Technical
“Prior to detailing the best working practices on reaching this level of organic matter, let us first rule out ineffective methods”
Dilution vs Removal of organic matter - American research is, encouragingly, realising high rates of efficacy, via solid tining and sand dressing programmes as opposed to the more conventional hollow coring, widely adopted throughout the UK and Europe. Relying on dilution alone to manage
organic matter requires a careful approach. Sand based greens, effective pipe drainage or well structured underlying soil, combined with already low organic matter, is required for this strategy. Trying to implement dilution alone on greens already high in organic matter or prone to accumulation at accelerated rates, is likely to fail, unless sand topdressing rates are astronomically high.
It is fair to say that, at these levels, the need for aggressive deep scarification and large diameter hollow tining, for the purpose of organic matter management, will result in unnecessary time and resources being spent on renovations.
At 7-12% at 0-20 and 20-40mm
A scenario in which the vast majority of clubs will find themselves is between 7- 11%, with the UK average for organic matter being around 9-10%, post 2012. Reduction of organic matter at this level should be one of the key objectives, although the necessity for the speed of reduction will lessen somewhat compared
From the organic matter results collected to date, little in the way of solid evidence exists to confirm its effectiveness in real life situations
126 PC JUNE/JULY 2013
Considered for dilution
to that where higher amounts of organic matter are found. The vast majority of clubs at this level tend to select a more gradual reduction programme.
Organic Matter Reduction - Conventional approach
There are a range of effective strategies at this level, including hollow coring, deep scarification and/or sand-injection, which normally provide a reasonable level of reduction. Where clubs have become more relaxed at this level of organic matter, the use of smaller blades/tines with larger spacing, in order to reduce disruption to play, is common. In many cases, this results in an unwanted organic matter increase.
The dilution strategy, once organic matter is at this level, is somewhat unknown, with mixed results being observed to date. From the results observed, dilution alone at this level will be insufficient to ensure a healthy level of reduction is achieved, dependant upon the extent to which it is implemented and on the type of green.
At 12-17% in 0-20mm and 20-40mm
When organic matter has reached this level, its reduction must be one of the key objectives in order to reduce exposure to the negative impact of organic matter. A great deal of urgency is required to achieve reduction at this stage as, at this
level of organic matter, greens are more prone to further increases, due to them remaining saturated and anaerobic for longer periods throughout the year, (as outlined in part 2 of our organic matter series).
The dilution strategy at this stage is, in
our professional opinion, ineffective and will not reduce organic matter as suitable rates, if at all. Conventional forms of renovation programmes, at this rate, achieve only moderate to slow reduction and, in some cases, can see increases. More often than not, when greens have
reached this stage, notable renovation programmes are required. These comprise over and above average treatments. New technology, such as sand injection, has made these operations easier and less disruptive. Details such as tine sizes, blade width and spacing become increasingly important at this level of organic matter, when its removal, in combination with dilution, is essential.
At 15% + in 0-20mm and 20-40mm (Small number of clubs in the UK)
On reaching this stage, the reduction of organic matter will not only be the highest priority but will present one of its biggest maintenance challenges, namely, its successful and sustained reduction. Prior to detailing the best working practices on reaching this level of organic matter, let us first rule out ineffective
One week after double treatment
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