Technical
Rethinking course maintenance at Harpenden Common Golf Club to focus on soil biology has reaped rewards on the course and in the clubhouse, reports Greg Rhodes
I
t’s January and course manager of Harpenden Common Golf Club Steve Brocklehurst walks off the 18th hole after inspecting the green with his nephew Sean, head greenkeeper at the private members club.
Close behind, a foursome is concluding what will have been a challenging round on the parkland course. Nothing unusual in this era of year‐round play but, until recently,
winter golf at this Hertfordshire venue often would have proved a no‐go.
Persistently waterlogged, soggy greens had dogged the 18‐hole tree‐lined course for far longer than the greens team or the committee cared to mention. But a switch three years ago to a biologically‐based maintenance strategy, rather than a purely chemical and physical one, has transformed playability to the point where lost days are a rarity rather than the norm.
The golf club that originally sat here was founded in 1897, but moved to another site in 1931 when the present Harpenden Common set up shop.
Membership is thriving at around 650 and the course sees some 30,000 rounds of golf annually under competitively‐priced five‐ or seven‐day deals.
Confidence runs high on and off the course as the last three years or so of fresh thinking and an about‐turn in its approach to
turf management have placed the club on a firm footing, in more ways than one. The bunker redevelopment programme launched in 2016 and its tees counterpart, begun last year, bear witness to the success of what went before ‐ a switch from a traditionally physical and chemical approach to greens maintenance to one based on soil biology
Sean and Steve take up the story. “Before we introduced a biological programme in 2015, the greens were extremely wet and not always playable,” notes Sean, “so we had to resort to remote temporary ones.” “Trolley bans were in force for several months and we were working with an agronomist on ways to improve the condition of the greens. Their December inspection and January report resulted in a recommendation for more of the same. Our supplier, which had conducted soil analyses, and noted a deep black layer, high thatch
PC FEBRUARY/MARCH 2018 I 115
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
