Inside the USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Committee

Early August is the time of year when the USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Committee meets to review research proposals and decide which research projects to fund. I have the good fortune to serve on the committee. With the approval of Kimberly Erusha, Ph.D., managing director of the USGA Green Section and Mike Kenna, Ph.D., director of Green Section Research, I want to take you inside the committee and describe how the proposal review process works and funding decisions are made.

Discussions of the committee are confidential, but I can describe how the process works.

First, a step back to 1920 when the USGA funded its first turfgrass research by creating an office that was to become the “Green Section.” This office worked in close cooperation with the USDA on “the scientific and technical aspects of turfgrass maintenance.” Since 1920, the USGA has provided over $40 million in funding for turfgrass research. Most of the funding has gone to universities and much of the funding provided to universities has gone to support graduate students.

Ask a turfgrass professor and chances are they received funding for their assistantship from the USGA or have received a USGA grant.

The USGA has a long history of supporting the turfgrass breeding programs at the University of Georgia, Penn State University and Rutgers University. It is a good bet that at least one of the grasses growing on your golf course originated at one of these universities and that you, and the golfers, at your course are the beneficiaries of USGA funded research.

Back to 2014 and the committee meeting in early August — the process started in April when Kenna issued a call for proposals that was widely distributed inside and outside the turfgrass scientific community. All are welcome to submit a proposal and 56 proposals were submitted for consideration for funding. The total funding requested was over $1.2 million.

Each and every proposal is discussed by the committee members. Committee members include: Dale Bremer, Ph.D., Kansas State University; Erusha; Mike Fidanza, Ph.D., Penn State University; Ali Harivandi, Ph.D., University of California (retired); Keith Happ, USGA Green Section agronomist; Kenna; Jim Moore, USGA Green Section Director of Education; Jim Murphy, Ph.D., Rutgers University; Paul Rieke, Ph.D., Michigan State University (retired); Scott Warnke, Ph.D., USDA-ARS and myself.

Let’s return to the proposal review process. Every committee member has the opportunity to offer their comments on every proposal.

The comments pertain to scientific soundness, whether a proposed methodology is feasible, if the project can be completed in the proposed time, if the funding requested is appropriate for the amount of research proposed and, most critically, how important the proposed research is to the golf course industry.

This is the opportunity for each committee member to make a case for funding or not funding a specific project. After the discussion of each proposal, committee members rank each proposal on a scale of one to nine, with nine being the most important to fund. After all proposals have been reviewed, Kenna averages the scoring of each proposal and all proposals are ranked.

At this point, Kenna, based on available funds, decides how many research projects can be funded. At this meeting 16 new proposals were funded with total funding of over $765,000 over the next three years.

After having served on the committee for over 10 years, I can say the review process is sound and fair, and that the best proposals always rise to the top.