High density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe has become a popular alternative to poly vinyl chloride (PVC) piping systems for golf course irrigation systems. However, many times, the decision of which type of pipe to use is not based on science or engineering but on trends or salesman recommendations. It is important to look at the technical aspects of the pipe (pressure rating and velocity) for each type of piping system and determine what piping material is best for your golf course. Both PVC and HDPE piping systems will work, but you need to look at the “apples-to-apples” comparison instead of the “apples-to-oranges” comparison that is commonly presented.

For golf course irrigation systems, PVC pipe is usually rated at 200 psi for both mainline and lateral piping.  PVC is also available with a 160-psi pressure rating, but is rarely used anymore. HDPE piping also is available in 200-psi pressure ratings as well as a number of other pressure ratings including 125 psi and 160 PSI. Whereas PVC is always using the same resin (1120, 1220) HDPE piping is commonly available in several different resins (4710, 3408 and 3608). As the resin changes, so do the pressure ratings and characteristics of the pipe; therefore, when selecting the proper pressure rating you should also be aware of what resin is being provided. Piping standards require that the system’s working pressure be no more than 78 percent of the rated pressure of the pipe. For 200-psi pipe this is 156 psi, and for 160-psi rated pipe this is 125 psi. This is not too much of a problem from a design standpoint unless you have a high-pressure system.

However, let’s look at a comparison of the velocities. For example, if your system included a 4-inch pipe carrying 200 gpm (pretty common on a golf course) in a PVC Class-200 system (SDR 21) the velocity would be 4.92 fps. In an HDPE 200-psi (PE4710, DR11) pipe the velocity would be 6.18 fps. If the pipe was HDPE 160 psi (PE4710, DR13.5) the velocity would be 5.67 fps. If you ever had an irrigation class, you were taught that velocities should not exceed 5 fps. Some believe that up to 6 fps or more in HDPE is acceptable, however, the 5 fps limitation is backed up by standards (ASABE 372.6). So for an “apples-to-apples” comparison, good designs have HDPE piping systems with the pipe one size larger than the comparable PVC piping system. In most cases this will give the PVC system a significant price advantage.   

When PVC fittings were first used on golf course irrigation systems, which occurred in the mid-1960s, it took about 15 years for the industry to find out that cyclic surges within the piping system were damaging the fittings over time, which resulted in the cracks in tees and elbows. You may have experienced this phenomenon. To avoid this situation, epoxy steel fittings became popular in the early 1980s, but they had their own set of problems so that is why ductile iron fittings are the standard for golf irrigation systems. At the same time, period the golf industry moved from using 160 PSI pipe to 200 PSI rated pipe. The learning curve for PVC pipe and fittings took about 30 years. HDPE pipe and fittings have yet to have a long-term track record with the impact of cyclic surges yet to be determined and as we all know the higher the velocity, the larger the surge pressures.

With the help of your designer, you need to consider many factors other than just pressure ratings when choosing piping material for your golf course. One type is not necessarily better than the other. However, when doing a direct cost comparison, make sure you are looking at an even comparison that includes features, pressure ratings and expected velocities. Both PVC and HDPE will work as long as they are correctly designed and installed. GCI

Thom Charters is a superintendent with a long and distinguished career at several top private clubs.

Coppinwood Golf Club (Goodwood, Ont.), one of Canada’s premier private clubs, today announced the appointment of Thom Charters, a Superintendent with a long and distinguished career at several top private clubs, as its new Director of Golf Course Operations.

Charters, who comes to Coppinwood from Thornhill’s Bayview Golf and Country Club, where he was Course Manager for 16 years, says there is great personal and professional satisfaction in his new position.

“I’m thrilled to be given the opportunity to join what I know is one of the finest clubs in all of Canada,” says Charters. “This is a remarkable club and terrific golf course that has turned heads since opening only a few years ago. The opportunity to work for an incredibly dynamic membership is something that I look forward to and I am well aware the positive energy around Coppinwood is infectious.”

Coppinwood President Kevin Thistle says Charters is one of the most vibrant and energetic agronomists in the Canadian golf industry, with an unsurpassed depth of knowledge and attention to detail. He will be a great addition to the team of Golf Course Superintendent Scott Pratt and the rest of the greens department.

“Thom has the perfect mix of skills on and off the golf course that make him a natural fit for Coppinwood,” says Thistle. “Our goal at Coppinwood is to create a world-class golf environment and I know Thom will be an important part of that going forward.”

Charters’ previous experience includes running Weston Golf and Country Club’s turf operation for eight years ending in 1995, and he previously worked at Islington Golf Club for a decade. He’s one of the most recognized superintendents in the Canadian golf industry, having won the 1992 SCOREGolf award as Superintendent of the Year. A graduate of Pennsylvania State University’s prestigious Turfgrass Management Program, Charters currently sits as the Chair of the Guelph Turfgrass Institute Advisory Board and was past President of both the Ontario Turfgrass Research Foundation and Ontario Golf Superintendents Association.

