To tell you the truth I look forward to receiving and reading the comments and have become accustomed to being rated for my performance. Heck, I teach five courses for MSU and at the end of each one I am rated by my students.

Beyond that I give 20 or so seminars a year most of which return evaluation sheets and finally I’m married so I am continually evaluated on my performance at home too (though generally not in writing). In the case of “The GCSAA Seminar Evaluation Sheet” it is broken down into several categories including seminar Strengths, Weaknesses, and Suggestions.

Obviously the categories of Weaknesses and Suggestions provide the best opportunities for gaining insight into what the audience wants and the possibility of providing our industry requested information.

For example, under the Weaknesses category for this year’s presentation someone wrote, “Let’s see what we can do about the quality of the lunches at these outings. The food was terrible”. Boy I had to agree with that one as did many others that made similar “poor food” comments.

However, I cannot really do anything about the quality of the lunch food and I think those that wrote the comments know that. If that’s true then those writing the comments must think a representative from the GCSAA reads the sheets.

Nonetheless, from other comments that superintendents have made on my evaluation sheets over the years I can’t help but wonder if anyone is actually reading the Weaknesses and Suggestions on the evaluation sheets beside the presenters themselves.

Case in point, a recurring theme on my GCSAA seminar evaluation forms is the request for more rolling and mowing height studies on different turfgrass in different climatic regions.

Since I cannot perform studies in different regions on my own several years ago Dr. John Sorochanat, University of Tennessee and I wrote a grant proposal to the GCSAA for a rolling/mowing program that we could perform in both climates. Unfortunately our request was denied because the scope of the research was seen as to small in scope by the research proposal committee.

Obviously, the GCSAA research selection committee was not privy to the Suggestions from my evaluation sheets. Dr. Sorochanand I performed the study anyway (he used a DMI Speedroller and I used the Tru-Turf vibratory roller) and the results appear to have been very helpful to many superintendents.

Included in the study was a treatment that alternated rolling and mowing on a daily basis throughout the season.

To clarify, mow one day without rolling, and then roll the next day without mowing and continuing to alternate on that program for the entire season.

The results from alternating mowing and rolling on a daily basis included:

• Better turfgrass quality compared to mowing every day (no disease reduction but improved wear tolerance).

• The same playability (green speed )compared to mowing everyday.

• A possible cost saving for a golf course between $12,000 to $30,000 per year depending upon their mowing program and length of season.

I must mention that this portion of the study included a cost analysis survey written and tabulated by Dan Strunk who sent the survey to every golf course superintendent in Tennessee.

Now to get real for a minute, most superintendents would not alternate mowing and rolling on a daily basis for an entire year. However, results from the research do provide the superintendent with a viable option for managing their putting surfaces during the most stressful period of the season.

The question the results beg the end user to ask themselves is, “If I can provide the same playing conditions during the most stressful 4-8 week period of the season and improve turfgrass quality then why wouldn’t I? It seems to be a nice option and I have been informed by several superintendents that’s exactly how the information has been used.

As I began presenting those results to superintendents they wrote insightful Suggestions regarding additional rolling/mowing frequency studies that would be nice to have information on. I responded by initiating more mowing/rolling frequency studies with the DMI Speedroller and the Graden roller.

One of the treatments included in each study was Roll every day and mow every other. That’s right; I will write it again, Roll every day and mow every other.

Results from Rolling everyday and mowing every other include:

• Improved turf quality compared to plots mowed every day and rolled every other.

• Improved uniformity in green speed from day to day compared to all other mowing/rolling programs.

• Improved uniformity in green speed through the length of the day compared to all other mowing/rolling programs.

• Less dollar spot compared to mowing only

• Green speeds increased approximately 18-inches compared to mowing alone (on the say the plots were mowed and on the days were not mowed).

• No decrease in water infiltration or compaction given that the plots were on a topdressing program.

One little caution, to my knowledge the rollers used in these studies were the lightest ones on the market so if you are going to think about rolling everyday know the weight of your roller compared to the ones listed above.

Also, superintendents with Poa annua greens that have experimented with this rolling/mowing frequency have informed me that it only gives accelerated great green speeds for six weeks.

In any event, those superintendents were happy with the six weeks and will continue to perform this option during the most stressful weeks of the year.

As I presented these results superintendents made comments under the Suggestions category, “More information on ultra-dwarf Bermudagrass” and under the Weakness category, “Did not include any information on hybrid Bermudagreens.”

It was evident that superintendents wanted to know the potential impact of these programs on their species of grass in climates more similar to theirs.

Not only in regard to the speed of the greens and the quality of the turfgrass but the impact the programs might have on the pests in their region as well.

With the comments from seminar evaluations as my impetus, I wrote another GCSAA grant proposal with colleges from three different universities.

By performing a multiple site rolling/mowing frequency study on four different turfgrass species in different regions of the country, we would be able to provide superintendents pertinent information to help take the guess work out of what they could expect on their golf courses.

Unfortunately, our proposal was rejected because, “there is sufficient information available on the impact of rolling and mowing practices on ball roll distance for superintendents to design their own rolling program.” Hmmm, funny that the four superintendents that were Presidents of their local GCSAA chapters that took the time to write letters of support for the research did not feel this way.

Yes, we do know that the benefits of rolling three times per week on bentgrass greens that are mowed daily results in decreased dollar spot and localized dry spot.

Yes, we know that raising the HOC and rolling three times per week on Poa annuareduces anthracnose.

However, there are no research results that indicate what a superintendent can expect from any rolling program and its impact on warm season pest populations or what the impact of these rolling programs has on creeping bentgrass quality outside of Michigan.

THE POINT Now to get real, I understand there is only so much money to go around and I am sure that the studies that were funded are worthy. I also understand that maybe the research committee thinks I am a poor grant writer and I do appreciate the time and effort they put into making their decision, but that’s not the point. The point is, don’t tell me “there is sufficient information” when there is not and when individuals have been requesting more on my evaluation sheets for years.

In any event, the research at all four sites will still be performed this summer thanks to regional chapter support and the makers of the Tru-Surface roller.

This is the point where I would like to thank the GCSAA for their support of my research, but I can’t. So instead, I would like to thank the Michigan Turfgrass Foundation, The PGA Tour, The USGA, DMI Incorporated, Tru-Turf, Tru-Surface, Graden, Salsco, Smithco, John Deere, Toro, and Jacobson for their support of putting green research.

And to the individual that wrote in the Suggestions category, “Leave Nikolai in Detroit,” I just want you to know that Mike Morris CGCS does give the Green Speed seminar on his own when his schedule allows. Closing thought, don’t expect the lunches to get any better at the national convention anytime soon.

Editor’s note: Nikolai, is turfgrass academic specialist at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich. and can be contacted at nikolait@msu.edu.