Town
Los Gatos, CA
Mr. K. Watley
c/o School Dist. No. 70
1100 Redford St.
Port Alberni, B. C.
Mr. W. Campbell
Calgary Public School Board
3610 - 9th St. S.E.
Calgary, Alberta
Mr. E. Forsyth
Totem Par 4 Golf
Kelowna, B. C.
Mr. J. G. Aston
Fallis Turf Equip. Ltd.
581 No. 3 Road
Richmond, B. C.
Mr. M. Davies
Parks & Recreation Dept.
City of Vernon
City Hall
Vernon, B. C.

Mr. F. Enlow
Hirsh Creek Golf & C. C.
Kitimat, B. C.
Mr. Ashley LeGeyt
Kelowna Golf & C. C.
1297 Glenmore Drive
Kelowna, B. C.
Mr. Owen Hamilton
Taylor, Pearson & Carson
5334 Lougheed Highway
Burnaby, 2, B. C.
Mr. Tom Culbert
Taylor, Pearson & Carson
5334 Lougheed Highway
Burnaby 2, B. C.
Mr. N. H. Fallis
Fallis Turf Equip. Ltd.
581 N. 3 Road
Richmond, B. C.
Mr. G. Sweda
0. M. Scott & Sons
17012 N. E. 21st St.
Bellevue, WA
Mr. Gordon Westover
Green Valley Fertilizer
12816 - 80th Avenue
Surrey, B. C.
Mr. N. Woods
P. O. Box 195
Penticton, B. C.
Mr. T. L. Griffin
Sea-Born Inc.
2000 Rockford Road
Charles City, IA

Mr. Taja Singh Banns
17011 Windsor Road
Pitt Meadows, B. C.

Mr. Bob Symonds
302 - 125 W. Keith Road
N. Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. Warren McDonald
Willard Equipment
2099 West 11th Avenue
Vancouver 9, B. C.

Mr. Burt Andrews
International N.E.M. Co
5815 Yew Street
Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. Fred L. McDonald
Willard Equipment
2099 West 11th Avenue
Vancouver, B. C.

Mr. Ed Carl
Terra Irrigation
5954 Greenwood
Burnaby, B. C.

Mr. Chris Johnsen
Johnson Landscaping Ltd.
5249 Regent St.
North Burnaby, B. C.
Mr. Richard Chapman
Pine Hills Golf Club
Penticton, B. C.
Mr. Bob Bailey
Corp. of the Dist. of Burnaby
4949 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.
Mr. G. Pheifer
Corp. of Burnaby
4949 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.
Mr. W. Spelay
Corp. of Burnaby
4949 Canada Way
Burnaby, B. C.