Charters said he wished to thank the management and members at Bayview for their years of support. “I couldn’t have asked for a better run at Bayview and I’ll always be thankful for the opportunity the Board and members offered me during my time with them,” he says.  

Have you ever heard the story about the Australian rabbits? Way back in the 1850s, an English transplant to the then-colony decided to release a dozen rabbits into the area to hunt for fun. This fine fellow, Thomas Austin, wrote at the time: “The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting.” A lovely thought…except those 12 rabbits proceeded to do what rabbits do best and, within a decade, there were millions of those adorable little fur balls hopping around the territory eating everything in sight. They devastated crops and defoliated the landscape, leading to erosion, flooding and a massive change in the ecosystem.

Thus was born the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” It’s kind of like Murphy’s Law only it usually involves negative side-effects from a seemingly positive act.

In our happy little business, it helps us understand why perfectly good pesticides sometimes promote the development of impossible-to-kill resistant species. It partly explains why the huge construction boom in the ‘90s is now recognized as a crushing oversupply of courses. It is the reason that doing the right thing for the long-term enjoyment of your golfers (e.g., aerification) can cause anger or occasionally even unemployment.

So, here we are in the 21st century – 160 years after Mr. Austin’s faux pas – and we once again find ourselves up to our elbows in rabbits. Specifically, I refer to the unique problem facing local chapters right now.

A decade ago, as part of a massive overhaul of GCSAA’s governance structure, a new rule was put forth and enacted that required reciprocity for memberships. In short, if you were a member of a GCSAA-affiliated chapter, you also had to be a member of the national, and vice versa.

It was a great idea at the time. Even curmudgeons like me supported it. It created an incentive for more superintendents to come into the “big tent” of the national. It helped chapters professionalize their operations, draft legitimate charters and benefit more from GCSAA’s programs. The “carrot” held out by the national leadership was broadly welcomed by most chapters who desperately wanted the help. Affiliation was a pain in the butt, but it was deemed as worthwhile for nearly all local associations.

At the time, a few members grumbled about the fact that instead of just paying their local dues of $50 or $100, they were paying national dues of another $300 or whatever. For supers at mom-and-pop operations where those dues often came out of the individual member’s pocket, it was a strain. But, golf was booming, jobs were plentiful and most didn’t balk. National and chapter membership grew.

Then the golf economy began to sag and facility budgets really got hit hard in late 2008 and 2009. Predictably, one of the first line items to get zeroed-out at many courses was the dues and education budget. Suddenly many superintendents – not just those at limited-budget facilities – were faced with the unhappy prospect of reaching into their own pockets for dues. And paying both local and national dues was tough.

Let’s face it: when it comes to a choice between paying your professional association dues or paying the rent, there is no choice. That’s the reality for many superintendents who aren’t making six-figure salaries at upscale clubs. The typical rank-and-file member – a guy making $38,000 a year at a daily-fee in Nebraska – is struggling just to get by like everyone else. Education, meetings and big conferences are a luxury when you’re wondering how to pay the mortgage.

I’ve talked to many chapter leaders over the past year about how they’re dealing with this. They’re cutting back on activities, going digital with their newsletters and doing other smart things to manage on a limited budget. But what really concerns them is the membership renewal cycle that’s going on right now. They have many folks who they’re carrying as members who haven’t paid dues in a while. At some point, they have to kick them out or reclassify them as “inactive.”

GCSAA has already seen a 15-percent reduction in membership over the past few years and I suspect the conclusion of this dues cycle will reduce the total a bit more. But, with all due respect to the national, chapters are the heart and soul of the profession. Local education, local agronomic knowledge and local networking are vastly important to the average superintendent… particularly when times are tough and cheap, creative ideas are the order of the day.

So, the Law of Unintended Consequences has reared its ugly head within our association structure. The dual affiliation concept that was so promising a few years back now threatens to shred the very fabric of professionalism in our business. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider – or at least temporarily suspend – that rule to make sure we don’t lose the very folks we wanted to bring into the fold.  GCI

As I write this, I’m sitting in my palatial office in the penthouse suite of GCI’s global headquarters looking at a baseball bat.   I love having a bat sitting prominently right next to my desk. It dramatically reduces employee whining. I’m thinking a TASER gun would be the ultimate deterrent, but it may be a wee bit over the top.

Anyway, the reason I have a baseball bat in my office is I recently attended an event hosted by our friends at Lebanon Turf that was held in Cooperstown, N.Y. Being no strangers to the business of fun public relations themes, the nice people at Lebanon gave attendees a baseball bat with our names and their company logo engraved on it.  The event put a spotlight on Lebanon’s non-traditional plant nutrition lines. Over the past few years, the company acquired both the Roots/Novozymes and Emerald Isle/CPR products and, I think, discovered just how much confusion there is in this market segment. The event was an attempt to help a bunch of us dumb media types learn what these kinds of products do and therefore be able to write about them better. Now, getting a reporter to understand this kind of technical information is roughly equivalent to teaching Britney Spears to rewire the space shuttle, but they brought in my old fishing buddy Dr. Roch Gaussoin and several other really smart guys to try anyway. Here’s what I think I learned.

