the organic matter content of the upper soil profile with aeration and top dressing. Specific targets would certainly have been set for the organic matter levels.
All elements of the maintenance strategy will have been addressed to bring about the desired improvement in firmness. Again, we will have been clarifying the need for essential maintenance work and the importance of timing it correctly. We always need permission to make headway. It is true to say that the main cause of
soft greens stems from the general reluctance of the golfers to allow us to carry out any disruptive work, such as hollow tining to reduce thatch levels. Poor green performance is usually the result of restricting the maintenance programme to suit the golfers, rather than being an indication of bad greenkeeping/agronomy. To highlight this issue we found that,
where organic matter content (% by loss on ignition), was within our target range (less than 6% in the top 20mm and less than 4% between 20-40mm) the mean Clegg value was 88 and situated in the middle of our target range. However, when the organic matter content was higher than our target range, then the
mean Clegg value was lower (80 gravities) and barely within our desired performance range.
This information helps committees, and indeed members, to understand the reason why we need to reduce soil organic matter levels and so give us permission to proceed. An objective approach that explains the situation clearly is beneficial for us all.
Links results
The table below shows the firmness results that we obtained from links greens.
The links greens were firmer than the parkland greens but, when compared to their own target range, we found a similar situation. In our study, only 50% of the greens were found to be within their optimal firmness range of 100-130 gravities. These ideal links greens were providing very firm surfaces where the well-struck ball impacts, bounces on, checks and then rolls out. Links greens in such optimal condition provide a true test of ball striking and shot accuracy, with the spill-offs waiting to feed away any loose or inaccurate play. Clients who had greens within this range would be receiving advice focused on pushing them towards the firmer end.
Organic matter content, sward composition, topdressing (type, amount and frequency), aeration, nutrition and water management would have all been discussed, and a plan formulated to maintain this optimal level of performance. You might say that these greens were the “real McCoy”. Again, nearly half of all the links
greens we measured were softer than the desired range. 40% of all the links readings were between 80-100 gravities, which are “firm” (and good for a parkland situation) but they are not really firm enough for the demanding links, where we want the ball to release out after impact. Another 5% were inappropriately
“receptive” (readings between 70-80 gravities) to create a surface where the ball impacts and then stops on first bounce, or even spins backwards! There might not be any footprinting on these greens but there isn’t any premium on ball striking either. Such greens are flattering to average play rather than being the true test of golf. Our discussions and recommendations for these greens would have centred on the best methods to firm them up, i.e. soil amendment, organic matter reduction, irrigation strategy etc. We improve these greens with good solid greenkeeping that is targeted on achieving our specific and measurable targets. We know the answers.
The Reason
By far the most interesting result we found in our data was the relationship between moisture content and Clegg values (firmness). This will, hopefully, crystallise your understanding of surface firmness for you. The above graph represents all the
readings that we obtained in 2009. These results include all the different course types, construction methods, grass types, organic matter contents etc. Even with such a high level of potential variation, the relationship between moisture content and Clegg
81
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132