Skip to main content

How rolling can help fight climate change


OK that title is a bit much but bare with me.

It's no secret I'm a fan of rolling. It has a ton of benefits from faster and smoother greens to disease suppression. Ever since I got my first roller back in 2010 we have been rolling daily and cutting every other day or some version of this. Basically we roll the greens 2 times for every mow without significant impacts on playability of the greens. If anything this schedule of greens maintenance results in more consistent playing conditions.

The benefits of this are obvious when it comes to mower maintenance. If you use a mower half as much it will require about half the maintenance and last about twice as long. For me it has made it possible for us to use our only triplex mower for both greens and tees. We only need one mower for 2 jobs.
One mower,
Two sets of cutting units

This year we looked at fuel use savings. Aside from the cost of fuel, we are also concerned with the use of fossil fuels and ways we can reduce our reliance on them without impacting the conditioning of the golf course (ideally).

So right away we can see that if I am able to cut the amount of mowing in half I will save half the fuel spent cutting greens. But there is a cost to this and that is the amount of fuel spent rolling. For us, we roll every day that we maintain the greens. That means that we roll even when we cut the greens. This results in faster more consistent greens and helps with disease more than if we only rolled every other day. So when calculating the fuel savings we need to take into account the amount of fuel required to roll the greens.

For us, we use a Toro triflex to mow our greens and a Truturf to roll our greens. Ideally we would have an electric roller but we don't. The triflex uses about 6.9L of fuel to cut our 0.4ha (~1acre) of greens. Our roller uses about 0.75L of fuel to roll the greens.

This year we rolled our greens 216 times and used about 162 L of gas.

This year we cut our greens 107 times and used about 740 L of gas.

The total fuel use to maintain (cut and roll) the greens in 2016 (so far) was 902 L of gasoline.

To compare that with only mowing and no rolling we need to first figure out how many days we would mow if we didn't roll. To do this I took the number of unique days that the greens were maintained with either the roller or the mower. This came out to 188 days in 2016. The other 177 days a year we do nothing to the greens or only dew whip. It's also important to know that many of the times that we rolled were 2x per day for reduced disease, reduced poa seed head or extra green speed. The same can also be said for mowing except the only reason for that is increased green speed.

So if we had to mow our greens 188 times each year that would use about 1297 L of fuel.

Subtract the 902 L of fuel we use now from the mow only figure and that gives us 395 L less fuel used with our current program vs only mowing. That is a 30% savings.

You could find additional savings if you only rolled on days that you didn't mow. For me that would save an additional 81 L of fuel or 7% but with a significant decrease in green speed and disease suppression (hard to measure in the real world). In the end we have to balance carbon emissions with the environmental impacts of pesticide use and I feel that this is a good compromise.

You could also use an electric roller and essentially cut your emissions in half assuming your electricity comes from clean sources.

Either way, that's a big savings. I often have to work very hard to find minor savings and savings of 1/3 are rare especially when they actually improve conditions! Now ideally I would have rolled more so this would decrease the fuel savings slightly but the savings are still significant.

Of course there is the extra cost of labor required to roll daily and mow every other day. Rolling is quicker than mowing and the two combined take about the same amount of time of only mowing except you need an extra body for the days that you roll and mow. Rolling with a triplex mower with roller heads would take longer and use almost as much fuel assuming it's more fuel efficient to run rollers than turn reels.

I also haven't compared the fuel use of walk mowing because we don't have the labor for this. I suspect that the speed of rolling vs walk mowing would save money in labor with only slight savings in fuel use as walk mowers are probably more fuel efficient than a triplex mower. Remember, there are many variable that go into this so the saving's aren't universal. For me it turns out to be 30% in fuel and 0 labor savings or a net benefit to my operation and the environment.

It's not like I needed another reason to roll but by analyzing our fuel use I have yet another reason to roll more and mow less..


Popular posts from this blog

Turfgrass speedo is still my most important tool for managing turf growth after 4 years.

It wasn't the easiest year for growing grass , but the conditions were still pretty good. Almost 4 years ago exactly, I came up with the idea of comparing actual clipping yields to the "ideal" clipping yield or the clipping yield adjusted using the Growth Potential Model . Since then, it has proved to be a much more useful tool to manage growth than I originally thought .  It has been almost a decade since I started making observations on plant health and playability and how it relates to the clipping yield. I have been constantly searching for ways to get the growth rate right as often as I can and this tool seems to be the best way I have seen so far, and might ultimately, be the best way going forward. To prove this point I will discuss in a future post, the success I've had with pest control in the past few years (for the most part (Not withstanding the times where I think my greens are dead but they actually aren't...thanks T)). Never needed less There are

Do you have enough?

I recently discussed how we can use fertilizer ratios to simplify how much fertilizer we apply to help us keep above the MLSN guidelines . When we get a soil test done it is a static amount of nutrients found in the soil. Even if you are above the MLSN guidelines at the time of testing, it doesn't guarantee that you will remain at or above the guidelines as the grass grows and consumes nutrients. There is math that you can use to determine exactly how much nutrient you need to apply to ensure that you remain at or above the MLSN guidelines. For many, this is much too complicated. For that reason I made a quick cheat sheet to help you determine how much of each nutrient you can expect to use each year based off a few different annual nitrogen rates. Nutrient use is based primarily on nitrogen use so the left 2 columns are a few different nitrogen rates. The columns for each nutrient are in PPM and are designed to help you look at your current soil test PPM (mehlich 3) and determin

How to quantify nutrient content in liquid fertilizer

In a recent post, I discussed how it was actually cheaper to spray soluble vs granular fertilizer. What about if we use pre-mixed liquid fertilizer? How do we even figure out how much nutrient we are applying with pre-mixed liquid fertilizer?  Before I learned that you could simply dissolve soluble fertilizer in water and apply it in a sprayer, I was a big user of pre-mixed liquid fertilizers. One of the issues I initially had was figuring out exactly how much of each nutrient I was applying. The math wasn't as straightforward is it was with granular fertilizers. It turns out, it's actually not that difficult but requires an extra step.  First, we need to convert the liquid volume into a mass. Many products will have the product density displayed on the label or you can look in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for that information as well. No SDS? Should you be using products without an SDS? Even if this information isn't included on the label it is very easy to figure out. All