The Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 4 diesel engine emission reduction mandate will soon have an impact on your business. Tier 4 compliant Turf Equipment, in the 25 to 74 horsepower (hp) category, manufactured after January 2013 will be better for the environment and healthier for everyone, but it will also cost more.

Understanding the financial implications of various compliance options – today – will allow you to evaluate all of your options, in advance, so you can make the most beneficial decision for your business.

The EPA Tier 4 Standard is about cleaner air!

All US regulated emission standards, including Tier 4 for off-road diesel engines, are extensions of the “Clean Air Act” (1963) which was enacted to reduce air pollution in the United States. The “tiered” mandates were put in place to progressively reduce the level of harmful emissions such as Particulate Matter (PM) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) that enter the air via diesel engine exhaust. The most stringent emission reduction mandate to date, is called “Tier 4”. The Tier 4 emission standard will reduce emissions of PM by 90% from current levels.

CLICK HERE to download the complete “Tier 4” brochure

from TurfNet Monthly November 2004
by Micah Woods

Turfgrass professors tell us that more roots are obtained at higher potassium levels, but plant science researchers tell a different story…

Earlier this year I presented  some preliminary results from  the soil testing studies I have been  conducting at Cornell University to a meeting of the Central NY GCSA. Many in the audience were interested  to know how potassium fertilizer applications, or the withholding of potassium fertilizer from the turf, had affected the L-93 creeping bentgrass roots in the study. I did not have any final data to share at that time, but the audience’s pointed questions about rooting certainly underscored in my mind the widespread, traditional assumption that potassium plays a critical role in turfgrass rooting.

In Turfgrass  Science and Culture (Beard, 1973), it is clearly stated that higher soil potassium levels yield increased root development and branching. The recently published Turfgrass Soil Fertility and Chemical Problems (Carrow et al., 2001) emphasizes the role of potassium in sand rootzones, where potassium encourages “a more extensive fibrous or branched root system.”  The theory of root stimulation by potassium is propagated and promulgated anew whenever superintendents or turfgrass students are taught about turfgrass nutrition. I recently participated in an online seminar about fall fertility strategies for cool-season grasses, and sure enough, we were reminded by the instructor that a primary plant response to potassium is deeper roots with more branching.

Turfgrass professors tell us that  more roots are obtained at higher potassium levels, but plant science researchers tell a different story. The definitive plant nutrition reference is Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (Marschner, 1995), in which Marschner wrote that mineral nutrient supply can strongly influence root growth, with nitrogen having a particularly marked effect, less so for phosphorus,  and usually no effect for other nutrients.

A classic study of the effect of variable ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, and potassium supply on barley roots [Drew, 1975] found that the number and length of lateral roots were stimulated by all nutrients except for potassium. In fact, some plants have more roots when no potassium is applied [Cherney et al., 2004], perhaps because the roots explore a larger volume of soil in order to obtain the potassium that they need.

So why, I wondered, are we taught that potassium increases roots, even though the consensus among plant scientists is that potassium has little effect on roots?

CLICK HERE to download the complete article

from Asian Golf Business January 2008

Must grass for golf courses always be grown only on sand? Talk to almost most professionals who deal with turf matters and they will almost always agree that sand is the ideal surface upon which to grow grass. However, one expert begs to differ – he is Micah Woods of the Asian Turfgrass Center who happens to believe otherwise and sets out to prove his case with some sound reasoning.

Six months ago, I heard an interesting comment about the turfgrass research facility being developed by the Asian Turfgrass Center. We had started to plant 33 different grass types on native soil (formerly paddy fields) near Bangkok, intending to maintain this area as a fairway turfgrass trial. We had already established these same grasses in a sand rootzone. A visitor remarked that the particular trial of turf on native soil would be the one they would like to see the outcome of, because they were not sure that these grasses could grow in anything other than sand. I was surprised to hear this, because plants will almost always grow better in soil than in sand.

There seems to be a misapprehension about suitable soils for golf courses in Asia. It is common to use sand as a growing medium for fairways (Figure 1). But this is a substantial cost, and it may not be necessary, at least during the construction phase of a golf course. In fact, I believe that many golf courses would see better and more consistent playing conditions if the fairways were not sandcapped during construction, but were regularly topdressed with sand instead.

CLICK HERE to download the complete article

Green speeds should be matched to the contours and hole locations of greens.

By
Larry Gilhuly,
Northwest Director USGA Green Section

“The greens are too slow!” “The greens are too fast!” “The greens are just right!” No, this is not a story about three bears and a golden haired girl. It is a short story about a subject that is sure to stir emotions (usually during or immediately after a bad day of putting) – green speed. Somewhere along the road golfers have forgotten that part of the allure of the game is adapting to whatever playing conditions are found on the golf course. If the green speed of the practice green is a certain speed, then that is what the greens should be that day. Those that adapt will have a better day while those that don’t may find their score rising. But there is far more to this subject than I have space for, so let’s look at one simple part of the green speed equation – the correlation between green speed and hole locations.

Please note the chart below that shows the correlation between green speed and surface slope.
This study was conducted a few years ago as a means to educate those that wish to have excessively fast greens while not understanding the negative impact this has on the overall health of the greens and play of the game. Briefly, the % slope indicates when a golf ball begins to roll back at a player that has hit a putt from directly below a hole. While players can debate the appropriateness of a hole location when putting from above or to the side, there is universal recognition that when a ball rolls back at the player that the hole location is too severe. As you can see in the chart, a 10’ speed allows the maintenance staff to place holes up to a 3.2 – 4.1% slope. Since many greens are severely contoured and grain/wind have a major impact in Hawaii, this is a tournament green speed that should only be used for those with high skill levels unless you want 5 hour rounds. When holes are placed in relatively flat areas many have the perception that the greens are “too slow”. But place the hole on a slope (pick your favorite green) and putt downhill and downwind when the greens are in excess of this speed! Can you say – STOP!

Green speed in Hawaii has progressively gone up over the years with the introduction of new ultradwarf bermudagrasses and an improved understanding of seashore paspalum maintenance practices. Focus should be on overall green smoothness and a good understanding of the relationship between green speed and hole locations. Without this understanding the three bears will continue to be an issue with that defenseless game we play!