The USGA and the GCSAA slashed their turf research budgets this year, delaying or cutting a combined $375,000 in new projects. Smaller turfgrass foundations and those at the state level may be required to hold back, too.
“We’ll be down a little bit,” says Jim Spindler, research director/agronomist for the The O.J. Noer Research Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to turfgrass research.
Such cuts show turf research is another casualty of the declining economy and that obtaining dollars for turf research is becoming increasingly competitive.
The USGA’s Green Section Research department suspended $300,000 in new research initiatives to lower its budget to $1 million. The USGA is delaying the projects slated to begin this year until 2010. Because of the suspension, the USGA likely won’t issue a call for proposals this year like it typically would, says Mike Kenna, director of Green Section Research.
The GCSAA, which typically funds eight to 10 new chapter cooperative and national research projects totaling $70,000 to $80,000 per year, chose not to do so for 2009 at its annual planning and budget meeting in mid-December. At that time, the association had received proposals from researchers and was planning to evaluate them in January.
The association, which funds research through its Environmental Institute for Golf, will spend about $100,000 to support the 22 chapter cooperative and national research projects already underway.
This is the first time in at least 12 years the GCSAA hasn’t funded new research, says Jeff Bollig, the GCSAA’s managing director of marketing and communications, noting research in the past was funded at lower levels.
Kenna says the USGA’s budget has fluctuated a lot over the last two decades, but this year’s cuts were the biggest decline in recent years.
“But if you look at the stock market, what’s happening with corporate sponsorships and the economy as a whole, the fact the USGA is funding $1 million in research is impressive,” he says. “There isn’t any other organization in the game of golf that funds that much research for turfgrass.”
During the past 25 years, the USGA has funded 392 projects at almost $29 million.
The O.J. Noer Research Foundation, which spent about $55,000 to fund ongoing research last year, has two projects ending and isn’t sure if it will replace both of those with new projects in 2009 because its investments have taken a hit.
“If the market and the economy continue to decline, we may have to put a moratorium on all new projects,” Spindler says. “You don’t want to endanger your corpus to the point where you might not be able to fund anything else in the future.”
Researchers frustrated
The research community is disappointed, but not surprised.
“It’s hard to miss the top news headlines of today that are addressing the many financial difficulties our society is facing,” says Nathan Walker, associate professor in the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology at Oklahoma State University. He says one repercussion of the research cuts will be a delay in the results of research aimed at providing answers to the industry’s many difficult problems.
“I hope that effect is minimal,” he says, adding that researchers may need to seek alternative sources of funding or cut back on their current efforts to stretch the research dollars they already have in hand.
The cuts also make things difficult for researchers, especially younger ones, who are working towards promotions and tenure, Kenna says.
“There are federal programs, the NRI, the specialty crop research initiative and others, but for a turfgrass scientist working on a golf-related project, they’re not a high priority in those programs,” he says.
John Stier, professor and chair of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, understands that tough times call for budget cuts, but he’s disappointed and says the cuts may deter researchers from focusing on golf-related projects in the future.
“I fully understand the economic reasons, but what gets me most was the way it was handled and the timeliness,” he says of the GCSAA’s decision.
Stier submitted a proposal to the GCSAA for a project to study velvet bentgrass for low-input golf courses. He wishes the association had evaluated its financial situation before seeking submissions from researchers. Submitting a proposal to the GCSAA can consume about 100 man-hours, or more than $4,000 in labor costs, Stier says, accounting for the researcher’s time; the time of chapter board members, who must meet to discuss matching funds; and the time of at least two university administrators to review it for accuracy, federal guidelines and accounting purposes.
“They should never have put out a call for proposals,” he says.
Bollig says it would have been irresponsible for the GCSAA board to make budget-cut decisions before its annual planning and budget meeting in December.
“The call for proposal process began in September when it appeared our funds would be available,” he says. “However, as the endowment for research took a hit in the stock market in the last quarter, it became obvious that cuts needed to be made. In addition, we purposely don’t make cuts in advance of the board annual plan and budget meeting. That’s the point in time when all of the budget line items are considered in total.”
The timing is particularly unfortunate for Stier, who opted to submit a proposal for the GCSAA grant rather than a federal grant for water quality research, even though the latter would have brought his university a 48-percent overhead allowance, which is preferable to the GCSAA research that doesn’t cover any indirect costs.
“Both calls for proposal came out at the same time, and there’s not time to write for every grant proposal,” Stier says. “I chose to submit to the GCSAA, which would bring in no overhead to my university, because I like golf course superintendents as a group, and I feel like if I don’t serve them, nobody else will. Other people would have submitted for the grant for water quality.
“I spent my time on a golf course grant,” Stier says. “I may not make the same mistake in the future.” GCI