Home | Contacts | Historical Info | Dealer Locator | Showcase
Products
Manuals
As appeared in Golf Course Management
Every superintendent faces challenges meeting players' expectations for appearance and also controlling costs. A year ago, we faced a problem with the appearance of our rough at Selma Country Club in Selma, AL. (Sims recently moved from Selma CC to a new superintendent's position at another course in Alabama.)
Our members were candid. They weren't satisfied with the appearance of the rough, but budget restraints made the purchase of additional conventional mowing equipment impractical-the cost of equipment could be as much as $30,000.
To find a solution to our problem, we analyzed the procedures we had begun using to maintain our rough. We documented our practices and the costs involved, and we agreed that we wanted a consistent, manicured appearance. We concluded that substantial changes in our methods and rough mowing equipment were necessary to resolve our problem.
Our course maintenance is limited: $240,000 per year, plus capital expenditures. We had already purchased a new spray rig, several utility vehicles and a Tri-King Mower to cut green surrounds. In addition, there had been recent expenditures on clubhouse and property maintenance. We wanted to satisfy our members with a consistent, manicured appearance, but we had to keep the cost of new equipment at about $15,000. In addition, we decided that any new equipment must help us control or reduce costs.
Our 76-year-old, private, country club course had 60 acres of rough, 38 acres of fairways and many trees. We have three different types of soils; sandy, loam and some clay. The fairways were renovated with Tifton 419 bermudagrass in 1994. The roughs are Tifton 419 bermudagrass and common bermudagrass with a mixture of annual weeds.
Our Deep South location contributed to the challenge. Located on the heart of Dixie, about 50 miles west of Montgomery, AL, Selma CC experiences hot summers and mild winters. The mild winters allow us to keep our course open all year.
Although our location allows year-round play, we have weather conditions that range from several weeks of drought to periods of heavy rainfall, which results in rapid growth of grasses and weeds. We also have a seven-month period of leaf and pine straw accumulation that affects the appearance and playability of our rough.
Five full-time course workers, one full-time mechanic and an additional course worker (employed between June and September) maintain the course. The club and its course have been part of my life since I started helping out in the pro shop when I was nine years old. From the age of 16 to 20, I worked with the maintenance crew. After receiving my bachelor's degree in agronomy and soils from Auburn University in 1992, I became assistant superintendent of Auburn Links, a public course in Auburn, AL. In 1994, I came back to work for the Selma CC as the golf course superintendent.
By analyzing the labor hours required for maintaining the rough, as well as the conditions that affect appearance, we were able to quickly identify what we were producing in terms of quality of appearance and costs. We used this information to identify and put to work a new practice that improved both.
The key to understanding our problem and finding the right solution was breaking our processes into segments we could analyze. To begin with, we knew our members wanted a consistent manicured look on all rough areas and that the new rough maintenance equipment budget was $15,000.
The following are other factors that were analyzed.
Piles of grass clippings were left by conventional mowers when mowing was delayed by rain. Rainfall is 58 to 60 inches a year in our location. In mid-summer, as much as 2 or 3 inches can fall in a single day. Frequent rain made it impossible to keep the rough attractive because it threw off our mowing schedule.
We often have an inconsistent cut in the grassy weeds. Our budget is tight, and we use pre-emergence herbicide application on fairways but not on the rough. So our rough areas have a certain amount of grassy weeds, including dallasgrass, bahiagrass and smutgrass mixed with Tifton 419 bermudagrass and common bermudagrass. Our weed control is mechanical-basically mowing. Often the reel mower we were using on the rough did not adequately cut the stems of these grassy weeds. The result was an inconsistent appearance.
Removal and disposal of dead leaves and pine straw is necessary. We do not have a distinct fall season in our area of the South. Dead leaves and pine straw fall for seven months. Hackberry trees start the cycle by dropping leaves for three weeks starting in September. Hickories are next, and they drop leaves for two to three weeks in October. White Oaks follow when their leaves turn brown in late October and November. In December, when northern courses are covered by snow, we are still open for play and still fighting leaves. Our live oaks drop their leaves from December through March. Pine straw falls for four months-October through January.
Leaves and pine straw detract from the appearance of the rough and slow down play as golfers search under the straw for lost balls. Two men swept and blew leaves or picked up pine straw three days a week-September through March. The cost of handling the leaves and pine straw was 1,344 worker-hours per year. Prohibition against burning leaves added additional time and expense for disposal.
