Technical Conclusions
Collating this data over the last three years has taught me a lot about my own greenkeeping methods. A lot of questions were raised by the 2mm debate, but I had no way to prove my results. My method was based largely on ‘gut feeling’. The method obviously works, and is successful, but I made many mistakes and could have saved time and money if the data had been readily available. With three years hindsight, I conclude the following:
- To produce top greens performance (playability and agronomy) the feeding programme has to be right. By analysing plant tissue, as well as testing the soil, I can fine tune greens growth. I stopped panicking about what was going on inside the plant. If you look at my soil results, you can see many nutrients were way out of their guideline figure. However, once I started collating tissue samples, I could see that they were plentiful inside the plant and expensive fertiliser to add nutrients wasn’t required.
- Poa annua was always thought to be a high thatch producer, giving slow, bumpy greens. I don’t find it so. If your fertiliser programme is based around granular fertiliser (which used to be the norm), then a fat, beefed up grass plant will be produced. On the other hand, if you give it little shots of nitrogen and apply sand dressings, a much slimmer version is produced which provides very little thatch and smooth, fast surfaces.
- Using accurate organic matter information, I targeted aeration and sanding where it was needed. One of the biggest concerns with heavy sanding is that you can bury the OM in the profile, but using tools such as the penetrometer and having OM samples tested at certain depths, you can gauge where your troublesome spots are and act accordingly.
- My OM figures have come down over the years. There is no doubt that the sand and aeration programme has helped but, in my opinion, the tight cutting height has played its part too. Think logically. Less leaf mass = less mass to break down.
- When I became CM at Ealing in 2006, I overseeded a lot with colonial bent. This was to help support the Poa (which was weak) and create a dense sward. However, just before the data programme started, I totally stopped overseeding as I felt that the Poa was strong and would support itself. Plus, the seed cost a bloody fortune! The big concern is that, when you stop overseeding, sward density can suffer. That is why I include a density test in my programme. The sward stays dense as long as the Poa is healthy. Again, making sure your feeding programme is spot on is key to the success of this.
- Our fungicide bill has come down from a high of £10k (viewed from past records) in 2004 to £2.4k for each of the last three years. Firming the surfaces up with good cultural practices, such as sand and aeration, has helped, but a tighter cutting height than previous regimes also created a drier top surface.
- People often comment that my method costs too much to implement so, along with the agronomy data, I track the greens cost, everything including wages (around 60%), fertiliser, sand, fuel, etc. My greens cost came down from £27,780 in 2010, to £25,789 last year, a reduction of around £2k (without allowing for inflation at around 2.5% each year). This cost accounts for 9% of the course budget and 2% of the club’s annual turnover. The reduction is entirely down to savings made by using the data results.
Personally, I am glad that I decided to implement this data programme. I find that it has taken the guesswork out of greenkeeping and, ultimately, allowed Ealing’s greens to improve further. It perhaps goes a small way to proving that a 2mm cutting height works. I hope that anyone considering this type of regime finds my information useful and that, in the future, more of us can share our findings for the benefit of the industry.
If you have questions on this article you can contact Greg by email:
gregevansmg@gmail.com, by phone: 07951 157208 or via his website:
www.gregevansmg.com
For the complete story, you may wish to read previous articles. These can be found on our website by searching the author’s name.
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2013 PC 113
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 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148