TURFGRASS
CONFERENCE
&£*.
_

Sept. 29 - Od

_ _

_

.

1996

_

.

Victoria, British Columbia

Washington

WFGR45Î
British Columbia

Montana
Washington
Idaho
Oregon

TABLE OF CONTENTS
President's Message ....................................................................................... i
History of the Putting Green
Jim Connolly

...................................................................1

Sand Base Fields Don't Work! (But They C o u ld )....................... 15
Tom Cook
The Golf Industry - 2000 and Beyond

........................................... 25

Jim Gibbons
Northwest Turfgrass Association Your Professional Organization - the First 50 Y e a r s ................. 31
Roy i . Goss
Getting in Touch with Your Roots.......................................................43
F.B.
Holl,Ph.D., P.Ag.
Are USGA Greens Best for All Situations........................................ 51
Dr. Norman
W.Hummel, Jr.
Balancing the Physical Characteristics in Sports F ie ld s ............55
Dr. Norman W. Hummel, Jr.
Some Notes on the Early Growth
of Turfgrass Research in Washington
Alvin G. Law

.............................................. 59

Vision for the Future of Turf Research,
Extension and Teaching in the Pacirfic N orthw est.................... 63
Dr. Thomas A. Lumpkin

Getting a Grip on Pythium Root Rot and Turf S tr e s s ...............67
Leslie MacDonald, P.Ag.
Evaluating Fungicides for Snow Mold Disease Control
in Turfgrasses Under Controlled and Field C o n d itio n s............75
J. W. Sitton, W.J. Johnston, C. T. Golob,
J.T. Waldher, G.W . Bruehl
Can Antagonistic Microorganisms Control
Fusarium Patch of Tu rfg rass....................................................................81
Gwen K. Stahnke, Ph.D., Carrie R. Foss, Coleen Pidgeon

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

,

Leadership in
n
o
ita
m
rf research and support of
turf and grounds professionals.
The 50th conference of the Northwest Turfgrass Association took
place in 1996. This milestone event for the NTA was held at the
Empress Hotel and Conference Centre in Victoria, B. C , Canada.
On behalf of the Board of Directors and the management of the
NTA, I would like to thank all of our conference attendees and pre­
senters for making the 50th annual meeting a memorable affair.
Our keynote speakers, Dr. Roy Goss and A1 Law, reviewed and
helped us all to relive some of the wonderful history of the
Northwest Turfgrass Association. Following presentations focused
on our 1996 theme of the “Past, the Present and the Future of
Turfgrass Management.” A two way, live video presentation with Dr.
Joe Vargas of Michigan State University gave conference attendees
a possible glimpse into the future of turfgrass information exchange.
Mr. Jim Connolly and Mr. Don Clemans can be very proud of the
educational program they produced for the Victoria Conference.
The Roy Goss Golf Tournament for Turfgrass Research was held at
Cordova Bay Golf Course. Golf course superintendent Dean Pillar
and his staff had the course in perfect condition and even arranged
for warm and sunny weather. We offer our most sincere thank you
to the Cordova Bay Golf Course management and staff. Thanks to
their support and from the generous contribution of our many spon­
sors, we were able to raise over $ 15,000 for turfgrass research at the
golf tournament this year. Our thanks to Mr. Jim Dusin for organiz­
ing this outstanding event.
The production of the annual conference of the Northwest Turfgrass
Association is the culmination of tremendous time and effort from
and by our Board of Directors and staff. I cannot thank enough each

and every one of these people responsible for the many details
required for a successful event. Special thanks also to Bob Wick,
Executive Director of the Western Canada Turfgrass Association,
and to his wife Charlotte for all of their assistance in helping us plan
and conduct the Victoria Conference.
1996 was a year that saw the NTA welcome a new Executive
Director, Mr. Don Clemans, (and his lovely and helpful wife Linda).
Their efforts have already improved nearly every aspect of NTA
operations, We also retained Mr. Greg Crawford to assist us with
media, communications and public relations, areas that are becom­
ing more and more important to the industry.
1996 was a year that saw the NTA reach new heights in both fund
raising and contributions to turfgrass research and scholarship. Mr.
Mike Erb should be singled out for his contribution as Research and
Scholarship Committee Chairman in both 1995 and 1996. The R&S
Committee has had to make difficult choices and decisions in both
scholarship and research financial support and they have made them
well.
1996 was a year fhat saw the turf industry come a little closer togeth­
er through NTA supported programs such as the Columbia Cup Golf
Tournament, Regional Summit Meetings and through The T.U.R.F
Program and T.U.R.F. Advisory Committee Meetings.
Mr. Tom Wolff was elected President of the Northwest Turfgrass
Association at the Victoria Meeting. All best wishes to Tom and to
the 1997 Board of Directors. 1 hope to see all of you at the 1997 con­
ference at Sunriver Resort.

Thomas A. Christy, CGCS
President, Northwest Turfgrass Association

ii

HISTORY OF THE PUTTING GREEN'
by

Jim Connolly, D irector NTA, Jacklin G olf 1
2

There exists numerous historical accounts on the game o f golf from every
perspective and point o f view. Authors o f different persuasions write
about G olf And The G olf Club, G olf And The Golf Ball. Golf and the
Rules, G o lf’s Great Players, ad infinitum . . ., each offering their opinion
depending upon point o f view. This account, quite different from other
accounts, addresses golf and golf course turfgrass maintenance and how
the condition o f the putting green influences the game. Changes in main­
tenance have influenced other areas o f the golf course as well, not just
putting greens. However, the putting green is the “heart” o f the game and
very sensitive to change.
Other developments that have had a profound effect upon the game
include the development o f a more lively golf ball, steel shafts instead of
hickory shafts, graphite shafts instead o f steel shafts, better athletes, (a
debatable subject) and increased technology in the area o f equipment,
player training, etc. The USGA department in charge o f balls and imple­
ments can document these changes. Indeed, the discussions on such sub­
jects are plentiful and often very spirited. But why is there such a lack o f
discussion on course conditioning, save the few comments about turf
being “better conditioned today than in the past,” or the common com­
plaint about slow greens.
Turfgrass conditions are so closely linked to the character o f the game that
I believe the manner in which the course is maintained has more impact
upon the game than any development in equipment, design, or player skill.
The writings o f Wind, Ouimet, Jones, Hutchinson, Hagen, Snead, Old
Tom, et al supply one with enough information to make an intelligent cor­
relation between course conditions and playing strategy. The change in
turfgrass conditions over the years is boldly apparent. Every new playing
philosophy is closely linked to the maintenance o f that time period.
1 Presented at the 5 0 ^ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
2 Jacklin Coif, Chief Agronomist

1

History records change. Everything is constantly changing, some for bet­
ter - some for worse. Change in itself is not bad, but I believe we should
understand and be aware o f the reasons for change and the direction the
change is taking us. The game o f golf has definitely changed, although the
basic principle has remained; get the ball in the hole with the fewest pos­
sible strokes, and don’t cheat while your doing it!
It is important to realize that knowledge o f the game and its past is fun­
damental to the success o f proper Green Keeping (modern English Superintendent). The person in charge o f the golf course grounds has
been given various titles from Custodian o f the Links, to Caretaker, to
Green Keeper, to G olf Course Superintendent. W hichever title you prefer
doesn’t really matter, proper maintenance o f the golf course requires a
dedicated, knowledgeable individual. After all, Old Tom M orris (regard­
ed as the father o f superintendents) was revered and respected by many
and thought it appropriate that he be called Custodian o f the Links!
Willie Park, a great golfer and amateur architect at the turn o f the centu­
ry, said “Golf design starts with the green and goes backward to the tee.”
Officially, the putting green is that area specially prepared for the part o f
the game known as putting. Although golf had its beginning some 600
years ago, putting, as we know it, began about 450 years later! Studying
the gradual changes that have occurred over the last 600 years will give
you a better understanding o f the game, and golf maintenance.
Golf to some people is more than a sport, it’ s a religion. Tommy Armour
said “Love and putting are mysteries for the philosophers to solve - both
subjects are beyond golfers.” The putting green is definitely a focal point
on the golf course and the superintendent is often judged on his overall
ability based upon the condition o f the putting green.

“The most fertile source o f adverse criticism on the part o f a club
membership against the greenkeeper is that in relationship to the
conditions that prevail upon the putting green " W. K. Gault,
1913.
For simplicity and clarity, I will divide the historical account into four
eras, or periods, separated by changes in maintenance, technology, or
other influences to the turfgrass.
2

I. The period 1457 to 1832

“Decreed and ordained . . . that fute ball and golfe must be utterly
cryitdune” King James II, March 6,1457.
The King believed that playing golf and fute ball (soccer) interfered with
archery practice which was the common defense at that time. His decree
went largely ignored and his loyal subjects continued to play golf in spite
o f possible punishment. It is reported that Mary Queen of Scots, perhaps
the Alice Dye o f her day, was playing golf immediately after her husband’
s death. She claimed it eased her mourning. Sometime later, in 1603,
King James I decreed that golf could be played, but church must also be
attended. Forbidding the game may have slowed its growth, but their
hearts and souls were branded with balls in flight and swishing clubs.
The game spawned some very serious followers as well. In 1637, a young
boy was hung for stealing golf balls and in the same year, a golfer blud­
geoned his caddie with a niblick club for giving bad advice.
The Royal and Ancient G olf Society o f St. Andrews was formed in 1754,
and in all their pomp and ceremony, formalized the game by creating a
small number o f basic rules. In its raw form, golf was and still is, a game
that consists o f the golf course, clubs, and a ball. Balls and implements
used to strike the ball were similar for all golfers, but the differences
between golf courses was great! This makes the game of golf unique in
that the player is called upon to adapt to a number o f situations. Unlike
baseball or football where the playing field is fixed, the varying course
conditions test the skills and mental fortitude o f the player. Conditions on
golf courses varied greatly, depending upon rainfall, wind, the presence o f
grazing animals (the first lawn mowers), the type o f grass - if any, and a
number o f other vastly different land features.
G olf courses varied greatly because there were no uniform methods o f
maintenance between the golf courses. This all changed in 1832 with the
invention o f the mechanized lawn mower. The mowers equalized the play­
ing fields somewhat, but big differences still existed due to differing geo­
graphic location. Ransomes, Simms, and Jeffries began marketing the
first reel mower introducing a dramatic change to the game of golf. The
3

height of the grass was no longer dependent upon anim als’ appetite. Still,
conditions varied greatly because this was the only form o f maintenance
available.
The golf clubs manufactured at this time are evidence o f the conditions
that prevailed on the golf course. There were clubs for hitting out o f
wagon ruts, deep holes, and all kinds o f imperfect situations. Different
golf clubs today are primarily manufactured with different lofts for dis­
tance and height. When was the last time you selected a club for hitting
out o f a wagon wheel rut or a horses hoof print? The given environment
and ball position forced the golfer to adapt in club selection and execu­
tion o f the golf shot. It should be noted at this time that putting, and the
putting green as we know it today, did not exist.

II. The period 1832 to 1900
During this period, the putting green began to take on a more familiar
shape and could be considered a “separate” part o f the golf course. A
brief account o f how the game was played would help to clarify how this
came about. In the days o f early golf, the golfer played to an area where
a stick or pole, sometimes a hole in the ground, marked the finishing point
o f a single golf hole. The golfer finished the hole by either hitting the ball
into a hole o f nondescript size, or against a pole in the ground. The golfer
could then start the next hole by teeing from an area only a few yards
away from the previous finishing point. The “putting green” and “tee” in
those days were very close together, and difficult to distinguish one from
the other. The lawn mower, and better maintenance technique, eventually
led to the distancing o f tees and greens. In 1836 the literature mentions a
special club designed for “putting” and aptly named the putter. It was
desirable for the green to have closely cut grass, if there was any grass and
golfers became experienced at putting with specially designed clubs suit­
ed for this purpose.
Possibly the first, and certainly most famous, greenkeeper was born in
1821 and maintained golf courses from the time period 1850 to the early
1900’s. His name was Tom Morris and was affectionately known as “Old
Tom”. Old Tom believed that the proper maintenance o f the putting green
involved frequent, light sand top dressing and no play on Sundays! Old
4

Tom understood the benefits o f regular mowing, top dressing to keep the
surfaces true and predictable. Ironically, Old Tom was known around the
country as a terrible putter! One o f his golfing competitors used to send
him mail addressed “M isser o f short putts”. Old Tom was normally mild
mannered, but was occasionally given to breaking golf clubs after he
missed short putts. Fortunately for him, he preferred lemonade over
Scotch!
Putters were becoming the acceptable club for use on greens, but condi­
tions were still quite variable and players used a number o f different clubs
on the green. From the book Golf-Badminton
, 1870, it is written:
“He was unable to use a cleek for the bad lying putt, these he negotiated
with his iron.”
After finishing a hole, golfers reached into the hole on the putting green
to gather a handful o f soil to use as a “tee” on the next hole. This led to a
wide range o f hole sizes and must have been cause for many ruling prob­
lems. In 1891, an ingenious greenkeeper found a piece o f four and onequarter inch clay drain tile that he pushed into the hole thus setting the
size o f the hole at four and one-quarter inches. This occurrence leads one
to believe that today’ s golf course evolved often by happenstance. The
hole remains the same diameter today.
G olf courses being built at the turn of the century were designed with sep­
arate tees and greens and this was the form o f architecture brought to the
United States in the late 1800’s.

III. The period 1900 to 1974
Many o f the traditions o f golf and golf course design were brought to the
United States from England and Scotland at the turn o f the century. Early
Americans were familiar with golf but did not adopt it as a priority recre­
ation. There are brief accounts o f “attempted” golf in the early 1800’ s but
the first real golf course was not built until the 1890’ s.
Charles Blair MacDonald, the son o f a Scottish father and Canadian
mother, designed the famous National G olf Links o f America in 1911.
Although he grew up in Chicago, he eventually returned to the University
5

o f St. Andrews in Scotland where he learned the game o f golf and golf
design. He brought this talent to the United States and put it to work
designing golf courses. He believed a first class golf course should be
constructed from good material, preferably a sandy loam that drained
well. He believed in somewhat large, undulating putting greens with
“fine” turfgrass so the ball will run perfectly true. MacDonald coined the
title Golf Architect and is considered by many to be the “Father of
American G olf Course Architecture”. Some said he had an ego the size
of Lake Michigan; and a slice that would traverse 3 counties! Many say
he is the mold for today’s golf architect.
There were other architects who brought a design flavor from overseas
including Dr. Alister MacKenzie, Donald Ross, Willie Park Jr., Herbert
Strong, and Walter Travis (Australian), just to name a few.
Some key developments in history had an obvious impact on the way golf
courses were maintained.
1902 - the invention o f gasoline powered lawn mowers.
1916 - architect, Donald Ross builds modified soil greens.
1918 - use o f heavy equipment, such as bulldozers and steam shovels.
1920 - production o f putting green mowers that could be accurately
adjusted to one-eighth o f an inch cutting height.
Circa 1920 - the development o f underground irrigation systems.
1921 - formation of the United States G olf Association Green Section.
The Green Section was solely dedicated to turf research and methods
o f developing healthy turf and good playing conditions.
1926 - the formation o f the G olf Course Superintendent Association of
America.

6

1945 - the end o f World War II and the benefit new pesticides and chem­
icals developed during the war years. 2,4-D, Mercury, Cadmium, and
Chloropicrin (tear gas) were all available for the control of turfgrass
disease and insects.
1960 - wide popularity o f riding triplex greens mowers that allowed
“poor” golf courses to mow greens on a regular basis. USGA spon­
sored research leading to exact specifications for putting green con­
struction.
Not all o f Am erica’ s golf courses benefited equally during this period of
advanced technology and information. G olf courses still varied tremen­
dously, depending upon budget, construction technique, location, etc. For
example: In 1898, the Montreal G olf Club had putting surfaces that were
defined as “fine and closely cut putting greens”. The same description is
given o f the Quebec G olf Club. The local golf professional was given
credit for his maintenance skills. However, other courses didn’t have grass
on the greens! Pinehurst No. 2 had sand greens until the 1920’s.
It is interesting to note that while players o f today extol the virtues of
ultra fast putting greens, putting greens of the past could also be mowed
low to achieve similar speeds. A newspaper clipping from the 1935 US
Open at Oakmont describes the greens as:
“Putting the greens at Oakmont is like putting down a flight of stairs and
trying to stop the ball on the third step down . . . . “
Mowers o f that day could be adjusted to 1/8 of an inch and the greens
“shaved” down to the dirt. A variety o f turfgrass rollers were also avail­
able, ranging from weights o f 150 tons to 3 pound wooden rollers. The
maintenance instructions o f the day cautioned against the extended use of
rollers because they pressed and compacted the soil and limited turfgrass
growth. Cutting heights below 5/16 o f an inch were also frowned upon
because the turf suffered from a myriad o f diseases and stress-related
problems. With the help o f pesticides, irrigation, and special maintenance
practices, greens were mowed at lower heights. Today, championship
putting greens are mowed at 7/64 inch! The health of the grass is main­
tained at great expense.
7

Techniques for good turfgrass management were largely left up to exper­
imenting individuals and architects. C.B. MacDonald, Donald Ross,
Walter Travis, and others wrote about methods o f greenkeeping. Some
had good ideas — while others were highly suspect.