Nobody is really quite sure what to even call this category of products. Are they biostimulants? Are they foliars? Liquids? Soil supplements? Microbes or bacteria? Are they based on amino acids or are they made from seaweed? The answer, of course, is “all of the above.”

At least half of superintendents are using them in some fashion, ranging from the full ongoing program approach to greens-only applications to tossing a bit of something into a tank mix to prevent phytotoxicity. Nearly all use them in combination with a reduced granular program.

Of those superintendents using them, most use more than one in combination to get broad spectrum results. Creating a “witches brew” of various bio components is pretty common. Those who use them as part of a program generally love them and keep using them as long as they see a positive impact…and they can afford them.

Their acceptance – and use – continues to grow steadily.

The last point seems to be the crux of the matter when it comes to these “supplemental plant nutrition products.” Over the past decade or so, companies like Lebanon, Floratine, Grigg Brothers, Growth Products, Nutramax and others have stepped up to independently prove their claims about better rooting, vigor, improved nitrogen efficiency and stress resistance. The suppliers who have legitimized their products have moved beyond the realm of snake oil to become accepted parts of maintenance programs at thousands of courses. Sure, there are still some turf professors and consultants who continue to question their value, but superintendents believe in research and, more importantly, their eyes and their soil probes. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

I’m hardly an agronomist, but it’s clear to me that while there are still many of you who are perfectly happy with your tried-and-true granular NPK programs, the demands of “fast and firm” and the resulting decreased reliance on nitrogen left a void that non-traditional bios have filled nicely.

And, as communities and states heighten scrutiny of phosphorus and nitrogen loading, traditional options may also go the way of the ten-cent ballpark hotdog. What was seen as an alternative will become more of a primary turf nutrition source when legislators and regulators decide that it’s politically expedient to take tools away from us. Does anyone seriously think that’s not going to happen?

Baseball is strongly rooted in traditions started more than a century ago, but the game has changed and evolved for the better – except for the DH rule, which is just communist. Golf course maintenance is evolving, too, and it’s time we fully accept the fact that bionutrients are going to be a major-league part of our future. GCI

With six of seven golf courses reported to have lost money in 2009 and the NGF predicting that 500 to 1,000 courses will close in the next five years, this statistic caused me to pause and contemplate our industry. I found myself centered around two questions: Where is the game going and how will we remain a viable industry? J. J. Keegan is managing principal of Golf Convergence, a firm that specializes in the business of golf. Jim has ground-breaking methods, based on hard data and extensive field experience, and he recently published a book, “The Business of Golf – What Are You Thinking?” (www.golfconvergence.com).

Is there a formula for success at a course in today’s environment? There are eight key concepts that accurately predict the success of a golf course:  The age, income, ethnicity and population density within 10 miles of the course; the number of playable days measured against the efficiency of management; the integration of software to create actionable information; financial benchmarking facility performance against peers; continual “appropriate” investment in the course infrastructure, equipment and labor; ensuring the “assembly line” of customer touch points matches the desired experience; understanding the golfers’ habits and preferences; and evaluating and developing customer loyalty.

Is there a common thread you found that is the seed for failure? Golf courses often fail to crisply define their strategic vision. Are they trying to create a platinum, gold, silver, bronze, or steel level experience for their customers? Many courses try to be all things to all customers – a sure formula for failure. Golf courses are in the entertainment business, and golfers are value-driven. With green fees ranging from $10 to over $500, a golfer’s expectations are set by the fees charged. To the extent the golfer’s experience equals or exceeds the price, customer loyalty is created. To the extent that the experience is less than the price, customer attrition results. The key is that the experience must equal the capital investment made and the revenue generated.

What comprises a golfer’s experience? Creating a customer experience is similar to an “assembly line.” From making the reservation to arriving at the course, to playing 18 holes, to the beverage at the end of the round, there are up to 13 opportunities to create a memorable experience for the golfer.

The most important opportunity is course conditions; hence, the incredible value role of a superintendent. In every customer survey we have undertaken in Europe, across America, to Asia, course conditions and price always rank as to the most important criteria in determining where a golfer plays.

In what other ways can the superintendent increase the financial performance at a golf course? Most golfers don’t fully comprehend that a golf course is a living organism that is constantly growing. They rarely understand the challenges superintendents face in creating a superior playing surface. It is also unfortunate that the golf staff, management and owners often take for granted the superintendent’s key role. The superintendent is and should be a key member of the management team, one who participates in creating the annual budget, ensuring sufficient capital reserves are established, and clearly communicates the funds required for equipment and labor to fulfill the course’s vision as to the entertainment experience desired.

What is the solution to reverse a course’s financial woes? The Golf Convergence WIN formula taught in the book is an easy-to-follow method that has consistently increased the financial return of golf courses while enhancing the customer experience to the desired level. This book sheds light on virtually every aspect of golf course operations – strategic, tactical and operational. My goal was simple – to encourage each course to use best practices to adroitly balance the business of golf with the game of golf. GCI