Pine cones and debris removal is another problem exacerbated by our location. Frequent afternoon thunderstorms blow down debris. Pine cones fall all year long, depending on the stress of the trees. Three of us spent Friday afternoons picking up small limbs, debris and pine cones. Failure to remove pine cones and debris caused ground drive reels to lock up, resulting in unsightly appearance and occasional damage to our equipment. Hand removal required 624 hours per year.
These numbers show that if we could eliminate sweeping and blowing of pine straw and leaves and removing pine cone and debris, we could save a total of 1,296 rough hours, or $7,776, for a 40-percent savings.
We had been cutting our rough with a three-gang reel mower. We realized that mulching was the answer, but only if we could find a machine that would:
Documenting this performance criteria made selection of the equipment much easier. We explained exactly what we needed to anyone who would listen. Locke Turf, a local manufacturer of agricultural, turf and golf course equipment, was developing a new mulching concept for mowing turfgrass. The company asked if we would test its new counter-rotating mulching concept to see if it met our criteria.
Initial evaluation of the equipment took only an hour because our performance requirements were clearly defined on paper. We put it to work in the rough. After seeing how the test unit made leaves, pine straw, debris, pine cones and grassy clippings disappear, as well as lift grassy weeds to cut them even, we knew we were headed in the right direction.
We continued to operate the unit, and by the end of the first month the manicured appearance of the rough matched the quality of our fairways. In addition, we have dramatically reduced the worker hours spent on the removal of leaves, pine straw, pine cones and debris.
During one phase of the test, our fairway mower was down. We adjusted the cutting height on the 11-foot, counter-rotating mulching unit to 1/2 inch and used it to mow our fairways. Our members never knew the difference.
The mulchers are rotary cutters, not reel mowers. They use counter-rotating blades mounted one above the other. The lower blades cut the grass and pick up leaves, pine straw, pine cones and other debris and throw them into the upper blades, where they are reduced to mulch. Although later refined for mowing turfgrass, the mulchers were originally developed for the agricultural industry to cut cotton and corn stalks.
We purchased an 11-foot version when the new product became available last spring. We chose that version because it can be operated with a 40-hp tractor and because of the time saved by mowing an 11-foot-wide swath. We were pleasantly surprised by the $15,000 price and the labor savings. Our savings in time were actually more than originally projected.
* Mowing hours did not decrease; however, mowing width of the mulching unit allowed two mowings within a 40-hour week rather than one mowing per week. ** Able to eliminate the equivalent of two workers, three days per week for 28 weeks. *** Able to eliminate the equivalent of three workers, four hours a day, one a day for 52 weeks.
Once we had the mulcher, we used our same method of identifying costs to determine whether it paid off with lower maintenance expenses. Our records show that in addition to the worker-hours we save sweeping and blowing, we are also saving maintenance costs. Compared with the reel mower, the mulcher saves worker hours in daily setting, daily maintenance, pre-season preparation and in-season repairs.
The reel mower is a precise piece of equipment that requires technical skill to properly adjust. Daily reel-to-bedknife adjustments are necessary, depending on blade conditions and conditions of the rough. One or more adjustments are required daily, and they can take 10 to 20 minutes per adjustment.
The only preparation required with the Locke Turf mulcher is a visual inspection for blade wear and normal lubrication.
In-season repair costs showed a dramatic decline when we switched to mulching. With lots of trees, we also have lots of roots. Damage from hitting roots with reel mower was time-consuming and expensive to repair. Hitting a root often bent the reels. Damaged reels have to be heated and repositioned. That was one of our most time-consuming jobs. As careful as we were to avoid roots, we sometimes hit them. We have had no root damage to the mulcher during its first year of operation.
Our members are delighted with the results. They report the rough areas have the look they desire, and our labor costs for rough maintenance have decreased. The members are particularly pleased with the consistency of the appearance of the rough throughout the course.
The mulcher does a superior job compared with the reel mower. The most important difference in the appearance is the debris. You have to hunt to find the clippings with the mulcher. No debris is detectable in normal conditions. In fact, before we began using the mulcher, we had some pine straw that was 5 inches deep. After we ran the mulcher through it, it disappeared-cut into such tiny pieces I couldn't find it.
Documenting and analyzing the problem, the practices involved and the costs in terms of appearance and worker hours clearly illustrated the maintenance practice we need and the performance criteria that would make it pay off. The documentation took very little time compared with the high pay-off. We will use this technique often in the future.
Hart Sims is a six-year GCSAA member.