“Do not put fertilisers o f any kind on a green except, perhaps,
some hone dust, and then only once every three or four years.”
Walter Travis, ¡906.
Famous individuals associated with the game o f golf fill the historical
accounts. Their personalities and comments reflect the quintessence o f
the game at that time. The players of the first era viewed the sport as exer­
cise and exhilaration. It was strictly personal satisfaction and a form o f
recreation at a time when most o f the peoples attention was on survival.
It was a welcome pastime, although viewed by many as frivolous. It was
known as the game of kings and queens and seemed to offer leisure to
those who could afford the time.
During the second era, golf became a more organized sport, giving a
chance for friendly competition and camaraderie. In these first two eras,
little attention was given toward the condition o f the turf. The players
fully realized they must adapt to the weather conditions and be satisfied
with whatever their fate. Thus the axiom, “Play the ball where it lies”.
During the years o f Old Tom Morris, there was a beginning o f small
expectations in regard to the condition o f the turf. After all, mowers, top
dressing sand, and labor were all available for conditioning o f the links.
Golfers placed their demands upon Old Tom, but he maintained his com­
manding position by proclaiming “Nae gaulf on Sundae!” This was per­
haps the first and last time a greenkeeper had such power.
The idea of accepting conditions dealt by fate was as much part o f the
game as the golf ball and golf club. Putters were manufactured with vary­
ing degrees of loft for putting on greens o f multiformity. Golfers were
noted for their ability to overcome such conditions. Walter Travis was able
to “putt a ball in from 40 feet over peanut brittle.” In 1900, James Braid
wrote, “Good putting can be learned from hard toil.”
The major philosophies o f this period were summed up in two quotes
from two great golfers.
8

You must adjust to the conditions . " Walter Hagen, 1930

“G olf is a religion and it exposes in a man things which ordi­
narily he is at considerable pains to conceal.” W J. Travis, Circa 1910
Many golfers had a great insight about changes over the years and knew
precisely where to give credit. In 1930, Horton Smith said, “O f course
putting is much better than it used to be, greens are much truer than they
used to be. Golfers can thank greenkeepers for that part o f the improve­
ment.”
It is certain there was some grumbling about turfgrass condition, and
golfers, both amateur and professional, were no doubt disgruntled about
playing on crudely or ill-maintained golf courses. During the 1950’s and
‘60’s, golf was played by every class o f American. The golfing boom con­
tinued unabated on the heels o f Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and the
miracle o f televised golf. Thousands o f people who had never played golf
- and probably never would - watched television and became enamored
and eventually attempted the sport. An entire generation of golfers flood­
ed the courses with little knowledge or awareness of g o lf’ s great past.
Looking back at the changes that occurred from 1900 to 1974, we can see
changes influenced by developments in technology and the growing
numbers o f people playing golf. The growth supplied more money for
development, research, and better golf course construction technique.
Better grasses and methods o f construction led to a dramatic increase in
turfgrass uniformity and playability. The definition of a “good” putting
surface would be one that was maintained at approximately 3/16 to 1/4 of
an inch, mowed on a regular basis, and was firm - but not too hard.
A note on grain, since it seems to be so misunderstood today. Grain in a
putting green is a result o f two things: The natural tendency of some
grasses is to grow in a prostrate pattern, and the height at which the grass
is mowed. Higher cut bentgrass greens will have a tendency to “lay over”
forming a grain that effects the role o f the golf ball. Bermudagrass grows
aggressively in a lateral habit. Left alone, bermudagrass can achieve a
high degree o f graininess. Bermudagrass runners must be regularly ver­
tically cut to keep grain to a minimum. Putting greens of this era were
naturally grainy and golfers had to adapt to this condition. In 1941, Patty
9

Berg said, “You must make allowances for grain.”
Byron Nelson walked all o f the greens before a major tournament so he
could evaluate the direction o f the grain. He would then attempt to hit his
shots to that side o f the hole which would give him the “with the grain”
advantage. It was much easier to putt a golf ball with the grain than
against it. Great putters o f the day were characterized by their ability to
read greens. Bobby Locke, the great South African golfer, had a superi­
or ability to read the grain in putting greens.
Golfers o f this era were ready to accept any playing condition, and in
fact, regarded this as an innate part o f the game.

IV. FINAL ERA - 1974 TO THE PRESENT DAY
During the 1930’s, a device was conceived by a Boston amateur golfer
that would impact the game some 45 years later. Mr. Stimpson played
golf in the Boston area with great regularity and was involved with sev­
eral golf organizations. He noticed there were differences in putting
greens from golf course to golf course. Mr. Stimpson was surely not the
first to recognize this variability, but perhaps he spent more time lament­
ing over the situation which led to his invention o f the “speed stick” .
Even though Mr. Stimpson was an accomplished golfer, winning the
1935 Massachusetts Amateur Championship, he felt there must be some
way to measure, and perhaps control, the condition o f putting surfaces.
Mr. Stimpson states, “. . . there is no standard set for the speed o f putting
greens. I believe there is a need to establish quantitative limits to certain
conditions, still recognizing that growing grass can never be given an
absolute measurement.” Perhaps unknowingly, Mr. Stim pson’s statement
is an oxymoron. In one breath he states the need for a standard, then says
it can’t be done! This tool (the Stimpmeter) may have been conceived
without full knowledge o f its ultimate use, or abuse. The concept o f plac­
ing a numerical figure on ball roll had its genesis in the 1930’s, but was
not officially adopted by any organization until 1974.
The USGA was embracing a philosophy that uniformity o f greens was
paramount in the selection o f champion golfers. Throughout this report,
10

I have stated that championship golfers were selected based upon their
ability to adapt to the playing field. The shifting focus from player abili­
ty to course conditioning was slowly changing. The introduction of the
Stimpmeter placed a greater focus on the condition o f the putting green.
In the USGA Stimpmeter Booklet, the Stimpmeter is promoted as a tool
“which makes it possible to make a standard measurement o f - and place
a numerical figure on - the speed o f a putting green.” Two purposes for
the Stimpmeter are:
It aids in the identification o f inconsistencies from green-to-green on
the same golf course.
Places a numerical figure on - the speed o f the putting green.
The Stimpmeter has such a profound effect upon the game today, that it
is worth spending more time evaluating the usefulness o f this tool. In
reviewing the above objectives, some very interesting facts come to light.
The first objective “uniform ity’, can be evaluated with a Stimpmeter or a
number o f other methods. Any test device that rolls a golf ball over the
green surface allowing distance to be m easured would suffice.
Functionally, the Stimpmeter is a good tool for this purpose. The question
then becomes, “Is non-uniformity a major problem on golf courses today,
and if so, what is the cause?’.
Tests by Cook College at nine different golf courses in 1979 showed
“remarkable uniform ity” among greens at the same golf course.
Remember, this is in 1979 when maintenance practices and cutting
heights were not as advanced as today. Cutting height exerts the primary
influence upon putting speed. Research at Penn State shows the major
influence on green speed is mowing height and frequency. It is reason­
able to assume that if all the greens are mowed at the same time, they will
be fairly consistent. Inconsistencies would arise from a number of con­
ditions, most o f which are easily corrected through common sense man­
agement. Inconsistencies among putting greens comes from poor
drainage, shade, turfgrass health, and other identifiable deficiencies.

11

The second objective, “Placing a numerical figure on ball roll” has been
the subject o f much clamor and debate when discussing putting green
management. The USGA states in the Stimpmeter instruction booklet,
. . it is not the intention of the USGA to standardize putting green speeds
. . But, Mr. Stimpson states “. . . there is no standard set for the speed
of putting greens.” The fact is, the standard has been set and the USGA’s
published chart on green speeds has set the benchmark for a good green,
and a bad green. The chart actually does not say ‘“ good” is fast and
“’’bad” is slow, but ambiguous statements to support this philosophy can
be found throughout USGA literature. For example, A1 Radko states in an
article, How Fast Are Your Greens?, “Fast greens are considered to be a
better test o f ones skill and in general eliminates some o f the many vari­
ables one experiences on the putting surface.”
In the USGA
Championship Manual it states, “Fast greens are desirable because they
require a player to have a delicate putting touch. . . .”
The official introduction of the Stimpmeter in 1974 has resulted in the
quest for perfectly smooth, ultra fast putting surfaces. This is based upon
the aforementioned theory that fast equals good. In addition, a high
degree of emphasis is placed upon the condition o f the golf course, mov­
ing the attention away from the ability o f the player to adapt to any type
of playing surface.
The quest for the fast and perfect putting surface has paved the way for
specialized equipment designed to accomplish these high-lofted objec­
tives. Maintenance budgets for golf courses that strive to achieve faster
putting surfaces have increased accordingly.
The rebirth of turfgrass rollers is a direct result o f the need to satisfy
today’s requirement for fast greens. More than ever, good agronomics are
sacrificed for green speed. Lower cutting heights, heavy rollers, and
intense grooming undoubtedly increase the need for water, fertilizer, and
pesticides. This fact does not seem to have shifted the focus off o f fast
greens, nor slowed the pursuit of fast greens. Surprisingly, very little
research has been done on pesticide use and the relationship to cutting
heights.
The current standards for a good golf course are much different than the
12

standards o f 100 years ago. Some would argue that change is necessary
and good for the game o f golf, while others are more traditional and feel
the backbone o f the game is being severed. Tom Watson and Ben
Crenshaw are advocates o f the “old game”. They enjoy the whimsical
game o f chance that golf used to be. An unlucky lie, a funny bounce, and
an element o f chance are viewed by them as a great part o f the game of
golf.
There is no question that the putting green represents a large part of the
game. I believe it is important to place all parts of the game in perspec­
tive and realize that all changes are not good and that parts o f this great
game should be protected from unnecessary change. Governing bodies
such as the PGA, USGA, the Royal and Ancient, should be protecting the
game and not enforcing standards for maintenance based upon what is
considered a good golf course. “Play the ball where it lies” has lost its
meaning. Perhaps Bobby Jones summed up the putting green best when
he said, “Worrying about rough spots in the green has no effect except to
make the stroke indecisive, and I believe that bad putting is due more to
the effect the green has upon the player than to the action of the ball.”
Astor, G. 1991. PGA World o f G olf Hall o f Fame Book. Prentice Hall
Smartt, P. 1963. I f You Must Play Golf McKay Co., Inc.
Potter, S. 1968. Golfmanship. McGraw-Hill.
Price, C. 1986. A G olf Story. Antheneum
Armour, T. 1953. How To Play Your Best Golf All The Time. Simon and
Schuster
Barron, L. 1910. Lawns. Doubleday Page & Co.
Sprague, H. 1940. Better Lawns. Whittlesey House
Berg, P. 1941. Golf. A. S. Barnes
Graffis, H. 1933. Esquires World o f Golf. Esquire
USGA Stimpmeter Instruction Booklet
Farley, G. A. 1931. G olf Common Sense.
USGA Green Section. Record Various Publications

13

14

SAND BASE FIELDS DON’T WORK!'
( But They Could )
by Tom C ook1
2

INTRODUCTION
It seems like I spend a lot o f my time doing autopsies on failed athletic
fields. Many if not most o f the sand base fields I look at are failures.
Either they don’t drain or the grass won’t grow or the grass wears out
faster than it should. I can honestly say I have never visited a field and
had the caretaker say, “ This is the best thing we ever did. The kids love
it and it is so easy to take care of.” More often I hear, “ This piece o f s—
t is the worse thing I have ever tried to maintain! I’d give anything to have
our old soil field back.” So, what is going on here? Are sand fields a
nightmare waiting to happen? Is it inevitable that all sand fields will fail?
Are sand fields so difficult to work with that only the pro’s with unlimit­
ed budgets can possibly make them work?
I believe the real problems stem from a basic misunderstanding of why
we build sand fields and a failure to see these fields as a special breed that
requires a different style o f management than the old soil fields. I guar­
antee that if you maintain your sand fields the same way you maintain
your soil fields, they will fail every time. Further, if you use your sand
fields the way you use your soil fields they will also fail every time.
What I want to do in this paper is discuss the ideas behind sand based
fields, some o f the critical factors in design and construction that make a
difference, and the critical maintenance procedures that will maximize
the chance that your field will drain and provide a playable surface for
many years. I will also comment on the impact that use patterns have on
short and long term field performance.

1 Presented at the
Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
* Associate Professor, Oregon State University

15

Why Sand?
We build fields out o f sand to take advantage o f the natural drainage prop­
erties of sand. Sand fields are meant to perform when conditions are too
wet for soil fields. We don’t use sand because it is easy to grow turf on (
its not!). We don’t use sand because turf will hold up better under traffic
( it doesn’t !). We do use sand because it can provide a firm surface even
when the rain is pouring down.
During the dry times o f the year soil fields are much easier to irrigate,
they don’t require a lot o f fertilizer, and they wear like iron. When the wet
season arrives, soil fields fall apart real fast. The surface becomes mushy,
water penetration drops almost to zero, and the result is a nearly impos­
sible surface to play on. With sand based fields kids can play right
through the wet season on firm tight surfaces (at least in theory).
What this all means is that in our quest for firm playable surfaces in the
fall and winter we have to accept a new set o f problems in the summer.
Rule number one is:
“Sand fields are built for drainage and require
different maintenance strategies than soil fields.” Later in this paper we
will look at just what these maintenance strategies are.

Avoiding Construction Failures
I honestly feel that relatively few field failures are due directly to con­
struction screw ups. Don’t get me wrong, I do see my share o f drainage
failures due to poor construction. Poor construction is often the result o f
poor inspections by the company who designed the field. If we review
the critical steps in building a field you will see the role inspection plays
in the process.I*3
I like to view a sand based field as a layer cake with three components.
The first component is the drainage zone which consists o f the sub-base,
the drain trenches, and the drain pipes and gravel envelope used to sur­
round the drain pipes. The second component is the rootzone mix ( the
sand base ) for growing grass and managing water that has entered
through the surface. At the top we have the third zone made up o f the top
3 or 4” o f the rootzone mix and the actual turfgrass that covers the sur­
face of the field. Each o f these zones can cause problems so lets look at
key mistakes to avoid for each one.
16

The drainage zone is intended to receive water that comes through the
rootzone mixture. In other words it is the last zone to see applied water.
The goal for the drainage zone is to move large quantities o f water rapid­
ly. In order to do this we install drain trenches with the base o f the trench
sloped downward towards an out fall. To insure unimpeded water move­
ment we install drain pipes. To keep the drain pipes open we enclose
them in a gravel envelope so that the pipe has gravel below it, on both
sides o f it, and on top o f it all the way to the top o f the drain trench.
(Details for drain construction can be found in the extension publication
PNW 0240. This publication can be obtained at county extension offices
throughout Washington and Oregon.) To make sure drains have a chance
to work consider the following list o f Do’s and Don’ts:
Do these things and the drains will work:
Dig trenches parallel to each other so they are 15-20 ft. apart.
Clean the trenches o f loose soil and construction debris before placing
gravel in the trench.
Unless you have used a laser guided trencher, put a bed o f gravel in the
bottom o f the trench 2+ inches deep to enable you to adjust the grade of
the trench.
Lay the drain tubing on the gravel bed so that it is centered and has a con­
stant grade o f 1/2 to 1%.
Place gravel around and over the drain pipe until it is covered up to the
subgrade. Be extremely careful to avoid contaminating the gravel with
soil as it is being placed in the trenches.
Use uniform gravel that is free o f fines (fine sand, silt, and clay). Small
gravel in the range o f 1/8 to 1/4 inch, 1/4 to 3/8 inch, or 1/4 to 1/2 inch
will all work well if they are free of fines. Larger gravel will allow too
much migration o f the topmix down to the drain lines.
Use either slotted rolled drain tubing 4” in diameter or rigid drain pipe
17

o f the same diameter. If you use rigid pipe place it in the trench with the
holes facing down.
When placing the gravel over the drain pipe constantly check the grade to
make sure the gravel does not flow under the pipe and raise it up.
Have someone from the design office inspect the entire procedure from
start to finish to make sure installation is done correctly.
Do not do the following:
In the design phase do not stretch spacing o f drain lines, specify drains
smaller than 4”, or eliminate drain pipes completely.
Do not lay drain pipes on the surface o f the subgrade instead o f in trench­
es. While this may be appealing because of reduced costs and fewer
steps, it is a sure fire way to end up with crushed pipes that won’t drain.
Do not use pipe covered with fabrics, do not cover pipes and gravel with
filter fabrics, and do not encase the pipe and gravel in filter fabrics. The
fear o f fine particles migrating has caused many to cover pipes which
may result in plugging of the filter fabric and consequently reduce flow
o f water through the pipes. Experience has shown that if drains will work
with fabrics, they will work without them. Conversely, if drains won’t
work without fabrics, they won’t work with them. Fabrics are an unnec­
essary expense in properly constructed drains.
Do not allow trucks and other heavy equipment to drive across drain lines
before, during, or after drain line and gravel installation. Once trenches
are dug, vehicles should drive between the lines or straddle the lines.
Do not assume that contractors who have been building roads all their
lives understand the importance o f building a sports field properly. It is
the designers responsibility to make sure the contractor is aware o f prop­
er construction procedures and in fact builds the field in a manner that
will allow the field to work. The designer or a person knowledgeable
about the design should be onsite during the entire installation period and
should make sure the work is done properly.

18

The top mix zone goes over the drainage zone. You have several things
that are important to remember when working with top mix. The quality
o f sand is critical and the depth of the sand is very important. Details on
rootzone mixes are presented in the extension publication PNW 0240
mentioned earlier in this paper. Here I want to focus again on what you
should do and what you should not do with this zone.

Things to do to insure a functioning rootzone layer
Use the best sand you have available that meets the criteria in PNW 0240.
Experience has taught me that rarely do we get to use sand that actually
meets the specifications outlined in the bulletin. The key when using sub­
standard sands is to err on the side of drainage. For example, reject con­
crete sand may be acceptable if it is free o f fines (silt & clay). Remember,
our goal is to move water through the profile and we can do that with sand
that is coarser than desirable but not with sand that is finer than desirable.
The trade off with coarser than desirable sands is they require more irri­
gation and dry out faster in hot weather. The trade off with finer sands is
that they seal up and the surfaces become wet and mushy so we spend our
time trying to keep them open and draining.
Make the profile depth as deep as possible up to about 16 inches max.
We always shoot for 12 to 16 inches o f rootzone mix but since sand can
be expensive there is a tendency to try to get by with less. When you go
below 12 inches there may not be enough depth to insure that the field
will drain freely in the winter. There is a tendency for shallow fields to
remain too wet during winter and we are right back where we started with
a mudhole.
Check sand regularly as it arrives to make sure the sand quality stays con­
stant. This is particularly important if the sand is coming from a pit rather
than a screening plant. The only way to check the sand is to run it through
a set o f screens upon arrival at the site. A set of small hand held screens
is a good investment.
Rootzone mixes composed o f sand and organic matter should be pre­
mixed away from the construction site. Materials should only be placed
on site once uniform mixing has occurred.

