How I use wetting agents

At least on putting greens

Wetting agents are wonderful products and I firmly believe without them, we could not maintain the golf course at the level our members desire. However, I’m not going to lie, I find the marketing of wetting agents to be confusing. I don’t doubt different molecules do different things, but deciding what our surfaces might need at different times and what product might do the job is overwhelming. I don’t begrudge those who sell wetting agents; they, like I, have a job to do. At the same time, sorting through the array of options can make it hard to get what one wants. This post is not for the purpose of marketing a particular wetting agent. Nor is it meant to say anything bad about the companies who create and market wetting agents. Rather, I’ve found a way I feel wetting agents work really well for us, and I want to tell you about it. 

The market contains wetting agents that rescue, hold, penetrate and evacuate (I might have made that last one up, but it sure sounds like something one might want in a wetting agent.) At varying times, I might guess we could all use each one of those benefits. The confusing part for me comes when thinking about what to use when. If all the different products work in different ways, it would make sense that one might then want to use a different product at different times. However, I don’t think wetting agents work like that. 

On our putting surfaces, I will admit to paralysis by analysis. I had tried one of the leading marks at the recommended rate and timing, but felt the greens stayed too wet and thus too soft. This was before my data collection days, so of course I don’t have the data to back that up. Based on this experience, I decided our USGA greens didn’t require a wetting agent, which but for the driest periods, they really did not. 

In the summer of 2021, the Twin Cities experienced a pretty severe drought. We went weeks in a row with little to no rain and it became apparent I was going to need to rethink my wetting agent strategy. Our assistants, who handle watering needs on greens were encountering more and more localized dry spot (LDS) and no matter how much water they applied to those areas, they were having no luck re-wetting. At this point, we decided as a group we needed to employ a wetting agent. 

As we talked about a potential strategy, I recalled a conversation with a colleague in which he detailed a wetting agent strategy he had found successful. In short, his strategy was to use a basic wetting agent, at a very low rate, every time he sprayed, which was at least weekly. I was quite fortunate that one of our assistants had previously worked for the same colleague and was able to vouch for the success of the low rate, high frequency program. I had heard enough and we implemented the same program; it was an instant success.

Assistant superintendent, Chris Skronski, works with summer interns on hand-watering techniques.

Here is where the topic gets tricky. My colleague used one type of wetting agent, I’m using another. My opinion is completely anecdotal, but I’m of the belief that when using a low rate, high frequency program, any wetting agent will do. What were the results we saw from this program? Exactly what I would want to see on putting surfaces: ability to dry down and re-wet, without the surfaces becoming soft post-irrigation. We were able to do this both when hand-watering and when applying overhead irrigation. 

This is how our strategy looks: every time we spray greens, we add a wetting agent at 1oz per 1000 sq ft. In order to maximize our plant growth regulators, our spray intervals are determined by growing degree days and range from 7 to 14 days, depending on time of year. Since these intervals are based on temperature and wetting agents are broken down by microbes–also related to temperature–we find 1oz/1000 to be the right rate, regardless of interval. 

If you are looking to get great results from a wetting agent with a simplified approach, I would encourage you to give this strategy a try.