Golf


London). A formula is preset by Micah Woods and Larry Stowell to allow you to do so.


The next stage was to set an annual


nitrogen application quantity. For the last four years, around 150kg N/hectare had been applied to the greens at Ealing, so I set that figure as the default number. From there, I could see how much nitrogen I should be applying each month depending on what the resulting spreadsheet data told me. I could then tweak this on what was actually happening temperature wise. The table right shows how my spreadsheet looked and the total quantities applied for the year. Looking at the chart, there are a few things that stand out. In March, because the temperature was so low, it told me not to put out any nitrogen. This was a first for me and, looking at the previous years’ records, it was when 25 kilos of nitrogen went out. The difference in the amount of nitrogen used for the year is vast.


As I said earlier, for the last four years


around 150kg N/ha was applied (which produced very good greens) but, in 2013, only 117kg N/ha. There were major savings made by this


programme. In 2013 our fertiliser bill was £680, in 2012 it was £1,240 and 2011’s was £1,500. I cannot put it all down to GP (implementing the MLSN new guidelines means that potassium has been heavily reduced), but the fact less nitrogen is being applied means our bill is lower.


Performance


Looking at this from an agronomic and cost perspective, this model seems like a no brainer, but what about performance? How did the greens perform last year? I’ve always argued that whatever you do agronomically has to be backed up with performance. I put performance first and then back it up with an agronomic plan.


I know that this is not how many


greenkeepers across the country view turf maintenance, but what is the point of


80 PC FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 Stimpmeter readings Speed (marked in feet)


Month 2012 2013 May 9.4 11.7 June 10.3 11.5 July 10.3 10.8 August 10.7 September 11.4


11.1 10.6


Smoothness (scored out of 10) 2012 9.1 9.3 9.1 8.7 9.9


2013 9.3 9.8 9.8 9.8


10.0


London Temperatures in ºC Month


January 7 February 5


2012 (historical) 2013 (actual) Kg of Nitrogen per hectare 5 4


March 9 4 April 8 9 May 14 12 June 15 15 July 17 20 August 18 September 14 October 11 November 7 December 6


introducing something new if your greens don’t perform better? Since the 2mm debate in 2010, I have been collating data on the greens at Ealing. I published an article in the February/March 2013 Pitchcare edition detailing the agronomic data that I have found at Ealing. The two areas that could be used to assess whether GP is working, from a performance viewpoint, would be density counts that I do monthly and speed/smoothness that I do weekly. Density first; the average for 2012 was 103 plants in a cm². Last year, that figure rose slightly to 104, so density has not


1 0 0 4 9


18 14 13 7 6


18 27 25 15 12 3 3


Total 117kg N/ha


suffered, even though around 33kg less nitrogen was applied per hectare. For putting performance, as I said right at the start, our main goal for the playing season was to stimp at 10.5 feet and above on a daily basis. This was achieved, and the table below shows how both green speed and smoothness compared between 2012 and 2013. What stands out from 2012 is slower than acceptable green speeds up until August. This coincides with the fertility inputs being high in the spring, compared to the 2013 spring when the GP model was introduced. As with all


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  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156