19

Trucks should straddle drain lines and dump their loads directly over the
gravel covered drains. When all the rootzone mix is in place the site
should look like a series o f windrows o f sand.
Sand should be spread initially using a track vehicle rather than a
wheeled vehicle to avoid crushing drain lines by driving over them during
the spreading process.
Final grading can produce a slight crown in the center o f the field o f no
more than 6 to 12 inches or a flat field. Flat fields are utilitarian because
you can situate fields anyway you like. Unfortunately it seems to be dif­
ficult for contractors to grade a level surface so we often end up with low
areas scattered throughout the field. A slight crown is appealing because
it makes the field look flat rather than concave. It also seems to be easi­
er to grade for contractors. Beyond that, crowns serve no functional pur­
pose on a sand field.
Do not do the following:
Do not assume the contractor understands what you want. His job is to
get in and out as fast as possible. As the saying goes, “ Once its buried,
everything looks the same.” Realistically you only get one chance to have
your field built properly.
Do not allow the contractor to cheat on the depth o f rootzone mix.
Specifications list a number and that is the depth the field should be when
its finished.
Do not make casual inspections. Nobody I know can tell depths or grades
just by looking.
Do not budge on sand quality. Being a nice person will leave you with a
poorly drained field unless you are very lucky. Remember that to most
people sand is just sand.

Maintaining a Free Draining Field
Now we come to the final layer o f a sand field. The 3 to 4 inches where
the grass is growing is the zone the turf manager is responsible for.
20

Perfectly built fields will fail eventually unless this zone is properly man­
aged. Poorly built fields will fail faster if this zone is not well managed.
Once the field is constructed what you do to this surface zone will deter­
mine how long and how well the field will perform.
The drainage theory on sand based fields is simple. What we want to do
is move water vertically into the surface, down through the rootzone mix,
and out through the drains to an exit point. I think o f it as three words,
“INTO, THROUGH, & OUT.” Once the field is built we can really influ­
ence only the first step. Maintenance strategy number one is: Work the
surface constantly to keep it open. Working the surface involves hollow
tine coring 3 to 4 times per year, deep solid tine aerating (vertidraining)
one to two times per year, and surface slicing weekly during each major
use period. Allied practices such as slice seeding and surface scarifica­
tion via a flail or similar machine help to insure a porous surface that will
take water rapidly.
Lets look at a hypothetical soccer field and see how a maintenance sched­
ule might work out to insure a healthy turf and good infiltration. Assume
for this example that the field is located in a metropolitan area west o f the
Cascade mountains.
Mowing: This field should be mowed at least once per week and prefer­
ably twice per week for most o f the year. Peak mowing periods will run
from March through November. December through February plan on
mowing about every other week to every third week.
Total number o f mowings will range between 45 and 75 depending on the
year and labor resources. Clippings should be removed during the peri­
od between March and November to avoid accumulation o f fresh organic
debris that can be ground in by players cleats.
Fertilization: Sand base fields need regular fertilization with products
containing both soluble and controlled release nitrogen. In an ongoing
fertilization program plan on one pound o f total N per 1000 sq ft of turf
each month during March through October. A mid winter application of
N from a controlled release source such as IBDU, Polyon, ESN, Poly-S,
Tricote, or other polymer coated products at 2 lbs N/1000 sq ft should
21

improve winter turf color and improve early spring growth. Total N rates
will be as much as 1/3 to 1/2 less on fields where clippings are left after
mowing.
Actual nitrogen rates can only be determined by observing turf perfor­
mance. Consider the above numbers as a starting point but trust your own
judgment and keep accurate records. Also keep in mind that sand is nutri­
ent deficient and will require complete N-P-K fertilizers at each applica­
tion. N-P-K ratios in the range o f 5-1-2 to 5-1-4 will work fine. Apply
N-P-K fertilizers plus complete micronutrients at least twice per year (
spring and fall), or as dictated by tissue analysis. Remember also that
sand fields may need periodic applications o f calcitic or dolomitic lime
to provide adequate Ca and Mg or to raise pH to the 6.0+ level. Need for
these elements are best determined by tissue analysis or soil testing.
Irrigation: Sand fields need to be irrigated frequently and kept slightly
moist to prevent development of localized dry spots. The best advice is
to apply water daily or every other day to match water use rates or évap­
otranspiration ( ET). This is best accomplished by utilizing an onsite
weather station that can communicate directly with the irrigation con­
troller to determine daily run times. If that isn’t possible, use a soil probe
to determine field water content and irrigate by your best guess. Plan on
irrigating 3 to 4 times per week during the season and try not to apply
more than 1/2 inch o f water per application to avoid wasting applied
water due to excess leaching. In fall, run the field as dry as possible prior
to the onset of fall rains.
Coring: Core at the end o f the fall season with either a conventional hol­
low tine machine with 3-4 inch tines or a vertidrain with solid shanks set
at least 8 inches deep. Core again in March with either the standard hol­
low tine machine or the vertidrain. Around late May to early June Core
with hollow tines one more time. Depending on the field conditions, core
again in late August. Coring should be regular and consistent on sand
fields. The vertidrain should be used at least once per year as noted above
since it can penetrate deeper and break up the subsurface which will
enhance water movement through the rootzone mix.
Slicing: Slicing is a valuable tool for maintaining surface infiltration dur­
22

ing the season when practices such as coring or vertidraining might be too
disruptive. Slicing works well on sand fields and should be done at least
weekly during the fall winter and spring use periods. Slicing effects are
very short lived which is why this practice needs to be done consistently
through the use season. I can’t emphasize how valuable this procedure is.
Dethatching: Thatch rarely forms on sand fields as we think o f it on
lawns. What we most commonly see is organic debris that gets ground in
to the surface. If this material is not removed periodically, it will eventu­
ally plug the surface and impede water movement into the surface. Plan
on dethatching at least every spring in association with coring or ver­
tidraining. On heavily worn fields dethatching with a tractor mounted
flail device may be needed to prepare the surface for reseeding.
Topdressing: Topdressing with sand identical to that used in construction
will help maintain a uniform surface profile and keep a smooth grade for
maintaining a safe surface for players. Topdressing should be done spring
through summer to prepare the surface for fall and winter play. Late fall
topdressing after the season is over is appropriate whenever reseeding is
done. Plan on 4 to 5 topdressings per year at 4-5 week intervals during
periods o f active turf growth. Individual topdressings should never
exceed 1/4 inch to avoid smothering o f turf and turf thinning.
Slice Seeding: Sports fields are constantly worn and abused by players.
Turf on these fields is always temporary so you need to replant regularly
to keep the surface covered with desirable grasses. The slice seeder is an
effective tool for overseeding because it is relatively none disruptive and
plants the grass in grooves where they have a chance to germinate and
establish. Overseeding is useful for thickening weak stands or filling in
areas where turf has been destroyed completely. Target the late fall peri­
od for overseeding worn areas. Overseed again in mid spring and if need­
ed again in early June. D on’t ever plan on being finished. Just plan on
overseeding regularly for the rest o f your working life.
Adjust these practices as needed to fit your budget and climate. Always
remember that we build sand fields so they will drain. Your number one
job is to do whatever you can to keep the surface open and free draining.
The maintenance practices listed above will accomplish this goal and give
23

you excellent turf as well. Its a winning combination that has been proven
in the field and really does work. Plan for it and then carry out the plan.
The result will be the best field you can achieve at your site.
What about use o f the field?
The hardest part o f maintaining fields is getting users to schedule the
fields intelligently so there is a chance that you can keep grass on all of
the field most of the time. I’ve proposed lots of different solutions to the
perennial problem o f overuse and abuse. Designing fields square to allow
for field rotation, moving goals regularly to avoid excessive wear in
goals, practicing in a manner to avoid wearing out field centers or goal
areas etc.,etc.,etc. never seem to happen. What is the solution? There
may not be one but if it exists it will end up being your responsibility. I
have all but given up trying to enlist the aid o f user groups. They just
don’t see the connection with how they use the fields and how the fields
look and hold up over time.
When it comes to sand fields I try to get clients to build a limited num­
ber of sand fields and as many soil fields as they can. My advice is
always to use the soil fields in summer and as late into fall as possible
before the fall rains turn them to mush. At that time switch to the sand
fields and get the most mileage from them as possible during the time
when soil fields are useless. A few people listen but most destroy the sur­
face of the sand fields early on in the fall and end up playing out the fall
or winter on fields void of turf.
Whatever approach you take on your sand fields remember that it will
happen because you want it to. Don’t expect cooperation from users and
don’t be disappointed if they refuse to help you out in your quest to give
them better surfaces to play on. Just be persistent and don’t give up!

24

THE GOLF INDUSTRY - 2000 AND BEYOND1
By

Jim Gibbons 2

In order to obtain a proper perspective on the future, it is usually best to
look back and review the changes that transpired over the last few years.
As we look into the possibilities for the next many years, there will be
some ideas presented that may seen realistic while others will be more
obtuse. It is my hope that this presentation will trigger a thought or idea
that might promote or develop a new product in the industry. If what is
presented today helps inspire someone to invent a new turfgrass product
that should make a lot o f money, we could possibly create a millionaire.
What was the past like? There have been meetings such as this for many
years.
I found a picture o f the 1913 Scottish Section o f G olf
Greenskeeping Association meeting. They certainly were concerned
along similar lines as today in the effort to produce the best possible play­
ing surfaces. Early on the equipment was primitive. Often animals were
used for power for construction and maintenance. In his 1912 The Book
o f the Links, M artin H. F. Sutton wrote about sheep grazing on golf
courses: “Unless cake-fed, sheep return no benefit to the ground, but in
sufficient number, they help to keep down the expense o f mowing and
rolling. In this sense they prove an asset, especially to a struggling club.
Against this must be set the damage done to the greens by “scalding” the
turf, the breaking down o f the face o f the bunkers and the objectionable
fouling o f the fairway, to which must be added the nuisance they invari­
ably are to players, Altogether the advantages o f sheep are far out­
weighed by the disadvantages.”
Also, take note o f the present. The industry has made great strides over
the years. We have modern facilities and equipment to make the job more
efficient. The ability to groom courses is available to most everyone. The
northwest is to be congratulated for being recognized as capable hosts for
the US Amateur, US Junior, US Public Links, US Senior Women’s, US
Senior M en’s, US Mid Amateur and next year the US Women’s Open.
' Presented at the 50™ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1 Executive Director, Oregon Coif Association

25

The game o f golf reaches all segments o f society from presidents to
celebrities to the general public. G olf is for women and men, junior and
seniors. It is a game o f traditions ranging from caddies, juniors, ama­
teurism, and a basic respect for the game that will hopefully continue to
be important in the future.
And what of that future. It is an opportunity for making money by creat­
ing solutions to problematic situations that occur within the industry.
Creative thought can make it happen. Let’s look at some possible future
innovations. In order to open the thought process, some o f these will be
very unusual, others reasonable.
Let’s approach this in three areas relating to turf and golf: equipment, turfgrass and the industry in general. First, look at where equipment might
be evolving. In mowing, there could be remote controlled mowers pro­
grammed for greens that would be housed in underground shelters. They
would elevate for mowing and would be controlled by programming and
an “invisible fence” similar to pet control fences. The same process could
be expanded into some type o f bunker rake apparatus. With the changes
in vehicle tires to larger sizes, (tires have gone from 8 1/2 to 10 1/2 inch­
es), it only seems a matter of time until most maintenance vehicles will
operate on cushions of air like hovercraft. Additionally, all equipment
will be operable at night time. It will be ergonomically designed and cli­
mate controlled with electric power rather than gas. Imagine working on
the course in the recliner chair behind the wheel inside the temperature
controlled cab.
These pieces o f machinery will have computer diagnostic capability and
the capability to hook up to the maintenance shop computer which will
go online to order any part directly from the supplier. Also, all commu­
nications will be far more sophisticated than present. Everyone on site
will be able to communicate with everyone else.
Other innovations might include automatic controlled hazard and OB
stakes which pop up and retract through a garage door opener type con­
trol with a 40 foot range. The mower operator can press a button before
and after passing by. Irrigation heads will not just pop up when watering,
but someone will invent an adapter to trim the grass at the edge o f the
26

plate using the power o f the motion o f the sprinkler. There will be a laser
grid system similar to that used on boats for locations that would send an
exact cup location back to a computer in the pro shop to be printed out on
a hole location sheet for all golfers. Speaking of hole locations, if you
refer to the handout, I’d like to explain how the chart we give the golfer
relates to where you as the hole cutter would locate the hole. Remember
the golfer views the target green as a circle. That player wants to know
the hole locations in yards relative to the front o f the green and how close
to the edge o f the green the flagstick is. The accurate way to find the cor­
rect spot is to walk straight back from the front center o f the green the
number o f paces from the front. After that, count from the side the right
amount o f paces. You’re there.
There is a great opportunity for new ideas to take effect in the area of dis­
ease treatment and prevention. How about new dynamic temperature sen­
sors that, through inline applications, would sense changes in weather or
plant levels that would trigger automatic applications o f materials to
reduce or eliminate problems prior to them being observable. Or why
doesn’t one o f the chemical companies invent a clear benign product that
could be spread over a turf area. When a pathogen or other designated
problem initiates, this product would turn a bright color to alert staff o f
pending problems with an early warning.
As related golfing associations are becoming aware o f the aspects of the
turfgrass industry, more o f these organizations will be allocating funds to
assist with improved playing conditions. These will support new and con­
tinuing studies to reach those goals. Now insects are being used to com­
bat problems. With the major earthworm dominance for years on golf
courses, why not reach some way o f reducing the earthworm population.
Since worms eat organic debris, why not develop a sterilizing agent that
would be mixed into that debris to reduce the reproduction levels.
Artificial turf in certain playing areas will possibly become more popu­
lar. Quality may be improved and stress taken off other turf areas. There
may be a movement to center the problematic cart path, moving it to the
middle o f the fairway. Then a green artificial surface would make a nicer
view that the regular paved surface.

27

As the industry advances, we start to see new technologies emerge like
the weather tensiometer stations to assist with irrigation. Why not have
nutrient analyzer capability on site along with complete soil and disease
analyzing potentials. There should be computers that have the complete
“as builts” of the course irrigation system with a complete parts and
equipment inventory. If a break in the system occurs, the computer shows
what happened where, and which parts are needed for repair. Even the
supply companies would be logged onto the network and you could high­
light the parts and order them directly through the computer. The same
situation could be in place for maintenance equipment with CD disks for
a blow up diagram of the tractor or other piece o f equipment broken
down. Again, go on line to order the parts needed without leaving the
comfort of the office.
Other annoyances are solved with better inventions all the time. And
more will come. There will be some easy effective way o f marking out
o f bounds and hazard lines more permanently. Other markers will help
with pace of play. Upright 150 yard posts in the middle o f the fairway are
in use at some courses. They locate the center o f the driving target as well
as giving distances. With the increasing demands upon daytime play,
there will be a trend to night time only maintenance. Also, there will be
more compact facilities being built. Complete courses are now designed
on 15 acres with separate sections for driving, approaches, chipping and
putting. As the availability and cost o f land put pressure on developers,
these compact courses will start to show up.
There will be more cooperation among all golf related organizations.
Environmental situations will become very favorably tied to golf. We are
seeing the adversarial role being reduced as golf courses place more areas
into Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This procedure is allowing cours­
es to be built where consideration in the past was declined.
Golfers may push for ways to make the game more enjoyable. Placing
larger holes on the greens for higher handicaps might be one thought.
Building a complete course inside a biosphere-type building is a possi­
bility. Controlled climates and perfect playing conditions all the time
would garner higher fees. The tolerance for spiked shoes will decrease as
more non-metal spike options are created. Some inventor may find a new
material that will gently cling to grass plants to be used on the soles of
28

golf shoes. The recent USGA Journal has an in-depth article relative to
this topic.
And the future may answer one o f the often asked queries, “Do we put the
rakes in or out o f the bunkers?” Miscellaneous Decision #2, page 593 in
the USGA Decisions on the Rules o f G olf Book, strongly recommends
that rakes be placed OUTSIDE bunkers. Putting rakes in bunkers can
cause situations for playing that create extra penalties for players when
the rakes are at the edges o f the bunkers. (See following handout infor­
mation.)

From the USGA Rules o f G olf Book,
Movable Obstruction

24 Obstructions, 24-1.

A player may obtain relief from a movable obstruction as follows:
If the ball does not lie in or on the obstruction, the obstruction may be
removed. If the ball moves, it shall be replaced, and there is no penalty
provided that the movement o f the ball is directly attributable to the
removal o f the obstruction. Otherwise, Rule 18-2a applies.
If the ball lies in or on the obstruction, the ball may be lifted, without
penalty, and the obstruction removed. The ball shall through the green or
in a hazard be dropped, or on the putting green be placed, as near as pos­
sible to the spot directly under the place where the ball lay in or on the
obstruction, but not nearer the hole. “
“20-3d/2 Ball in Bunker Moves Closer to Hole When Obstruction
Removed and Ball Will Not Remain at Rest When Replaced; All Other
parts o f Bunker Are nearer Hole.
A ball came to rest against a movable obstruction, a rake, in a bunker.
When the rake was moved the ball rolled nearer the hole. According to
Rule 24-1, the ball had to be replaced. Due to the slope and the fact that
the sand was firm, the ball, when replaced rolled closer to the hole.
Under Rule 20-3d, if a ball will not come to rest on the spot where it orig­
29

inally lay, it must be placed at the nearest spot not nearer the hole where
it can be placed at rest. The spot where the ball originally lay was farther
from the hole than any other part o f the bunker. This, there was nowhere
to place the ball at rest in the bunker which was not nearer the hole. What
is the proper procedure if:
The only way the ball would remain at rest at the spot where it lay would
be to press lightly into the sand?
The sand is so hard that it is impossible to replace the ball?
There is nothing in the Rules o f G olf Permitting a player to press his ball
lightly into the sand or ground to make it remain at rest. Accordingly, in
either case, since the player could not place the ball in conformity with
the Rules, he should, in equity, (Rule 1-4), have dropped the ball, under
penalty o f one stroke, outside the bunker, keeping the point where the ball
lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped.
(Revised)”
“Miscellaneous Decisions
Misc./2 Whether Rakes Should be Placed In Or Outside the Bunkers
Should rakes be placed in or outside bunkers?
It is recommended that rakes be placed outside bunkers, as far away from
the bunkers as is practical and in positions where they will be least like­
ly to affect play.

