The Grass Gap

By: Carl Schimenti, Urban Environmental Scientist

In the past few weeks, I had the pleasure of attending turfgrass field days at both UMass and Rutgers. It was my first time seeing the research underway at other universities, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I left with a lingering question that I couldn’t shake.

The scale of these breeding efforts was remarkable. As far as the eye could see, there were variety trials of cool and warm-season grasses, evaluated under different stress conditions like drought, disease, shade, and traffic. The number of researchers, graduate students, and technicians dedicated to developing new turf varieties was equally impressive.

What stood out most was how much better the new varieties performed compared to older ones. I was particularly struck by dollar spot trials featuring 007, 777, and 007XL, which clearly illustrated how far genetics have come. The inclusion of Penn cross made the improvements even more apparent.

007 (left), 777 (middle), 007XL (right) in fairway height trials on native soil at Rutgers Field Day (New Brunswick).

Once the initial awe wore off, I was left puzzled. Despite the time, money, and expertise being invested in developing superior grasses, why aren’t more facilities taking advantage of these advances? I can’t count the number of golf courses out there that rely on outdated varieties like Penn cross, wasting water, fertilizer, and pesticides on a genetically inferior variety.

I shared this frustration with Chris Sitko, Cornell’s Golf and Sports Turf Manager, who cut to the heart of the issue: “Those members paying thousands of dollars aren’t going to like it when you tell them they can’t play golf for two months!”. There’s no question there will be some pain for users, but I think that can be mitigated with some strategic re-grassing methods.

John Hoyle at Corning CountryClub employed a staggered approach: re-grassing several fairways at a time while keeping most of the course open for play. This maintained membership value for those years, while achieving annual maintenance savings of $20,000, along with higher quality turf. Athletic fields can apply the same concept by renovating one field per year on a rotating basis. Other re-grassing strategies are detailed on the New York Golf Course Foundation website, but the staggered approach may be the most practical for most facilities.

At a broad level, there is a clear misalignment between research and practice. I don’t expect re-grassing to be universally feasible, but it’s odd how rarely it’s even discussed. One explanation might be the culture of deferred maintenance in turf management, where managers are often reacting to problems rather than planning proactively. In many cases, this stems from governance structures where owners, greens committees, or administrators don’t treat renovation as a recurring, strategic expense.

Until we confront the structural barriers to re-grassing like risk aversion, rigid budget cycles, and short-term thinking, we’ll continue wasting resources maintaining outdated systems. Turf managers can help lead this shift, but extension professionals like me must also step up. We need to provide resources that reach decision-makers to emphasize that turf grass, like any living system, has a lifespan.

Re-grassing should be re-framed not as a luxury, but as a planned, predictable part of responsible facility management. The question is: can you afford NOT to?