30

NORTHWEST TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION YOUR PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION THE FIRST 50 YEARS1
By Roy L Goss, Ph.D. 2
Prior to 1948, and in fact for another decade or two thereafter, most turfgrass managers had their own knowledge, experiences, and secrets that
were not freely shared when it came to managing quality turfgrasses. The
golf courses had their greenkeepers who, for the most part, kept their
secrets at home. There were few open forums, conferences, or seminars
for learning and sharing o f ideas and turfgrass research at universities
was, indeed, scarce and far between as well as any teaching programs in
turfgrass science. Turfgrass scientific reading materials were almost
nonexistent with the exception o f a few bulletins and eventually a book
by Professor H. B. Musser from Pennsylvania State University.
During the winter o f 1947, Wilfred Brusseau, Down River Golf Course,
Spokane, John Harrison, Hayden Lake, Idaho, Glen Proctor, Manitou
G olf Course, Spokane, and Lewis Schmidt, Indian Canyon Golf Course,
Spokane, met with Professors E. G. Schafer, Dean of College o f
Agriculture at Pullman, and Alvin Law, Department o f Agronomy at
Washington State College at Pullman. These greenkeepers described the
problems that they did not have answers for and A1 Law worked these out
into topics and scouted around for people to address these problems to be
held in a conference in May o f 1948. Some of the problems that were
troubling the greenkeepers in those days included: arsenic in greens, prin­
cipally used for worms and weed control, fertilizers, and 2,4-D, which
was a new weed control agent. During 1948, two conferences were held
on the Pullman Campus, one in the spring and one in the fall. One con­
ference has been held each year without an interruption since those first
two conferences in 1948.

1 Presented at the 50t h Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1 Executive Director Emeritus, Northwest Turfgrass Association

31

The initial steps for forming a nonprofit corporation were taken during
1950. Directors were elected and included E. P. Townsend, Edward Fluter,
H. T Abbott, Phil Page, Mavor Boyd, James O ’Brien, Glen Proctor, Milt
Bauman, Everett Potts, and E.G. Schafer. The Articles o f Incorporation
were completed in 1951 and filed at Olympia, Washington under the
name of the Northwest Turf Association. The first officers after the for­
mation of the nonprofit corporation were Ivan Lee, President, Ed Fluter,
Vice President, Roland Wade, Secretary-Treasurer, and E. G. Schafer,
Honorary Director and Executive Secretary.
It is interesting to point out at this time that the Association was incorpo­
rated under the name o f Northwest Turf Association, and due to the con­
fusion between this organization and horse-racing organizations, a
change was made in the charter and bylaws to change the name to the
Northwest Turfgrass Association during that late 1950s.
At the risk o f becoming monotonous, I think it is important for us to fol­
low the development of the Association from its beginning in 1948 with
some of the highlights that happened each year. Some o f the records of
the early years are nonexistent and have been reconstructed since the mid­
dle 1950s from my records and the best recollections o f people like Alvin
Law, Glen Proctor, Johnny Harrison, Milt Bauman, Louis Schmidt,
Wilfred Brusseau, and others.

1948 - First Conference, Spring
Glen Proctor was the President, and the conference was held at Pullman,
Washington. Topics that were discussed included the uses o f arsenic for
the control of worms and weeds, fertilizers for golf courses, and the uses
o f the new herbicide, 2,4-D.

1948 - Second Conference, Fall
Glen Proctor was the President, and again the conference was held at
Pullman.

1949 - Third Conference
Louis Schmidt was the President, and the conference was held at
Pullman. It should be pointed out at this time that for many years, the con­
ference was held in the old Washington Hotel in downtown Pullman,
32

which brings back many nostalgic memories for people who were there
at that time.

1950 - Fourth Conference
Ivan Lee was the President and the conference was in Pullman. The direc­
tors included: E. P. Townsend, Ed Fluter, H. T. Abbott, Phil Page, Mavor
Boyd, James O ’Brien, Glen Proctor, Milt Bauman, Everett Potts, E. G.
Schafer (honorary director)

1951 - Fifth Conference
Ivan Lee was President and the conference was held in Pullman. The
Articles o f Incorporation for a nonprofit corporation were completed and
filed at Olympia, Washington under the name o f the Northwest Turf
Association. Al Law was elected Executive Secretary , Ed Fluter was Vice
President and Roland Wade was the Treasurer.

1951 - Sixth Conference
Ed Fluter was the President and the conference was held in Pullman.
Items discussed at the conference were pearlwort control, chickweed con­
trol, the control o f gray snowmold and Fusarium patch disease. Henry
Land, Sr. was elected Treasurer and continued in the capacity from 1952
to 1961.

1952 - Seventh Conference
Ed Fluter was the President and the conference was held in Pullman. Tom
M ascaro from West Point Products Corporation, a frequent conference
speaker, agreed to publish, at no charge to the Association, the proceed­
ings, and continued to do so for the next few years. Other speakers who
appeared on the programs during those days were O. J. Noer, Charlie
Wilson, Fred Grau, G.O. Mott, and H. B. Musser.

1954 - Eighth Conference
Sam Zook was President and the conference was held in Pullman.

1955 - Ninth Conference
Sam Zook repeated as President and this conference was also held at
Pullman.

33

1956 - Tenth Conference
Milt Bauman was President and the conference was held in Pullman. Dr.
Ken Patterson was elected Executive Secretary. Some o f the conference
speakers that year included Alvin Law, Ken Patterson, Roy Goss, and
Chuck Gould.

1957 - Eleventh Conference
Milt Bauman was again elected President and the conference was held in
Pullman. Speakers included the following people: Bill Bengeyfield,
Chuck Gould, Bert Brink, Roy Goss, and Al Law.

1958 - Twelfth Conference
Don Hogan was President and the conference was at Pullman. Roy Goss
was appointed to the Turfgrass Research position during that year and the
position was to be funded at Puyallup, Washington. During that year, the
first British Columbia Turfgrass Conference was held.

1959 - Thirteenth Conference
Don Hogan was elected President and the conference was held at
Pullman. The first printing o f “The Turfgrass Topics” was begun in 1959,
Roy Goss, editor. Byron Reed agreed to write the Oregon Compost Heap
with news about Oregon. The first turfgrass field day was held at
Puyallup on August 20th, and the second British Columbia Turfgrass
Conference was held that year. Roy Goss’ appointment was changed dur­
ing that year to 50:50 research and extension specialist.

1960 - Fourteenth Conference
Don Hogan was elected President again and the conference was held on
the University of Washington Campus -Seattle. Highlights o f the year
included Ophiobolus patch was first observed and identified by Dr.
Maksis Eglitis at Puyallup. The first pre-emergence crabgrass controls
were applied and we were all saddened at the death o f Bob Finley, a long­
time greenkeeper and golf superintendent.

1961 - Fifteenth Conference
Glen Proctor was elected President and the conference was held at
Pullman at the Compton Student Union Building. We were saddened in
1961 at the loss o f Bernice Land, the wife o f Henry Land, Sr., who was
34

his righthand for performing the duties of Treasurer. Henry could no
longer continue in that respect and retired as Treasurer that year. Dr. Ken
Patterson also died in 1961. Dick Haskell was elected Treasurer and AI
Law, once again, filled the position of Executive Secretary. Athletic fields
were a hot topic during that year, which is the same time that Jo Albi
Stadium was refurbished in Spokane.

1962 - Sixteenth Conference
Byron Reed was President and the conference was held in the Compton
Union Building in Pullman. Highlights of this conference included frost­
ed and frozen turf. The Fifth British Columbia Turfgrass Conference was
held during this year. The turfgrass field day was held at Puyallup on May
15 and Roy Goss was elected Executive Secretary and continued in this
position through 1987 for a total o f 26 years.

1963 - Seventeenth Conference
Henry Land, Sr. was the President and the conference was held at the
Thunderbird Motel in Portland, Oregon. The turfgrass field day was held
on June 11, with over 200 attendees.

1964 - Eighteenth Conference
Milt Bauman was elected President and the conference was held at the
Villa Motel at Burnaby, B.C., September 23-25. We were saddened in
1964 with the loss o f A. Vernon Macan, golf course architect, who
designed many golf courses throughout the Pacific Northwest. The
groundsprayers association also made a grant o f $300.00 that year for
speedwell control.

1965 - Nineteenth Conference
Ken Putnam was elected President and the conference was held at the
Hayden Lake Country Club at Hayden Lake, Idaho. John Harrison was
the host superintendent. Paul Brown, a noted television personality and
turfgrass and grounds manager at Evergreen Washed Cemetery in
Seattle, died. MH-30 was one o f the first growth retardants that was
tested in 1965.

1966 - Twentieth Conference
Harvey Junor, Portland G olf Club, was elected President and the confer­
35

ence was held October 26-28 at Salishan Lodge at Gleneden, Oregon. The
conference attendance was 178, which set a record at that time.

1967 - Twenty-first Conference
Dick Malpass was elected President and the conference was held at
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C. Highlights o f the year included the introduc­
tion ofTersan 1991 (benlate) for experimental purposes for disease con­
trol. DCPA (dacthal) was found to control speedwell.

1968 - Twenty-second Conference
George Harrison was elected President and the conference was held at the
Alderbrook Inn at Union, Washington. Art Elliott, from Turf and Toro,
was appointed membership chairman to start a new membership drive.
The chlorinated hydrocarbons were axed during this year, and John
Escritt, from the Sports Turf Research Institute o f Bingley, England, was
our guest speaker.

1969 - Twenty-third Conference
George Harrison was elected President and the conference was again held
at Hayden Lake Country Club, Hayden Lake, Idaho. During this year, the
First International Turfgrass Research Conference was held at Harrogate,
England in July 1969, and the first Washington Turfgrass Survey was
completed that year. The first artificial football turf, called Tartan,
appeared that year also. Poa annua seedhead inhibitors were introduced
during 1969.

1970 - Twenty-fourth Conference
Tom Keel was elected President and the conference was held at Salishan
Lodge at Gleneden, Oregon. During this year Manhattan ryegrass was the
first improved turf type perennial ryegrass to be tested. This year also saw
Tersan 1991 (benlate)registered for turfgrass use for disease control.

1971 - Twenty-fifth Conference
Tom Keel was, again, elected President and the conference was held at
the old Chinook Hotel in Yakima, Washington. During this year, full-scale
tests were initiated on Ophiobolus patch disease and it appeared that
ammonium sulfate, sulfur, and Fore were the best treatments. It all boiled
down to the sulfur factor.

36

1972 - Twenty-sixth Conference
Dick Schmidt was elected President and the conference was held at
Ocean Shores, Washington. During this year, the highlights included Milt
Bauman introducing high flotation tires on golf course tractors and the
prescription athletic turf procedure developed by Dr. Daniel first
appeared. Jim Chapman began writing the Thatch Patch for the Turfgrass
Topics. Tom Cook, a WSU senior in agronomy, was awarded the GCSAA
scholarship, which was presented to him by Dick Malpass, who was a
GCSAA director at that time.

1973 - Twenty-seventh Conference
John Zoller elected President and the Conference was held at Harrison
Hot Springs, B.C. The highlights o f this year the first joint Northwest
Turfgrass A ssociation/W estern
Canada Turfgrass Association
Conference. Dr. Marvin Ferguson was awarded the USGA Green Section
Award. Winter damage to all turfgrasses was again stressed during this
year. Diane Ritthaler began assisting the NTA by typing the “Turfgrass
Topics”, conference proceedings, and mailing both. She kept the mem­
bership list, billed for dues and ran the conference registration (on her
vacation time) through the fall o f 1987. We owe Diane a sincere vote of
thanks!

1974 - Twenty-eighth Conference
Milt Bauman was again elected President and the conference was held at
Sun River, Oregon. Discussions were held by the Association and action
initiated to develop a research fund for a research associate to be sta­
tioned at Puyallup. During this year, we experienced the first of our gas
shortages which curtailed travel significantly.

1975 - Twenty-ninth Conference
Cliff Everhart was elected President and the conference was held at
Yakima, Washington at the old Chinook Hotel. Highlights of the year
were Tom Cook was hired for the research associate position at Puyallup.

1976 - Thirtieth Conference
John Monson was elected President and the conference was held at
Spokane, Washington. The highlights o f this year were Dr. Chuck Gould
retired as Plant Pathologist after many, many years at the Puyallup Station

37

1977 - Thirty-first Conference
Joe Lymp was elected President and the conference was held at Salishan
Lodge at Gleneden, Oregon. During this year, Tom Cook terminated his
position as research associate at Puyallup and was hired by Oregon State
University to teach turfgrass and ornamental science at OSU. During this
year, Gary Chastagner, Plant Pathologist, was hired at Puyallup to fill the
position vacated by Chuck Gould.

1978 - Thirty-second Conference
Sam Angove was elected President and the conference was held in
Richland, Washington. Highlights o f the year included John Roberts
being hired as research associate and Roy Goss received the GCSAA
Distinguished Service Award.

1979 - Thirty-third Conference
Joe Pottinger was elected President and the conference was held at Port
Ludlow, Washington. The golf superintendents made a tremendous effort
during this year and had a car raffle that made over $5,000 for research.
During this year, Roy Goss took a six-month sabbatical leave to New
Zealand. Winter damage was severe all over the Northwest during 1978-79.

1980 - Thirty-fourth Conference
Earl Morgan was elected President and the conference was held at Sun
River, Oregon. Highlights o f the year included the Mount St. Helens
eruption and Dr. Bill Johnston was hired for research and teaching at
Pullman. Dr. Stan Brauen was moved into the research position at
Puyallup and Dr. Goss took the full time Extension specialist position
until his retirement. This year also saw the beginning o f European crane
fly research.

1981 - Thirty-fifth Conference
Dick Schmidt was elected President and the conference was held at the
Tyee Motor Inn at Olympia, Washington. The highlights o f the year
included the death o f Cliff Everhart This year also saw the closing o f the
Soil Testing Laboratory at Pullman.

1982 - Thirty-sixth Conference
Norm Whitworth was elected President and the conference was held at
38

the Towne Plaza Motel in Yakima, Washington. This was a sad year for all
who knew Wilfred Brusseau, who died, and also Dr. David Allmendinger,
former Superintendent at the Puyallup Research Station.

1983 - Thirty-seventh Conference
Dick M alpass was elected President and the conference was held at KahNee-Tah Resort, Warm Springs, Oregon. We were saddened by the death
o f one o f our old-time superintendents during this year, Louis Schmidt.
Dr. Jeff Nus was hired as a research associate at Puyallup. During this
year, Larry Gilhuly, who was an assistant superintendent at Seattle Golf
Club, became the USGA Green Section agronomist for the West.

1984 - Thirty-eighth Conference
Ray McElhoe was elected President and the conference was held at the
Sheraton Hotel in Spokane, Washington. This was the year for retire­
ments - Milt Bauman, Sam Zook, Dick Malpass, and Ed Jennings all
retired. It was found during this year that elemental sulfur significantly
reduced Fusarium patch disease.

1985 - Thirty-ninth Conference
Gary Sayre was elected President and the conference was held at
Rippling River Resort, Welches, Oregon. Harvey Junor, longtime super­
intendent at Portland G olf Club, retired this year.

1986 - Fortieth Conference
Mark Snyder elected President and the conference was held at the Red
Lion Inn, Pasco, Washington. Clip Collard retired during this year. Black
layer, alias anaerobic soils, was “invented”. The vertidrain, a significant
addition to our turfgrass equipment, appeared during this year. During
this year, the R. L. Goss Turfgrass Endowment Fund was initiated.

1987 - Forty-first Conference
Bo Hepler was elected President and the conference was held at Salishan
Lodge, Gleneden, Oregon. Roy Goss retired as the Northwest Turfgrass
A ssociation Executive Secretary after 26 years. Blair Patrick,
Organization Management Company, was appointed and hired as the
Executive Director. We were saddened during this year at the loss o f Dr.
Ken M orrison, Extension Agronomist from Pullman, and Ed Jennings,

39

former golf course superintendent. Drs. Roy Goss and Ron Ensign were
both awarded NTA lifetime membership during this year.

1988 - Forty-second Conference
Jim Chapman was elected President and the conference was held at the
Sheraton Hotel, Spokane, W ashington. Roy Goss retired from
Washington State University and also received the USGA Green Section
Award this year.

1989 - Forty-third Conference
Mike Kingsley was elected President and the conference was held at the
Sheraton Hotel, Tacoma, Washington. The highlight o f this year was that
Dr. Gwen Stahnke was hired by WSU as the Turfgrass Extension
Specialist for Puyallup.

1990 - Forty-fourth Conference
Dr. Bill Johnston was elected President and the conference was held at the
Inn at the Mountain (Rippling River), Welches, Oregon. During this year, the
Northwest Turfgrass Association awarded $34,000 for research projects.

1991 - Forty-fifth Conference
Bill Griffith was elected President and the conference was held at Coeur
d’Alene, Idaho. We were saddened during this year at the death o f Sam
Zook. Stan Brauen received the Ken Morrison Award and $2,000 was
granted by NTA for three scholarships. The Turfgrass Endowment Fund
also got a big financial boost during this year.

1992 - Forty-sixth Conference
Tom Wolff was elected President and the conference was held at Sun
River, Oregon. The Northwest Turfgrass Association awarded $35,000 for
research and $5,000 for college scholarships during this year. We were
saddened at the death o f Milt Bauman during this year. Milt contributed
greatly to the Turfgrass Association over the years. The Northwest
Turfgrass Conference set new attendance records at Sun River.

1993 - Forty-seventh Conference
Becky Michels was elected President and the conference was held at

40

Yakima, Washington. We were saddened this year also with the loss of Dr.
Steve Fushtey, who was the Turfgrass Research Pathologist at the
Agassiz, B.C. Research Station. The Northwest Turfgrass Association
awarded $30,000 for research and $5,000 for scholarships this year. Tom
Christy received the G olf Course Superintendents Association of
America Environmental Steward Award. This is the year also that the
T.U.R.F. Program began.

1994 - Forty-eighth Conference
Tom Christy was elected President and the conference was at Salishan
Lodge, Gleneden, Oregon. We were saddened at the death of Arden
Jacklin during this year. Arden was the founder of Jacklin Seed Company
in Spokane and was known by practically all in the turfgrass industry
nationwide. This year the Northwest Turfgrass Association awarded
$28,470 for research and $5,000 for scholarships. This year was a great
year for golf courses with the advent o f soft-spike golf shoes.

1995 - Forty-ninth Conference
Randy W hite was elected President and the conference was held at
Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, Washington. During this year, $30,000 was
awarded for research and $6,000 for scholarships. The first funds for the
T.U.R.F. program were also received during this year. We were saddened
at the death o f Dr. Ron Ensign.

1996 - Fiftieth Conference
Tom Christy was elected President and the conference is at Victoria, B.C.
at the Empress Hotel. Three o f our long-time members died during 1996.
These included Ken Putnam, Norris Beardsley, and Dick Malpass. Don
Clemans, C.P.Ag., was appointed for the new Executive Director’s posi­
tion with the termination o f Organization Management. Washington
State G olf Association made its first payment to T.U.R.F.

This information was developed from the records at hand and my own
recollection o f events as they have happened. I extend my apologies fo r
any errors or events not mentioned. All people who have served this great
organization in the past challenge you to make the next 50 years better.

41

42

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH YOUR ROOTS*1
H oiI P
h.D
, Ag. 2

F.B.

INTRODUCTION
The title o f my presentation was intended to evoke a variety o f images not the least o f which was the “New Age” idea o f understanding our past
history as an indicator o f our current perceptions and responses. For turfgrass, as for people, that past history may provide important clues about
future responses. Our target in the golf industry, as in other areas of turf
management, is to provide a playable, attractive turf appropriate to the
use. My intent today is to raise your awareness o f the importance o f the
plant root ecosystem [roots and the rhizosphere soil influenced by those
roots] in turf management.

Iceberg management
How do we approach that attractive, playable turf target ? Just as the cap­
tain o f the Titanic focused on that portion o f the iceberg above the sur­
face o f the ocean, our primary strategies for managing turf have tradi­
tionally been directed to the above ground portion o f the grass plant. But
that focus represents approximately 4% o f the turf plant ecosystem [see
Figure 1],
Shoot [3.2 mm] ]4%]

Turf management
involves the appli­
Thatch [6.0 mm] [8%]
cation o f a variety
of mowing, fertility
and
irrigation
strategies, as well as
a range o f secondary cultural activities (e.g. aeration, topdressing) to turf
stands using as the primary evaluative tool - the appearance and func­
tionality o f the visible shoots. We manage for a minority component of

Roots [65 mm] [88%]

1 Presented at the 5 0 ™ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1 Pacific Turfgrass Research Program, Department of Plant Science,
the University of British Columbia, 344-2357 Main Mall, Vancouver B.C. V6T 1Z4

43

the plant (albeit an important one), but often ignore the root system - a
critical factor in plant growth and health, as well as a primary point o f
contact with many plant pathogens.

Roots - Who putts on them anyway ?
The plant shoot is what we see; the plant shoot is what we play on; why
should we concern ourselves with that elusive root zone ? Surely if we
manage the aboveground part o f the plant effectively, the roots will take
care o f themselves. Before we accept that philosophy too easily, let us
consider first what roots do, and why we might consider a more proactive
role in their management.
Roots are the major plant organ involved in nutrient and water uptake.
Water is essential for plant growth and as the primary carrier for nutrient
uptake. An adequate supply of nutrients is essential for the production of
quality turf, particularly under the intensive use patterns on a modern golf
course. In a “normal” soil, organic matter represents the natural capital
that feeds raw materials into the pool o f available nutrients. This organic
matter also contributes to the aggregation o f soil particles which provides
improved structure, and effective distribution o f water and air in the soil
profile. Good soil structure also creates the microhabitats essential for
the development o f many beneficial soil microorganisms. In sand-based
turf ecosystems, organic matter may be lacking, especially in a young
profile, and the system lacks intrinsic water-holding capacity and effec­
tive nutrient cycling systems. In sand-based ecosystems, healthy roots,
and the management o f root growth, root turnover and rhizosphere micro­
bial are likely to become essential features o f good management.
Roots are a major site o f interaction with plant pathogens.
Few understand better than the turfgrass professional, the lurking danger
of plant pathogens - they’re out there - waiting for the opportunity to
attack a stressed grass population. Our challenge is :o many for reduced
stress - not always an easy task when the turf is confronted with unusual
situations [planned or unplanned]. When traffic demands are increased
significantly, the consequences to the turf may be severe wear.
44

Not all such occurrences may be as extreme, but grass under stress of
heavy use, low mowing heights, sudden low or high temperatures, exces­
sive shade, waterlogging, ice cover - will be more susceptible to damage
and disease invasion, particularly if the stand has a poorly developed root
system and associated rhizosphere microbial population.
While diseases are usually detected by their aboveground symptoms and
impacts on the turf, the initial problem has often arisen in the root zone
as a result o f a complex interaction involving plant stress, and imbalances
in the rhizosphere ecosystem.
Roots respond to management o f the aboveground part o f the plant.
We often forget that management o f that visible plant shoot has both
direct and indirect impacts on the root and rhizosphere environment. The
most commonly accepted connection between roots and management is
the contribution o f phosphorus at seeding to stimulate root growth in the
establishing grass plant.
Another important relationship is demonstrated by the root response to
mowing. While it is generally understood that removing aboveground
photosynthetic leaf area will reduce the ability o f the plant to support
growth, including root growth, it is less commonly appreciated that
removal o f topgrowth results in an immediate “loss o f root” response
belowground. Root hairs and root biomass die back in response to defo­
liation. Mowing thus not only reduces the ability o f the plant to synthe­
size new carbohydrate, it also results in a decrease in the ability of the
grass plant to take up nutrients and water. The turnover in root biomass
also contributes carbon and nitrogen to the nutrient pool available to rhi­
zosphere microorganisms, influencing population size and composition.
Changes in root development in response to management may also be
critical; frequent light applications of water encourage shallow root
growth and reduce the ability of the stand to withstand drought condi­
tions. Droughtier soils are also generally less active microbially.
Roots are the focus of activity o f many beneficial microorganisms in the
soil.
45

While we most often associate microbes in the soil environment with
pathogens and disease, there are a multitude o f organisms in the soil that
are both essential to sustainable plant growth, and which contribute to
plant health. Bacteria, actinomycètes and fungi make a significant con­
tribution to the living biomass in a soil. From a plant management per­
spective, it is also interesting to note the population size differences which
have been observed between rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil.
Rouatt et al. (1960) (Proceedings o f the Soil Science Society o f America
24: 271-273) reported rhizosphere populations o f fungi and bacteria
showing 12- and 24-fold increases, respectively, compared to their nonrhizosphere counterparts.These organisms contribute to plant growth and
health via their contributions to mineralization and nutrient cycling,
through solubilization of minerals such as phosphorus, by direct hormon­
al stimulation o f plant growth, and by acting as biological control agents.
Increasingly, the focus o f an environmentally-based management pro­
gram will be to design strategies and develop inputs that will encourage
the development o f the beneficial rhizosphere microbial populations in
sand-based systems. These strategies will require an increased under­
standing o f such populations, and an appreciation o f how they respond to
seasonal and management changes.

Characterization of Rhizosphere Microbial Populations
Our primary interest in looking more closely at these rhizosphere micro­
bial populations is to try to determine the size and composition o f the
populations, and how they function in interacting with their respective
grass plant partners. We are interested in numbers, diversity and function
- but these are complex populations in a heterogeneous environment.
Logistically, scientists have a limited capability for the accurate isolation,
culture, identification and enumeration o f these populations. It is also
more widely accepted that functional activity in the rhizosphere is not
necessarily linked to our ability to isolate and characterize members of
these soil populations, nor is it necessarily affected by the addition or
exclusion o f specific bacterial types.
In the last decade, considerable progress has been made in addressing the
functional nature o f soil microbial populations [Garland, J.L. and A.L.

46

M ills(l991) Appl. & Environ. Microbiol. 57: 2351-2359]. One aspect of
that progress has been the application o f redox technology to the assess­
ment o f community-based carbon source utilization characteristics.
Technology developed by BIOLOG, Inc. for strain identification uses a
tetrazolium dye colour change as an indicator o f microbial respiration
with a range o f 95 carbon sources. Organisms which are capable o f
metabolizing a particular carbon substrate cause the dye to be chemical­
ly reduced forming a purple colour. Direct incubation of environmental
samples [for e.g. a water or soil sample] produces a pattern o f metabolic
activity which should be reflective of the particular microbial communi­
ty at that point in time.
We have used the BIOLOGO test plates to investigate the carbon use pat­
terns o f microbial communities in a series of golf greens sampled over a
period of months. These analyses have shown that functional patterns as
reflected in the range and degree o f substrate utilization vary over time,
reflecting changes which occur in response to time o f year (season), con­
struction (sand, soil, age) and management (water, fertilizer and pesticide
use). We are still analyzing the data to determine whether there are spe­
cific substrates or substrate groups that can provide a guide to managers
about these rhizosphere changes and their potential impact on the associ­
ated grass plants. We are also attempting to determine if this technique
has some predictive capability to forecast susceptibility to disease and/or
aboveground plant responses.Can We Manage Microbes ?
These kinds o f studies begin to tell us something about the way rhizos­
phere populations behave in response to a variety o f external management
and climatic perturbations. But are we any closer to actually managing
microbial populations for the benefit o f grass growth and survival?
There are four general areas where I believe we are making (or could
make) some progress in manipulating rhizosphere populations:
• design/construction - the evaluation of new amendments for sand pro­
files. There has been considerable interest in recent years regarding a
variety of inorganic amendments for sand-based profiles. These include
zeolites, diatomaceous earth, and calcined clays. These products may
contribute to improved aeration porosity, contribute to greater water hold­
47

ing capacity and/or retain nutrients as a consequence o f high cation
exchange capacities. As a consequence o f their impact on the soil envi­
ronment, such amendments may contribute to improved soil structure and
the development of microhabitats which encourage root and microbial
development.
• water management - the free draining characteristics o f most sandbased greens encourages the regular use o f water to ensure that the pro­
file retains sufficient supply o f moisture for plant growth. As a result,
sand-based turf often receives an abundance of water at intervals more
frequent than desirable for either healthy grass or the development o f a
stable rhizosphere ecosystem. Frequent watering encourages shallower
root growth, increased sensitivity to drought and other external stresses,
and very likely supports a rhizosphere microbial population which is less
resilient.
• fertility management - sand-based turf is most responsive to a fertility
management program to ensure a relatively uniform supply o f nutrients
over the growing period. While this can be effectively accomplished on
established sand-based systems with a program o f controlled release fer­
tilizer applications, there remains the challenge o f new construction and
the initial establishment phase (up to two years). During this period, the
controlled release nutrient supply is often supplemented with soluble
sources to create conditions for more vigorous grow-in. Regardless o f the
source, the potential for leaching losses is higher during this establish­
ment period.
The more rapidly a stand can develop an extensive root system and a
healthy associated rhizosphere microbial population, the sooner those
leaching concerns may be alleviated. The use o f amendments which con­
tribute to retaining nutrients in the profile, and the contribution o f organ­
ic fertilizers to enhancing microbial population development may
improve our ability to move more rapidly toward a stable ecological sys­
tem in these sand-based turf stands.
Recent reports o f experiments with carbohydrate (sugar)-based fertilizers
to enhance microbial activity [T. Parent, G olf Course Management March

48

1996. pp. 49-52] reflects the active interest in the industry with respect to
enhancing soil microbial function. While we don’t have a clear scientif­
ic picture o f the nature o f responses to such management approaches,
there is clear potential for a simple management strategy to exert a sig­
nificant impact on the turf root ecosystem.
• biologicals - A survey o f recent turf industry publications will reveal an
increasing number o f “biological” products for fertility management, as
well as disease and pest control. While 1 suggest some caution in assum­
ing that all such products will necessarily live up to their claims, they rep­
resent the first generation of materials which are likely to become an
increasingly important part o f the manager’s arsenal o f tools for effective
turf production. Research scientists and industry partners are taking a
more active role in trying to develop appropriate products to work in con­
junction with natural ecological processes, rather than to compete with
them. In the intensively managed sand-based profile, this type of ecosys­
tem management will help to create an enhanced rhizosphere environ­
ment which will contribute to overall plant health and a more robust turfgrass ecosystem.
The turf management world is changing. Increased regulation, increased
emphasis on “natural” turf management, and the continuing pressure of
maintaining turf to the (often) unrealstic expectations of user groups
make the m anager’s task a challenging and, at times, unenviable one.
Broadening the focus o f our management attention to include the
root/rhizosphere ecosystem will not necessarily make that task any easi­
er, but it will play a significant role in the development of sustainable turfgrass ecosystems.

49

50

ARE USGA GREENS BEST
FOR ALL SITUATIONS?'
by

Dr.Norman

Hummel Jr. 1
2

A few years ago a golf course developer in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
was planning on building three golf courses. All o f the greens were going
to be built to USGA Recommendations, and all o f them grassed in bentgrass. Myrtle Beach has a climate that is hot and humid in the summer,
and has the potential to dump over 100 inches o f rainfall in a year.
The first course was built, and the bentgrass greens struggled; the course
experiencing severe turf loss in the summer. When it came time to build
the other two golf courses, the owner and superintendent were looking at
all o f their options in terms o f designing a better root zone mix. Porous
ceramics were considered, as was a soil addition to the mix. When they
approached us for advice, we considered their climate, grass species, and
water supply, and suggested a green construction method that did not
include the perched water table. While skeptical, they followed our
advice. The greens on the two new courses have been in for almost two
years, and the superintendent says he will not build a USGA green again
in Myrtle Beach. To quote the superintendent, “The greens are phenom­
enal”.
Is the USGA method o f greens construction the best method for all situ­
ations? I think not, and the story above is just one example where we
have recommended what we call a simplified greens profile. A compro­
mise between the California (pure sand) and USGA methods o f con­
struction, the sim plified greens profile does not compromise perfor­
mance.
The simplified greens profile eliminates the gravel blanket and perched
water table, as does the California greens system. Unlike the California
method o f construction, however, we still recommend that a USGA root
1 Presented at the 5(d ^ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1 President, Hummel & Col., Inc.

51

zone mix be used in this simplified profile. This means that you still use
a sand that meets a well defined particle size distribution, the USGA
Recommendation to be specific, this sand blended with a quality organic
matter source. Performance testing, to include infiltration rates, porosity,
and pore space distribution should be conducted to determine the opti­
mum mix ratio. Quality control testing during blending and construction
assures that you receive the mix that the lab designs. There is no com­
promise here, lest you risk greens failure.

The Perched Water Table
The major difference between USGA greens and the simplified greens
is in the under drainage. Since its inception, the USGA method o f con­
struction has always been a tiered or layered system. Drainage pipe is
installed a specified spacing, the trenches filled with stone, and then a 4
inch gravel blanket placed across the entire subgrade. If necessary, an
intermediate (choker) layer is installed to prevent root zone mix migra­
tion into the gravel.
Many believe that the role o f the gravel blanket in a USGA green is to
improve drainage. It is true that the open pores o f the gravel move water
quickly to the drains once drainage water enters it. The gravel blanket in
a USGA green, however, is present by design to impede drainage from the
root zone. We often refer to this as a perched water table.
The perched water table forms because the capillary forces in the finer
textured root zone mix are stronger than the capillary forces o f the coars­
er gravel, and stronger than the force o f gravity. Thus, water “hangs up”
in the root zone mix, forming the water table. As water accumulates, the
weight of the water finally becomes greater than the capillary forces, and
water moves out o f the root zone mix and into the gravel. This incom­
plete drainage increases the water retention in a growing medium that
would normally be droughty.
But do we need this extra water retention in all climates, and with all con­
struction materials? Many parts o f the United States have an excess of
precipitation much of the year. The major complaint with USGA greens
in some areas is that they are slow to dry out. Is it worth it then, when
you’re more interested to remove excess water, to have a perched water
52

table present for the few weeks when it may actually be beneficial? That
is a decision you will have to make, but we are finding widespread accep­
tance o f the simplified profile in some parts of the country.
The simplified profile has root zone mix placed directly on the sub soil,
with a drainage system installed within the compacted sub-soil (see dia­
gram). A water table will form in the profile because the subsoil is like­
ly to be less permeable than your root zone mix. Unlike a USGA green,
however, water continuously moves out o f the profile, both by moving lat­
erally to the drain pipe, and by draining into the sub-soil. The drainage
o f the root zone mix is actually more complete than in a perched water
table system.
Unlike a USGA green, a simplified profile requires that the contours of
the subsoil follow the contours o f the finished grade. Since water has to
move laterally in the mix, drain spacing should be closer than the 20 foot
spacings recommended for a USGA green. While actual spacings can be
calculated from water removal requirements and the permeability of the
root zone mix, a spacing of 15 feet is normally adequate. You must be
sure that all low areas in the subgrade are identified, and drain pipe
placed in those areas.
It is important that the drain pipe be placed deep enough in the drainage
trench to protect it from crushing. A crushed drain in a USGA green may
not be noticeable, but it is a sure bet that it will in the simplified profile.
We also recommend that the gravel be mounded slightly above the trench,
this simply to protect the trench from wash-out contamination prior to
root zone mix placement
The gravel used to bed the drain pipe should be sized so as to prevent root
zone mix migration into the stone and pipe. The criteria required for the
gravel blanket in a USGA green are appropriate in selecting a drain envel­
op gravel used in this simplified profile.

When or Where Should a Simplified Profile be Considered?
The use o f the simplified greens profile should be considered in areas
prone to high precipitation for expended periods of time. Areas of the

53

Pacific Northwest, New England, and much of the Great Lake states
would be good candidates for this method o f construction. Other areas
where the simplified profile may be considered includes much o f the
mid-Atlantic area and the Southeast coastal areas.
We have also recommended a simplified profile where the local sands
were on the fine end o f the recommended range. Simulating a perched
water table system, the lab testing in these cases suggested that the water
retention in these mixes would be high. The choices the owners had in
these situations was to import a coarser sand at great expense, greatly
reduce or eliminate the organic matter, or build the greens without a
perched water table. By eliminating the perched water table, they were
able to have better drained mixes, without decreasing the organic matter
in the mix.
We believe that you may in fact be able to use a richer mix without com­
promising aeration and water retention in a simplified profile. Research
on-going at Ohio State University is actually addressing this theory by
looking at hydrological properties and air-water relationships in both the
simplified and USGA profiles.
The USGA method o f greens construction has a track record that can’t be
denied, and still is the preferred method o f construction in most situa­
tions. Our experience, however, has suggested that it may not always be
the best method o f construction for all situations. There is more than one
way to construct greens successfully, and in the right situations, the sim­
plified method o f construction may be the better option.

54

BALANCING THE PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN SPORTS FIELDS'
by Dr. Norman W. Hummel Jr. 1
2
The physical properties o f natural turf sports field soils profoundly
impact the performance o f the turf growing on them. Soils that are com­
pacted, have poor structure, or are fine textured will likely be poorly
drained, have high water retention, and poor aeration. Because these soils
are poorly aerated and wet, the turf develops shallow roots and has low
density.
The physical properties o f a soil such as infiltration rate, aeration poros­
ity, and water retention are influenced by three factors: soil texture, soil
structure, and soil density. Modifying any one or more o f these will result
in a better soil environment for your turf.

Soil Texture
The soil texture refers to the percentage o f sand, silt, and clay present in
a soil. Sandy loam soils, which will contain from 50 to 85%, are gener­
ally preferred for topsoil sports fields. Finer textured soils tend to be very
prone to compaction and poorly drained.
It is commonly thought, then, that simply by adding sand to a soil that you
will improve the drainage and perform ance characteristics.
Unfortunately, some o f the worst sports fields we have seen were where
people made attempts to modify the texture o f the soil through sand addi­
tions.
Small additions o f sand to a soil will actually do little good in terms of
improving soil physical properties. In fact, we have seen sports field soils

1 Presented at the 50^*"* Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
2 President, Hummel & Co., Inc.

55

with as much as 85% sand in them that were better suited for road bases
than sports fields. What went wrong, and why don’t sand additions make
the expected improvements in a soil?
In order to see any improvement in a soil by adding sand, you must add a
sufficient amount so that the sand particles bridge or come in contact with
one another. When this occurs, you get the creation o f large pores
between the sand grains. It is only then that you see improvement in the
physical performance and compaction resistance o f the soil. In most
cases, you are looking at having to add at least 80% sand to soil; in other
words a sand based system. Failure to do so will almost always results in
very hard, compacted fields that don’t drain.
The particle size distribution o f the sand you use to modify the soil is
important as well. Coarser, uniform sands will do a better job of bring­
ing about improvement in your soil. We would recommend a sand with
the following particle size range:
S a n d C la ssifica tio n

P a rticle D ia m e t e r

(m m )% retain ed

Gravel

> 2.0

Very coa r se sand

1 .0 -2 .0

5 - 20%

C o a r se sand

0 .5 - 1.0

30 - 60%

M e d iu m sa nd

0 .2 5 - 0 .5

30 - 60%

Fine sand

0 .1 0 -0 .2 5

0 - 15%

0 - 5%

Very f i n e sand

0 .0 5 -0 .1

0 - 3%

Silt and clay

< 0 .0 5

0 - 3%

Aside from selecting the best sand for modifying your soil, you also need
to know how much sand to add to the soil to bring about improvement.
Soil physical testing labs such as Hummel & Co. specialize in this type o f
testing. Performance testing involves making mixes with different pro­
portions o f your sand and soil (and perhaps organic matter), and running
them through standard tests for infiltration rate, porosity, and the distrib­
ution o f air and water filled pore space.
The bottom line is that modifying the texture o f your soil is an all or noth­
ing proposition. Failure to follow the steps outlined will likely result in a
disappointing outcome.

56

Soil Structure
Do you ever wonder why some native soil fields perform well while a
poorly conceived and constructed sand based fields don’t? It is probably
due to the native soil field having good soil structure, where sand based
root zones are single-grained structureless soils. Soil structure is the
arrangement o f the finer mineral components o f a soil into larger clusters
or aggregates.
A granular type structure, which is very desirable, has the soil particles
arranged into pea sized or smaller little aggregates. Collectively, these
particles act much like a coarse sand would, the pore space between the
aggregates providing aeration and infiltration. Unlike sand, however,
these soil aggregates also have small pores within them that hold water.
How nice it would be if we could all have granular structured soils in
sports fields.
Unfortunately, as these finer textured soils become compacted because of
heavy use, the soils lose their structure or actually develop into undesir­
able blocky or platy type structures. Routine core aerification will help
break these larger aggregates up. At some point in time, however, it may
become necessary to plow, disk, and harrow the soil to restore good struc­
ture. This obviously will put a field out o f commission for a while, but if
you can work out some type o f rotation, even if its on a ten year cycle, it
may be one o f the best long term practices for reinvigorating your soils.
The addition o f organic matter to a soil, especially one that is low in
organic matter, will help in the long term to maintain aggregate stability.
Well decomposed organic matter, or humus, is actually a good cementing
agent that holds the aggregates together. Working coarse textured organ­
ic matter sources such as sphagnum peat or good quality composts will
actually help open the soil matrix up some.

Density
The third physical property that influences the soils ability to support
good turf is the soil density. Soil density is another term for compaction;

57

the denser the soil, the more compacted it is. It is also one factor that you
have some degree of control over.
Very dense soils have a low total pore space within in them. In other
words, a larger percentage of the volume o f soil is made o f the sand, silt
and clay, and less is pore space. O f the pore space that is present, the
majority of it will be smaller capillary pore space, which tends to be occu­
pied by water. The larger, air filled pore space occupies a very small per­
centage o f the soil volume. Therefore, roots remain very close to the soil
surface where they can obtain at least a small amount of oxygen. In some
severely compacted fields, turf shearing may be a problem because o f a
lack of rooting.
The most common approach to managing soil density is core cultivation.
Core cultivation alleviates compaction by physically removing a soil core.
If the cores are allowed to dry and they are dragged back in, the soil
placed back into the hole is o f a much lower density than the soil
removed. Any part o f the hole not filled will eventually cave in, which
will lower the soil density in the area around the aerification hole.
A 1/2 inch diameter tine on 2 inch spacings removes only about 7% of the
surface area; a 3/4 inch tine about 12%. You can see then how little area
is actually affected by conventional aerification, pointing out the need to
do it frequently.
In time, conventional core cultivation may not be enough. We have seen
hard pans develop in fields and greens at about the depth o f the core cul­
tivation tine. This is where deep tine aerification, using machines such as
the VertiDrain can be a great help. Utilizing longer tines (up to 16 inch­
es) and a pitch fork type action, the VertiDrain appears to be affective for
relieving sub-surface compaction.
As mentioned earlier, despite your best efforts, there may come a point in
time when aerification is not enough. Again, total reestablishment, to
include cultivation o f the field may be the best approach to reinvigorating
your soils.

58

SOME NOTES ON THE EARLY GROWTH OF
TURFGRASS RESEARCH IN WASHINGTON '
by Alvin G. Law 1
2
In May 1948, a group o f G olf Course Superintendents came to Pullman,
Washington, to talk with Professor Schafer, Dean o f the College of
Agriculture, about their need for research to help solve some manage­
ment problems on the golf courses and playfields o f the Inland Empire
region. This group included John Harrison o f Hayden Lake, Idaho;
Wilfred Brusseau, Louis Schmidt, and Glen Proctor, all o f Spokane,
Washington. The results o f this visit were truly startling.
At the time they were faced with severe snow mold damage, water pene­
tration and drainage problems on the greens, as well as fertilizer and mis­
cellaneous weed problems. Information was needed on the best varieties
and sources o f turfgrass seed.
As we met with the fearsome foursome at Pullman, it became clear that
there were people in the university systems in the Pacific Northwest who
already had information on water movement in soils, weed control, soil
texture effects on water availability and fertilizers that could be adapted
to specific turf problems. Turf conferences were immediately initiated to
bring this information to practical turf managers responsible for golf
courses, cemeteries, parks and road sides. In addition, it was clear that
feedback at these conferences would clearly point out new areas of
research needed to sharpen the focus on new problems.
Some time prior to 1948, my good wife had conned me into attempting
this difficult game o f golf. Somehow Dean Schafer knew that I was on
the golf course at Pullman more than anywhere else, so he reasoned that
I might as well be assigned to help these “greenkeepers” with their prob­
lems. Perhaps he knew even then that I would never be a golfer so this
was his way to salvage a career.
1 Presented at the 5 0 ™ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1Washington State University, Agronomist Emeritus

59

The net result of these events was the initiation of some research, spon­
sored in part by the forenamed people and their golf courses. Dr. Otis
Malloy began trials on disease control, R. L. Goss started trials on fertil­
izer rates and clipping heights on varieties of bluegrass.
After revision of State Highway 195 between Spokane and Pullman was
completed, there were massive cuts through some o f the Palouse hills that
were exposed. I took my turf class to the one adjacent to the entrance to
Pullman to seed a number of plots o f different turf grasses. We broadcast
seed and mulched in with hay from bales we salvaged from a hay barn
fire. In this area various varieties o f hard fescue were outstanding. Since
then the highway engineers have initiated a seeding program.
Before long we had organized a Turf Option in the curriculum in
Agronomy which included courses in Soils, in Horticulture, in irrigation
principles and small engine repair. This option is still growing under the
able leadership o f Dr. Bill Johnston. It has the distinction o f being the first
such program west of the Mississippi.
Dr. Goss was the first Ph.D. student in Turf at WSU. Upon graduation he
moved to Puyallup and organized the outstanding research program
underway there. He became Executive Secretary o f the NTA in 1962.
Meanwhile, the Inland Empire G olf Course Superintendent Association
was the direct outgrowth o f the 1948 meeting with Dean Schafer. This
group has met regularly during the summer months, usually hosted by a
different golf course each month. These meetings have included discus­
sions of the current information on water movement in soils, fertilizer
rates and timing, weed control, insect control, equipment maintenance
and repair, and budget and personnel management. Many o f the superin­
tendents and industry representatives were involved in their presentations,
hence there was a massive exchange o f good information over the
years.The 1950 Turf Conference was the third held at the State College of
Washington.
Following the pattern set by the earlier conferences, the 1950 conference
dealt with such topics as soils, irrigation, weeds, insect control, turf dis­
eases, equipment, the care of trees, and design principles for golf courses.
60

Featured speaker was Dr. G. O. Mott, Professor o f Agronomy at Purdue
University, and Secretary o f the Midwest Regional Turf Foundation. The
program was planned particularly for golf course greenkeepers, superin­
tendents of parks, and cemetery superintendents, but also for others inter­
ested in turf improvement.
The conference was regional and people attended from Oregon, Montana,
Wyoming, Idaho, British Columbia, and Washington.
Steps were taken to organize the Northwest Turf Association and the fol­
lowing Directors were elected: E. P. Townsend, Edward Fluter, H. T.
Abbott, Phil Page, Mavor S. Boyd, James O ’Brian, Glen Proctor, Milton
Bauman, E. G. Schafer (Honorary), and Everett Potts.
As with any successful effort, the people who emerge as leaders deter­
mine its success. I give you R. L. Goss, Tom Cook, Larry Gilhuly, Jim
Connolly, Milt Bauman, the Proctor and Schmidt families, Bill Griffith,
Bo Hepler, J. L. Gullikson, and all the people Dr. Goss will mention. We
are really a great bunch and the industry is massive. Your influence as
managers o f that industry is far reaching. You can be a tremendous posi­
tive force if you continue working together with only the good o f the total
industry in mind.

61

62

VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF TURF
RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND TEACHING IN
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST'
by Dr. Thomas A. Lumpkin
Turfgrass in Washington is approximately a $2 billion industry. We have
about 260 golf courses, 1.75 million homes, 470 lawn care companies,
4,500 sports fields, 14,050 miles o f roadsides, 24 sod operations and
40,000 acres of Kentucky bluegrass seed production. The turfgrass indus­
try has been represented by a tri-state organization (WA, OR, and ID), the
Northwest Turfgrass Association, which has worked closely with WSU
for almost 50 years.
State and federal support for turf research and extension has diminished
significantly over the past ten years. All current support for turf research
comes from proposals funded by groups such as the Northwest Turfgrass
Association. Governmental support for personnel has diminished again
this year and will necessitate a reduction in technician support for the turf
program. With continuing cuts anticipated, the Department o f Crop and
Soil Sciences (CSS) must decide to either eliminate the turf program or
develop it as one o f our few areas o f excellence, with support from the
turf industry. WSU is holding discussions with the turf industry and
would like to develop a strong turf program in the Pacific Northwest if
the industry can organize a system o f financial support significantly
beyond current levels.
The NTA has made a remarkable improvement in its financial support
though fund raising efforts o f the T.U.R.F. program and a major commit­
ment from the Washington State G olf Association. The current NTA sup­
port to WSU has been committed towards hiring a research associate by
January o f 1997 to be housed at WSU-Puyallup and shared by WSU and
OSU. The associate will further scientific and practical research.on golf
courses in the Pacific Northwest. This associate will work closely with
' Presented at the 5 0 ™ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
2 Chair, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University

63

Dr. Stahnke and Tom Cook on designated projects such as limiting detri­
mental earthworm populations and diseases o f annual bluegrass. If Dr.
Brauen’s position is refilled with a scientist in July o f 1997, the research
associate will work with his replacement as a team. We expect this
research team to be only the beginning o f an enlarged WSU effort.
Unfortunately, by making the decision to support the hiring o f a research
associate, other research proposals at Pullman, Puyallup and UBC were
not able to be entirely funded immediately. This hard choice needed to be
made at this time, but efforts are under way within the NTA to strength­
en programs in Pullman and the eastern portion of the Northwest by
improving ties with Montana and Wyoming to help fund research efforts
with Dr. Johnston in areas where problems are similar to those o f eastern
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Uniting our dollars between state orga­
nizations to make a stronger research effort without duplication of
research projects will be a great benefit to all our respective turfgrass
organizations. Our goal is to build a strong working team o f interdisci­
plinary professionals (turfgrass, entomology, plant pathology and soils) to
conduct practical and basic research for the turfgrass industry’s needs.
Our alliance with British Columbia and the WCTA has been in existence
since 1958, and this bond has continued to grow. We are working on a
closer alliance of research projects with Dr. Holl and his fellow
researchers to create a combined research project with WSU and OSU.
This would be an important step towards building a strong integrated tur­
fgrass program in the Northwest.
Currently, turfgrass management is the fastest growing field in agricul­
ture and there is a need to enhance our teaching programs. Programs
without strong undergraduate teaching are being targeted for elimination.
Fortunately, this is not the case with turfgrass at WSU or OSU. Turfgrass
management is the most popular option in the CSS Department at WSU
with approximately 30% o f our undergraduates. During a major curricu­
lum revision this summer, the CSS teaching faculty determined that a
strong Turfgrass Option and turfgrass teaching program were critical to
our department and should be an area o f emphasis and support. Industry
demand for our students is high and should continue to remain so in the
future.

64

In this light, we are in the process o f revising our turfgrass teaching pro­
gram. At WSU, a need has been expressed for an advanced turfgrass man­
agement course (400 level) to be taught. This will be developed and put
in place by Dr. Johnston in the spring o f 1998. The basic turfgrass course
(300 level) is being reconfigured by Dr. Johnston so the lecture and labo­
ratory portions o f the course can be offered as separate courses. This will
allow a portion o f the course to be offered as a 2-credit correspondence
course. The course would be available not only for college credit, but also
CEUs for golf course superintendents and as a beginning turfgrass course
for turfgrass professionals, master gardeners, etc. The basic course may
be transmitted via microwave to western Washington and via the Internet.
WSU is also making links with community colleges for turfgrass training
so community college students can continue their education at WSU
while living at home.
Another addition for continuing education and/or college credit will be 3
- 1 hr. modules on golf course management, lawn care and sports field
management. These will be developed and taught out o f WSU-Puyallup
by Dr. Stahnke and Dr. Brauen’s replacement via microwave and/or via
the Internet for students and professionals to upgrade their skills.
Future Possibilities - we will attempt to bring information to the industry
more quickly. A Northwest Turfgrass home page will be set up for
research and extension information for turfgrass managers. We are
already testing a system for video conferencing from the field where some
problems identified by golf course superintendents and others can be dealt
with on-line and even brought live into classrooms and labs or placed on
CD ’s for teaching.
In conclusion, WSU is ready to work with the industry and our sister uni­
versities to create a competitive regional turf program that solves prob­
lems and creates opportunities with turf. This offer can only succeed in
today’s political climate with organized and enthusiastic industry support.
All possibilities for expanding the turf research, teaching and extension
must be pursued to develop this goal.

65

66

GETTING A GRIP ON PYTHIUM ROOT ROT
AND TURF STRESS '
By Leslie MacDonald, P.Ag. 2
The symptoms o f Pythium root rot can be severe. It is in your interest to
understand this disease so you can take measures to prevent it.

What is Pythium?
Previously, Pythium species were grouped in the Fungus Kingdom along
with many o f the other turfgrass pathogens. However, taxonomists decid­
ed it had less in common with fungi and recently moved it to the
Kingdom Protista, which includes organisms such as brown and red
algae. This explains why fungicides such as metalaxyl and etridiazole that
are effective against Pythium are not effective against fungal diseases
such as Fusarium Patch or Red Thread. There have been many species of
Pythium isolated from symptomatic turfgrass. Pythium graminicola, P.
aristosporum, P. ultimum, P. vanterpoolii and P. aphanidermatum are
some o f the species that are pathogenic on bentgrass (1,3,4,6).
One o f the reasons that Pythium is grouped into the Protista Kingdom is
because it has motile spores called zoospores. Zoospores have small
“tails” that propel the spore through water. Zoospores can detect root
exudates and respond by swimming towards them. You can appreciate
that wet soils would make it easier for the zoospores to swim. In addition,
anything that increased root exudates would improve the chances for the
zoospores to target in on a root. The abrasion of sharp sand particles
against the epidermis o f roots is one way for cell exudates to leak out.
Pythium species also produce a tough overwintering structure called an
oospore. This type o f spore has a double wall that protects it against
extremes o f temperature and other adverse conditions. Oospores are pro­
duced in root tissue in the latter stages of infection. When the root tissue
' Presented at the 5 0 ^ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1 Extension Plant Pathologist, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food

67

is further broken down by other organisms, the oospores fall into the soil
where they can survive for years. Pythium is also adaptable when it comes
to food sources. It will survive on dead organic matter if there are no roots
to infect. Cool temperatures slow down Pythium but it will still grow at
43 to 45°F (10) when root growth is limited.

How does Pythium spread?
The Pythium species associated with root rot spread in the soil via growth
of the mycelium and movement o f zoospores. However, zoospores can
only swim short distances through the soil and a trip o f a few inches
would be a long one. Pythium also produces reproductive structures
called sporangia that either germinate and infect plants directly, or else
they function as containers which produce zoospores which then infect
plants. Sporangia, zoospores and mycelium can spread with soil water as
it moves through the root zone. Pythium is present as mycelium and
spores in many native soils, and spreads as soil is moved during con­
struction. It may be present in sand or in irrigation water pumped from
surface sources although this has not been thoroughly examined.
The Pythium that causes foliar blight during hot, humid weather produces
abundant mycelium and spores on turf foliage that are easily picked up
and spread by equipment or traffic.

The infection process
Pythium usually attacks young roots, although in severe cases it can infect
the entire functioning root system and crown. Infected roots are unable to
perform their function o f water and mineral uptake. Hence, plants may
show foliar symptoms of nutrient defiency and water stress. These symp­
toms usually start to develop on the oldest leaves first. During cooler con­
ditions, infected plants may survive if the plant water requirements stay
low. However, if the evapotranspiration rate increases significantly, the
plant will die if it cannot meet the need for water. Seedlings are very sus­
ceptible to infection by Pythium, especially when they are growing slow­
ly, or are being pushed through high fertilization and use o f covers. They
can die even during cool weather when water requirements are lower if
their root system is damaged too much.
68

Pythium enters through wounds or the tips o f young roots. The mycelium
grows through the root tissues and secretes enzymes to dissolve or break
down cells. Pythium uses the cell contents as a food source. As cells rup­
ture they release cell contents which gives the root a light brown, “watersoaked” appearance. Young root tissues are more readily invaded than
older root tissue. Generally the vascular tissue is not infected by Pythium
and remains intact. One can easily slide the dead cortex (outer root tis­
sue) off the vascular tissue to produce a characteristic “rat-tail”. As the
Pythium uses up the food supply of the root, it produces the overwinter­
ing oospores.

Symptoms of Pythium
Pythium root rot symptoms often start as a thinning o f the turf at the
collar. This may be due to extra stress on turf from the abrasion of
clean-up cuts. Or, perhaps the Pythium is present in the native soil
directly adjacent to the collar and the less diverse microflora in the sand
root zone mix is unable to suppress its movement.
Turf can also thin out in other areas o f the green. Usually the turf in these
areas is under some form o f extra stress such as shade, compaction, high
traffic, or poor drainage(5). In some cases, Poa annua will be unaffected
in the patches o f thin, dying turf. It is possible that the Poa annua is more
resistant to the site stresses than the succumbing bentgrass but Poa annua
will also be infected by Pythium under the right conditions.

Making the diagnosis
To correctly diagnose Pythium root rot, one should observe signs of
Pythium in root tissue under the microscope. However, a few species of
Pythium do not produce spore structures in the roots which makes the
diagnosis difficult. This is where the DNA probes for Pythium will be
extremely useful. In addition to observing signs of Pythium in the root,
ensure that overall symptoms of the turf and individual grass plants are
consistent with a diagnosis o f root rot. One must also look for signs of
other pathogenic fungi to determine that they are not responsible for
symptoms.

69

Plant Stress is Needed for Disease Development
In the absence of significant plant stress it is difficult to induce symptoms
of root rot with Pythium. Three unsuccessful attempts to inoculate bentgrass at UBC’s Pacific Turfgrass Research Centre support this point. One
must have plant stress plus a pathogenic species o f Pythium to get
Pythium root rot.

Pythium Root Rot = Plant Stress + Pythium
Some of the turfgrass stresses that can contribute to the development of
root rot include:

nutrient deficiency
high N levels
heat stress
cold temperature
heavy traffic
shade
excess thatch
excess irrigation
drought
low mowing heights
compaction
sharp sand particles
Fertilization is very important during periods o f environmental stress. It
is critical to regularly provide balanced, adequate fertility when the root
zone has a high sand content. Sand’s low cation exchange capacity limits
its ability to retain nutrients so plants will often be exposed to excesses or
deficiencies of nutrients. Tissue testing is a good way to check that nutri­
ent levels in the turf are optimal. Keep potassium and iron levels high
prior to the onset of heat stress.
It is wise to avoid high levels o f available nitrogen during the growing
season. High nitrogen will promote shoot growth which reduces the level
o f stored carbohydrates. It also suppresses root growth. You end up with
lots o f shoot growth that you cut off anyway, few roots and low carbohy­
70

drate levels. At this point, the plant is less capable o f handling significant
stress.
On the other hand, late fall nitrogen fertilization has been shown to
increase carbohydrate content, root development and improve turf quali­
ty (7). We know that shoot growth temperature optimums are from 60 to
75°F, while the optimum soil temperatures for root growth are from 50 to
65HF. There needs to be enough nitrogen available to the plant during these
latter conditions for significant root growth and carbohydrate storage.
We may observe evidence o f Pythium infection during periods of heat
stress. Normally a plant will cool itself during hot spells by transpirational
cooling. This requires low humidity, wind and adequate soil moisture that
is taken up by functioning roots. In the Pacific Northwest, the first two
conditions are usually present. However, roots damaged by Pythium can­
not absorb and transport water adequately. The plant becomes water
stressed. This triggers the closure o f stomata which reduces transpiration.
A negative cycle ensues and the plant is not able to cool itself through
transpiration. L eaf temperatures increase which cause further plant stress.
Syringing may alleviate some heat stress.
Shade is a problem on golf courses. Although trees enhance the beauty o f
a course, they are incompatible with growing grass. Not only does shade
reduce the levels o f photosynthetically active wave-lengths that reach the
grass, but it reduces wind and causes an increase in relative humidity.
These last two factors negatively affect evapotranspirational cooling. Tree
roots also compete with turf roots for water and nutrients. Shaded turfgrass may have reduced heat, drought, cold and wear tolerance when
compared to unshaded turfgrass (9). Pythium problems are often associ­
ated with heavily shaded turf, especially with morning shade.
The recent trend o f very low mowing heights is one o f the most signifi­
cant turf stresses. Pythium root rot was an insignificant disease before the
advent o f sand root-zones and ultra low mowing heights. The closer that
turf is mowed, the more frequently it must be mowed, and every time turf
is mowed, there are several direct, and negative, effects (8):

rootgrowth stops temporarily
reduced carbohydrate production & storage
71

wound sites for disease-causing organisms
temporary water loss from cut ends
reduced water absorption by roots
In addition to this temporary stress, the soil temperature extremes are
greater at low heights o f cut than higher heights o f cut. Excessive mow­
ing frequency also has the effect o f decreasing shoot and root growth,
decreasing chlorophyll content and decreasing the recuperative potential
of turf (2). All this contributes to a situation where there is little room for
major stress.
Traffic causes wear o f the turf as well as soil compaction. Small green
size is one factor commonly associated with development o f Pythium root
rot. Soil compaction increases plant stress by limiting the movement o f air
and water into the root zone. Under these conditions, rooting and shoot
density declines.
One can see that many stresses have a role in the development o f Pythium
root rot. Some, such as nutrient management, thatch management, shade
and irrigation can be influenced more easily than factors such as high traf­
fic, low mowing heights, compaction and damage from sharp sand parti­
cles. It is sound management to promote healthy turf roots as the best
insurance in preventing Pythium root rot. Once the disease occurs, it can
be a long road to recovery.

References:
Abad, Z. G., Shew, H.D. and Lucas, L.T. 1994. Characterization and path­
ogenicity o f Pythium species isolated from turfgrass with symptoms o f
root and crown rot in North Carolina. Phytopathology 84:913-921.
Beard, J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and culture. Prentice-H all,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hodges, C.E and Coleman, L.W. 1985. Pythium-induced root dysfunc­
tion of secondary roots o f Agrostis palustris. Plant Disease 69:336-340.

72

Hsiang, T., Wu, C. and Liu, L. 1995. Pythium root rot associated with
cool-season dieback o f turfgrass in Ontario and Quebec. Canadian Plant
Disease Survey. 75:191-195.
MacDonald, L.S. 1996. Pythium root rot of cool-season turfgrass. Golf
Course Management, 64:58-62.
Nelson, E.B. and Craft C.M. 1991. Identification and comparative path­
ogenicity o f Pythium spp. from roots and crowns o f turfgrasses exhibit­
ing symptoms o f root rot. Phytopathology 81:1529-1536.
Powell, A.J., R.E. Blaser, and R.E. Schmidt. 1967. Effect o f nitrogen on
winter root growth o f bentgrass. Agronomy Journal. 59:529-530.
Turgeon, A.J. 1980. Turfgrass management. Prentice-Hall Co., Reston,
VA.
Waddington, D.V, Carrow, R.N. and Shearman, R.C. (co-eds). 1992.
Turfgrass. Agronomy monograph 32. American Society o f Agronomy.
Waterhouse, G.M. and Waterston, J.M. 1964 C.M.I. Descriptions of
Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria. No. 38, Pythium gram inicola.
Com m onwealth M ycological Institute, Ferry Lane, Kew, Surrey,
England.

73

,

74

EVALUATING FUNGICIDES FOR SNOW
MOLD DISEASE CONTROL IN
TURFGRASSES UNDER CONTROLLED AND
FIELD CONDITIONS 1
J. W.

Sitton,W.

J. T. Waldher, and G. W. Bruehl 2

INTRODUCTION
Snow mold diseases o f turfgrasses have been studied by scientists most
o f this century (Dahl, 1934; Ensign, 1985; Meiners, 1955; Vargas, 1985).
One o f the primary means o f control is the use o f fungicide sprays. One
o f the most widely used fungicides is pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB =
quintozene), which is phytotoxic to some cultivars of bentgrass (Vargas,
1986) and may be toxic to fish, aquatic organisms, and humans, if used
incorrectly (EPA Reg. No. 400-399). New fungicides are being developed
which are safer (Anonymous, 1996), but they need evaluation for their
efficacy to control snow mold.
Less information is available on snow mold resistant turfgrass cultivars.
One o f the difficulties in screening turfgrass cultivars for snow mold
resistance is the inconsistency in snow cover between seasons. G. W.
Bruehl (1966) developed a controlled system using snow mold chambers
to screen wheat cultivars for snow mold resistance during mild, snow-free
seasons. This system, potentially, could be used to evaluate fungicide
efficacy and cultivar resistance to control snow mold in turfgrasses.
The most serious snow mold diseases are pink snow mold caused
M icrodochium nivale (fr.) Samuels & I. C. Hallett (teleomorph,
Monographella nivalis [Schaffnit] E. Mueller), and gray snow mold
caused by one, or a combination of, Typhula idahoensis Remsberg, T.
1 Presented at the 5 0 ^ Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
1Post Doctoral Research Assoc.; Assistant Professor, Agronomist; Research Technician III;
Retired

75

incarnata Fr., and/or T. ishikaiensis Imai. Typhula sp. infection is most
serious when deep snow cover occurs on nonfrozen soil for a prolonged
period of time; while, pink snow mold infection can occur in absence of
snow cover under cool, wet conditions (Smiley, 1983). However, all of
these different fungi can cause severe damage to turf when conditions are
favorable for their development.

OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a test which can be used (a) in absence o f snow, and (b) for
small-scale research tests to evaluate snow mold severity in turfgrasses.
2. Conduct comparative studies, snow mold chamber and turf field plots
at two sites, on the efficacy of six fungicides to control pink and gray
snow mold in Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Inoculum source. On April 12, 1995 wheat stubble with sclerotia ofT. idahoensis was collected 2 miles north o f Waterville, WA. On March 28,
1996 pink snow mold infected creeping bentgrass leaves were collected
from infected areas in Pullman, WA.
Snow mold chamber study. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis ‘South
Dakota’) and creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris ‘Putter’) were grown
in trays out-of-doors at Pullman, WA.
On November 17, the trays were sprayed (treatments listed in Table 1) and
inoculated on November 21 with either 4 to 6 germinated sclerotia o f T.
idahoeneis or 1/2 ml of a 2.8x106 solution o f M. nivale conidia at 22
points on each turf tray. After inoculation and fungicide sprays, each tray
was covered with a 1/2 lb. layer (approx. 1 inch thick) o f water saturated
non-absorbent cotton. The cotton layered trays were covered with clear,
polyethylene. The trays were placed in a refrigerated chamber in the dark
at 0 to 0.5 C for 8 weeks. Following incubation, on February 12, 1996, the
trays were removed from the snow mold chamber for evaluation o f dis­
ease severity by determining the number o f colonies that grew at the inoc­
ulation points.
76

Field studies. To collaborate the efficacy information collected from the
snow mold chamber study, spray trials were initiated on bluegrass and
creeping bentgrass at the W hitefish Lake G olf Club, Whitefish, MT on
October 26, 1995 and the Washington State University Turfgrass
Research Area, Pullman, WA on November 17, 1995. In addition to the
four treatments used in the snow mold chamber study, several others were
added for field studies (treatments listed in Table 1). Conidia ofM . nivale
were sprayed on the Pullman site at a rate o f 12.3x105 conidia/sq. ft. on
December 4, 1995; the W hitefish site received no supplemental inocu­
lum. Snow cover was 1 month at Pullman and 5 months at Whitefish.
Following snow melt, disease severity and turfgrass quality were record­
ed on February 12, 1996 at Pullman and April 4, 1996 at Whitefish.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pink snow mold. Comparisons o f the efficacy o f the six fungicides tested
were similar between the field and the snow mold chamber on bentgrass
(Table 1) and bluegrass (Table 2). The least effective fungicide for pink
snow mold control was Prostar at 6 oz. Generally, significantly better con­
trol was attained with PCNB 4 oz., Daconil 2787 4 oz., Chipco 26019 4
oz., Banner 4 oz., Chipco 26019 8 oz., Medallion 0.5 oz., Chipco 26019
4 oz.+Daconil 2787 4 oz., and Banner 4 oz.+Medallion 0.5 oz., which,
gave the best, but sometimes not statistically best, control.
Gray snow mold. Comparisons between field and snow mold chamber
tests were not possible because gray snow mold did not develop at the
W hitefish Lake G olf Club location. This is probably because the soil sur­
face became frozen due to the -30 F temperatures that occurred during
February 1996. Gray snow mold tests in the snow mold chambers (Table
3) showed that PCNB 4 oz., and the two combinations o f Chipco
26019+Daconil 2787 and Banner+ Medallion provided similar, good con­
trol on bluegrass, but the two combination treatments were statistically
better than PCNB in controlling gray snow mold on creeping bentgrass.
Turfgrass quality. There seemed to be differences in turfgrass quality due
to treatment, grass species, and location. For example, Prostar treated
bentgrass had good turfgrass quality at Whitefish, but poor bluegrass
quality. The reverse was true o f PCNB, which gave poor quality on bent­
grass at W hitefish but good quality on bentgrass at Pullman and bluegrass
77

at Whitefish. Generally, best quality occurred with Chipco 26019 8 oz.,
Medallion 0.5 oz., and combinations o f Chipco 26019+Daconil 2787 and
Banner+Medallion. The high turfgrass quality values for these treatment
is probably related to their excellent control o f pink and gray snow molds.

CONCLUSIONS
The results for this study indicate that there is a good correlation between
results obtained with the snow mold chamber and field tests for the effi­
cacy o f six fungicides to control pink snow mold. Additional testing will
be required for a similar comparison with gray snowmold. The new fungi­
cides (i.e., Banner and Medallion) compare favorably with the older
fungicides (i.e., PCNB, Daconil, and Chipco 26019) in their ability to
control snow mold. This is good news, because until recently most snow
mold fungicides were closely related (triazole types) and there was a pos­
sibility o f the development o f fungicide resistant strains o f the pink and
gray snow mold fungi. In addition, new materials like Medallion are con­
siderably safer for humans, animals, and the environment than older
materials like PCNB and Calaclor. More tests are required to better eval­
uate the effects o f the six fungicides tested on turf quality.

REFERENCES
A n n o n y m o u s. 1 996. A n o u n c e o f p rev en tio n ... a n e w fu n g ic id e ta c k le s d o lla r
sp ot, sn o w m o u ld s, and oth er tu r f d is e a s e s . G r e e n M a ste r 3 1 :1 8 .
B ru eh l, G . W., R. S p ragu e, W. R. F isch er, M . N a g a m itsu , W. L. N e ls o n , and O.
A . V ogel. 1966. S n o w m o ld s o f w in ter w h ea t in W a sh in g to n . W ash. A g r ic . E xp.
B u ll. 6 7 7 .
D ah l, A . S. 1 934. S n o w m o ld o f tu rf g r a s s e s a s c a u se d by F u sariu m n iv a le.
P h y to p a th o lo g y 2 4 :1 9 7 - 2 1 4 .
E n sign , R. D. 1 9 8 5 . C o n tr o llin g w in ter d is e a s e s in tu r fg r a sse s. Proc. N o rth w est
Turf. C o n f. 3 9 :1 2 6 -1 3 3 .
M ein ers, J. P. 1955. E tio lo g y and con trol o f sn o w m o ld o f tu r f in th e P a c ific
N o rth w est. P h y to p a th o lo g y 4 5 :5 9 - 6 2 .
S m iley , R. W. 1983. C o m p e n d iu m o f tu rfgrass d is e a s e s . A P S P ress, St. Paul, M N .
V argas, J. M . Jr. 19 8 6 . M a n a g in g sn o w m o ld . G ro u n d s M a in te n a n c e 2 1 :1 4 -2 0 .

78

T a b le 1. C o m p a r iso n o f th e e ff ic a c y o f fu n g ic id e s to con trol pink sn o w m o ld
(M ic r o d o c h iu m n iv a le ) on b e n tg r a ss at fie ld site s at P u llm an , W A and W h ite fish ,
M T and in sn o w m o ld ch a m b e r te sts d u rin g th e 1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 6 g r o w in g sea so n .
Treatment
(rate/1000 sq. ft.)

Colony number/plot*
Pullman
W hitefish

Colony size**
Cham ber test

Non-treated CK
Prostar, 6 oz.
PCNB, 4 oz.
D aconil, 4 oz.
26019, 4 oz.
26019, 8 oz.
26019, 4 oz.+
Daconil, 4 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.
M edallion, 0.5 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.+
M edallion 0.5 oz.

50.0a***
36.7a
1.3b
5.7b
2.7b
1.0b

40.9a

33.5a
7.5bc
0.3c
2.3c
19.5ab
4.8bc
1.8c

2.3
2.0b
1.0b

—

—

4.6b
—
—
—

0.0b
—

—

0.7b

4.6b

LSD (P=0.05)
14.6
17.6
16.3
*Mean o f four 10x10 ft. plots.
**M ean size (m m) o f 22 inoculation sites per treatment.
♦ ♦♦Different letters within colum ns indicate significant differences
Fisher’s protected L SD (P=0.05).

according to

Table 2. Comparison o f the efficacy o f six fungicides to control pink snow mold
(M icrodochium nivale) on Kentucky bluegrass at field sites at Pullman, WA and
W hitefish, MT, and in snow m old chamber tests during the 1995-1996 growing season.
Treatment
(rate/1000 sq. ft.)
Non-treated CK
Prostar, 6 oz.
PCNB, 4 oz.
D aconil, 4 oz.
26019, 4 oz.
26019, 8 oz.
26019, 4 oz.+
Daconil, 4 Oz.
Banner, 4 oz.
M edallion, 0.5 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.+
M edallion 0.5 oz.

Disease* % Infection**
Pullman
W hitefish
96.0a
67.5b
3.0c
26.3c
24.5c
4.0c

2.0b
1.3bcd
1.3bcd
0.8cd
0.5de
0.8cde
1.5bc
0.5de

4.3c

0.3e

Colony size***
Cham ber test
86.4a
—

40.9b
—
—
—

27.3bc

—

—

—

—

13.6c

0.8
25.1
25.2
LSD (P =0.05)
* D isease rated 0=0-trace;l -1 % -33% ;2=34-66% ;3=67-100% area o f infection o f four
10x10 ft. plots.
**% Infection is an estimate o f the percentage o f infected area in four 10x10 ft. plots.

79

***M ean size (mm) o f 22 inoculation points per treatment.
****Different letters within colum ns indicate significant
differences according to Fisher’s protected
L SD (P=0.05).
Table 3. G row th o f gray sn o w m o ld (T yp h u la id a h o e n s is ) in o c u la te d on K en tu ck y
b lu eg ra ss and b en tg ra ss turf, th en p la c e in sn o w m o ld c h a m b e r s at 0 .5 to 1 C for
8 w eek s.
Treatments
(rate/1000 sq. ft.)

Colony developm ent (%)*
Bluegrass

Bentgrass

Non-treated CK
PCNB, 4 oz.
26019, 4 oz.+
Daconil, 4 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.+
Medallion, 0.5 oz.

95.5a**
13.6b

86.4a
81.8a

22.7b

40.9b

18.2b

31.8b

LSD (P=0.05)
21.4
26.1
*Mean size (mm) o f 22 inoculation points per treatment.
**Different letters within colum ns indicate significant
differences according to Fisher’s protected

L SD (P=0.05).

Table 4. B en tg ra ss and K en tu ck y b lu e g r a ss tu rfg ra ss q u a lity ratin gs on n on sprayed tu rf and tu r f sprayed w ith fu n g ic id e s at W h ite fis h , M T and P u llm a n , WA
on O cto b er 2 6 , 1995 and N o v e m b e r 17, 1 9 9 5 , r e sp ectiv ely .
T U R F G R A S S Q U A LITY *
Treatments
(rate/1000 sq. ft.)

W hitefish
Bentgrass
Bluegrass

Pullman
Bentgrass

Non-treated CK
Prostar WP, 6 oz.
PCNB, 4 oz.
Daconil, 4 oz.
26019, 4 oz.
26019, 8 oz.
26019, 4 oz.+
Daconil, 4 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.
Medallion, 0.5 oz.
Banner, 4 oz.+
Medallion, 0.5 oz.

4.8bc**
6.5a
4.2c
6.0ab
6.5a
6.5a

1.8d
2.5cd
5.5a
4.3ab
3.8bc
5.0ab

3.Of
3 .3 f
6.3ab
4.3e
4.7de
5.7bc

5.6ab

5.5a

-

5.7bc
5.3cd
6.3 ab

-

6.7a

LSD (P=0.05)

-

1.3

1.5

0.9

*Turfgrass quality rated 0 to 9; 0=dead, brown turf;9=dark green, healthy turf.
**Different letters within colum ns indicate significant
differences according to Fisher’s protected

80

L SD (P=0.05).

CAN ANTAGONISTIC MICROORGANISMS
CONTROL FUSARIUM PATCH
OF TURFGRASS?1
By

Gwen K.
and Coleen Pidgeon

Stahnke,P

INTRODUCTION
Fusarium patch disease, caused by the fungus Microdochium nivale, is
one o f the most prevalent diseases on golf courses in the Pacific
Northwest. Fusarium patch disease is an important problem which can
infect all cool-season turfgrass species under wet, cool weather condi­
tions, causing severe damage. Fungicide applications are often repeated
throughout the infection period which may extend from early fall through
early summer. During 1979, iprodione-tolerant strains o f M. nivale were
isolated from a western Washington golf course (Chastagner and Vassey).
Biological control o f Fusarium patch disease would provide an alterna­
tive approach to fungicide applications. Antagonistic microorganisms
which produce antibiotics and suppress pathogens have been studied
extensively for other pathogens and other crops (Bull et al, Kobayashi et
al, Nelson and Craft, Weller and Cook). This study identified bacterial
antagonists suppressive to Fusarium patch disease under greenhouse con­
ditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
M. nivale was cultured from turf samples diagnosed with Fusarium patch
disease. Isolates were obtained from annual bluegrass (Poa annua var.
annua), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris), and perennial ryegrass
(Lolium perenne) samples submitted to the W SU-Puyallup Plant
Diagnostic Laboratory. Single spore isolates were stored in a cornmeal/silica (3%v/v) medium. Sporulation was induced by inoculating

' Presented at the 50^*"* Northwest Turfgrass Conference, Victoria Conference Centre,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 30 - October 3, 1996.
2 Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Diagnostic Plant Pathologist, and Research Technician,
respectively, Washington State University, Puyallup, Washington

81

potato sucrose agar (Dhingra and Sinclair) with cornmeal/silica cultures.
The M. nivale isolates were used to inoculate the turfgrass species from
which they were isolated.
Three turfgrass species were used in the experiments: creeping bentgrass,
annual bluegrass, and perennial ryegrass. Cone-tainers (1.5” diameter)
tubes were packed with sterile vermiculite and seeded at 43, 160, and 16
seeds per cone-tainer for the annual bluegrass, creeping bentgrass, and
perennial ryegrass, respectively. Fertilization included a weekly applica­
tion o f .25 lb. N/1000 ft 2 Peter’s solution (20-20-20) and two applica­
tions of 1 lb. N/1000 ft 2 urea solution 9 and 5 days prior to inoculation
with the pathogen (Stahnke et al). The experiments were conducted on a
mist bench in the greenhouse.
Microbial antagonists were obtained from Dr. David Weller (USDAPullman) and screened in a series o f greenhouse experiments. The antag­
onists tested included: fluorescent pseudomonads Q2-87, 30-84, Q29Z80, 2-79.
Bacterial antagonists were grown on culture plates and a bacterial sus­
pension was prepared in buffer. Three weeks after grass germination, a
bacterial suspension or buffer solution was applied to turfgrass in conetainers. Five 3-cm grass blade samples were selected 24 hours after appli­
cation with the antagonist. The grass samples were suspended in sterile
buffer, diluted, and plated onto King’s B medium. Colony-forming units
(CFU) o f foliar organisms were counted 24 or 48 hours after plating.
After collecting CFU samples, turfgrass was inoculated with an M. nivale
spore suspension (approximately 7 X 106 spores/ml). Three weeks after
application with the pathogen, plants were rated for turf color, turf quali­
ty, and disease. Several samples were examined microscopically for the
presence o f M. nivale spores.
An experiment was conducted to determine the persistence o f four bac­
terial antagonists on grass blades (Fig. 1). The fluorescent pseudomon­
ads Q 2-87,2-79, 30-84, and Q29Z-80 were applied to creeping bentgrass
and annual bluegrass in cone-tainers. CFUs were determined at 1,2, 4,
7, and 21 days following standard dilution procedures. Grass blades were
also plated directly onto media.
82

In a final experiment, a split application o f the bacterial antagonist Q2-87
was applied 24 hours apart prior to challenge with M. nivale. Grass plants
were rated for color and disease.

RESULTS
Bacterial antagonists 2-79 and Q2-87 significantly suppressed Fusarium
patch disease on creeping bentgrass when compared to the inoculated
control (Table 1). Q2-87 also significantly suppressed M. nivale on annu­
al bluegrass when compared to the inoculated control.
Antagonist Q29Z-80 did not suppress Fusarium patch in the initial
screening and was not tested further in greenhouse experiments. Spore
suspensions o f M. nivale did not infect perennial ryegrass consistently in
the greenhouse. Therefore, perennial ryegrass was not used in the screen­
ing procedures for the final experiments.
Table 1: Fusarium patch on bentgrass 3 weeks after inoculation (5/3/96).

Treatment

Disease Ratinga

Control/Pathogen
30-84/Pathogen
B203/Pathogen
Q2-87/Pathogen
2-79/Pathogen
Control/Blank
Control/Untreated

2.4 A
1.8AB
1.6 B
1.5 B
1.5 B
0.2 C
0.0 C

aDisease Rating: 0 = no disease, 1 =100%-75% healthy plants, 2 = 74%50% healthy, 3 = 49%-25% healthy, 4 = 24%-0% healthy
Fluorescent pseudomonad 2-79 persisted on bentgrass at the highest pop­
ulation after 21 days under greenhouse conditions. A bacterial population
o f 222 colony-forming units per cm linear leaf tissue was determined at
21 days compared to 11 for Q2-87, 0 for 30-84 and 0 for Q29Z-80 (Fig.
1). Blade sections were plated onto K ing’s B media to compare with CFU
results. Q2-87 produced many colonies directly from bentgrass leaf tissue
at 7 and 21 days compared to colony-forming units determined by stan­
dard procedures o f 3 and 11, respectively.

83

Figure 1. Persistence of bacterial antagonists on bentgrass.

«Q29Z-80
■ 30-84
BP2-79
O Q 2-8 7

1

2

4

7 2 1

Days After Application
In the final experiment, the split application o f Q2-87 significantly sup­
pressed Fusarium patch disease on creeping bentgrass compared to the
inoculated control. The inoculated control disease rating o f 3.0 was high­
er than the previous experiment (2.4), indicating higher disease pressure.
Q2-87 suppressed Fusarium patch disease in each experiment when com ­
pared to the inoculated control.

DISCUSSION
Microbial antagonists Q2-87 and 2-79 exhibited population peaks at 48
hours following a single application. The increased population quantified
on non-inoculated plants would correspond to a population peak 24 hours
after inoculation with the M. nivale spore suspension. Though Q2-87
suppressed disease compared to an inoculated control with a disease rat­
ing of 2.4, it also provided protection when applied in a split application
under higher disease pressure (3.0 disease rating for inoculated control).
This may have resulted because the bacterial population was allowed to
increase over the 48 hours prior to challenge with the pathogen.
Fluorescent pseudomonads 30-84 and Q29Z-80 did not reduce Fusarium
patch disease significantly in initial experiments. Colony-forming units
o f 30-84 and Q29Z-80 decreased or only slightly increased 48 hours after
application and may not have had sufficient populations to suppress dis­
ease.

84

Q2-87 was observed growing from the entire bentgrass leaf margin
directly onto King’s B media from samples taken at 7 and 21 days. This
did not compare to the low CFU counts o f 3 and 11 CFU per cm linear
leaf tissue. The bacteria may be adhering tightly to the blade tissue and
not being removed through standard CFU dilution procedures. This bio­
logical characteristic could enhance its ability to suppress Fusarium patch
disease. Sonication may improve recovery of bacteria from leaf blades in
future experiments.
Combinations o f microbial antagonists applied in split applications have
provided effective control o f plant pathogens on other crops (Duffy et al).
Single applications o f fluorescent pseudomonads Q2-87 and 2-79 each
suppressed Fusarium patch disease on bentgrass in these greenhouse
screening experiments. Combinations o f these organisms applied in split
applications may provide increased disease suppression and will be stud­
ied in future experiments

REFERENCES
B u ll, C. T., W eller, D. M ., and T h o m a sh o w , L. S. 1 9 9 1 . R e la tio n sh ip b etw een
root c o lo n iz a tio n and su p p r e s sio n o f G a e u m a n n o m y c e s g r a m in is var. tritici by
P se u d o m o n a s flu o r e s c e n s Strain 2 -7 9 . P h y to p a th o lo g y 8 1 :9 5 4 -9 5 9 .
C h a sta g n er, G . A ., and V assey, W. E. 1 982. O cc u r r e n c e o f ip ro d io n e-to lerant F u sariu m n iv a le u n d er f ile d c o n d itio n s.

Plant D is e a s e 6 6 :1 1 2 -1 1 4 .

D h in g ra , O. D ., and S in cla ir, J. B. 19 9 5 . B a sic Plant P a th o lo g y M ethods:
S e c o n d E d itio n C R C P ress, Inc. B o c a R aton , FL.
D u ffy ,

B.

K .,

S im o n , A .,

and W eller,

D.

M.

1996.

C o m b in a tio n

of

T rich o d erm a k o n in g ii w ith flu o r e sc e n t p se u d o m o n a d s for con trol o f tak e-all on
w h eat. P h y to p a th o lo g y 8 6 :1 8 8 - 1 9 4 .
K o b a y a sh i, D. Y., G u g lie lm o n i, M ., and C lark e, B. B. 19 9 5 . Iso la tio n o f the
c h itin o ly tic b acteria X a n th o m o n a s m a lto p h ilia and S erratia m a r c e sc e n s as b io ­
lo g ic a l co n tro l a g e n ts for su m m e r p atch d is e a s e o f tu rfgrass. S o il B io l. B io c h e m .
2 7 (1 1 ): 1 4 7 9 -1 4 8 7 .
N e ls o n , E. B ., an d C raft, C. M . 1 9 9 1 . In trod u ction and e sta b lish m e n t o f
strain s o f E n tero b a cter c lo a c a e in g o l f c o u r se tu r f for the b io lo g ic a l con trol o f
d o lla r sp ot. P lant D is e a s e 7 5 :5 1 0 - 5 1 4 .
S ta h n k e, G . K ., F o ss, C ., and J o n e s, L.

1996. S c r e e n in g a n ta g o n istic

m ic r o o r g a n ism s fo r su p p r e s sio n o f M ic r o d o c h iu m n iv a le and G a e u m a n n o m y c e s
g r a m in is var. a v en a e. N o r th w e s t T u rfgrass T o p ic s 3 9 ( 2 ) : 9 - l 1.
W eller, D. M ., and C o o k , R. J. 1 9 8 3 . S u p p r e ssio n o f tak e-all o f w h ea t by
s e e d trea tm en ts w ith flu o r e sc e n t p se d u o m o n a d s . P h y to p a th o lo g y 7 3 :4 6 3 -4 6 9 .

85

86